HomeMy WebLinkAbout; ; Report of the Citizens Committee for Review of Carlsbad's Open Space Plan and Programs; 1989-07-01REPORT OF THE
CITIZENS COMMITTEE FOR REVIEW OF
CARLSBAD'S OPEN SPACE PLAN AND PROGRAMS
r
ri
JULY, 1989
City of Carlsbad
CITIZENS COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Kip McBane, Chairman
Courtney Heineman, Vice-Chairman
Fay O. Round, Jr., Vice-Chairman
Carman Cedola
Tom Freeman
Homer Hupf
S. Elaine Lyttleton
Stephen M. Novak
Julianne Nygaard
Kathy Parker
Alan Recce
Margaret Stanton
Cindy Ward
Patricia M. White
Robert E. Wilkinson
Girard W. (Lefty) Anear, Alternate
Mario B. Monroy, Alternate
STAFF
Michael J. Holzmiller, Planning Director
Charles D. Grimm, Assistant Planning Director
Mike Howes, Principal Planner
Bobbie Hoder, Sr. Management Analyst
Anita Ramos-Bonas, Secretary
Betty Buckner, Minutes Clerk
CONSULTANTS
Kathleen Garcia, Wallace Roberts & Todd
Paul Rookwood, Wallace Roberts & Todd
Bill Anderson, Economics Research Associates
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
SECTION I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
A. Charge of Committee
8. Summary of Items Reviewed.
C. Description of Contents of Report..
I - 1
I - 1
I - 1
I - 3
SECTION II. OVERALL FINDINGS AND MAJOR POLICY
RECOMMENDATIONS II - 1
SECTION III. TOPICS CONSIDERED AND SPECIFIC, DETAILED
RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Current Status of Open Space
B. Status of Open Space at Buildout Under
Current Policies and Standards
C. Desired Status of Open Space at Buildout.....
Ill -
III -
III -
III -
1
1
14
20
SECTION IV. RECOMMENDATIONS ON UPDATED OPEN SPACE AND
CONSERVATION ELEMENT IV - 1
SECTION V. APPENDIX - VOLUME II
A. Staff/Consultant Reports
B. Committee Minutes
C. Comments/Input From Public
D. List of Approved Motions
£. Matrix of Comparison with Other Cities
F. Financing Matrix
A - 1
B- 1
C- 1
D- 1
E -
F -
UST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Financing Techniques Matrix... IV- 24
Open Space and Conservation Map... IV- 25
Comprehensive Open Space Network Map... IV- 26
in
SECTION I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
A. CHARGE OF CITIZENS COMMITTEE
In 1988, concern was expressed about tf?e adequacy and protection of Open Space in
Carlsbad. In response to that concern, the City Council passed an interim urgency
ordinance locking into place the City's current Open Space plans and ordinances. At
the same time, the Council decided to appoint a 15-member Citizens Committee. The
general charge given to the Citizens Committee was to review the City's existing Open
Space plans and programs and to report on their adequacy and the overall status of
Open Space protection in Carlsbad.
The more specific charge given to the Committee was as follows:
1. Thoroughly review the City's present policies, standards, plans and programs
regarding Open Space in Carlsbad.
2. Review and provide input on the draft of the updated Open Space Element and
Open Space Map which reflects the City's present Open Space plan.
3. Make recommendations on specific changes, modifications or refinements to
address any identified areas of concern or issues regarding Open Space.
4. Prepare a final report on the status of Open Space protection in Carlsbad.
5. The charge of the Committee is not to specifically review or make
recommendations on individual parcels of land within the City. The Committee's
review should focus on standards, goals, policies and programs of the City
relating to Open Space.
B. SUMMARY OF ITEMS REVIEWED
The Committee met from December, 1988 through July, 1989 and faithfully addressed it's
charge. The full Committee met 16 times. This included a Saturday field tour of the City
and a Saturday public input workshop. Five, three-member subcommittees were formed
to prepare recommendations on different topics for full Committee consideration. Finally,
subcommittees were appointed to draft an updated Open Space and Conservation
Element and to draft a final report.
In fulfilling its task, the Open Space Committee used the following approach. First, an
attempt was made to define what is meant by Open Space today. A detailed workbook
was provided to each Committee member which contained the complete text of all
existing ordinances and policies regarding Open Space.
1-1
The entire first five working meetings of the Committee were devoted to staff
presentations explaining the City's current Open Space plans and programs. During this
phase of its work, the Committee also examined how Open Space is depicted (maps,
graphics), how it is used and maintained, how it is protected, and finally, what is
"counted" to meet the City's Open Space performance standards. The following reports
were prepared by staff and the consultants and reviewed by the Committee (copies of
the reports are included in the appendix):
1. Summary of City of Carlsbad Open Space Provisions - undated.
2. Open Space Report to Citizens Committee to Study Growth dated 6/27/88.
3. General Plan and Updated Open Space Element dated 2/8/89.
4. 15% Open Space Performance Standard of Growth Management Plan/Density
Transfer and Clustering dated 2/8/89.
5. Carlsbad Open Space Review Comparative Studies w/matrix -undated.
6. Methods of Acquisition and Funding - undated.
7. Carlsbad Agricultural Programs - undated.
8. Administration of Open Space dated 3/8/89.
9. Trail System dated 3/8/89.
10. Description/Purpose of Open Space Map dated 3/22/89.
11. Open Space Administration Systems dated 3/30/89.
With this basis of understanding, the Committee then projected the amount and status of Open
Space into the future, to ultimate buildout of the City and beyond. To make this projection, with
much help from the City staff, it was assumed that the current plans, policies, programs, and
standards would remain in effect to buildout. Finally, the resultant projection (or "snapshot") was
evaluated by the Committee to determine if the inventory and status of Open Space under
existing policies would produce the type of City that would be a desirable place to live, work
or visit.
Based on this evaluation, the Committee came to the conclusion that several additional
measures could be taken which would involve features not currently envisioned by or
incorporated into the City's existing Open Space plans and policies. These features constitute
the key elements of the Committee's recommendations and form the basis for its report.
1-2
C. DESCRIPTION OF CONTENTS OF REPORT
Besides this introductory section, the Committee's Report contains four other additional sections.
Section II includes the Committee's Overall Findings and Major Policy Recommendations. This
is written in the form of an executive summary or preamble highlighting the Committee's major
policy recommendations.
Section III includes a more detailed description of the Topics Considered by the Committee and
specific recommendations regarding those topics (specific recommendations are highlighted in
bold type and followed in parenthesis by the vote of the Committee). This section is arranged
according to the approach used by the Committee which was described in Subsection B above:
1) Current status of Open Space, 2) Status of Open Space at buildout under current policies and
standards, and 3) Desired status of Open Space at buildout. It is not arranged in terms of
priority of the recommendations.
Section IV contains the Committee's recommendations for an Updated Open Space and
Conservation Element.
Finally, Section V is an Appendix to the Report which includes a copy of all the staff/consultant
reports reviewed by the Committee, copies of Committee minutes, comments received at the
public input workshop, a complete list of all the motions approved by the Committee, a matrix
showing a comparison of Carlsbad's Open Space program with other cities and a financing
matrix.
1-3
SECTION II. OVERALL FINDINGS AND MAJOR POLICY
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on its evaluations, the Committee concluded that there are a number of gaps in current
Open Space programs and at present there is no cohesive policy nor any plan setting forth
Open Space goals and guiding acquisitions, protection, maintenance and financing. To remedy
these perceived deficiencies, the Committee agreed, generally unanimously and always
overwhelmingly, on Open Space policies to enhance the beauty of the city and quality of life of
its citizens, both for the near future and looking ahead to buildout. These policy matters may
be summarized as follows:
1. In order to focus City efforts in setting Open Space goals and guiding preservation,
acquisition and maintenance of Open Space, the Committee urges that an Open Space
plan embodying the Committee's detailed recommendations be dratted as the basic
framework for Open Space policy.
2. Because no public body has been designated as advocate and policy maker for
Open Space, and no existing group is charged with the responsibility for developing an
Open Space plan, the committee has recommended unanimously that the City Council
authorize and appoint an advisory Open Space Commission. That commission would
recommend Open Space policy; fashion a plan in accordance with that policy; monitor
implementation; act as advocate on Open Space matters before the City Council and
Planning Commission; recommend priorities for Open Space acquisition, use and
maintenance, to be exhibited graphically on an Open Space map; and set and refine
guidelines for specific project review of Open Space.
3. Information submitted to the Committee showed that a very small percentage of
Carlsbad's existing Open Space is accessible to the public except on a visual basis.
The Committee felt strongly that the city should work toward ameliorating this situation
by emphasizing the desirability of public access in future Open Space acquisitions and
by public ownership where feasible. However, the committee recommends that Open
Space be a mix of private and public ownership.
4. Since surveys by the state have shown that the most popular outdoor activities,
and those with the greatest participation, are individual pursuits such as walking and
hiking, the committee recommends unanimously that the City Council give high priority
to studies preparatory to establishing a trail system throughout the city. The committee
recommends further that trail routes and connections be given urgent consideration in
staff's Open Space negotiations with developers.
11-1
5. The Committee's recommendations on the financing of Open Space acquisition,
protection, improvements and maintenance may be summarized as follows:
The Committee strongly recommends that new developments should support at least the
Open Space needs of the occupants of such developments. These requirements should
be satisfied through exactions including, but not limited to: legislative protection; Quimby
Act dedication; park-in-lieu fees; industrial recreation fees; and setback requirements, the
provision of essential improvements and the adoption of appropriate local facility
management plans, master plans and specific plans. In those instances where exactions
may not provide the required Open Space, other acquisition, protection, or financing may
be necessary, with emphasis on the policy that funding should come primarily from those
benefitting from the Open Space and in direct proportion to the benefits derived.
In the case of "build-out" sections of the City, the Committee feels that General Obligation
Bonds are a highly desirable source of funding for acquisitions, protection, improvements
and specifies further that such bonds should be the choice for funding particularly in
those cases where the greatest number of voters will benefit from the acquisition. In
those instances where the proposed benefits do not seem to justify issuance of General
Obligation Bonds, the full spectrum of alternative funding should be explored.
Finally, to encourage private gifts for Open Space acquisition, protection, improvements
and maintenance, the Committee recommends the City promptly create a trust or other
mechanism to accept such gifts and make arrangements to identify, as the donor
requests, those Open Space projects resulting from such gifts.
6. Effort should be made to accumulate Open Space in the largest possible parcels
and to create natural and manmade links between Open Space areas, giving the
perception of large Open Space areas and facilitating construction of the trail system
outlined in Point 4 above. Furthermore, the committee urges that the city strive for a
balance of visual, passive and active Open Space within each of the city's four
quadrants.
7. The Committee feels that it is particularly desirable to preserve Open Space areas
as buffers around ecologically sensitive areas, to encourage development of
cultural/educational amenities in suitable Open Space areas and to leave natural Open
Space areas in their natural state.
8. With respect to protection of undeveloped areas, the committee recommends that
a city permit be required to clear such areas and that the city be responsible for
monitoring the development and construction process from beginning to end, to avert
possible violation of Open Space policies and regulations.
All of these recommendations are discussed in greater detail in the section of the Report which
follows.
11-2
SECTION III. TOPICS CONSIDERED AND SPECIFIC
RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Current Status of Open Space
1. What is it and how much does the City have?
a. Definition
The City's current definition of Open Space is contained in its 1973 Open Space Element as
well as in the more current Element (proposed December, 1988). The definition, which fully
conforms with the State's requirements, is the same in both of these Elements and is excerpted
below:
Open Space Land in Carlsbad is defined as "...Any parcel or area of land or
water which is essentially unimproved and devoted to an Open Space use as
defined in this section and which is designated on a local, regional or state Open
Space plan as any of the following:
1. Open Space for the preservation of natural resources including, but not limited
to:
a) areas required for the preservation of plant and animal life, including
habitat for fish and wildlife species;
b) areas required for ecologic and other scientific study purposes;
c) rivers, streams, bays, lagoons and estuaries;
d) coastal beaches, lakeshores, banks of rivers and streams, and watershed
lands.
2. Open Space used for the managed production of resources, including but not
limited to:
a) forest lands, rangeland, agricultural and horticultural lands;
b) areas required for recharge of ground water basins;
c) bays, estuaries, marshes, rivers and streams which are important for the
management of commercial fisheries;
d) areas containing major mineral deposits, including those in short supply.
111-1
3. Open Space for outdoor recreation, including but not limited to:
a) areas of outstanding scenic, historic and cultural value;
b) areas particularly suited for school playgrounds, park and recreation
purposes, including access to lakeshores, beaches, lagoons, rivers and
streams;
c) areas which serve as links between major recreation and Open Space
reservations, including utility easements, banks of rivers and streams, trails,
scenic highway and railroad corridors;
d) areas which buffer between land uses and separation from surrounding
communities.
4. Open Space for public health and safety, including but not limited to:
a) areas which require special management or regulations because of
hazardous or special conditions such as safety zones in the vicinity of
airports, earthquake fault zones, steep slopes, unstable soil areas, flood
plains, watersheds;
b) areas presenting high fire risks;
c) areas required for the protection of water quality and water reservoirs;
d) areas required for the protection and enhancement of air quality."
b. Ownership
It became the City's general policy in the early 1980's to keep as much Open Space as possible
in private ownership and therefore not have the City responsible for its administration and
maintenance. In 1982, in conjunction with the update of the Parks and Recreation Element, the
city decided to change the approach of having the City own and maintain numerous
neighborhood parks but rather to concentrate on having fewer but larger community-wide parks.
The cost of maintenance and operation of fewer but larger community parks is less than it
would be for many smaller neighborhood parks. At that time, the idea of having a City-owned
and maintained trail system interconnecting all four quadrants of the city was dropped. Finally,
instead of accepting as publically-dedicated Open Space areas preserved for natural or visual
purposes, the policy of the City was to require these areas to remain in private ownership with,
at the most, an easement for public Open Space purposes. These policies are in effect today.
c. Visual Displays of Open Space
111-2
The City of Carlsbad currently depicts Open Space within the City via a number of maps or
graphic displays. The major ones are listed below:
1) General Plan Land Use Map (April, 1987);
2) Open Space Map (August 9, 1988) (Proposed to replace Prime Open Space and
Conservation Areas Map, 1973);
3) Constrained Areas Map (Digitized);
4) Natural Resources Inventory Map (June, 1986).
The prime criteria today with regard to the visual depiction of Open Space have to do with the
protection of known environmental resources, such as the City's three lagoons. The maps listed
above have all been prepared at a scale of 1 inch = 1000 feet (1:1000).
In addition to the above maps, the City has also compiled aerial photographs of the entire City
at the same scale (1:1000), and in color at 1:500 scale. Compilation of aerial photographs of
the City at 1:100 and 1:400 scale is currently underway and is expected to be completed in the
near future.
The City's Growth Management Program also imposes a number of requirements with regard
to maps for each of the City's 25 Local Facility Management Plan (LFMP) Zones. For each zone
a constraints map at 1:200 scale is required, and must be certified as complete and accurate,
supported by biological and other surveys, as warranted. All constrained land within the zone
must be shown graphically, using the following categories:
1) Slopes greater than 40 percent;
2) Permanent bodies of water;
3) Floodways;
4) Beaches;
5) Wetlands;
6) Riparian or woodland habitats;
7) Major powerline easements.
In calculating buildout projections for each zone, certain other information must also be taken
into account, and, in addition to the foregoing constraint categories, must also be mapped.
They include:
1) Major roadways;
111-3
2) Railroad tracks and rights-of-way;
3) Slopes between 25 and 40 percent;
4) Open Space areas previously designated on the City's Open Space Map;
5) Other land containing significant environmental features, as determined by the
environmental review process for each zone.
A computerized parcel level Geographical Information System (GIS) is being proposed for
approval by the City Council for implementation in the near future. When completed it will
include detailed information for every parcel of land or property in the City, and would include
such information as ownership, land use designation, zoning, and the like. A major feature of
the GIS would be computer-based graphic displays (not photos) of the City at any scale desired
which, among many other features, would include the ability to "zoom" in on any specific area
desired.
d. What is "Counted" Toward Open Space
In addition to requiring that all environmentally sensitive and constrained lands in the City be
retained as Open Space, the City's Growth Management Program also imposes the following
Open Space performance standard on each zone plan:
"Fifteen percent of the total land area in the zone exclusive of environmentally
constrained non-developable land must be set aside for permanent Open Space
and must be available concurrent with development."
This additional 15 percent Open Space requirement was created as a result of the City Council's
concurrence with the minority report of the 1985 Land Use Committee's finding that the City's
General Plan at that time did not provide for enough Open Space. Open Space was therefore
defined as an essential public facility and became one of the 11 public facilities addressed in
the Growth Management Program.
However, in order to require that an additional 15 percent of otherwise fully developable land
be retained as Open Space, a density credit is allowed so that the number of dwelling units
permitted by the underlying zoning could still be achieved by placing units on a different part
of the property through density transfers or clustering.
The types of Open Space which currently qualify toward meeting the 15 percent Open Space
standard include the following:
1) Common Open Space areas in Planned Residential Developments (PRO);
2) Homeowner-maintained pocket parks;
3) Major power line easements when they are enhanced or improved;
111-4
4) Increased setbacks along major roads if they are landscaped and enhanced with
pedestrian or bicycle trails;
5) Open Space linkages between environmentally sensitive resources;
6) Canyon areas that are not steep enough to be prohibited from development by
the Hillside Ordinance or other requirements.
2. How do we use, maintain and protect what we have now?
a. Types and Uses of Open Space
The City of Carlsbad currently enjoys a wide variety of Open Space, ranging from active Open
Space (parks, playgrounds, ballfields, etc.) to passive (undeveloped canyons, lagoons, wildlife
habitats, etc.), as well as large areas devoted to agricultural production (such as the flower
fields east of Interstate 5). The uses to which these Open Space areas are put (except for
agricultural areas) also includes a full range of activities from fully programmed uses (such as
organized ball games) to totally unprogrammed use (such as a walk along the ocean).
The City's current definition of Open Space was presented earlier (Section 111. A. 1.a.), and
provides a general listing of the types of Open Space provided for within the City. Generally,
the function of Open Space can be grouped into one or more of the following categories:
1) Preserve significant resources;
2) Provide recreational opportunities;
3) Create breaks in urban form;
4) Provide buffer between land uses;
5) Provide separation from surrounding communities;
6) Avoid hazardous areas;
7) Accommodate a trail system;
8) Provide for agricultural uses;
9) Preserve historic resources.
The City's Parks and Recreation Element provides considerable information regarding the types
and uses of Open Space within the City. Specifically, it offers the following definitions of active
and passive Open Space park areas:
Active Park Areas
Typically provide a form of organized, supervised, often extra-curricular recreation. Park
amenities denoting active use may include gymnasiums, swim complexes, multi-use
ballfields, tot lots, hard court play surfaces, volleyball courts, horseshoe areas or a
combination thereof.
111-5
Passive Park Areas
Often provide minimal or no amenities associated with active use. The very nature of
passive use implies undemonstrative, nonparticipating, complacent, subdued activity.
Park amenities generally associated with passive use include nature trails, walkways,
picnic tables, benches, and small turf and/or landscaped areas.
The Parks and Recreation Element also differentiates between the major types of parks or use
areas for which standards have been established, as follows:
1. Community Parks - are leisure facilities, approximately 20 to 50 acres in size; however,
due to a 1982 revision of the Park and Recreation Element to the General Plan, pre-
1982 neighborhood parks of less than 20 acres have been reclassified and
"Grandfathered" into the Community Park classification. This classification was approved
by the Park and Recreation Commission in May, 1987, and by the City Council in August,
1987.
Typically, Community Parks are designed to serve the recreational needs of several
neighborhoods. The nature of this type of facility encourages and attracts family unit
populations from a nearby vicinity on a daily frequency. Community Parks generally
provide active and passive use amenities; however, they are not limited to the exclusive
use of either.
Minimum facilities should include:•
Family-oriented picnic areas;
Group picnic areas;
Turfed Open Space areas for free play;
Multi-purpose playfield(s) (lighted when appropriate);
Tot areas;
Structures for lectures, meetings, skills instructions, etc.;
Buffer areas;
Special use facilities such as swimming pools, tennis courts, horseshoes,
handball and racquetball courts, bicycle paths, etc., as per specific community
demand, may be located within these parks if appropriate to the interest and need
of the community in which the park is located.
The service radius for Community Park sites is approximately two miles. The primary
access orientation is vehicular. It is therefore established that Community Parks should
be located adjacent to a secondary arterial or circulation route of greater hierarchy as
defined within the Circulation Element.
City standard for each quadrant: 3.0 acres per 1000 population.
111-6
2. Special Use Areas - are typically local facilities that meet the needs of only one or two
activity type uses, either passive or active in nature. They are between one to five acres
in size and generally do not provide the basic universally accepted facilities found in a
Community Park site. Facilities of this type are, but not limited to, swim, tennis or
racquetball complexes, meeting halls, athletic complexes, play lots, picnic and
interpretive walk areas.
The pre-1982 Parks and Recreation Element included mini and vest pocket parks. The
revised 1982 Parks and Recreation Element has incorporated these parks into the special
use categories which typically defines the nature of these areas.
Location of special use areas sites should be based upon adequate access to its
supporting community population.
City standard for each quadrant: 0.5 acres per 1000 population.
3. Special Resource Areas - are local amenities that have either citywide or potential
regional significance. The significance is in the quality of the site that makes it unique
as either a passive and/or active recreation area; this quality may be of a natural (water,
geological, ecological, etc.), historical (architectural, etc.), or combination thereof.
Consequently, the Special Resource Area as defined has a visitor attraction or drawing
power serving users locally and beyond.
Typically, Special Resource areas provide a unique character and/or use not found in
Community Parks or Special Use Areas. In general, they are larger than community
parks. They are a recreational site characterized by the existence of a special or unusual
feature, natural or man-made, i.e, a water body, earth formation, historical amenity,
ecological reserve, etc.
City standard for each quadrant: 2.5 acres per 1000 population.
The City has also approved a Scenic Corridor Study which will be incorporated into the
updated Scenic Corridor Element of the General Plan. The study identified several
scenic features within the City, as follows:
COMMUNITY IDENTITY CORRIDORS
El Cam/no Real (Prime Arterial)
Carlsbad Boulevard (Major Arterial)
Palomar Airport Road (Prime Arterial)
COMMUNITY SCENIC CORRIDORS
College Boulevard (Major/Secondary Arterial)
Interstate 5 (Freeway)
Cannon Road (Major Arterial)
Poinsettia Lane/Carrillo Way (Major Arterial)
111-7
Olivenhain Road/Rancho Santa Fe Road (Prime Arterial)
La Costa Avenue (Major/Secondary Arterial)
Faraday Avenue (Secondary Arterial/Collector)
Alga Road (Major/Secondary Arterial)
NATURAL Open Space & RECREATION CORRIDORS
Adams Street/Park Drive - portions adjacent to lagoon (Local Street)
Batiquitos Lane (Local Street)
Jefferson Street - portions adjacent to lagoon (Local Street)
RAILROAD CORRIDOR
Atchison Topeka and Santa Fe Railway
For those desiring more detailed information regarding a current inventory of parks, special use
areas, or special resource areas, as well as the specific facilities or uses available at each such
area, reference is made to the "Uses in Recreation Areas Matrix", and the associated map and
tables contained in the Parks and Recreation Element.
b. Degree of Improvement
The City's Parks and Recreation Department currently categorizes Open Space using the
following levels of improvement:
1. Natural, undisturbed Open Space;
2. Native, naturalized Open Space;
3. Irrigated, semi-naturalized Open Space;
4. Irrigated, landscaped Open Space areas;
5. Developed park sites and landscaped areas.
The importance of differentiating Open Space areas in this way involves maintenance costs and
liability. Generally speaking, both of these factors tend to increase as the degree of
improvement increases. For example, the cost of maintaining natural, undisturbed Open Space
approximates $750 per acre per year versus $5200 to $7500 per acre per year for fully
developed park sites and landscaped areas. The same general pattern holds true for liability.
c. Maintenance and Operation of Open Space
The maintenance and operation of Open Space areas within the City depends largely on
ownership. For example, privately owned greenbelts that are part of a developed area are
typically maintained by the local homeowners association, while public Open Space areas are
normally maintained by the agency having jurisdiction over the area, such as the City or, in the
case of State-owned land (e.g. beaches) by the State Department of Parks and Recreation.
Open Space areas that are the responsibility of the City of Carlsbad are currently maintained by
the City's Parks and Recreation Department. The degree of landscape maintenance performed
varies from high to minimal, depending upon public exposure, desired aesthetics, safety, and/or
111-8
liability concerns. In addition to the City's community parks, special use areas, and special
resource areas, other areas maintained by the City typically include land adjacent to public
buildings, such as City Hall, libraries, fire stations, administration buildings, and the Safety
Center, plus street medians, and public rights-of-way.
Other City-owned Open Space areas are typically unimproved and require little or no
maintenance. According to the Parks and Recreation Element, "These areas are generally
considered to be undevelopable by today's park standards due to environmental and/or geologic
constraints, or the prohibitive cost to rectify those constraints."
One of the results of Proposition 13 and subsequent limitations on the ability to increase general
revenue sources was for cities to reconsider the responsibility for the operation and
maintenance of Open Space. Of primary concern were areas of improved Open Space (i.e,
parks, active recreational areas, trails) but also of concern were the operational costs of
publically-owned natural and, environmentally-sensitive areas (i.e, canyons, floodplains).
It became the City's general policy in the early 1980s to keep as much of its Open Space as
possible in private ownership and therefore not have the City responsible for its administration
and maintenance. In 1982, in conjunction with the update of the Parks and Recreation Element,
the City decided to change the approach of having the City own and maintain numerous
neighborhood parks but rather to concentrate on having fewer but larger community-wide parks.
The cost of maintenance and operation of fewer but larger community parks is less than it
would be for many smaller neighborhood parks. At that time, the idea of having a City-owned
and maintained trail system interconnecting all four quadrants of the City was dropped. Finally,
instead of accepting as publically-dedicated Open Space, areas -preserved for natural or visual
purposes, the policy of the City was to require these areas to remain in private ownership with,
at the most, an easement for public Open Space purposes.
As mentioned earlier, private responsibility and maintenance of Open Space is normally handled
through homeowners associations (HOA) operated under provisions of the California Civil Code
and Administrative Code pertaining to Department of Real Estate regulations. Monthly
assessment to each benefiting homeowner are assessed beginning with the sale of the first lot
in the affected development. Payment of assessments is a contractual obligation of the
homeowner, although the HOA would have foreclosure power once the assessments became
delinquent. Normally, the HOA would contract with a management company and/or one or
more maintenance contractors. Advantages to this type of private maintenance and operation
are not only that there are no costs to the City but that there is also no City administrative
function necessary.
d. Protection of Open Space
The City of Carlsbad currently has a number of plans and policies that relate to the long-term
protection of Open Space in the City. They are briefly summarized below:
111-9
1) General Plan - shows generalized boundaries of presently designated Open Space areas.
The General Plan Map is not meant to reflect precise boundaries of Open Space areas
and does not include all the future Open Space areas that will result from the City's
Open Space provisions.
2) Open Space Ordinance - restricts the development of certain environmentally-sensitive,
Open Space lands including beaches, permanent bodies of water, floodways, steep
slopes, wetlands, riparian and woodland habitats and other significant environmental
areas as identified in the environmental review process. Prohibits density credit for these
lands.
3) Growth Management Open Space Performance Standard - requires an additional 15%
of the total land area in each undeveloped facility management zone to be set aside for
permanent Open Space. The 15% cannot include any environmentally-constrained land.
4) Hillside Ordinance - greatly restricts the amount of grading that can be done on hillside
property. Limits the overall volume of grading (maximum 10,000 cubic yards per acre),
the height of cut and fill slopes (maximum 30 feet) and the design of the grading
(contouring, building setback from canyon ridges). Prohibits development of 40% slopes.
Requires a Hillside Permit for any project proposed on hillside land (15% or greater
slope).
5) Natural Resource Inventory - shows the generalized location of significant natural
resource lands in the City. The inventory map is to be used as a tool for planning future
Open Space areas, for identifying environmentally-sensitive lands and for updating the
Open Space section of existing Master Plans.
6) Revised Planned Development Ordinance - requires all Planned Residential Development
(PRO) projects to provide 200 square feet of indoor or outdoor recreation space per
dwelling unit.
7) Residential Park Land Dedication - established the requirement for park land dedication
at 3 acres per 1000 population. Requires total park land dedication to be made with the
first final map in a Master Plan area rather than incremental dedication.
8) Industrial Park Land Dedication - requires developers in the City's industrial corridor to
construct or fund an Open Space area(s) to provide recreational facilities for the
employees working in the corridor.
In addition, in the past couple of years, the City has become increasingly concerned about the
enforcement and monitoring of conditions which are placed on development projects having to
do with the protection of Open Space resources. Examples would be conditions requiring the
preservation of natural resources, setbacks and buffers from environmentally-sensitive areas and
conditions requiring a certain amount or type of Open Space. A Planning Commission
Subcommittee was formed in 1987 to work with staff in developing recommendations to improve
the "quality control" of projects being built in the City. One of the major items being looked at
is how the City can make sure that a project is built the way it was approved. In this regard,
111-10
a recent change was made in the California Environmental Quality Act. This change requires
that whenever an environmental condition or mitigation measure is placed on a project as a
result of the environmental review process, that a monitoring and reporting program be required
to ensure that the condition or mitigation is fulfilled and that it works. The City of Carlsbad is
in the process of implementing procedures which will ensure that this additional level of
protection, does in fact, take place.
e. Acquisition and Funding Options
Without going into exhaustive detail, it should be noted that a wide variety of funding
mechanisms and acquisition vehicles are potentially available to the City. A summary listing of
these options is provided below. Readers desiring additional detail on any of the items shown
are referred to the appendices.
1) METHODS OF ACQUIRING OPEN SPACE
a) Development Agreements
b) Incentive Zoning
c) Transfer of Development Rights
d) Land Trusts/Conservancy
e) Special District or Authority
f) Williamson Act
g) General Plan and Zoning
2) FINANCING TECHNIQUES
a) General Obligation Bonds
b) Limited Obligation Bonds
c) Senior Obligation Bonds
d) Quimby Act Impact Fees
e) Public Facilities Fees
f) Industrial Recreation Fees
g) Tax Increment Financing
h) Sales and Use Tax Increment
i) Mello-Roos Community Facilities Districts
j) Revenue Bonds
k) Certificates of Participation
I) Benefit assessment district
m) User Fees
n) Concessions
o) Other Tax Revenue
p) Private Grants or Donations
111-11
3) STATE GRANTS
a) Coastal Conservancy: Agricultural Preservation Projects
b) Coastal Conservancy: Coastal and Bay Public Access Program
c) Coastal Conservancy: Coastal Restoration Projects
d) Coastal Conservancy: Nonprofit Organization Assistance Program
e) Coastal Conservancy: Enhancement Grants
f) Coastal Conservancy: Site Reservation Projects
g) Coastal Conservancy: Urban Waterfronts Restoration Program
h) Fish and Game: Public Access Program
i) Parks and Recreation: Land and Water Conservation Fund Program
j) Resources: Environmental License Plate Fund
k) Proposition 70: Parks and Wildlife Initiative
I) Water Resources: Davis-Grunsky Act
With regard to the City of Carlsbad specifically, parkland acquisition has typically been provided
under the Quimby Act and/or park-in-lieu fees, while development funds are provided by the
Public Facilities Fee. Future park acquisition and development projects are, for the most part
identified in the Capital Improvement Program Budget. However, actual development may be
subject to delay based upon demand and a prioritization for the construction of additional public
facilities as well as the cost associated with ongoing maintenance and operation.
As shown on the previous list, additional funding sources for acquisition, protection,
development, maintenance and operation or rehabilitation may be provided by general obligation
bonds, special taxes, State and Federal Park Bond Acts, assessment districts, and other means.
Prior to acceptance, all future parkland acquisition is subject to a stringent environmental review
process to identify and eliminate constraints in an effort to maximize site potential in terms of
park development.
A matrix is included in the appendices to this report which displays several of the acquisition
and funding mechanisms listed earlier. These options are included in the matrix in such a way
as to indicate which methods would be most suitable for use in the City of Carlsbad. Section
III.C.2.6. describes the Committee's actions and recommendations with regard to the use of this
matrix and specific acquisitions and funding options that should be used in the future.
B. Status of Open Space at Buildout Under Current
Policies and Standards
1. What will it be and how much will the City have?
a. Definition
Unless changed by the City Council, the definition of Open
Space at buildout would be exactly the same as that shown in Section III.A.1.a. of this
report.
111-12
b. Ownership
Unless changed by the City Council, the policies described in Section III.A.1.b. of this
report would remain in effect until buildout. These policies allow a mixture of public and
private Open Space, but are aimed at keeping as much Open Space as possible in
private ownership to minimize City costs for administration and maintenance. In addition,
these policies would continue to discourage acceptance by the City of publicly dedicated
Open Space preserved for natural or visual purposes, in favor of private ownership with,
at the most, an easement for public Open Space purposes.
c. Visual Displays of Open Space
All of the maps and graphical displays described earlier in Section III.A.1.C. will continue
to be used as they are today if the City's current policies remain in effect. In addition,
the process of assembling aerial photographs of the City at a scale of 1 inch = 100 feet
is currently underway and well before buildout the resultant photos will be available for
use by the City and the public.
The Geographical Information System referred to earlier will also be implemented well
before buildout of the City and would be available for use by City planners and others.
Because of its ability to "zoom" in on any specific area desired, as well as its capacity
for storing additional detail (such as the results of detailed surveys, Open Space
resources, etc.), it should prove to be a particularly effective tool with regard to Open
Space planning.
d. What is "Counted" Toward Open Space?
Unless changed, the current performance standards and other requirements defining
undevelopable areas and the types of Open Space which can be used to meet the 15
percent standard will remain as they are today. This would ensure that, at buildout,
environmentally sensitive and constrained areas throughout the City would remain as
Open Space, and that an additional 15 percent of each Local Facility Management Plan
Zone would also be retained as Open Space.
2. How will Open Space be used, maintained and protected between now and buildout?
a. Types and Uses of Open Space
Unless modified, the following policy objectives will dictate the type of parkland and Open
Space to be acquired between now and buildout under existing City policies and standards:
1) Develop adequate community parks.
2) Develop superior special resource-based areas.
3) Develop special use facilities.
111-13
4) Implement the Open Space provisions of the City's Growth Management Program
on a zone-by-zone basis.
5) Consolidate, where appropriate, small park parcels into larger areas with the
emphasis of developing active community parks and facilities at least 20 acres
in size.
6) Place the responsibility for future neighborhood parks on Planned Unit
Developments, Master Plan areas, and developers for acquisition, development
and maintenance.
7) Place the responsibility for Open Space areas on Planned Unit Developments,
Master Plan areas, and developers for development and maintenance with offer
of dedication for public trails or easements.
8) Place the responsibility for the acquisition, development, and maintenance of
Community Parks on the City.
9) Encourage and promote the development of recreational facilities by private
enterprise that may be used by the general public.
10) Implement a Municipal Pool Management Program.
11) Expand recreational programs and facilities in South Carlsbad.
12) Continue and expand self-supporting recreational program concept.
13) If recreational trail systems are to be established, they shall be provided by
developers and maintained by private property owners.
14) Prevent the premature elimination of agriculture.
15) Develop programs to encourage agriculture to remain.
16) Permanently preserve the flower fields.
Through these policies, as well as the requirements that are currently embodied in the City's
Growth Management Program, it is estimated that approximately 10,000 acres, or 39 percent of
the total land and lagoon areas of the City, will be set aside for Open Space by buildout. A
breakdown of how this acreage will be acquired is provided below:
1) Currently designated as Open Space on the General Plan Map (exclusive of
environmentally constrained land)
2078 acres
111-14
2) Constrained Land (including lagoons)
3863 acres
3) 15 percent Performance Standard
2856 acres
4) Community Parks, Special Use Areas (which include school grounds and leased
facilities) and Special Resource Areas
1094 acres
TOTAL 9891 ACRES
With regard to existing performance standards, a combined total requirement of 6.0 acres of
Community Parks, Special Use Areas, and Special Resource Areas per 1000 population will
produce the 1094 acres shown above (Item 4). Included in the total above are several areas
earmarked for future park development and identified in the current park inventory as shown
below:
Northwest Quadrant
1) Pine School/Acquisition -7.0 acres/Community Park
2) Maxton Brown Extension -2.1 acres/Special Use Area
3) Cannon Lake - 6.7 acres/Special Use Area
;.
Northeast Quadrant
1) Larwin - 22.3 acres/Community Park
Southwest Quadrant
1) Pacific Rim - 24.25 acres/Community Park
2) Alta Mira - 42 acres/Community Park
3) School Site - 6 acres/Special Use Area
Southeast Quadrant
1) Carrillo Ranch - 10 acreslSpecial Use Area
2) Carrillo Ranch Acquisition (Additional)
8.5 acres/Special Use Area
3) Alga Norte - 35 acres/Community Park
City-Wide
1) Macario Canyon -100 acres/Community Park
2) Golf Course/Tennis Complex
111-15
Three other programs just recently initiated also deserve mention in that they could affect the
status of Open Space between now and buildout. One was initiated by the City and the State
Department of Parks and Recreation, and is briefly summarized below:
The State of California's Department of Parks and Recreation owns and operates
campgrounds and day-use beaches in the central and southern areas of
Carlsbad. The City owns Carlsbad Boulevard, which runs in a north-south
direction adjacent to the Department of Parks and Recreation land. Carlsbad
Boulevard was originally constructed and operated as a state highway (Highway
101). When Interstate 5 was built through Carlsbad, the Highway 101 right-of-
way was deeded to the City and became Carlsbad Boulevard. The right-of-way
deeded to the City is in excess of what is needed for a major arterial street
(Carlsbad Boulevard's designation in the City's General Plan). A considerable
amount of excess right-of-way exists that could be put to other more productive
uses. The City and State want to explore the possible alternatives for reutilizing
this land and have recently issued a "Request for Proposal" toward this end.
The possibility exists that all or a portion of the land in question could be used
for Open Space or related facilities.
The second program that deserves mention was initiated by the non-profit Carlsbad Arboretum
Foundation, Inc., and is described below:
The Foundation's objective is to establish an arboretum and bird sanctuary in the
vicinity of the City-owned Carrillo Ranch historical Site. The arboretum will require
utilization of about 65 additional acres of land. According to its literature, the
Foundation seeks to accomplish the following overall goals:
Design, develop and operate an arboretum that will preserve the
restricted riparian habitat for over sixty (60) species of birds, plus
numerous animals and plants;
Offer a desirable cultural, educational and scientific addition to the
quality of life in Carlsbad and the surrounding region;
Create a facility that has wide popular appeal for all ages and
promotes tourism;
Function in a manner compatible with adjoining acreage and
property owners who are planning major developments;
Afford and protect a lasting legacy for future generations that shall
remain, for all time, a tribute to visionary planning concepts and
a reflection of a vibrant, sensitive City; and
111-16
Evolve a first-class community asset that will be entirely self-
sustaining and self-supporting through private foundation, federal,
state and county grants-in-aid, individual charitable contributions
and, eventually, gate receipts.
The third recent program that could affect Open Space in Carlsbad was initiated by San Diego
Association of Governments (SANDAG) Bicycle Facilities Committee, which has requested that
studies be conducted of the feasibility of constructing a coastal corridor bicycle path between
Oceanside and San Diego, a distance of 42 miles, running within its existing right-of-way of the
Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe (AT&SF) Railway. A formal request for such a study was issued
to the SANDAG Commuter Rail Technical Advisory Committee at its regular meeting on February
23, 1989. The purpose of the study is to identify the potential and the physical constraints of
a linear bicycle path along the AT&SF Railway's right-of-way between Oceanside and San Diego.
b. Degree of Improvement
Unless changed, the existing policies regarding the degree of improvement for Open Space will
remain in effect. These policies take into account the wide disparity in costs for maintaining
natural undisturbed Open Space versus fully developed parks or landscaped areas, as well as
the associated liability variations between different levels of Open Space improvements.
However, these policies also acknowledge the City's responsibility to provide its citizens with
a wide range of recreational opportunities, despite the inherent costs associated with highly
improved parkland. Therefore, it is unlikely that significant changes to these policies will occur
in the near future, and that the inherent conflict between the provision of highly improved active
recreation areas and the provision of less expensive, unimproved Open Space will continue to
exist.
c. Maintenance and Operation of Open Space
The City's existing policies are aimed at retaining as much Open Space in private ownership
as possible in order to minimize the City's cost for maintenance and liability. However, the City
also recognizes that certain facilities, such as community parks and special use or resource
areas are most appropriately held in public ownership. It is likely that this balanced approach
to ownership and maintenance will be retained in the future.
Another mechanism that is available to relieve the City of the maintenance and operation costs
associated with Open Space is an Open Space Maintenance District. Although the costs of
maintenance and administration would be paid by private property owners, the Open Space area
must be publicly dedicated and the City must administer the program. The assessments are
levied annually and are collected with the property tax bill. The City neither encourages nor
discourages the formation of maintenance districts for this purpose, but has established a policy
for their implementation, if desired.
d. Protection
Unless modified or strengthened further, the existing policies and requirements regarding the
protection of Open Space will remain in effect into the foreseeable future. Of note, however,
111-17
is a recent change to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) which will strengthen
considerably the level of enforcement and monitoring following project approval throughout the
development and construction phases of the project. This legislation (AB 3180) requires all
public agencies to adopt a monitoring program whenever they adopt EIR findings that potentially
significant impacts will be mitigated to less than significant impacts or adopt a "mitigated"
negative declaration. All agencies with responsibility for carrying out or approving such projects
must adopt monitoring programs. An effective monitoring program will require site visits by
agency staff or consultants to "spot check" implementation of mitigation measures.
This additional level of protection should prevent in-field modification of conditions of approval
and will ensure that the environmental protection measures endorsed at the approval stage
will, in fact, be followed at the construction site.
e. Acquisition and Funding
Section III.A.2.e. provided a list of options for acquiring and financing Open Space which are
available to the City of Carlsbad. Although this list of options is rather extensive, it is likely that
future acquisitions or funding methods will be similar to those found to be successful in
Carlsbad in the past. Nevertheless, reference is made to Section III.C.2.e of this report which
discusses the Committee's recommendations in this regard.
C. Desired Status of Open Space at Buildout
1. What should it be and how much should the City have?
a. Definition
As a starting point for defining Open Space at buildout of the City and beyond, the City's
Open Space Committee used the 1973/1988 (revised) definition as a basis. In order to
adapt the definition more precisely to the unique resources of the City of Carlsbad, a
number of changes were made which resulted in the following desired definition of Open
Space at buildout:
•• Open Space is any area of land or water which, for whatever reason, is not
developed for urbanized uses and which therefore enhances residents' quality of
life. The Open Space may be in its natural state or modified in such a way that
the modification itself contributes to this enhancement
Open Space may fall into five major categories:
1) Open Space for the preservation of natural resources, including, but not
limited to:
a) Areas required for the preservation of trees, forests, plant and
animal life, including habitat for fish and wildlife species.
b) Areas required for ecologic and other scientific study purposes.
111-18
c) Rivers, streams, bays, lagoons and estuaries.
d) Coastal beaches, lakeshores, banks of rivers and streams and
watershed lands.
e) Hillside, slopes and canyons necessary for the preservation of
natural resources.
2) Open Space used for the managed production of resources, including, but
not limited to:
a) Forest lands, rangeland, agricultural and horticultural lands,
including greenhouses.
b) Areas required for recharge of ground water basins.
c) Bays, estuaries, marshes, rivers and streams which are important
for the management of commercial fisheries.
d) Areas containing major mineral deposits, including those in short
supply.
3) Open Space for programmed and unprogrammed outdoor recreation,
including, but not limited to:
a) School playgrounds and athletic fields.
b) Park and recreation areas, including those areas giving access to
lakeshores, beaches, lagoons, rivers and streams.
c) Areas which serve as links between major recreation and Open
Space reservations, including utility easements, banks of rivers
and streams, scenic highway and railroad corridors.
d) Trails for walking and hiking.
e) Separate trails for biking and skate-boarding.
f) Wilderness areas and nature preserves.
g) Campgrounds,
h) Golf courses.
111-19
4) Open Space for aesthetic, cultural and educational considerations,
including, but not limited to:
a) Areas of important scenic, historic and cultural value, including
significant geological, paleontogical, and archaeological areas.
b) Areas which provide a buffer between land uses, including larger
than standard setbacks around buildings and along roadways.
c) Areas which provide separation from surrounding communities.
d) Museums, arboreta, zoologic and botanical gardens.
5) Open Space for public health and safety, including, but not limited to:
a) Areas which require special management or regulations because
of hazardous or special conditions. Examples: safety zones in the
vicinity of airports, earthquake fault zones, steep slopes, unstable
soils areas, watersheds, floodplains, areas prone to landslides.
b) Areas presenting high fire risks.
c) Areas required for the protection of water quality and water
reservoirs.
d) Areas required for the protection and enhancement of air quality.
e) Bluffs subject to wave erosion.
(15-0-O)
b. Ownership
With regard to the Committee's thoughts regarding who should actually "own" the City's
Open Space and how public control should be maintained and exercised, the following motions
were passed by the Committee:
> The City's existing policy of encouraging a combination of both public and private
Open Space be continued. (15-O-0)
•> It is not necessary for Open Space to be entirely provided by the public sector.
(15-0-0)
Discussion: Through these motions, the Committee essentially endorsed the City's
existing policies with regard to the ownership of Open Space in the City.
111-20
c. Visual Displays of Open Space
With regard to maps and visual displays of Open Space within the City, the Open Space
Committee endorsed the measures that are already in progress under the City's current
plans and standards, but also passed the following motions dealing with this issue:
- The City's Open Space map should be used as a conceptual representation of
Open Space intentions in the City. (15-0-0)
- As detail becomes available on Open Space areas that precise information be
depicted on zone maps and that the City's Open Space map be updated to
reflect that additional level of detail. (14-O-0)
- City staff should be given the flexibility to add to the Open Space map new Open
Space areas which may be created by circumstances. (14-1-0)
- A formalized procedure should be created for adjusting the boundaries of any
Open Space area shown on the map. Findings required for the approval of a
boundary adjustment to the map could include the following:
A The Open Space area is of equal or greater area; and
B. The Open Space area is of equal or greater environmental quality; and
C. The boundary modification is made in order to provide an enhancement
to an environmentally sensitive area; and
D. The adjusted Open Space is contiguous or within close proximity to the
Open Space shown on the Open Space Map.
E. The City Council may also modify the boundary location shown on the
Open Space Map if it finds that the modification is necessary to mitigate
a sensitive environmental area which is impacted by development provided
the boundary modification preserves Open Space at a 2 to 1 ratio and is
within close proximity to the original area of Open Space.
(14-0-0)
Discussion: The rationale for the first of the recommendations regarding visual displays
was basically twofold. First, it was recognized by the Committee that the scale of the
General Plan and Open Space maps (1:1000) was too general to discretely define the
boundary between Open Space and other uses. Secondly, it was also recognized that
some areas currently designated as Open Space on the City's map would, after more
detailed surveys and investigations were completed, be deemed to be less desirable
than other nearby areas not designated as Open Space on the maps. Given these
factors, the Committee felt that the Open Space maps should be used as a conceptual
representation for land use and other planning, but should not necessarily be rigidly
adhered to.
111-21
However, it was also recognized by the Committee that, as detailed surveys of specific
areas of the City were completed, the new information thus acquired should be
documented and mapped. With this in mind, recommendation number 2 was passed
which would call for the LFMP Zone Maps to be updated showing any new data, and
then for the Open Space Map to be updated accordingly to be in conformance with the
latest zone maps.
The Committee also was desirous of providing the staff with the discretion and necessary
tools to modify the Open Space map by adding new Open Space areas or adjusting the
boundaries of the map as circumstances might warrant in the future. Therefore, the 3rd
and 4th recommendations under Visual Displays of Open Space were passed by the
Committee with this objective in mind.
d. What Should Be "Counted" Toward Open Space?
Actions taken by the Committee with regard to this issue tended to overlap with the
topics of "Use of Open Space" and "Protection of Open Space", which are addressed
later in this report. Therefore, the following motions which were adopted by the
Committee should be considered not only as they relate to what should be "counted" to
meet the Open Space standard, but also as they would apply to the later discussions
regarding Use and Protection.
> Land area that otherwise qualifies for measurement towards the standard but
which is not available without some monetary or other consideration for use by
the general public should be considered as meeting only a certain percentage
of the performance standard, that percentage to be determined by the adoption
of a new City standard. All other land area which qualifies tor measurement
towards the performance standard will be given 100% credit toward those
standards. (14-0-0)
> The Open Space Ordinance No. 9795 should be revised and amended to (1)
more precisely identify and define lands considered as undevelopable, (2) include
provisions tor buffer areas around sensitive lands, (3) define the word significant,
and (4) include specific conditions and restrictions on non-residential
development. (12-O-0)
» To tiie extent it is practical, standards for Open Space should be established by
type of Open Space rather than the general category of Open Space. (12-3-0)
» Zone plans, major development applications and applications involving potential
linkage should address trails and trail interconnection opportunities on proposed
plans. (12-O-0)
•• Powertine easements shall not be counted towards meeting tfje 75% Open Space
standard. (7-5-0)
111-22
» Private golf courses will receive partial credit in meeting the performance
standards only if significant visual benefit is determined. The extent of the credit
shall be determined by a new standard. (10-2-0)
> Schools shall not be counted in meeting the 15% performance standards - private
or public. (12-0-0)
Discussion: With regard to the first motion shown above, the Committee was interested
in differentiating between Open Space that was available to the public at no cost, and
that which was either reserved for private use (such as homeowner-maintained swimming
pool), or which was available to the public for a fee (such as a public golf course). The
Committee felt that Open Space that was available to the public at no cost should be fully
counted toward meeting the 15 percent performance standard, but that private or fee
Open Space should be counted at something less than 100 percent. It could not,
however, reach agreement as to the specific percent (50%, 75%, 85%) that should be
counted for these uses, and therefore recommended that this issue be studied and that
a new percentage standard be established at a later time for such areas. Nor did the
Committee specifically address the adequacy of the 15% Open Space requirements
specified in the Growth Management Plan until the Open Space categories shown under
"Types of Open Space" in Section III.C.2.a. of this report have been quantified and could
be more thoroughly studied.
The second motion dealing with the Open Space Ordinance No. 9795 was aimed at
establishing more precise definitions of undevelopable land, including use of the term
"significant", and at identifying such lands as precisely as possible on the City's maps.
The Growth Management Program, in its "Constraints Analysis Guidelines" provides such
definitions which could be examined and, if warranted, revised to provide additional
detail. Likewise, the City currently requires that undevelopable land be identified on
each LFMP Zone Map at 1:200 scale. It might be possible to reduce this level of detail
even further through the use of the parcel-level GIS discussed earlier. The last part of
this motion dealt with non-residential development (commercial, industrial, etc.) and
recommends that the Open Space standards and exemptions regarding these land uses
be examined and revised as warranted.
The last series of motions were aimed at more precisely defining the Open Space needs
of the City, by specific type or use. In this way, rather than accept a general category
of Open Space for a given LFMP Zone, City staff would have a better understanding of
the specific type of Open Space needed for that zone (such as a linkage between large
Open Space areas). These recommendations, combined with the Committee's desire
to establish a framework for a trail system or linkage throughout the City, led to the
fourth motion, which recommends that potential trails or trail linkage opportunities be
included in the City's evaluation of zone plans, major development applications and
other applications involving potential linkage.
Likewise, the Committee, by a split vote, felt that powerline easements should not be
counted toward Open Space. However, as discussed under "Trail Systems" in Section
III.A.2.a., the Committee agreed by a 10-2 vote that such easements should receive
111-23
partial credit only if they are "enhanced or improved and provide key links in the trail
system".
It was also determined that private golf courses should receive partial credit, but "only
if significant visual benefit1 to the public can be established. Finally, the Committee also
ratified the City's existing standard that public or private schools shall not be counted in
meeting the 15 percent Open Space standard.
2. How should the City use, maintain and protect what the City has now and will have in
the future?
a. Uses of Open Space, Including Access
The Open Space Committee strongly endorsed a balanced approach to Open Space
which would include a combination of both active and passive uses. In addition, as
reflected in the fact that unanimous votes were cast on most of the following motions,
the concept of a trail system linking large Open Space areas was highly recommended.
Several of the recommendations listed below may appear to overlap. This is because
the actions were taken at several different meetings and were introduced while
discussing related topics. Nevertheless, the actions taken by the Committee with regard
to Open Space uses can be generally grouped into three headings: Types of Open
Space, Trail System, and General Use Issues.
Types of Open Space
» 7?7e City should adopt precise written definitions of the various forms of Open
Space including visual corridors. As examples, specific areas should be identified
within the City to meet these definitions. (12-0-O)
*• The following Open Space list should constitute a basic inventory listing in the
City which could be added to or modified in the future. (12-1-0)
Type of Open Space Quantity Now Quantity/Build Out Goal
- Ecological Preserves
- Streams
- Lagoons, active:
skiing
wind surfing
canoeing
- Lagoons, passive
- Beaches: ocean
lagoon
lake
- Hillsides/canyons
- Woodlands
111-24
Type of Open Space
- Equestrian facilities
- Agricultural:
Flower fields
Greenhouses
Horticulture
Field Crops
- Aquaculture
- School Grounds
- A. Pks/Rec. Public:
soccer
tennis
golf
picnic
softball
play apparatus
football
basketball
swimming
handball
skateboarding
- B. Pks/Rec. Private:
soccer
tennis
golf
picnic
softball
play apparatus
football
basketball
swimming
handball
skateboarding
- Utility Easements
- Railroad Corridors
- Arterial Setbacks
- Trails:
walking
biking/skate bd & roller
equestrian
111-25
Campground:
public
private
Golf Courses:
public
private
Historic Areas
Paleontologies! Areas
Geological Areas (unique)
Greenbett Buffers
Trail Systems
The committee strongly endorses the concept of a citywide, interconnecting trail
system, subject to the results of a study in furtherance of that idea. (14-0-0)
The City should participate with other north county communities to establish an
inter-community Open Space linkage. (15-0-0)
The City Council direct staff to conduct an in-depth study (to be completed no
later than year end 1989) on the feasibility of a publicly accessible, primarily
pedestrian (with bicycle use where feasible), citywide, interconnecting trail system
or as extensive a system as is possible if an interconnecting system is not
possible. (15-0-0)
When studying the trail system, staff should include all possible linkages
throughout the City; that the natural trail system should be linked to other trail
systems (using public sidewalks and walkways, if necessary) to create continuity
wherever possible. (14-O-O)
The feasibility study to be prepared for a unified trail system should include, but
not be limited to, an analysis of cost, options for financing, liability, ownership,
maintenance, possible trail locations and linkages, and the types of trails needed
for different areas. (15-0-0)
Whenever feasible, natural and man-made links should be created between Open
Space areas to give the visual (and real) perception of large Open Space areas,
facilitate a trail system, and/or provide viable habitat areas. (12-0-0)
There should be no bias in the continuity and homogeneity of the trail system and
it should be sensitive to local environmental concerns. (14-0-0)
The trail system should be designed to serve recreational as well as non-
automotive transportational purposes. (14-0-0)
111-26
Comprehensive Open Space Network Diagram
» A graphic, conceptual representation of the City's Open Space Plan be prepared
incorporating a comprehensive linked system of Open Space. The diagram would
include the following features:
1. Identify the larger, publicly-dedicated Open Space areas, community parks
and potential sites which would be linked together by the network.
2. Identify existing Open Space linkages.
3. Identify additional potential linkage routes. These potential links would
help to complete the overall network and could be used for trails, natural
Open Space buffers and peripheral greenbelts.
4. Identify potential linkage points with adjoining cities.
It is recognized by the Committee that the potential linkage routes would not be
precise locations and have not been preserved as public Open Space. It is
proposed that these links be obtained through compliance in meeting the City's
Open Space performance standards or through other means of public acquisition
or protection.
Public street rights-of-way or major powerline easements shall be used for linkage
in the network only if it is determined that no other desirable alternative is
available to the City without public purchase. Consideration should be given to
safety and aesthetics. (12-0-0)
- Linkage of the trail system should be provided from major recreation/Open Space
areas to other types of activity, i.e, employment, schools, libraries, and viewpoints.
(14-0-0)
•• Trails should be encouraged near or adjacent to environmentally sensitive areas,
with appropriate buffers and lor fencing. (15-0-0)
> Trails should be sensitive to surrounding land uses and should normally be
placed at a significantly different elevation than adjacent residential uses. (15-
0-0)
•> Rather than purely recreational use, trails should also provide a means of
pedestrian transportation between residential and commercial areas. (15-0-0)
» When trails are proposed or required the City should obtain an irrevocable offer
to dedicate or a permanent easement tor trailways where feasible. (15-0-0)
111-27
Major powertine easements will receive partial credit when they are enhanced or
improved and provide key links in the trail system. The extent of credit shall be
determined by a new standard. (10-2-0)
General Use Issues
Natural Open Space areas should remain in as natural a state as possible. (15-
0-0)
The City should identify, acquire, and protect natural Open Space areas visible
from public gathering places in order to help create a more rural atmosphere in
an urban environment (15-0-0)
Identify scenic routes to public Open Space with sensitivity to increased traffic
in residential areas. (14-0-0)
Encourage public access to all Open Space areas except where sensitive
resources may be threatened or damaged, or where the public health and safety
may be compromised. (15-0-0)
Strive for a balance of visual, passive and active Open Space uses within each
of the four quadrants of the City. (154-0)
Passive recreation areas should be distributed throughout the four quadrants of
the City and should be separate from active recreational uses where possible.
(15-0-O)
Rather than many small pockets of Open Space, the City should strive for fewer
but larger areas since Open Space will "appear' to be more if development is
clustered and Open Spaces are larger and linked. (13-0-0)
A certain percentage of land next to sensitive (riparian) areas should be
designated to act as a buffer. (13-0-0)
The development of cultural/educational amenities within Open Space areas such
as botanical gardens, interpretive centers, and arboreta should be encouraged.
(15-0-0)
A high quality active community park system should continue to be pursued within
appropriate Open Space areas. (15-0-0)
Any agricultural land that in the future can be changed from agriculture to a non-
Open Space use should not be counted as Open Space. (12-0-0)
Where feasible, higher topographic areas suitable as panoramic viewpoints for
public use should be identified and acquired, (i.e, Mt. Soledad.) (15-0-0)
111-28
» Open Space should be utilized to delineate the City's boundaries and to buffer
major land uses within the City. (15-0-0)
Discussion: In the interest of providing a balanced inventory of types of Open Space,
the Committee strove to define Open Space uses in more precise terms than are
currently available. For example, although an accurate inventory is maintained by the
City's Parks and Recreation Department for active ballfields or public tennis courts, little
precise information is available regarding the number of linear miles (or acres) of publicly
accessible greenbelts or trails. Therefore, the Committee passed the two motions listed
above under "Types of Open Space" in an attempt to establish a better inventory of
Open Space uses - both now and in the future. As a basis for creating the list of Open
Space types shown above, the subcommittee involved with this issue went directly to the
Open Space definition that had been adopted by the full Committee (See Section
Ill.C.l.a.).
In establishing the list shown above, the Committee recognized that inventorying certain
of the uses would be easier than others. Likewise, it also acknowledged that certain
uses may need to be deleted or added in the future. Nevertheless, in order to reach a
better understanding of the type of Open Space that will be created at buildout under the
City's current policies, and to define where shortfalls may occur, the Committee adopted
the listing as presented and recommended that it be used by the City as a tool to better
plan for Open Space into the foreseeable future.
The Committee's recommendations regarding a trail or linkage system are, for the most
part, self-explanatory. With a few exceptions, the votes were unanimous. Basically, the
Committee strongly endorsed the concept of a trail system and recommended that a
study toward this end be authorized. However, it also wanted to provide certain
guidelines as to what should be included in such a study, as well as the composition
of the trail system. In addition to providing usable trails or linkages where possible, the
Committee also endorsed the concept of non-accessible visual linkages to provide for
continuity, habitat preservation, and a greater feeling of Open Space. Finally, the
Committee also wanted to see such a trail system integrated into a viable non-automotive
transportation system to reduce the community's dependency on motor vehicles and to
provide a means of getting from home to school or the store, as well as to other Open
Space or recreation areas or even to neighboring communities, by means other than
motor vehicles.
The last category of motions, labeled "General Use Issues", groups together a number
of motions that were also approved by the Committee, and are generally self-explanatory.
These actions cover a variety of Open Space use issues, and encompass the
Committee's desire to provide a balance of highly visible, accessible, natural Open Space
throughout all quadrants of the City together with an active recreational and park program,
to the maximum extent possible.
b. Degree of Improvement
111-29
77?e Committee made the following recommendation regarding improvements in Open
Space areas:
» The degree of improvements recommended tor Open Space areas should depend
on the type of Open Space and the use proposed. For example, improvements
in active areas such as community parks would be more complex. Improvements
for passive areas such as trails would be minor in comparison and include items
such as pathways, benches and trash receptacles. No improvements should
be made in environmentally sensitive areas, except to enhance the environmental
value of the area. (15-0-0)
c. Maintenance and Operation of Open Space
The Committee made the following recommendation regarding the maintenance and
operation of Open Space:
«• In general, the Committee recommends that the maintenance of public Open
Space, in other than redevelopment areas, be paid tor primarily from the general
fund, unless other more suitable funding methods are indicated, or, in the case
of large parcels, by means of Mello-Roos or assessment district funds. (12-0-0)
d. Protection
The Committee made the following recommendation regarding protection of Open Space
areas:
>• The Committee recommends that the City develop a cohesive policy and plan
setting forth Open Space goals and guiding acquisition, protection, maintenance
and financing. (12-0-0)
> The City Council should establish an Open Space Commission, including a staff
member, to review and address the many issues pertaining to Open Space
including, but not limited to, definitions, designations, and potential map changes.
The Commission's responsibilities should also include:
(1) An advocate tor Open Space;
(2) Community representation to the Planning Commission and City Council;
(3) Continue to develop and revise Open Space policies as defined by the
City and the Open Space ordinance;
(4) Monitor implementation of Open Space policies;
(5) Recommend priorities tor Open Space including acquisition, use, and
maintenance programs, on an annual basis;
(6) Set and refine guidelines tor specific project review of Open Space;
and should be established coincident with termination of the interim Open Space
ordinance. (14-0-0)
111-30
•• Any grading, grubbing, or clearing of vegetation in undeveloped areas should
require a City permit approved by the Planning Director. (11-1-0)
» The Open Space Ordinance should define the City's responsibilities to monitor
the full development/construction process from beginning to end. (12-O-0)
» In order to protect Open Space by increasing the public's perception of it as a
valued resource, the City should identify existing Open Space for potential
enhancement to increase its habitat, visual, or physical values. (12-O-0)
Discussion: As a basic framework for Open Space policy and planning in the future, the
Committee unanimously adopted the first motion above calling for the development of
a cohesive Open Space policy and plan.
As can be seen by the unanimous vote on the second motion shown above, the
Committee overwhelming endorsed the need for an Open Space Commission. As
visualized, such a Commission would be on equal footing with other similar advisory
commissions in the City and would be able to provide direct input to the City Council
and Planning Commission on issues affecting Open Space within the City. In addition
to its desire to preserve Open Space within the City, the Committee was also concerned
that an inherent conflict seems to exist between the need for transforming available Open
Space into active recreational areas, versus the concept of retaining passive Open Space
for its environmental, visual, aesthetic or psychological benefits. Given this concern, the
Committee felt that an active advocate for Open Space was necessary which would serve
as a sounding board for the community, as well as a screening body and strong
advocate for Open Space in its relations with the City Council.
With regard to the third motion, it was felt that the clearing of land, which is currently
permitted without any approvals, clearly needed to be addressed. Without some form
of control, it was apparent to the Committee that potentially valuable Open Space,
vegetation, habitat or other resources could easily be lost or damaged under today's
regulations.
The fourth motion basically endorsed the City's plans to implement an enforcement and
monitoring program in compliance with recent changes to the California Environmental
Quality Act. The final motion was aimed at better educating and informing the public as
to the value of Open Space. This latter recommendation could be a useful tool in
soliciting support for funding new Open Space acquisitions, such as key links in a trail
system or pedestrian roadway bridges.
e. Acquisition and Funding
The following recommendations were made regarding acquisition and funding:
111-31
The preservation of highly visible agricultural areas that are particularly suitable
for flower production, and where economically viable should be encouraged. (15-
v-O)
Visually attractive or high quality natural areas should be acquired, protected, and
preserved whenever possible. (15-O-O)
Appropriate user fees from non-residents utilizing Carlsbad's active recreation
facilities should be required. (15-0-0)
The City should acquire, protect or negotiate for public access to lands that could
be used for passive recreational uses. (15-0-0)
An annual review of the methods and programs for acquiring parks in the City of
Carlsbad should be conducted and should include, specifically, but not be limited
to, the Quimby Act standards and the park-in-lieu fees. (12-1-0)
As a policy statement, new development should support at least the Open Space
needs of the occupants of its projects. (12-0-0)
In support of the above policy, exactions from new developments should include,
but not be limited to, legislative protection, Quimby Act dedication, park-in-lieu
fees, industrial recreation fees, setback requirements, the provision of essential
improvements, and the adoption of appropriate Local Facility Management Plans,
Master Plans, and Specific Plans. (12-O-0)
Recognizing that certain elements of the proposed Open Space plan and public
trail system may not be available through exactions, and may therefore require
other forms of acquisition, maintenance, or financing, the Committee recommends
that, to the maximum degree possible, those benefiting from the acquisition or
improvement provide funding in direct proportion to the benefits derived. (12-0-
0)
All land set aside as Open Space that can be mapped, shall be zoned Open
Space. (144-0)
At the time of any discretionary approval, any land set aside for its habitat or
scenic value shall have an appropriate easement placed on it for resource
protection. (14-0-0)
The City should promptly create a trust or other mechanism to facilitate private
donations for Open Space acquisitions, protection, improvements, or maintenance.
(12-0-0)
111-32
» The City should create a program for identification of private donations with
specific Open Space acquisitions, protection, improvements, or maintenance in
order to encourage private participation as a funding mechanism. (12-0-0)
» Where public funding is necessary for new Open Space in 'built-ouf sections of
the City, the Committee feels that General Obligation Bonds are a highly desirable
source of funding in that they: 1) generate new revenues; 2) spread the cost of
such acquisitions over the widest possible base; and 3) match the financing
with the long-term nature of the asset being acquired. (12-0-0)
> The Committee believes that the likelihood for voter approval of a General
Obligation Bond issue by the required two-thirds majority will be enhanced in
proportion to the number of voters who will benefit from the issue. The
Committee therefore recommends that any General Obligation Bond issue placed
before the voters propose a well-balanced acquisition program, providing a variety
of Open Space opportunities spread throughout the community. (12-0-0)
> Recognizing that the two-thirds majority required to approve issuance of General
Obligation Bonds has traditionally been difficult to achieve, the Committee
recommends that other funding sources also be considered. (12-0-0)
- None of the Committee's recommendations are intended, nor should they be
construed, as authorizing the City to exercise its power to adopt, amend or repeal
an Open Space or conservation zoning ordinance in a manner which will take or
damage private property for public use without payment of just compensation
therefor. These recommendations are not intended to increase or decrease the
rights of any owner of property under the Constitution of the State of California
or of the United States. (12-0-0)
Discussion: The first series of motions that were passed by the Committee regarding
the acquisition of Open Space areas, user fees, and financing methods dealt primarily
with desired goals and objectives. With regard to the actual acquisition and funding
methods themselves, the Committee received considerable input on a variety of taxes,
user fees, bond issues, maintenance vehicles, for its consideration. Specific
recommendations are detailed above.
111-33
SECTION N
CITY OF CARLSBAD
GENERAL PLAN
OPEN SPACE & CONSERVATION ELEMENTS
rI
r
r
Updated: 1989
City of Carlsbad
r
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
I. PREFACE AND INTRODUCTION IV- 1
II. OPEN SPACE ELEMENT IV - 2
STATE LAW AND DEFINITION IV- 2
1. OPEN SPACE PLANNING AND PROTECTION IV- 4
A. GOALS IV- 4
B. OBJECTIVES IV- 5
C. IMPLEMENTING POLICIES AND ACTION
PROGRAMS IV- 6
2. OBTAINING OPEN SPACE IV - 7
A GOALS IV- 7
B. OBJECTIVES IV- 8
C. IMPLEMENTING POLICIES AND ACTION
PROGRAMS IV- 8
3. SPECIAL RESOURCE PROTECTION IV - 9
A GOALS IV- 9
B. OBJECTIVES IV- 9
C. IMPLEMENTING POLICIES AND ACTION
PROGRAMS IV- 9
4. TRAIL/LINKAGE SYSTEM IV-11
A. GOAL IV-11
B. OBJECTIVES IV-11
C. IMPLEMENTING POLICIES AND ACTION
PROGRAMS IV-11
III. CONSERVATION ELEMENT IV -12
STATE LAW IV -12
A. GOALS N -12
B. OBJECTIVES IV -13
C. IMPLEMENTING POLICIES AND ACTION
PROGRAMS IV -14
IV. FRAMEWORK FOR AN OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN IV -15
V. APPENDIX N -26
IV-i
/. PREFACE AND INTRODUCTION
The Open Space and Conservation Elements of the General Plan coordinate and guide
decisions related predominantly to the undeveloped land and water surfaces which influence
and shape the formal quality of Carlsbad's physical environments.
The Open Space Element serves as an official policy statement for the identification,
preservation, conservation, acquisition and maintenance of open space in the City. The
Conservation Element is addressed to resource management - the planned management of
natural resources to prevent exploitation, destruction or neglect.
It is the intent of the Open Space and Conservation Elements to:
1. Realize the social, economic, aesthetic and environmental benefits which accrue from
the preservation of Open Space within an urban environment.
2. Ensure the benefits which accrue from the conservation, management and utilization of
natural resources.
The Open Space and Conservation Elements are not intended, and shall not be construed, as
authorizing the City to exercise its power to adopt, amend or repeal an Open Space or
conservation zoning ordinance in a manner which will take or damage private property for public
use without payment of just compensation therefore. This plan is not intended to increase or
decrease the rights of any owner of property under the Constitution of the State of California or.
of the United States.
Goals, objectives and action programs to preserve and regulate land for Open Space and
conservation purposes are included in these elements. Future policies and programs should
also be developed using these elements as a basis. The main intent of these elements is to:
1. Provide specific programs for the preservation and conservation of land and natural
features and for regulations necessary to control the possible negative impact of
development which may be allowed.
2. Identify and protect where appropriate existing open land, natural resources and
environmental features as integral and necessary components of the Open Space and
Conservation Elements.
3. Provide a framework and guidelines for Open Space and conservation systems as
described in the Open Space and Conservation Resource Management Plan and as
identified on the maps titled "Open Space and Conservation Map" dated August 9, 1988
and "Comprehensive Open Space Network Map" dated September 1, 1989. These maps
identify important recreation, ecological, natural, scenic resources and proposed linkage
routes relating to a comprehensive trail and habitat linkage system. They also identify
hazardous areas which should not be developed or where development should be limited
to ensure public health and safety.
IV-1
The contents of the Open Space and Conservation Elements meet the requirements of State Law
and provide the City of Carlsbad with a comprehensive document dealing with Open Space and
conservation resource management. The structure of the elements as contained herein is as
follows:
Open Space Element
State Law and Definition
Goals
Objectives
Implementing Policies and Action Programs
For organizational clarity, the goals, objectives and implementing policies and action
programs have been grouped into four categories or topics: Open Space planning and
protection; obtaining Open Space; special resource protection; and trails/linkage system.
However, the goals apply equally to all four categories.
Conservation Element
State Law
Goals
Objectives
Implementing Policies and Action Programs
Framework for an Open Space and Conservation Resource Management Plan
Intent
Description of Open Space and Conservation Map and Comprehensive Open
Space Network Map
Implementation
II. OPEN SPACE ELEMENT
State Law and Definition
Under State Law (Section 65560 et.seq.. California Government Code), cities must adopt an
Open Space plan for "...the comprehensive and long range preservation and conservation of
Open Space land within its jurisdiction." Because of Carlsbad's unique environment and Open
Space opportunities, a special definition of open space has been adopted which includes and
expands upon all the types of Open Space provided for in the state law. In Carlsbad, "Open
Space" is defined as any area of land or water which, for whatever reason, is not developed for
urbanized uses and which therefore enhances residents' quality of life. The Open Space may
be in its natural state or modified in such a way that the modification itself contributes to this
enhancement.
IV-2
Open Space may fail into five major categories:
1) Open Space for the preservation of natural resources, including, but not limited to:
a) Areas required for the preservation of trees, forests, plant and animal life,
including habitat for fish and wildlife species.
b) Areas required for ecologic and other scientific study purposes.
c) Rivers, streams, bays, lagoons and estuaries.
d) Coastal beaches, lakeshores, banks of rivers and streams and watershed lands.
e) Hillside, slopes and canyons necessary for the preservation of natural resources.
2) Open Space used for the managed production of resources, including, but not limited
to:
a) Forest lands, range/and, agricultural and horticultural lands, including
greenhouses.
b) Areas required for recharge of ground water basins.
c) Bays, estuaries, marshes, rivers and streams which are important for the
management of commercial fisheries.
d) Areas containing major mineral deposits, including those in short supply.
3) Open Space for programmed and unprogrammed outdoor recreation, including, but not
limited to:
a) School playgrounds and athletic fields.
b) Park and recreation areas, including those areas giving access to lakeshores,
beaches, lagoons, rivers and streams.
c) Areas which serve as links between major recreation and Open Space
reservation, including utility easements, banks of rivers and streams, scenic
highway and railroad corridors.
d) Trails for walking and hiking.
e) Separate trails for biking and skate-boarding.
f) Wilderness areas and nature preserves.
g) Campgrounds,
h) Golf courses.
IV-3
4) Open Space for aesthetic, cultural and educational considerations, including, but not
limited to:
a) Areas of important scenic, historic and cultural value, including significant
geological, paleontological, archaeological areas.
b) Areas which provide a buffer between land uses, including larger than standard
setbacks around buildings and along roadways.
c) Areas which provide separation from surrounding communities.
d) Museums, arboreta, zoologic and botanical gardens.
5) Open Space for public health and safety, including, but not limited to:
a) Areas which require a special management or regulations because of hazardous
or special conditions. Examples: safety zones in the vicinity of airports,
earthquake fault zones, steep slopes, unstable soils areas, watersheds,
floodplains, areas prone to landslides.
b) Areas presenting high fire risks.
c) Areas required for the protection of water quality and water reservoirs.
d) Areas required for the protection and enhancement of air quality.
e) Bluffs subject to wave erosion.
GOALS. OBJECTIVES AND IMPLEMENTING POLICIES AND ACTION PROGRAMS
1. OPEN SPACE PLANNING AND PROTECTION
A GOALS
A. 1 Coordinate Open Space uses with other land uses for mutual enhancement and
creation of a "human" urban environment, which includes, but is not limited to,
development and expansion of recreational land, conservation of natural and man-
made amenities, and preservation of options with regard to agricultural land.
A.2 Preserve and create an Open Space system of aesthetic value that will maintain
community identity, achieve a sense of natural spaciousness, and provide visual
relief in the Cityscape.
A. 3 Provide a balance of visual, passive and active Open Space uses within each of
the four quadrants of the City.
IV-4
A.4 Identify Open Space as an essential component or quality-of-life provision
necessary to provide the citizens of Carlsbad with safe and healthy living
conditions,
A. 5 Utilize Open. Space to delineate neighborhoods, the City's boundaries and to
buffer major land uses within the City.
A. 6 Preserve an adequate amount and variety of Open Space for outdoor recreation
which shall include, but not be limited to, parks, beaches, areas for organized
sports, connecting corridors with trails, water recreation areas (beaches, lagoons,
lakes), unique conservation areas for nature study, and semi-developed areas for
camping.
B. OBJECTIVES
B. 1 To preserve, protect and enhance those areas of the City that provide unique and
special Open Space functions including, but not limited to, cultural and visual
amenities, active and passive recreational uses, landmarks, buffers between
incompatible land uses, wildlife habitats and unique and desirable vegetation.
B.2 To develop a cohesive policy and plan setting forth Open Space goals and
guiding the systematic acquisition, protection, maintenance and financing of Open
Space and providing an organizational structure to implement the plan.
8.3 To create a more rural atmosphere in the urban environment, the City should
identify, acquire, and protect natural Open Space areas which are visible from
public gathering places.
B.4 To encourage public access to all Open Space areas except where sensitive
resources may be threatened or damaged, or where the public health and safely
may be compromised.
B.5 To mandate Open Space as a necessary provision of the local facilities
management plans which are required by the Growth Management Ordinance.
B.6 To provide for parks and plazas and preserve natural areas within developments.
B. 7 To encourage increased setbacks along arterial corridors and establish greenbelts
or similar areas to preserve and/or create Open Space areas as a means of
maintaining community scale and identity, separating conflicting land uses, and
achieving a sense of natural openness as an integral part of urban surroundings.
8.8 To establish standards of Open Space by type of Open Space rather than the
general category of Open Space.
IV-5
B.9 To provide for the distribution of passive recreation areas throughout the four
quadrants of the City and to separate them from active recreational uses where
possible.
C. IMPLEMENTING POLICIES AND ACTION PROGRAMS
C. 1 Open Space shall be used to provide neighborhood, community, and City identity
and to provide separations between conflicting land uses.
C.2 An Open Space Commission shall be established. The Commission's
responsibilities shall include:
(1) Advocacy of Open Space;
(2) Presentations to the Planning Commission and City Council on Open
Space issues;
(3) Continued development and revision of Open Space policies as defined
by the City's Open Space ordinances and programs;
(4) Monitoring implementation of Open Space policies;
(5) Recommending priorities for Open Space, including acquisition, use, and
maintenance programs, on at least an annual basis;
(6) Setting and refining guidelines for specific project review of Open Space.
C.3 The Open Space Ordinance shall require monitoring of Open Space during the
entire development/construction process.
C.4 The City shall identify existing Open Space for potential enhancement to increase
its habitat, visual, or physical values.
C.5 Citywide maps and diagrams shall be prepared showing the following:
(1) Natural resources
(2) Designated Open Space
(3) Existing and proposed Open Space
(4) Open Space linkages
C.6 As specific mapping information becomes available regarding Open Space, that
precise information shall be depicted on land use maps, zoning maps, and the
City's Open Space maps.
C.7 City staff shall be given the flexibility to add to the Open Space inventory maps
those new areas which may be created by various circumstances.
C.8 The Growth Management Ordinance shall be utilized to implement the goals and
objectives of this element and establish standards for Open Space.
IV-6
C.9 Land area that otherwise qualifies for measurement toward the Growth
Management standard but which is not available without some monetary or other
consideration for use by the general public shall be considered as meeting only
a certain percentage of the performance standard, that percentage to be
determined by the adoption of a new City standard. All other land area which
qualifies for measurement toward the performance standard will be given 100%
credit toward those standards.
C.10 The Open Space Ordinance, No. 9795, shall be revised and amended to: (1)
more precisely identify and define lands considered as undevelopable; (2) include
provisions for buffer areas around sensitive lands; (3) define the word significant;
and (4) include specific conditions and restrictions on non-residential
development.
C.11 Powerline easements shall not be counted toward meeting the Open Space
standard.
C.12 Private golf courses may receive only partial credit in meeting the performance
standards and only if significant visual benefit is determined. The extent of the
credit shall be determined by a new standard.
C.13 Schools, public or private, shall not be counted in meeting the Open Space
performance standards.
C.14 All mappable land set aside as Open Space shall be zoned Open Space.
C.15 At the time of any discretionary approval, any land set aside for its habitat or
scenic value shall have an appropriate easement and/or zoning placed on it for
resource protection.
C.16 Where feasible, panoramic viewpoints shall be identified and preserved for public
use.
C. 17 The City shall acquire, protect or negotiate for public access to lands that could
be used for passive recreational uses.
C.18 Open Space areas designated for recreational use should be accessible to the
public and should be provided with essential utilities, public facilities and
services.
C.19 Any development which may be permitted in areas identified as Open Space shall
be consistent with the Open Space and Conservation Resource Management
Plan.
IV-7
2. OBTAINING OPEN SPACE
A. GOALS
A. 1 Explore all means of providing for Open Space needs.
A.2 Assure new development provides for the Open Space needs of their occupants.
B. OBJECTIVES
B.1 To utilize Specific Plans, Master Plans and Public Facility Plans to refine and
implement the Open Space and Conservation Resource Management Plan.
B.2 To promote the development and preservation of Open Space and conservation
systems by developing methods of financing to acquire, preserve, and maintain
them.
B.3 To fund by General Obligation Bonds, if possible, a well-balanced acquisition
program providing a variety of Open Space opportunities spread throughout the
community.
B.4 To assure that, to the maximum degree possible, those benefiting from the
acquisition or improvement of Open Space and recreational facilities shall provide
furjding in direct proportion to the benefits they derive.
B.5 To encourage a combination of both private and public Open Space.
C. IMPLEMENTING POLICIES AND ACTION PROGRAMS
C. 1 Exactions from new developments shall include, but not be limited to, legislative
protection, Quimby Act dedication, park-in-Heu fees, industrial recreation fees,
setback requirements, the provision of essential improvements, and the adoption
of appropriate Local Facility Management Plans, Master Plans, and Specific
Plans.
C.2 An annual review of the methods and programs for acquiring Open Space and
parks in the City of Carlsbad shall be conducted and should include, specifically,
but not be limited to, the Quimby Act standards and the park-in-lieu fees.
C.3 Initiate, coordinate, and supervise specific implementation programs for both
short-range and long-range plans, including among other items the Capital
Improvement Program, Growth Management Plan, a financial plan, proposed
changes to the City's development regulations, and the acquisition of fee and less
than fee rights to land.
C.4 The City shall create a trust or other mechanism to facilitate private donations for
Open Space acquisitions, protection, improvements, or maintenance.
IV-8
C.5 The City shall encourage private donations for Open Space acquisition, protection,
improvement, or maintenance by placing the donors' names on permanent
markers at the sites of their gifts.
C.6 Where public funding is necessary for Open Space purposes, General Obligation
Bonds shall be considered a highly desirable source of funding.
C. 7 The City should consider the exchange of excess vacant lands for more desirable
Open Space areas.
C.3 The City shall consider appropriate user fees for non-residents utilizing Carlsbad's
Open Space and recreation facilities.
3. SPECIAL RESOURCE PROTECTION
A. GOALS
A. 1 Prohibit development on environmentally sensitive land and buffer areas.
A.2 Protect and preserve visually attractive and/or significant natural areas.
A.3 Preserve Open Space areas in as natural a state as possible.
•
* A.4 Preserve optimum sustainable environmental quality levels with respect to air,
water, sound levels, and plant and animal life.
A. 5 Preserve as Open Space, agricultural land, hillsides, ridges, valleys, canyons,
lagoons, beaches and other unique resources that provide visual and physical
relief to the cityscape.
B. OBJECTIVES
B. 1 To identify sensitive and constrained lands and prohibit their development and
inclusion for density credit.
B.2 To protect public health and safety by preserving natural and man-made hazard
areas as Open Space and taking special precautionary measures to protect the
public safety where development is possible and permitted.
B.3 To preserve highly visible agricultural areas that are particularly suitable for flower
production, and to encourage preservation of such areas where economically
viable.
B.4 To preserve areas of unique scenic, historical and cultural value.
B.5 To develop cultural/educational amenities within Open Space areas.
IV-9
C. IMPLEMENTING POLICIES AND ACTION PROGRAMS
C. 1 Utilize sensitive design criteria to preserve the unique and special resources in
the City and to integrate them into the design of any development.
C.2 Develop ordinances to define sensitive and constrained lands, and prohibit
development and density credit thereon.
C.3 Development on hillsides (if allowed) shall relate to the slope of the land in order
to preserve the integrity of the hillsides.
C.4 Designate for preservation as Open Space those areas that provide unique visual
amenities and define the urban form. These areas shall include agriculture,
hillsides, ridges, valleys, canyons, beaches, lagoons, lakes and other unique
resources that provide visual and physical relief to the cityscape by creating
natural contrasts to the built-up, manmade scene.
C.5 Consider for Open Space, hillsides, valleys and ridges during the approval of
Specific Plans, Master Plans and Planned Developments, and also at the time of
subdivision.
C.6 Designate as a buffer a percentage of land next to sensitive environmental areas.
A minimum required percentage to be established by a new standard.
C. 7 In developments near or adjacent to bodies of water, provide Open Space that
has public access to and views of the water.
C.8 Any grading, grubbing, or clearing of vegetation in undeveloped areas shall require
a City permit, with appropriate penalties for violations.
C.9 The City shall ensure that the improvements recommended for Open Space areas
are appropriate for the type of Open Space and the use proposed. No
improvements shall be made in environmentally sensitive areas, except to enhance
the environmental value of the areas.
C.10 Agricultural use shall be encouraged as a permissible land use in areas
designated as Open Space in non-environmentally sensitive areas.
C. 11 Prevent the premature elimination of agricultural land.
C.12 Use of the Williamson Act, land dedication, scenic easements, or Open Space
easements shall be pursued to preserve unique and special resources in the City.
C.I3 Utilize Master Plans and Specific Plans to preserve as Open Space highly visible
areas cultivated for flower production.
IV-10
4. TRAIL/LINKAGE SYSTEM
A. GOAL
A. 1 Encourage larger and connected Open Space areas rather than numerous and
disconnected areas.
A.2 Create natural and man-made links between Open Space areas.
B. OBJECTIVES
B.1 To address a Citywide and interconnecting trail system when considering and
reviewing local facilities management plans, major development applications and
applications involving potential linkage.
8.2 To ensure that there is continuity and environmental sensitivity in the routing and
design of the trail system.
8.3 To route trails near environmentally sensitive areas, with appropriate buffers or
fencing.
8.4 To provide trails that serve as pedestrian and bicycle transportation between
residential and commercial areas, as well as purely recreational uses.
C. IMPLEMENTING POLICIES AND ACTION PROGRAMS
C.1 The City shall establish a Citywide interconnecting trail system, primarily
pedestrian oriented but for bicycles where feasible.
C.2 The City shall participate with other north county communities to establish an
intercommunity Open Space linkage program.
C.3 When trails are proposed or required, the City shall obtain an irrevocable offer to
dedicate or a permanent easement for trailways where feasible.
C.4 The trail system shall be designed to serve both recreation and non-motorized
transportation purposes.
C.5 The trail system shall provide linkage from major recreation/Open Space areas to
other areas of activity, including but not limited to residential neighborhoods,
places of employment, schools, libraries, and viewpoints.
C.6 Trails shall be sensitive to surrounding land uses and shall normally be placed
at a significantly different elevation than adjacent residences.
IV-11
C.7 Major powerline easements may receive only partial credit and only when they
are enhanced or improved and provide key links in the trail system. The extent
of credit shall be determined by a new standard.
III. CONSERVATION ELEMENT
State Law
Under State Law (Section 65302(d) et.seq. California Government Code) cities must
adopt a conservation plan.
In order to enhance the relationship between residents and their surroundings and to
guarantee the viability of the natural and human ecosystems, the Conservation Element
must acknowledge and plan for the physical resources, the cultural resources, and the
natural processes within or around the jurisdiction. The following resource categories
must be included:
1. Water
2. Forests
3. Soils
4. Rivers and Other Waters
5. Harbors
6. Fisheries
7. Wildlife
8. Minerals
9. Other Natural Resources
In addition to those listed above, Carlsbad's Conservation Element also addresses the
issues of solid waste and sewage management.
A. GOALS
A. 1 Coordinate the conservation of natural and man-made resources with land use
for mutual enhancement.
A.2 Conserve optimum environmental quality levels with respect to air, water, sound
levels, and plant and animal life.
A.3 Prevent incompatible development of areas that should be reserved or regulated
for scenic, historic, conservation or public health and safety purposes.
A.4 Preserve an adequate amount and variety of unique conservation areas for nature
study.
A. 5 Protect wildlife habitat through the preservation and enhancement of feeding,
nesting, and breeding areas.
IV-12
A.6 Conserve and encourage the use of appropriate forms of vegetation and sensitive
grading techniques needed to: (a) prevent erosion, siltation and flooding, (b)
protect air and water resources, and (c) protect and enhance visual resources.
A. 7 Conserve Carlsbad's hillsides and ridges as important visual and natural features.
A.8 Integrate natural waterways and courses with other Open Space systems of the
City with a view toward maximizing the benefits of them to all citizens.
A.9 Coordinate the uses of water with available resources.
A. 10 Establish solid waste and sewage management programs.
B. OBJECTIVES
B. 1 To preserve natural resource by: protecting fish, wildlife, and vegetation habitats;
retaining the natural character of waterways, shoreline features, hillsides, and
scenic areas and viewpoints; safeguarding areas for scientific and educational
research; respecting the limitations for air and water resources to absorb
pollution; encouraging legislation that will assist logically in preserving these
resources.
8.2 To develop a cohesive policy and plan setting forth conservation goals and
guiding the systematic acquisition, protection, maintenance and financing of
conservation resources and providing an organizational structure to implement the
plan.
B.3 To utilize Specific Plans, Master Plans and Public Facility Plans to refine and
implement the Open Space and Conservation Resource Management Plan.
B.4 To promote the development and preservation of conservation systems by
developing methods of financing to acquire, preserve, and maintain conservation
programs.
B.5 To protect the unique variety of landforms distinctive of the City's topography and
ensure that the development process considers and strives to preserve these
landforms rather than create an unnatural, uniform landscape.
B.6 To preserve the identity of those areas of the City with unique topographic
features and establish proper soil management techniques to eliminate or
minimize adverse and unsafe soil conditions.
B.7 To manage agricultural land and prime soil as a natural resource and as a
significant contrasting land use to the urbanized environment of the City.
IV-13
B.8 To prevent the premature elimination of agricultural land and preserve said lands
wherever feasible.
8.9 To conserve, and protect the water resources including, but not limited to,
floodplains, shoreline, lagoons, waterways, lakes, ponds, and the ocean.
B.10 To conserve, develop and utilize the potable and gray water resources available
to the City of Carlsbad and manage development so that it does not exceed the
available resources.
B. 11 To manage the disposal or recycling of solid waste and sewage within the City
and regulate development so that it does not exceed available facilities.
C. IMPLEMENTING POLICIES AND ACTION PROGRAMS
C. 1 Grading shall be accomplished in a manner that will maintain the appearance of
natural hillsides and other landforms wherever possible.
C.2 Soil reports, plans for erosion and sediment control measures and provisions for
maintenance responsibilities shall be a requirement of any approval process.
C.3 Ordinances shall be developed and implemented limiting the density, intensity
and character of development of hillside areas and ridges and shall provide
standards for sensitive grading where development of hillsides is allowed.
C.4 Natural water resources in the City of Carlsbad shall be maintained in as natural
a state as possible by: (a) conserving or improving the appearance and ecology
of those which are in a relatively untouched condition; (b) restoring, in
accordance with recognized ecological principles and insofar as it is possible,
those water areas which have been significantly altered, to a condition which is
most beneficial to the public; and (c) simulating a natural condition in areas
which are to be altered in the future for purposes of safety engineering, water
conservation, or recreation.
C.5 Industrial waste, agricultural runoff, water softener discharges, domestic
detergents, and other forms of water pollution shall be prevented from entering
the storm drain system and polluting the City's water bodies.
C.6 Sensitive design criteria shall be utilized to protect the integrity of the water
resources in the City.
C.7 Alteration of waterways and water bodies that would cause significant adverse
impacts on the environment shall be prohibited.
C.8 Urban development shall take place in those areas that are the least agriculturally
productive.
IV-14
C.9 The City shall support and utilize all measures available, including the Williamson
Act, not only to prevent premature developments, but also to promote the
economic viability of agricultural uses.
C.10 Proper design criteria shall be utilized to maximize the preservation of agricultural
lands.
C.11 Landowners and interested citizens shall be provided with information about
agricultural preserves as established by the Williamson Act and shall be
encouraged to utilize it.
C. 12 The policies of the California Coastal Plan shall be recognized and implemented
when reviewing potential development in the coastal area.
C.13 The City shall assist other organizations in providing for their specific conservation
needs.
C.14 Growth Management standards shall be adopted to ensure the timely provision
of adequate potable water.
C.15 Growth Management standards shall be adopted to ensure the timely provision
of solid waste management and sewage disposal capacity.
IV. FRAMEWORK FOR AN OPEN SPACE AND
CONSERVATION RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
PLAN
1. INTENT OF PLAN
This section, including textual content, graphic presentations and
subsequent, mandated Open Space zoning requirements, constitutes a
framework for an Open Space and Conservation Resource Management
Plan. The intent of the Plan is to accomplish the goals, objectives and
policies of the elements and to focus City efforts for the preservation,
acquisition and maintenance of Open Space and conservation areas. The
Plan shall be structured to identify the resource areas and establish
standards for acquisition and development. The intent is to manage
properly the City's environmental resources and Open Space and to
develop specific criteria for the protection, maintenance and enhancement
of valuable natural, economic and cultural resources. Once the Plan is
formulated and adopted, it shall replace the framework as part of the Open
Space and Conservation Elements.
IV-15
2. DESCRIPTION OF OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION MAP AND
COMPREHENSIVE OPEN SPACE NETWORK MAP
The maps entitled "Open Space and Conservation Map" and
"Comprehensive Open Space Network Map" are conceptual
representations of Open Space and conservation intentions in the City.
As such, the areas identified on these maps shall constitute prime areas
for protection, acquisition and maintenance through the Open Space and
Conservation Resource Management Plan.
The Open Space and Conservation Map is comprised of the following:
(1) Existing and future Open Space and conservation areas as
presently shown on the General Plan Land Use Map including all
publicly-owned or dedicated Open Space lands (i.e., parks, Lake
Calavera, Macario Canyon and San Marcos Canyon).
(2) Additional areas of environmentally-sensitive lands which are
prohibited from development by the Open Space Ordinance
(Ordinance No. 9795). These lands include beaches, lagoons,
wetlands, floodways, other permanent water bodies, riparian areas
and steep slopes.
(3) Additional areas of Open Space which were obtained through the
Master Plan, Planned Development or development approval
process. Because of the scale of the map only the larger ones are
shown.
(4) The map also shows the areas of the City where additional Open
Space is required by the Growth Management Plan. Until the Local
Facilities Management Plans are prepared for the areas, the
specific location of the Open Space is not mapped but cannot
include environmentally-sensitive lands which are prohibited from
development by the Open Space Ordinance.
A formalized procedure shall be created for adjusting the boundaries of
any Open Space area shown on the map. Findings required for the
approval of a boundary adjustment to the map could include the following:
A. The Open Space area is of equal or greater area; and
B. The Open Space area is of equal or greater environmental quality; •
and
C. The boundary modification is made in order to provide an
enhancement to an environmentally sensitive area; and
IV-16
D. The adjusted Open Space is contiguous or within close proximity
to the Open Space shown on the Open Space Map.
E. The City Council may also modify the boundary location shown on
the Open Space Map but only if it finds that the modification is
necessary to mitigate a sensitive environmental area which is
impacted by development provided the boundary modification
preserves Open Space at a 2 to 1 ratio and is within close
proximity to the original area of Open Space.
City staff shall be given the flexibility to add to the Open Space and
Conservation Map new Open Space areas which may be created by
circumstances. Also, as more detail becomes available regarding Open
Space areas, the map shall be updated to reflect the additional level of
detail.
The Comprehensive Open Space Network Map is a graphic, conceptual
representation of a comprehensive linked system of Open Space. It
includes the following:
A. The larger, publicly-dedicated Open Space areas, community parks
and potential sites which would be linked together by the network.
B. Existing Open Space linkages.
C. Additional potential linkage routes. These potential links would
help to complete the overall network and could be used for trails,
natural Open Space buffers and peripheral greenbelts.
D. Potential linkage points with adjoining cities.
It is recognized that the potential linkage routes are not precise locations
and have not been preserved as public Open Space. It is proposed that
these links be obtained through compliance in meeting the City's Open
Space performance standards or through other means of public acquisition
or protection.
Public street rights-of-way or major powerline easements shall be used for
linkage in the network only if it is determined that no other desirable
alternative is available to the City without public purchase. Consideration
should be given to safety and aesthetics.
3. IMPLEMENTATION
Development of a viable plan for Open Space and Conservation Resource
Management requires a concurrent implementation program. Such a program
must identify public and private areas of cooperation and the tools needed to
IV-17
develop a plan. As such, this implementation program discusses existing sources
of funds for Open Space land, methods of preserving Open Space, existing land
use controls and a program for the implementation of a plan.
The preservation of Open Space often requires interference with the individual
property rights of the private land owner. It should also be understood that the
Plan cannot be implemented without some cost to the City, even if only the cost
of administration. However, as this section indicates, the City need not buy a fee
simple interest in every acre of land it wishes to preserve as Open Space. There
are other methods available to accomplish the same purpose.
This implementation section consists of four parts: A) A list of methods of
acquiring Open Space; B) A list of financing techniques; C) An acquisition and
financing matrix; and D) Recommendations for other actions to be undertaken by
the City in formulating a detailed implementation program for an Open Space and
Conservation Resource Management Plan. The methods for acquiring Open
Space and financing techniques are described in detail in the appendix section.
A) METHODS OF ACQUIRING OPEN SPACE
(1) Special Zoning
(2) Land Trusts/Conservancy
(3) Special District or Authority
(4) Williamson Act
(5) General Plan, Growth Management and Other Zoning Ordinances
B) FINANCING TECHNIQUES
(1) General Fund
(2) General Obligation Bonds
(3) Limited Obligation Bonds
(4) Senior Obligation Bonds
(5) Quimby Act Impact Fees
(6) Public Facilities Fee
(7) Tax Increment Financing
(8) Sales and Use Tax Increment
IV-18
(9) Mello-Roos Community Facilities Districts
(10) Revenue Bonds
(11) Certificates of Participation
(12) Benefit Assessment District
(13) User Fees
(14) Concessions
(15) Other Tax Revenue
(16) Private Grants or Donations
(17) State Grants
Several state grant programs exist which provide funds for Open Space
acquisitions or improvements, including the following:
1. Coastal Conservancy: Agriculture Preservation Projects
2. Coastal Conservancy: Coastal and Bay Public Access Program
3. Coastal Conservancy: Coastal Restoration Projects
4. Coastal Conservancy: Nonprofit Organization Assistance Program.
5. Coastal Conservancy: Enhancement Grants
6. Coastal Conservancy: Site Reservation Projects
7. Coastal Conservancy: Urban Waterfronts Restoration Program
8. Fish and Game: Public Access Program
9. Parks and Recreation: Land and Water Conservation Fund
Program
. 10. Resources: Environmental License Plate Fund
11. Proposition 70: Parks and Wildlife Initiative
12. Water Resources: Davis-Grunsky Act
IV-19
C; ACQUISITION AND FINANCING MATRIX
The matrix included herein illustrates the primary and secondary acquisition
and financing techniques recommended for different types of Open Space
in different types of planning areas. Three common types of planning areas
which have varying opportunities and constraints for Open Space
preservation are presented in the matrix:
Built-out communities with mostly small ownerships;
Undeveloped communities under multiple ownerships;
Undeveloped communities under large ownerships;
For each community type, five kinds of Open Space are identified:
Environmentally constrained land;
Visual Open Space;
Recreational land;
Agricultural land;
Trails.
D. OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF A PLAN
1. Coordinate the City's Open Space and Conservation efforts with those
of other affected agencies.
2. Conduct detailed analysis of archaeology, paleontology, geology,
hydrology, soils, plant and animal ecology, climate, and other
resources which are fundamental to the planning of a viable and
effective Open Space and conservation system.
3. Develop detailed demand estimates, space standards, and service area
criteria for all forms of Open Space, conservation, scenic highways and
recreation in the City.
4. Compare the full range of demands for various types of Open Space,
conservation, scenic highways and recreation lands with the inventory
of natural and man-made resources of the City.
IV-20
5. Develop a procedure by which the City can monitor and manage
the economic effects of actual change produced by public and
private sector development actions.
6. Prepare design standards for improvements to prototype site plans
and Open Space, conservation, scenic highway and recreation
lands.
7. Provide information to the public on estate, income, and property
tax and other matters relating to various forms of gifts to the City.
8. Within one year of adoption of these elements, the City shall
prepare an Open Space and Conservation Resource Management
Plan. The Plan shall be updated at least every three years after
adoption. The purpose of this plan shall be to optimize the benefits
of the City's unique features, setting and environment, and to
provide for the recreational, public health and welfare needs of the
population.
The Plan will consist of maps of the entire City on which will be
indicated all existing and proposed Open Space and conservation
areas, trails, and habitat links. The Plan will define standards for
Open Space and conservation facilities to be included in the
Growth Management Program and other City programs and
ordinances. The Plan will also include text -and graphics
describing each of the lands or locations, including the
approximate size of the sites, the purposes and functions they are
intended to serve, their current status of development and
ownership, their estimated costs, and the means recommended to
implement their inclusion in the system. These recommendations
shall describe the character of ownership desired, the financing
method to be used for the acquisition, the methods of
implementation, and the operational costs and responsibilities for
the facilities.
9. Undertake specific site evaluations with the intent of securing Open
Space easements in accordance with adopted policies and plans.
IV-21
10. The following is an Open Space inventory listing which shall be completed
as part of the Open Space and Conservation Resource Management Plan.
This list may be added to or modified in the future as deemed necessary.
Type of Open Space Quantity Now Quantity/Build Out Goal
- Ecological Preserves Under existing ordinances
- Streams (June 30, 1989)
- Lagoons, active:
skiing
wind surfing
canoeing
- Lagoons, passive
- Beaches: ocean
lagoon
lake
- Hillsides/canyons
- Woodlands
- Equestrian facilities
- Agricultural:
Flower fields
Greenhouses
Horticulture
Field Crops
- Aquaculture
- School Grounds
- Pks/Rec. Public:
soccer
tennis
golf
picnic
Softball
play apparatus
football
basketball
swimming
handball
skateboarding
- Pks/Rec. Private:
soccer
tennis
golf
picnic
softball
play apparatus
IV-22
football
basketball
swimming
handball
skateboarding
Utility Easements
Railroad Corridors
Arterial Setbacks
Trails:
walking
biking/skate bd & roller
equestrian
Campground:
public
private
Golf Courses:
public
private
Historic Areas
Paleontological Areas
Geological^ Areas (unique)
Greenbelt Buffers
IV-23
UJ
ouj 5
U iz n
UJ ^Si^ u
o u
E P
11
V)iu
< uZ >>fo »-IP§i< otcQ.
taaj
tpunj
aaj
•.'dO'D
tpuog -Q'9
i»a j jay
••j AIBP»J
punj
papaaN
uo|i>o|paQ pur) 13V
uof UI.IIHAA
o
o
*
*o
o
o
0
0
0o
*
*
—
o
o
o
*
o
oo
0
*
o
ooo
6
*
o
o
0
*o
oo
o
*
ooo
•Xo
•lnU %ST
g
og
g
*
o
o
g
g
*
*
Q
—
g
o
—
0
o
*
-
g
g
0
oo
0
0
*
o
0
oo
0
*
0
oo
*
*o
o
o
*
0
0ooo
**oo
o
0
0g
oo
*
o
o
g
oo
**
•n
*
—
—
o
o
o
—
o
*
*0
*
oo
*
o
0o
o
o*
o
o
oo
o*
o
0**
*o
o
—
o*
c
ooooooo*
o
—
o
o
1
o
—
0
Qs
o
o
-•
*
o
-
o
*oo
og
o
o
--
o
0>COIin
im
!1
in
O
I
c c
§•6
U)
2K
U
a.
aN
1
»
i D
S^
S i<z i —e t*
u
r!
* "Sit .1
£ i
I UJ
°
in
e
0° 1 §2U § -S
o 1U. i
,X »in ssn«4
ODU)
|
a•o
52
25 I -2 3 r
^° S "3 S 3 •• a>J*m •— a u .5s rs *sso ? .a Sj & 2 °Qoe i5 > a < H s§5 . • • . • £
IV-24
OPEN SPACE AND
CONSERVATION
MAP
CITY OF CARLSBAD
AUGUST 9, 1988
LEGEND
CD
The Open Space identified is
areas.The dimensions era general, and based on Ihe seals of the
map are not intended to represent precise or legal boundaries.
Zones Requring Supplemental Open Space
Requires an additional 15% of land area in this facility managemei
include any environmentaly constrained land.
0 1000 20OO 3000 5000
Buena Vista Lagooi
\ North Beacji
COMPREHENSIVE OPEN
SPACE NETWORK
MAP
CITY OF CARLSBAD
AUGUST 1989
OPEN SPACE, GREENBELT,
AND TRAIL LINKAGES
) '""Vf.ij;,,,,
I j ' \
5) Potential Pedestrian Crossing
Overpass/Underpass
^ Potential Intercity Link
••• Potential Primary Trail System
1000 20OO 3000 ' 5OOO \
SECTION V
APPENDIX
METHODS OF ACQUIRING OPEN SPACE
(1) Special Zoning
Special zoning is when a City uses its police power to apply restrictions to reduce the
intensity of development on a property and increase the level of required Open Space.
Special zoning actions include the following: floodplain zoning; ocean-submerged land
zoning; zoning to preserve scenic amenity (height limits, sign control, architectural
control, etc.); exclusive agricultural zoning, Open Space zoning; zoning for large lots
(estate zoning); and planned unit developments with Open Space requirements (cluster
development).
(2) Land Trusts/Conservancy
A land trust or conservancy is a private non-profit organization which uses some public
funds combined with private individual donations and foundation grants to acquire and
maintain Open Space. The most important activity of local trusts in the acquisition of
land facing development pressure, either currently or as the City expands. Another
opportunity for land trust activity is found in conservation easements. In these
arrangements, the trust arranges the easements. The trust is granted the development
rights on rural property, while the landowner holds leaseback rights for continued
farming. An advantage to this method of conservation is that the local government does
not assume responsibility for maintenance of the property. Moreover, the owner retains
the right to sell the land for Open Space uses.
There are approximately 40 rural land trusts in California, most of them in northern
California.
(3) Special District or Authority
The City may attempt to establish an Open Space Authority or Special District with the
power to issue bonds for Open Space acquisition. The authority or district may need
special state enabling legislation, particularly if granted taxing powers. The County of
Santa Clara recently attempted to form a joint-powers Open Space authority which could
raise excise taxes on property if approved by a simply majority. The state legislature
passed the enabling legislation, but the Governor vetoed the legislation, partly because
it did not require a two-thirds voter approval for the tax increase. Without the taxing
owners, debt issued by a special district or authority would have to be revenue bonds
or certificates of participation, perhaps funded by lease payments made by the City.
These revenue bonds or certificates of participation amortized by City lease payments
might not require voter approval. The City would have to find a source for funding the
annual lease payments.
IV-28
(4) Williamson Act
The Williamson Act currently is used in Carlsbad to preserve agricultural lands in the
City. The Williamson Act allows property owners to pay property taxes based on
agricultural use if it is maintained as agricultural land, even through the property has a
much higher economic use and value.
(5) General Plan and Zoning
The City of Carlsbad already has several zoning ordinances to protect Open Space, such
as the Open Space Ordinance, Growth Management Open Space 15 Percent
Performance Standard, the Hillside Ordinance, the Revised Planned Development
Ordinance, Residential and Industrial Park Land Dedication policies, as well as the Open
Space Element of the General Plan. Although zoning can preserve Open Space to some
extent, and be used to acquire Open Space through the subdivision approval process,
zoning must allow some economic use to property, whether that be agricultural use or
a use restricted to a certain portion of the property. Also, zoning is subject to change
over time, particularly in areas experiencing growth. Appropriate zoning is critical, but
does not guarantee permanent Open Space as well as public land ownership through
purchase and dedication.
FINANCING TECHNIQUES
(1) General Obligation Bonds
A City may issue general obligation bonds to acquire Open Space or park land and to
build facilities. Proceeds may not be used for maintenance and operations. Investors
consider general obligation bonds and the most secure form of tax-exempt bonds since
they are secured by an ad valorem tax on all taxable property (including commercial,
industrial, and residential) at any rate necessary to amortize the bonds; consequently,
interest rates are lowest for these types of bonds. The major difficulty of issuing general
obligation bonds is the ability to get the required 2/3rds voter approval.
(2) Limited Obligation Bonds
Limited obligation bonds are similar to general obligation bonds except that the bonds
are secured by a specified source of revenues a City already receives, including property
and sales tax. Taxes are not increased; consequently, funds that might be used for other
City functions are dedicated to these bonds. Limited obligation bonds also require
approval by 2/3rds of the voters.
(3) Senior Obligation Bonds
The Community Rehabilitation District Law of 1985 permits a City to rehabilitate capital
facilities, such as parks, by forming a community rehabilitation district in every area
except a redevelopment project area. The City may issue senior obligation bonds to
IV-29
finance these improvements with only a simple majority approval of the voters. To
secure payment, a portion of property tax revenue is dedicated to amortize the bonds.
(4) Quimby Act Impact Fees
The City already uses impact fees authorized by the Quimby Act to acquire and develop
park and recreation facilities. These fees are paid when parcels are too small to
dedicate land for parks, or when the City allows a property owner to pay the fee in-lieu
of dedicating land. The City is divided into four park districts bounded by El Cam/no
Real and Palomar Airport Road. Fees collected within these districts must be used for
the benefit of the respective districts.
(5) Public Facilities Fee
The City established the public facilities fee to finance the infrastructure, including parks,
needed to support new development The fee was designed so that developers pay for
their share of future improvements as development occurs. Currently, there is no
standard for Open Space under the public facility fee, but there is a standard for park
space. The City may add Open Space or develop a broader definition of park space to
include Open Space areas.
(6) Tax Increment Financing
Used within a redevelopment project area, tax increment financing is based upon ad
valorem property taxes generated from the increase in assessed valuation created by
new development and property turnover that occurs in the redevelopment project area.
The assessed valuation of the project is set at a base level during the year of plan
adoption. Each fiscal year following adoption of a redevelopment plan, a negotiated
portion of the taxes generated by the assessed valuation that exceeds the base year
level - the tax increment - is paid to the redevelopment agency and can be used for
eligible redevelopment activities. A City may use tax increment financing to develop
parks or acquire Open Space elements. Funds used for these purposes, however, do
not directly increase tax increment in the redevelopment project area, and would reduce
the amount of funds available for other redevelopment improvements.
(7) Sales and Use Tax Increment
A redevelopment agency can impose a sales and use tax of 1 percent or less on retail
sales and use of personal property, if the redevelopment agency operates in a City that
will give credit against its own sales and use tax for any taxes paid to the redevelopment
agency. Consequently, the imposition of this tax will not increase the tax burden on the
local community. This tax revenue can be used to develop park space or. acquire Open
Space in a redevelopment project area; however, bonds supported by sales taxes are
considered more risky than bonds supported by property tax increment.
IV-30
(8) Mello-Roos Community Facilities Districts
A community facilities district may be formed to provide for the purchase, construction,
expansion or rehabilitation of any property necessary to meet increased demands
resulting from development or rehabilitation occurring within the district. Facilities
financed by Mello-Roos include parks. Maintenance costs may also be funded by a
Mello-Roos District. Revenues are acquired through a special tax, and the district may
issue bonds secured by the proceeds of the special tax, subject to a two-thirds approval
of voters in the district. If the district contains less than 12 owners, such as a district
conterminous with a few large ownerships, votes are by acreage. Consequently, Mello-
Roos Districts normally are formed to finance improvements associated with new
communities.
(9) Revenue Bonds
Revenue bonds might be used to finance certain Open Space or recreation areas which
generate a revenue stream that is sufficient to secure a bond issue. Debt service
payments are met from charges placed on the users of the facility. For Open Space or
recreation facilities, a lease revenue bond may be more appropriate. This instrument is
typically issued by non-profit corporations or authorities to construct a public facility that
is leased to another public entity, such as a City, which holds a security position to make
lease payments that in turn cover debt service payments on the bond. A City may also
issue a lease revenue bond supported by lease payments made by a private entity, such
as a golf course operator or perhaps even an agricultural operation using public land
acquired in part by the proceeds from the revenue bond. A revenue bond requires a
simple majority approval of the voters, while a lease revenue bond, which does not
constitute indebtedness, can be authorized by a resolution of the issuer governing board.
(10) Certificates of Participation
Similar to lease revenue bonds, Certificates of Participation (COPs) are financed by lease
payments (with an option to purchase or a conditional sale agreement) to finance major
public projects including recreational facilities such as parks and golf courses. The City
leases the facility from a lessor such as a private leasing corporation, a non-profit
corporation, or another public agency. A financial institution pays the lessor cash for the
present value of future lease payments. The lessor uses the cash to finance
development of the facility. Investors purchase certificates of participation in the lease;
a trustee holds security, and an escrow agent collects the lease payments and distributes
them to the holders of the certificates of participation. A City may use general funds,
dedicated funds, or reimbursed revenue to make lease payments. COPs do not
constitute indebtedness under the state constitutional debt limitation and do not require
voter approval.
IV-31
(11) Benefit Assessment District
Benefit assessment districts are used to fund public improvements that benefit private
beneficiaries. Properties within the benefit area pay a proportional share based on their
proximity to the improvement, assessed valuation, the size or frontage of the parcel, or
some other measure proportional to the benefit received. Bonds may be issued secured
by the assessments. Maintenance assessment districts are established to maintain the
public improvements installed. Special assessment districts are not limited by
Propositions 13 and 4 (the Gann Initiatives). Special assessment financing is applicable
when the value or benefit of the improvement can be assigned to a particular set of
properties, and should not be used if the project is a public good for an entire
community. Examples of Open Space improvements that may be financed by
assessment districts include landscaping.
(12) User Fees
User fees may be imposed to finance on-going maintenance costs. Fees may include
parking fees, camping fees, recreation program fees, boating fees, etc.
(13) Concessions
Revenue from private concessions, such as restaurants, food outlets, private recreation
operations, etc. may be used to help finance maintenance and improvement costs
elsewhere in the park. Concessions are more applicable to active-recreation Open
Space.
(14) Other Tax Revenue
Revenue may be acquired by raising taxes as the Transient Occupancy Tax, Business
License, or an excise tax on certain items, and dedicating this revenue to the acquisition
and maintenance of Open Space.
(15) Private Grants or Donations
The City or community may establish a local conservancy or Open Space land trust and
seek private donations, foundation grants, and government grants for the acquisition and
restoration of Open Space. Donations may either be land dedication or cash
contributions. The non-profit organization might sponsor fund-raising drives such as
"purchase a square foot of Open Space."
(16) State Grants
Several state grant programs exist which provide funds for Open Space acquisitions or
improvements, including the following:
IV-32
1. Coastal Conservancy: Agriculture Preservation Projects
Established to work with property owners and local governments within the coastal
zone to find long term solutions to protect agricultural lands threatened by urban
development, using tools such as the transfer of development rights, purchase of
development rights, the purchase of easements, and realization of supplemental
land uses.
2. Coastal Conservancy: Coastal and Bay Public Access Program
Established to provide grants or loans for the construction of public access
facilities within the coastal zone.
3. Coastal Conservancy: Coastal Restoration Projects
Established to correct undesirable development patterns in the coastal zone by
restoring areas which affect the coastal environment or impeding orderly
development because of scattered ownerships, poor lot layout, inadequate parks
and Open Space, and incompatible land uses.
4. Coastal Conservancy: Nonprofit Organization Assistance Program.
Established to provide technical assistance to non-profit organizations and land
trusts, and to provide loans and grants to undertake projects designed to provide
access to facilities, restore coastal wetlands and other sensitive resources, and
to acquire parcels of land for agricultural protection, viewshed protection or related
purposes.
5. Coastal Conservancy: Enhancement Grants
Established to enhance and restore coastal habitat through conflict resolution,
acquisition of property including less than fee interests, and physical enhancement
of sites.
6. Coastal Conservancy: Site Reservation Projects
Established to acquire key coastal lands for parks, recreation, fish and wildlife
habitat, historical preservation or other scientific study. The Conservancy may
acquire the property and hold it until the local agency or nonprofit organization
has the funds to purchase the property from the Conservancy; thereby protecting
the land on an interim basis.
7. Coastal Conservancy: Urban Waterfronts Restoration Program
Established to assist local governments plan and provide waterfront development
and private investment in near-shore areas, and to encourage development of
high-priority land uses including public recreation and shore-line access.
IV-33
8. Fish and Game: Public Access Program
Established to acquire lands and develop facilities suitable for recreational
purposes, and that are adaptable for conservation, propagation and utilization of
the state's fish and game resources.
This is not a grant program, but instead facilitates state projects developed in
cooperation with local government. Examples include lake and stream
improvements, artificial marine reefs, trails, land and water acquisition for habitat
preservation, or wildlife protection and conservation.
9. Parks and Recreation: Land and Water Conservation Fund Program
Established to provide matching funds, 50 percent grants on a reimbursable basis,
to local agencies to assist in the acquisition and development of outdoor
recreation areas and facilities.
10. Resources: Environmental License Plate Fund
Established to support a variety of projects which help preserve California's
environment. For example, Oceanside received a $165,000 grant for the Buena
Vista Lagoon Nature Center.
11. Proposition 70: Parks and Wildlife Initiative
Passed in 1988 by statewide referendum, this initiative provides funds, supported
by bonds, to finance habitat restoration, park development, and wildlife
preservation.
12. Water Resources: Davis-Grunsky Act
There are seven types of assistance available to local agencies under this act for
construction projects related to dams and reservoirs, including grants for the part
of construction cost allocated to recreation and the enhancement of fish and
wildlife.
IV-34
VOLUME II
SECTION V
APPENDIX
REPORT OF THE
CITIZENS COMMITTEE FOR REVIEW OF
CARLSBAD'S OPEN SPACE PLAN AND PROGRAMS
JULY, 1989
City of Carlsbad
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
SECTION V. APPENDIX - VOLUME II
A. Staff/Consultant Reports... A - 1
B. Committee Minutes ... B - 1
C. Comments/Input From Public ... C - 1
D. List of Approved Motions ... D - 1
E. Matrix of Comparison with Other Cities ... E - 1
F. Financing Matrix ... F - 1
; SECTION V
r
A STAFF/CONSULTANT REPORTS
r
1
r
r
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
Summary of City of Carlsbad Open Space Provisions - undated... A - 1
Open Space Report to Citizens Committee to Study
Growth dated 6/27/88... A - 2
General Plan and Updated Open Space Element dated 2/8/89... A - 9
15% Open Space Performance Standard of Growth Management
Plan/Density Transfer and Clustering dated 2/8/89... A- 14
Carlsbad Open Space Review Comparative Studies wv'matrix-undated... A - 23
Methods of Acquisition and Funding - undated... A - 39
Carlsbad Agricultural Programs - undated... A- 51
Administration of Open Space dated 3/8/89... A - 69
Trait System dated 3/8/89... A - 76
Description/Purpose of Open Space Map dated 3/22/89... A - 80
Open Space Administration Systems dated 3/30/89... A - 87
A-ii
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SUMMARY OF CITY OF CARLSBAD OPEN SPACE PROVISIONS
General Plan - Shows generalized boundaries of presently designated
open space areas. The General Plan Map is not meant to reflect
I precise boundaries of open space areas and does not include all the
future open space areas that will result from the City's open space
provisions.
Open Space Ordinance - Restricts the development of certain
environmentally-sensitive, open space lands including beaches,
permanent bodies of water, floodways, steep slopes, wetlands,
riparian and woodland habitats and other significant environmental
areas as identified in the environmental review process. Prohibits
density credit for these lands.
Growth Management Open Space Performance Standard - Requires an
additional 15% of the total land area in each undeveloped facility
management zone to be set aside for permanent open space. The 15%
cannot include any environmentally-constrained land.
Hillside Ordinance - Greatly restricts the amount of grading that
can be done on hillside property. Limits the overall volume of
grading (maximum 10,000 cubic yards per acre), the height of cut
and fill slopes (maximum 30 feet) and the design of the grading
(contouring, building setback from canyon ridges). Prohibits
development of 40% slopes. Requires a Hillside Permit for any
project proposed on hillside land (15% or greater slope).
Natural Resource Inventory - Shows the generalized location of
significant natural resource lands in the City. The inventory map
is to be used as a tool for planning future open space areas, for
identifying environmentally-sensitive lands and for updating the
open space section of existing Master Plans.
(Revised Planned Development Ordinance - Requires all Planned
Residential Development (PRO) projects to provide 200 square feet
of common open space area per dwelling unit for recreational
purposes.
Residential Park Land Dedication - Increased the requirement for
park land dedication from 2 1/2 acres to 3 acres per 10000
population. Requires total park land dedication to be made with
the first final map in a Master Plan area rather than incremental
dedication.
I Industrial Park Land Dedication - Requires developers in the City's
• industrial corridor to construct or fund an open space area(s) to
provide recreational facilities for the employees working in the
I corridor.
MJHrkd
OSPROV.SUM
A-l
STAFF REPORT
DATE: JUNE 27, 1988
TO: CITIZENS COMMITTEE TO STUDY GROWTH
FROM: Planning Department
OPEN SPACE REPORT
Background
As part of the Land Use Element Review of 1985, the Citizens
Committee passed a motion that there was adequate open space
designated in the General Plan. At that time, the General Plan
Map designated approximately 4,500 acres as open space or less
than 20% of the total land area in the City.
There was a minority opinion on the Committee that there was
not adequate open space designated in the Plan.
The City Council eventually supported the minority opinion and
as part of the Growth Management Plan, a series of new open
space ordinances, requirements and standards were adopted. As
a result, the amount of open space will almost double (to
approximately 40%) from what the General Plan Map showed when
the Citizens Committee reviewed the Land Use Element in 1985.
Open Space Provisions of Growth Management Plan
As a result of the Citizens Committee recommendations, the
following open space standards and requirements were adopted
and incorporated into the Growth Management Plan.
1. Open Space Ordinance - Restricts the development of
certain environmentally-sensitive, open space lands
including beaches, permanent bodies of water, floodways,
steep slopes, wetlands, riparian and woodland habitats
and other significant environmental areas as identified
in the environmental review process. Prohibits density
credit for these lands.
2. Growth Management Open Space Performance Standard -
Requires an additional 15% of the total land area in each
undeveloped facility management zone to be set aside for
permanent open space. The 15% cannot include any
environmentally-constrained land. Examples of the areas
which would qualify for meeting the 15% requirement would
include greenbelts, pocket-parks, trails, increased
setbacks along scenic corridors, and open space links
between environmentally-sensitive areas. The 15% also
cannot include required community parks or school
playgrounds.
A-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
JUNE 27f 1988
CITIZENS COMMITTEE TO STUDY GROWTH
PAGE 2
I 3. Hillside Ordinance - Greatly restricts the amount of1 grading that can be done on hillside property. Limits
the overall volume of grading (maximum 10,000 cubic yards
I per acre), the height of cut and fill slopes (maximum 30
feet) and the design of the grading (contouring, building
setback from canyon ridges) . Prohibits development of 40%
slopes. Requires a Hillside Permit for any project
proposed on hillside land (15% or greater slope).
4. Natural Resource Inventory - Shows the generalized
location of significant natural resource lands in the
City. The inventory map is to be used as a tool for
planning future open space areas, for identifying
environmentally-sensitive lands and for updating the open
space section of existing Master Plans.
5. Revised Planned Development Ordinance - Requires all
Planned Residential Development (PRD) projects to provide
200 square feet of common open space area per dwelling
unit for recreational purposes. This requirement appliesIto residential projects that have smaller lots or attached
single family units. Because the City does not know how
many of these types of projects will be proposed in the
I future, open space land resulting from this requirement
has not been included in any of the estimates for total
projected open space in the City.
1 6. Residential Park Land Dedication - Increased the
requirement for park land dedication from 2% acres to 3
acres per 1000 population. In addition, requires total
I park land dedication to be made with the first final map
in a Master Plan area rather than incremental dedication.
. 7. Industrial Park Land Dedication - Requires developers in
I the City's industrial corridor to construct or fund an
" open space area(s) to provide recreational facilities for
the employees working in the corridor.
I In developing the new open space provisions of the Growth
Management Plan, considerable thought went into how open space
I could be increased without requiring the citizens of Calrsbad
to have to condemn, acquire or purchase otherwise developable,
privately-owned property. The first two provisions listed
above (1 Open Space Ordinance and 2 Open Space Performance
I Standard) are the key to addressing this issue. The Open Space
I Ordinance restricts the use of environmentally-constrained
A-3
JUNE 27, 1988
CITIZENS COMMITTEE TO STUDY GROWTH
PAGE 3
areas and no density credit is given. Most property owners
understand and agree that these areas should be restricted from
development. The Open Space Performance Standard requires an
additional 15% of land to be set aside for open space purposes.
Because this cannot be environmentally-constrained land and is
otherwise entirely developable, density credit is given. The
density credit for this 15% additional land area was calculated
into the dwelling unit limitation of Proposition E approved by
the voters.
Local Facilities Management Plans
Open space was determined to be an essential public facility
under the Growth Management Plan just like the other facilities
(i.e, sewer, water, circulation). As such, the Facilities
Management Plans for each one of the 25 zones into which the
City was divided must address open space. In preparing the
Facilities Management Plans, two open space items are
addressed: 1) The environmentally-constrained areas which are
restricted from development and excluded from density
calculations are more precisely identified. This is done using
a detailed 1:200 scale map; 2) the zone plan must show how the
15% additional open space performance standard will be met as
development occurs.
General Plan Map
The City's General Plan map shows the generalized boundaries
of presently designated open space areas. The map is not meant
to reflect precise boundaries of open space areas and does not
include all the future open space areas that will result from
the open space provisions of the Growth Management Plan. Many
of the areas will be revised and expanded as part of meeting
the Growth Management Open Space Performance Standard or as
part of the City's program to update all the existing master
plans.
Examples of Increased Open Space As a Result of
The Growth Management Plan
The three most recently approved Local Facilities Management
Plans provide examples of a comparison of the amount of open
space previously-designated on the General Plan Map and what
was actually required under the new open space provisions of
Growth Management. The three zone plans are Zone 11 (La Costa
Southeast), Zone 12 (La Costa Southwest) and Zone 19 (Hunt).
Exhibits A, B and C (attached) show an acreage comparison of
what was designated on the General Plan (G.P. Map) and what was
A-4
I
I
I
JUKE 27, 1988
CITIZENS COMMITTEE TO STUDY GROWTH
PAGE 4
I required as part of the approved Local Facilities Management
Plans (G.M.P.) for these three zones.
I For the three zones taken together, the total acreage is as
follows:
• 6.P. Map G.M.P Increase
• 743 Acres 1,850 Acres 1,107 Acres
I Cityvide Open Space Projection
I As a result of the Citizens Committee Review of the Land Use
Element in 1985 and the subsequent open space provisions of
the Growth Management Plan, staff has estimated that
approximately 10,000 acres or 38^% of the total land area in
I the City is projected to be set aside for open space uses.
• There are approximately 25,600 acres in the City. The
projected open space acreage projections are as follows:
I I. Presently shown on General Plan Map - 2,078 Acres
(Exclusive of environmentally-
_ constrained land)
• II. Constrained Land - 3,863 Acres
I III. 15% Performance Standard - 2,856 Acres
IV. Parks and Special Use Areas - 1.094 Acres
I Total 9,891 Acres
I
I
I
I
I
I
arb
Attachments:
Exhibits "A", "B" & "C"
A-5
EXHIBIT A
CL
2
d
CL
<
O.
d
A-6
EXHIBIT B
0.
2
O
! \ X N\X\ X\\ v'\\ x
K * x * >• ^ X V X * \ X X V fP* . \ "* V « % v v \ ^!\ \ \ \\\ \\ -,\\x\1
K ^ X ^ \ V-N \\.. . \ \ x\
- k\
\\\
X 'v \x. • \X
CL
<
C
1
Dj
O O O — o
I ! ! I
O O O O O
00 r>> <_: L") ^T COOfO CJ —
A-7
EXHIBIT C
o
CO 2?
rv
<n
0 2
CO
LJ
< §CL o
00 if
CJo
\v\\\\v, \\v\\\\\
kx
co
o
CN —
O O
a
s
o
> i
(spuosnogj.)
S3aOV
A-8
STAFF REPORT
DATE: FEBRUARY 8, 1989
TO: CITIZENS COMMITTEE TO STUDY OPEN SPACE
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
GENERAL PLAN AND UPDATED OPEN SPACE ELEMENT
I. The General Plan
California State Law requires each City to adopt a general plan
"for the physical development of the City." The role of each
community's general plan is to act as a "constitution" for
development, the foundation upon which all land use decisions are
to be based. It expresses community development goals and embodies
public policy relative to the distribution of future land use, both
public and private.
Preparing, adopting, implementing, and maintaining a general plan
serves to:
1) Identify the community's land use, circulation,
environmental, economic, and social goals and policies
as they relate to land use and development.
2) Provide a basis for local government decision making by
setting the goals and policies upon which all land use
ordinances and standards should be based.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1 3) Inform citizens, developers, decision makers, and other
cities and counties of the ground rules that will guide
development within the community.
I The general plan bridges the gap between community values and
actual physical decisions.
I The overriding goal of the Carlsbad General Plan is to provide for
the development of Carlsbad as a carefully planned, balanced
community that will provide its citizens with the full range of
(physical facilities and human services that will ensure a life of
quality for all.
This goal envisions a community composed of cohesive neighborhoods
and areas of varied size and socio-economic structure grouped
around an appropriate number of centers providing community
services in a safe, attractive, pollution-free environment, based
on a sound, viable economy.
A-9
State Law provides that the general plan roust address seven
elements (Government Code Section 65302). These and the issues
each embodies are briefly summarized below:
The Land Use Element designates the general distribution and
intensity of uses of the land for housing, business, industry,
open space, public buildings and other categories of public
and private uses. The Land Use Element provides a plan to
guide the physical development of the City in an orderly,
functional and compatible manner.
The Circulation Element is correlated with the Land Use
Element and identifies the general location and extent of
existing and proposed major thoroughfares, transportation
routes, and pedestrian and bicycle routes. The goal for the
circulation element is to provide a safe, realistic and
integrated circulation system compatible with the existing and
proposed land use pattern of the City.
. The Housing Element is a comprehensive assessment of current
and projected housing needs for all segments of the community
and all economic groups. In addition, it embodies policy for
providing adequate housing and includes action programs for
this purpose.
. The Open Space and the Conservation Elements address the
conservation and use of natural resources. They also detail
plans and measures for preserving open space for natural
resources, for the managed production of resources, outdoor
recreation and public health and safety. Although they could
be separate elements, the Open Space and the Conservation
Elements are combined because they are so directly related.
. The Noise Element identifies and appraises noise problems
within the community. Its goal is to minimize the impact of
noise pollution by providing compatible land use alternatives
and reducing the level of noise wherever possible.
The Safety Element establishes policies and programs to
protect the community from risks associated with floods, fires
and other major disasters.
Besides the general plan elements listed above, local governments
may adopt any other optional elements addressing subjects which
they believe are important to the physical development of the City.
Carlsbad's General Plan also contains six optional elements which
are as follows:
The Public Facilities Element requires that adequate public
services and facilities are provided as growth occurs to meet
the needs of the existing and future population of the City.
A-10
I
I The Parks and Recreation Element identifies the means by which
the City will plan, develop and provide quality park
(facilities and recreational programs to ensure that the
citizens are afforded the opportunity to enjoy optimum leisure
experiences.
I . The Scenic Highways Element identifies major roads in the City
• which should be considered for official designation as scenic
routes so that the public's view along the roads is protected
I and enhanced.
The Geologic and Seismic Safety Element identifies plans to
(reduce the loss of life, injuries, damage to property, and
economic and social dislocation resulting from geologic and
seismic hazards.
I The Arts Element recognizes that the arts are a part of the
cultural and aesthetic environment and that the City needs to
create a climate which encourages artistic development.
I . The Historic Preservation Element recognizes that historic
preservation is a valuable asset to the City and that the
I management and preservation of the community's legacy of
I sites, structures and resources is important.
Although the Land Use Element has the broadest scope of all the
(elements and, in theory, plays the central role of correlating all
land use issues into a set of coherent development policies, all
elements of the General Plan carry equal weight, must be consistent
I and relate to each other and should all be used in making decisions
regarding development and in guiding the future direction of the
City.
I Zoning is the primary mechanism for implementing the general plan.
The zoning ordinance regulates land use by dividing the community
into districts or "zones" and specifying the uses which are to be
(permitted and/or prohibited within each district. Land uses of
compatible intensity are grouped together. A text and map(s)
describe the distribution and intensity of land uses in such
- categories as residential, commercial, industrial and open space.
I Written regulations establish standards for minimum lot size,
' building height and setback limits, fence heights, parking, and
other development parameters within each land use zone and, where
(applicable, as they apply to all zones. Other examples of zoning
include specific plans and master plans. In contrast to the long-
term, goal-oriented outlook of the general plan, zoning focuses on
I the immediate uses of land. Zoning of individual properties in the
City as well as all ordinances and standards pertaining to zoning
must be consistent with the general plan and all its elements.
A-ll
Finally, when individual projects are reviewed they must comply
with the City's zoning ordinance and standards and be consistent
with the general plan.
The easiest way to summarize the role of the general plan and each
one of its elements in the decision-making process is to describe
it as a three level or three step approach. First, the general
plan establishes the goals for planning and land use in the City.
The ordinances and standards are the action programs and policies
that implement the goals. Finally, decision-making on individual
projects is reviewed in light of compliance with the standards.
All levels or steps in the process must be consistent in order for
community land-use values and desires to be achieved.
A few words probably need to be mentioned here about maps and
diagrams contained in the general plan and its elements. General
plan maps or diagrams are graphic expressions of the plan's goals,
objectives or action programs. Although a diagram or map must be
consistent with the general plan text, it is not typically meant
to have the same regulatory nature as written ordinances, standards
or policies or to be parcel specific. This is primarily because
of the scale of the diagrams or maps. The California Attorney
General included the following definition of a diagram in a 1984
opinion (67 Cal.Ops.Atty.Gen. 75, 77):
A "diagram" is commonly defined as "a graphic design that
explains rather than represents: a drawing that shows
arrangement and relations." (Webster's New World
Internat. Diet. (3d ed. 1966) p. 622.) " 'A diagram is
simply an illustrative outline of a tract of land....At
best, it is but an approximation.1" (Burton v. State
(Ala. 1897) 22 So. 585, 586.)
Carlsbad's present General Plan was adopted in 1974. Since that
time, numerous refinements and updates to most of the elements have
occurred although no comprehensive, integrated review of the entire
General Plan had ever taken place since its original adoption.
However, between January and June of 1985, a 25 - member citizens
committee comprehensively reviewed the Land Use Element and made
numerous recommendations which subsequently reshaped the foundation
for land use policy and decision-making in Carlsbad. In late 1985,
the City Council decided to create a new Growth Management Plan.
Most of the citizens committee recommendations have been
consolidated into the Growth Management Plan. In November of 1986,
the Growth Management Plan was placed on the ballot and was
ratified by the voters of Carlsbad.
In 1988, the City Council approved having a subcommittee of the
Planning Commission update and reformat the General Plan so that
it reflects all current planning policies and programs, recent
changes in state law, is easier for the public to understand and
to ensure internal consistency between all the elements.
A-12
I
I Objectives and implementing programs that had already been
accomplished were also deleted. This update will be completed in
I early 1989.
II. Updated Open Space Element
I The existing Open Space and Conservation Element was adopted as
* part of the original General Plan in 1974. It has been updated as
part of the Planning Commission subcommittee work mentioned aboveIin Section I and has been forwarded to the Open Space Committee for
review. The update consisted of the following:
I I) Reformatting to be consistent with all the other elements.
The format is to have all the text of the element separated
into three sections: Goals, Objectives and Implementing
Policies and Action Programs.
I 2) Deleting outdated information and references. Also deleting
excess or unnecessary verbiage so that the element is more
I understandable and readable for the public.
3) Adding or rewording goals, objectives or policy statements to
I better reflect the new open space programs and ordinances
I which have been adopted since 1986 including the Open Space
' Ordinance, the Hillside Ordinance and the Growth Management
Plan.
I
I
4) Replacing previous diagrams/maps with the updated Open Space
Map.
The Open Space and Conservation Element fits into the overall land
use decision-making process according to the same three step or
three level approach summarized in Section I. Like the other
I elements of the General Plan, the Open Space and Conservation
I Element needs to identify the City's goals and policies regarding
the protection of natural resources and the provision for open
I space in the City. The City's open space programs and ordinances
explained by staff at the Open Space Committee's meeting of January
11 and 25, 1989 must reflect, be consistent and implement the
I element. Then, when individual development projects are reviewed,
I they must comply with the open space ordinances and standards.
Staff will be available to answer any specific questions about the
I updated element at the committee's meeting on February 8, 1989.
I
I
I
I
It is not necessary for the committee to take any action on the
element at this time. Once the committee has addressed the other
topics included in the work plan, a recommendation on the updated
element would be appropriate.
arb
argpos.sr
A-13
•-U
STAFF REPORT
DATE: FEBRUARY 8, 1989
TO: CITIZENS COMMITTEE TO STUDY GROWTH
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
15% OPEN SPACE PERFORMANCE STANDARD OF GROWTH MANAGEMENT
PLAN/DENSITY TRANSFER AND CLUSTERING
The 15% additional open space requirement of the Growth Management
Plan was created as a result of the City Council concurrence with
the minority report of the 1985 Land Use Committee's finding that
the General Plan did not provide for enough open space. At that
time, the open space designation of the Land Use Map provided for
17% of the City's total land area as open space. From a legal and
practical perspective based on the additional 15% standard on two
principals. First, open space was determined to be an essential
public facility just like sewer, water or circulation which needed
to be provided as growth occurs in the City. Open space became one
of the eleven public facilities of the Growth Management Plan for
which performance standards were established. Second, in order to
require the additional 15% of otherwise fully developable land
without having to purchase it, density credit is given so that the
number of dwelling units permitted by the properties underlying
zoning could be placed on another portion of his property (i.e,
density transfer) . In this regard, it should be noted that the
Zoning Ordinance requires a finding to be made that the resulting
density transfer is compatible with surrounding properties and
densities. This was based on a recommendation from the 1985
Citizens Land Use Committee.
It is staff's belief that the amount of open space now required
under the Growth Management Plan can be achieved without having to
buy it, but also that the City has pushed to the limit what can be
achieved without a monetary acquisition program. If additional
open space is desirable, staff would recommend that alternative
purchase/acquisition programs be recommended.
In terms of what types of open space qualify for meeting the 15%
standard of the Growth Management Plan, it cannot be land that is
considered a natural resource that is classified as
environmentally-sensitive under the open space ordinance. When the
Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan was adopted by the City
Council as part of the Growth Management Program in 1986, it listed
the types of open space that could qualify as meeting the 15%
standard. The excerpt from the Citywide Plan regarding this item
is attached as Exhibit "A" to this report. These included common
open space areas in Planned Developments (PRD's), homeowner's-
maintained pocket parks and major power line easements when they
are enhanced or improved with open space uses. Allowing homeowner
A-14
I
I
I
I
association-maintained common recreation areas and pocket parks to
be used to meet the 15% Growth Management standard was again, a
response to a recommendation of the 1985 Citizens Committee. While
they supported the City's program of building and maintaining
larger community parks, they also encouraged the idea of smaller
neighborhood, pocket parks but to have them be maintained by
homeowners associations. Since the time of the adoption of the
Citywide Plan, staff has also recommended allowing the following
types of open space uses to meet the 15% standard as part of LocalIFacility Zone Plans: 1) Increased setbacks along major roads if
they are landscaped and enhanced with improvements such as
separated pedestrian/bicycle trails; 2) Open space linkages between
I environmentally-sensitive resources and 3) Preserving canyon areas
that are not steep enough to be prohibited from development by the
Open Space Ordinance.
I The use of clustering development to increase open space on
otherwise developable land is a traditional and well-established
land use concept. Attached as Exhibit ""B" to this report are some
I graphics that display how clustering residential development can
be used as a flexible planning tool to encourage good subdivision
design and increase open space. Again, under the City's zoning
_ ordinance, clustering of residential development can be approved
I only if a finding can be made that it is compatible with the
• density of adjoining properties.
arb
• a:growth.sr
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Attachments!
Exhibit "A"
Exhibit "B"
A-15
EXCERPT FROM CITYWIDE FACILITIES AND IMPROVEMENTS PLAN
ii. A table and/or map indicating the number
of existing and proposed dwelling units
outside the five minute response time of
existing station.
The plan should include:
i. A map and table (acres) showing all
existing land to be considered as open
space. Such areas might include pocket
parks, homeowners ball fields, planned
residential development (PRO) common
areas, golf courses, tot lots, swimming
pools, tennis courts or other areas
containing passive or active recreational
facilities, such as major power line
easements. Where any portion of the zone
is to be developed with large lot,
standard single family development
(minimum 7,500 square foot lots), the
amount of open space may be
proportionately modified.
ii. When known, a map and table indicating all
proposed future open spaces. If possible
relate these spaces to specific property
ownerships or developments. Where
feasible, the plan should inventory any
sites within the zone that are
particularly suited to open space use and
that will enhance the overall livability
within the zone.
SCHOOLS
List the name of the service agency(s) for the
zone. If more than one agency serves the zone,
list each agency, and include a map showing each
agency's service area. Service agencies include
San Dieguito Union High School District,
Encinitas Union Elementary School District, San
Marcos Unified School District, and Carlsbad
Unified School District.
The plan should include a map of existing and
proposed elementary, junior high and high
schools serving the zone. For each school show
current and projected enrollment and rated
capacity. Indicate assumptions used such as
students per household.
A-16
EXHIBIT "AJ
I
I
I CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT
I
I
Development that allows the reduction of lot sizes below the zoning
I ordinance's minimum requirements and the concentration of the
development potential (density) on a portion of the property rather
than spreading the development over the entire site. The benefit
to the community is that the portion of the site not built-on isIleft in open space. The benefit to the developer is that the
density permitted by the zoning for the site can still be achieved.
I If used correctly, to achieve a good design, cluster development
can be an effective planning tool for both the community and the
city. Cluster development is sometimes called "performance zoning"
_ and the attached exhibits from a book on the subject demonstrates
I in simple graphics the concept of cluster development.
Reference - Performance Zoning by Lane Kendig, American Planning
Association.
EXHIBIT "B"
A-17
ctoo
• rH
CD
Q
*H0>
uI
Oo
U
C
O)
Co
U
J3
O
•H I 1.
| 1 jl" ^ ^---j££3
i-a«.g>£Spl!-a-SB-;Hiiilliiji;^]i!lH^I4Si="r?.E^23i^B1l^2ii:«i:Sig^2-if5|
~ «'i Is s i*5 s-z§"2 IfjsJsll'S tlijisii u
A-18
I
I
\
I -i-H
I 0
§
O
tn
"3 3 3 gS •» si, 8
S «™ "' 2 ° u>3 S.-2
t!•8»-5 "o
s B i = 1
'! 32|
^ i •* I
lili
A-19
u
w
3 3
*-Svi
n
•
U •£ £ =
A-20
I
I
I
f£j|j|
* |1i*§ §
1^1|IfI
l|3 n H^ e 2 .s « 8
Jj | i | 1 I .
*!!!?*§ll-!*2S_j -o .8 is, > .S «
A-21
u
52oN
2O
iw
2
OU
2
2
ONwU2
esUJCu
x K.
-a
£ g T * |3: ft. a i c
B .5 § c*r ^ .2 ft
11
1111 S g3 i i-3 S -5.£!.§o_<j j: o
_ t< **
|!i41.(A .-.•> C
c ~ I
1 "S I
S - a
« .S x* 5 ..S i «•> •«i§siii!i S
-£ S1*1i'iE H oo -o fcS 2 B.
S « • M•£ g -. c•s s-° i
«l
III
•OS >-S^ °S« * s .5 g t> e -o
£ ^ S I 5 £ 8 S
A-22
I
881356/COMPSTUS
I CARLSBAD OPEN SPACE REVIEW
Comparative Studies
Introduction
I . Consistency Requirement; Open Space Definitions
• . Legal "Protection
Open Space Systems
I . Opportunities for the City of Carlsbad
Summary
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
A-23
I
COMPARATIVE STUDIES
Introduction
In order to gain an understanding of a range of approaches to open space planning in
California, studies have been made into 14 different cities from the San Diego to the San
Francisco regions. The list purposely included cities with a divergence of characteristics:
both high and low economic base; a range of landscape types; built out cities, as well as new
cities facing rapid growth. In spite of the diversity of contexts, a great deal of similarity
was found amongst the various cities' planning endeavors.
From the analysis and review conducted, there would seem to be two main interrelated reasons
for the similarities:
Consistency requirement
Legal protection
Consistency Requirement; Open Space Definitions
Constitutional and Legislative Context
Definitions of Open Space
All cities in California are required by law to define and document their philosophy and
approach to the "...physical development of the city." The broadest such document is the
general plan which contains, amongst much other material, goals and policies relating to and
defining the jurisdiction's approach to open space.
General plans are broken down into a number of required "elements" and possibly some optional
"elements." Since 1970 inclusion of an open space element has been mandatory; it is here that
explicit definitions of a city's approach to open space may be found. (Parks and recreation
elements, pertaining to a specific type of open space are optional.) The history of adding
open space elements to the "required" list gives insight to a pervasive tradition of open
space definition.
The origin of a mandatory open space element may be traced to the addition in 1966 of Article
XXVII to the California Constitution. This article, voted in by the State's electorate, is
intended to provide for open space needs and states in part:
"The people hereby declare that it is in the best interest of the state to
maintain, preserve, conserve, and otherwise continue in existence open
space lands for the production of food and fiber and to assure the use and
enjoyment of natural resources and scenic beauty for the economic and
social well-being of the state and its citizens..."
In response to this declaration, the State legislature in 1970 added Chapter S, Article 105,
Section 65560 through 65568 entitled, "Open Space Lands" to the Government Code of the State
of California. It was this legislation which required all cities in California to prepare and
adopt an open space element for their general plans. This legislation also established a
definition and classification system which has since been adopted state-wide in open space
planning.
A-24
I
1
The legislative definition of open space is "...any parcel or area of land or water which is
essentially unimproved and devoted to an open space use...", a definition which is quoted
directly in Carlsbad's Revised Open Space Element. The Code further elaborates on this
definition with a breakdown into:
Open space for the preservation of natural resources,
Open space used for the managed production of resources,
Open space for outdoor recreation, and
Open space for public health and safety.
The 1985 Citizens Committee for the Review of the Land Use Element Pertaining to Open Space
recommended this exact wording be adopted as a definition of open space in the Land Use
Element and that all future master plans should address all four categories. This
recommendation was followed and the definition was adopted, in 1987, into the Municipal Code
under Ordinance No. 9838.
This fourfold definition, clearly derived from the Constitutional Article, is also found
quoted directly in almost every city's open space element including Carlsbad's where it may be
found on Pages 3 - 4 of the Revised Open Space Element
1. Open space for the preservation of natural resources including, but not limited to:
a. areas required for the preservation of plant and animal life, including habitat for
fish and wildlife species;
b. areas required for ecologic and other scientific study purposes;
c. rivers, streams, bays, lagoons and estuaries;
d. coastal beaches, lakeshores, banks of rivers and streams, and watershed lands .
2. Open space used for the managed production of resources, including but not limited to:
a. forest lands, rangeland, agricultural and horticultural lands;
b. areas required for recharge of ground water basins;
c. bays, estuaries, marshes, rivers and streams which are important for the management
of commercial fisheries;
d. area containing major mineral deposits, including those in short supply.
3. Open space for outdoor recreation, including but not limited to:
a. areas of outstanding scenic, historic and cultural value;
b. areas particularly suited for school playgrounds, park and recreation purposes,
including access to lakeshores, beaches, lagoons, rivers and streams;
c. areas which serve as links between major recreation and open space reservations,
including utility easements, banks of rivers and streams, trails, scenic highway and
railroad corridors.
A-25
d. areas which buffer between land uses and [provide] separation from surrounding
communities.
4. Open space for public health and safety, including but not limited to:
a. area which require special management or regulations because of hazardous or special
conditions such as safety zones in the vicinity of airport, earthquake fault zones,
steep slopes, unstable soils areas, flood plains, watersheds;
b. areas presenting high fire risks;
c. areas required for the protection of water quality and water reservoirs;
d. areas required for the protection and enhancement of air quality.
This extended definition clearly identifies the wide variety of open spaces and functions
which open space may serve. In spite of the range and comprehensiveness of the definition all
the cities1 studied have open spaces correlating to all four definition areas.
Evidence suggests that the legal requirement for consistency of local regulations with state
legislation been a major cause of the similarity of definitions of open space employed by
cities in California.
Legal Protection
Land Use Regulation and the Taking Issue
Beyond the straightforward consistency requirement there is also a more subtle reason behind
the direct derivation of cities' definitions from state legislation: the need to protect
local land use regulations from legal challenge.
A central aspect of almost every piece of land use legislation is the fundamental legal
question: what are the constitutional limits to the control of private land? As the
regulation of land use becomes an increasingly important component of programs for enhancing
environmental quality, the constitutional parameters within which land use regulations must
operate become increasingly important.
The "taking clause" of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution poses a
significant restraint on the regulation of land use:
"...nor shall private property be taken for public use without just
compensation."
The critical distinction lies between a valid regulation of the use of land and a "taking"
that requires compensation, (i.e., Between a legal exercise of a regulatory police power and
a case of eminent domain.) The definition of the dividing line has changed over time; the
difficulty of defining the divide is the root of the problem of often being unable to easily
predict judicial attitudes to local regulations.
The concept of "taking" may found in medieval England from where it descended through British
and colonial American history, to its adoption in the United States Constitution. Since then,
a number of Supreme Court decisions in the 19th century and major judicial expansions of the
taking clause have shaped its usage.
A-26
From a jurisdictional perspective land use regulations are a potent weapon in the battle to
solve environmental problems, but at the same time there is a pervasive fear that the
regulations could be challenged in court as an unconstitutional taking of property without
compensation. This fear lies behind a long history of disputes where jurisdictions have
compromised with developers regarding environmental regulatory control of development.
The emergence and eventual establishment of the concept of a taking in English history may be
seen as a flexing of Baronial muscle, specifically against the power of the Monarchy to
requisition land virtually at will, as part of the ascendancy of Parliament over Crown. By
the time of significant migration to and colonization of the new world, "...the colonists were
fresh from the victory of property rights over the royal prerogative of seizure." (Ref: The
Taking Issue, p. 80)
A long history of colonial constitutional debate and lawmaking led, in 1777, to the "...first
American declaration of the principle of just compensation for the taking of land...in
Vermont's constitution: ...private property ought to be subservient to public uses when
necessity requires it; nevertheless, whenever any particular man's property is taken for the
use of the public, the owner ought to receive an equivalent in money." (Ref: The Taking
Issue p. 94.) The concept of just compensation made its progression to the United States
Constitution via the pen of Madison in what is now the Fifth Amendment.
Regarding the attitude to the concept of what constituted a taking at the time of the
ratification of the Fifth Amendment,
"...at least one thing is clear the draftsmen were not troubled by any
issue involving regulation of the use of land. Such regulations had been
standard practice in England and throughout colonial times and seem to
have provoked no serious controversy. There is no evidence that the
founding fathers ever conceived that the taking clause could establish any
sort of restrictions on the power to regulate the use of land." (Ref:
The Taking Issue, p. 104.)
During the period before the Civil War the United States Supreme Court upheld the principle
that for compensation to even be considered "...the property must be actually taken in the
physical sense of the word." (Ref: The Taking Issue, p. 114.) In other words, mere
regulation of land use would not be considered just cause for compensation. Toward the end of
the 19th century a similar position was still being adopted but there were strong calls for a
wider interpretation of what constituted a "taking."
The redefinition of what constituted a taking is closely connected with the decisions in the
early 20th century of Justice Oliver Wendall Holmes. A critical point in the history of
"taking" was Holmes' decision (in Pennsylvania Coal vs. Mahon) in late 1922 which has become a
keystone in all following "taking" law. Whereas previous court decisions had viewed the
police power of land use regulation, and the taking of land under eminent domain as two
separate concepts, Holmes established the new perspective of seeing the two concepts as poles
on a sliding scale:
"The general rule at least is, that while property may be regulated to a certain extent, if
regulation goes too far it will be recognizes as taking." (Ref: The Taking Issue, p. 136).
This left the law in a position where every case would have to be decided on its own
particular facts; it is not possible to define the division line in a general way. It is also
clear by this time that a taking could occur where the value of land was reduced even if no
physical taking occurred.
A-27
Cases involving open space dedication requirements, dedication in-lieu fees requirements, and
low density zoning have all been decided on both sides of the fence. The current situation,
then, is that the line between noncompensatory land use regulation and a taking requiring
compensation is continually shifting both over time and case by case. Generally one may
assume that there is a likelihood that an increasingly conservative court will support to
rights of property over public needs. It also seems that the courts closely reflect public
consciousness. For example, public awareness of the critical ecological sensitivity and value
of wetlands is reflected in court decisions which uphold noncompensatory land use regulations
even where no possible economic use of the land remains. This is contrary to more normal
decisions which insist on at least some possibility of economic land use if a taking is not to
have occurred.
Most recently there has been one decision which has impacted dramatically on the inclination
of jurisdictions to impose land use regulations where a taking might be involved. The
Lutheran Church case came down heavily in support of property rights but most importantly set
a new precedent. Previously, if a piece of land use regulation was deemed unconstitutional,
the community had two principal options: to provide compensation or to restore the deprived
property rights. In other words, the most the community had to fear was having to rollback to
its earlier regulatory position. However, in the Lutheran Church case, it was held that
compensation was due immediately to the plaintiff in addition to restoration of the property
rights. Communities must now face the possibility, in all cases where new land use
regulations are deemed to constitute a taking, of paying compensation of temporary loss of
property rights.
The imposition of new land use regulations clearly carries a potential monetary
consideration: the City is subject to legal challenge involving compensation over the
imposition of land use regulations. At present, for example, the City of Carlsbad is being
sued for removal of development rights in a property adjacent to Buena Vista Lagoon. While
the City anticipates a successful defense, regulations not clearly reasonable and relevant to
goals which in turn must be consistent with state law would not be easy to defend.
Regulations which can be clearly shown to relate to public health and safety nearly always
gain the support of the courts. Thus, for example, the control of development in floodplains
is generally a safe area of regulatory action. Other aspects of open space regulation,
however, are not subject to such certainty.
Further, with regard to open space, in order to protect themselves from adverse litigation
communities are very likely to adhere closely to state legislative definitions. The issue of
a "taking" therefore not only heavily constrains the actions of communities with regard to
open space planning but also tends to lend similarity to various cities' open space planning.
A-28
I
I
I
I
I
Land Use Regulation Taking
for the Public Good
I
POLICE POWER EMINENT DOMAIN
I
No Compensation Requires Compensation
e.g. Offstreet Parking < ? Open Space ? > e.g. Land Taken for
Requirements Planning Highway
I <
Sliding Scale
I
Figure 1. Open Space Planning: Regulation vs. "Taking"
I
I
(It should be noted that the text regarding the taking issue is substantially derived from a
review of the book, The Taking Issue: An Analysis of the Constitutional Limits of Land Use
Control written for the Council on Environmental Quality by Fred Bosselman, et al. Reference
was also made to Windfall for Wipeouts: Land Value Capture and Compensation. An Executive
Summary, prepared by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the issue was
discussed with the City of Carlsbad's Attorney's Office. Any decisions made regarding land
use law should, of course, be subject to the review of a competent legal authority.)
A-29
881356\OPSPSYS
Open Space Systems
While there is a great deal of similarity between the various cities with regard to
definitions of open space and the general context of their open space planning, there are
nevertheless divergences in the kind of open space systems and the mechanisms being employed.
The comparative studies matrix (Figure 2) summarizes the kinds of ordinances and policies
different cities have adopted. The chart also indicates where the information could be
ascertained, the amount of open space in each city. The patterns of interest which seem to
stand out in comparing Carlsbad with other cities include:
All cities have an open space element as it is legally required. When Carlsbad's
element is adopted, it will be amongst the most up-to-date. (Some of the other cities
are also in the process of or approaching revisions to their open space elements.)
Cities which do not have a parks and recreation element include policies regarding open
space recreation issues in their open space element. The preparation of a separate
parks and recreation element, a parks master plan, and a trails master plan, may all be
seen as indications of a level of commitment to recreation. Newport Beach is unusual in
that its recreation and open space elements are combined.
The presence or absence of ordinances or policies/measures dealing with specific issues
such as hillsides, wetlands, agricultural lands, and coastal lands is often dictated by
the presence or absence of those features in the particular city. However, Carlsbad
appears to have developed specific ordinances, policies, or measures for all of the
particular types of landscape characteristics found within its boundaries and this is
not the case with all the other cities.
The presence of an open space ordinance, open space zone, open space map, or the
certainty of areas being totally excluded from development would seem to indicate a
level of commitment to open space.
In most cases, cities will either use a Quimby Ordinance QT monies collected as part of
a public facilities fee but not both. The Quimby Ordinance is specially directed
towards parkland whereas monies from a public facilities fee could be used in a more
general fashion. It is important, however, in cases where a portion of the facilities
fee is to be used that the percent to be identified otherwise open space interests will
constantly be fighting for their share with other uses such as schools or other civic
infrastructure.
Nearly all cities, including Carlsbad, have some kind of planned development ordinance
which permits negotiation with developers facilitating the dedication/preservation of
open space in return for density credit/transfer.
While not all cities have a site plan review ordinance all have some kind of plan review
procedure.
Carlsbad is in the minority in having a growth management ordinance, however, a number
of the cities studied are close to buildout rendering growth management measures
somewhat superfluous.
The presence of both a nonprofit land trust and/or some kind of regional open space
authority beyond the city's jurisdiction is sporadic. Where they exist they seem to
have been successful. Their absence in Carlsbad could be worthy of investigation.
A-30
Ooen Soace Element (Date Adopted)
Parks and Recreation /Recreation Element
Parks Master Plan
Trails Master Plan
Hillside Ordinance
Constrained Lands Ordinance
Ooen Space Ordinance
Open Snace Zone
Open Soace Mao (Separate from Land Use Mao)
Areas Totally Prohibited from Development
Ouimbv Ordinance
Public Facilities Fee for Ooen Space/Parks
Planned Development Ordinance
Site Plan Review Ordinance
Growth Manasement Ordinance
Resource District Conservation Ordinance
Wetland Preservation Policies/Measures
Rideeline Protection Policies/Measures
Aericulture Protection Policies/Measures
Floodplain Protection Policies/Measures
Coastal Zone Protection Policies/Measures
Land Trust /Conservancv
Ooen Soace Authority
Permit Processing Brochures
Percent Area Ooen Space Now
Percent Ooen Soace at Build Out
Area (Sauare Miles)
Population Now (OOO's)
Population at Build Out (OOO's)
Build Out Year
Self Insured
_cocc«CC
*ffc.c
10
85
fr«5
•
•
—
—
•
•
•
•
—
•
—
—
•
— .
—
•
•
—
—
—
36
60
mo
J=ucc&>C
«
c0
M*
«H
—
•
•
•
—
—
•
•
•
—
—
•
—
—
•
•
•
•
•
•
—
•
Cr
1+
IS
*
•
V
BC
C
£
73
75
•
—
3
2
>o>^-»
CB
>
1
75
—
•
•
•
-
•
•
•
•
-
•
—
—
•
•
—
•
—
—
•
-
6
13
I3>
*
•
CBfe*£i
re*^c£
12
•
•
•
—
24-
77
£
k.U
B
'eZ
79
86
U
4-7 Noyafoe>i
»\
—
—
—
—
—
•
•
•
•
•
•
—
•
•
—
•
—
—
—
40
a7
40
60
2010
•Escondido75
•
•
•
•
—
38
87 Fairfield74
*V
•
•
—-
—
—
•-
•
—
•
•
—
•
•
-
•
—
34
1*
\f>0
1000
•
0
<
_o
CB
73
-
—•
—
—•
—
—
—
—
•
—
—•
•
•
•
—•
•
&o
do
2fr
55
«5$
*
•Powav*5
53
•
•
y\
«>
•cc0
J=_tj
&E
&>
1*
—
—•
—
—
—•
•
•
—•
•
•
—•
•
—•
&
50
VL
114-
2010
•Walnut Creek14-
-]\
—•
•
—
—
•
•
•
—
•
•
-
—•
—•
—•
—
15
tf
63
te
209
•
c0
01£
1%
61
•
•
•
•
JO
m Carlsbad74
&?.
•
—
•
•
•
•
•
•
-
•
•
•
—
•
—
—
•
•
—
—
4*
4*
99
m
w*>
•
Figure 2 - COMPARATIVE STUDIES MATRIX
A-31
• Postive
— Negative
D Information Not Available
^ City Built Out Already
The percentage of open space now and predicted at buildout figures were difficult to
obtain. Most cities do not have these areas measured. The figures given in the table
are approximate only. Of the cities who could estimate a figure there is a wide range:
from 25 to 80 percent. There is, however, considerable doubt in the validity of
comparing these percent figures without a more detailed study of the circumstances
within each city. Different cities employ a variety of systems for measuring open
space, some including lands which others do not count. Furthermore, the drawing of
municipal boundaries has, in some cases, included extensive natural and undevelopable
areas within a city boundary, whereas in other cities similar natural areas lie, for
example, just beyond the city boundary in unincorporated county lands. In the two cases
described above, the actual open space available for city residents could be exactly the
same but the percent open space within the city would record highly divergent figures.
Webster's Dictionary defines "system" as "a regularly interacting or interdependent group of
items forming a unified whole" and also as "an organization forming a network." Even within
the set definition of open space which all the cities surveyed have adopted, there is
considerable scope for differing systems. For example, with Carlsbad, two different systems
can easily be projected both of which fall within the state derived definition. One
theoretical system would focus on environmentally valuable lands as mapped on the city's
Natural Resource Inventory map. The other theoretical alternative, by placing linkage at the
top of its open space priority list, would stress a physically integrated system.
In other words, the definition of open space employed is only one component in shaping the
city's open space future. Prioritization of objectives for distribution of the limited
resources available for open space is also critical. Certain priorities are, of course,
predetermined: all cities are obliged, for example, to protect human health and safety.
However, the focus of the system is otherwise discretionary and should match each city's
physical characteristics and social programs. In reviewing the various cities' open space
planning, an attempt was made to elicit the primary focus of each open space system. The
results are summarized in Figure 3, "Open Space Priorities."
The most significant patterns emerging from an analysis of different cities' open space
priorities are:
Environmental conservation and recreation are the most important foci of the open space
systems studied.
While public health and safety does not emerge as a primary issue it is a component of
every open space system studied.
The aesthetic impact of open space is a function of open space which broadly seems to
gain in significance in proportion to the economic base of the city concerned.
Shaping urban from does not emerge as a significant influence on open space policy
amongst the cities studied. Similarly growth management is not cited as a major
function with the exception of Walnut Creek, where it is viewed as possibly the primary
mechanism by which to preclude development which the city views as undesirable.
The establishment of a perimeter greenbelt in order to form a buffer between the city
concerned and surrounding communities is cited as a major focus in both Santa Cruz and
Poway, and as a secondary focus in Fremont.
Overall, it is clear that in spite of the similarity of open space definitions used, the open
space systems of the cities studied show some differences both in purpose and in the
strategies used.
A-32
peqsjJEj
OJBAOfsJ
BJUBS
IHJAl
3UJHOH
m
eunaeq LEEE
a
0)<n
O
U
V)9U
At3eeuuen
c/j
(El
5o5BU
au
euCA
EdP.
O
A-33
Opportunities for the City of Carlsbad
From the analysis completed, it would appear that the City of Carlsbad is already employing
the majority of open space planning mechanisms appropriate to its characteristics. However,
there are four strategies not being utilized at present which have been found to operate
successfully in other cities:
Regional Open Space or Parks Districts
Open Space Trusts
Trails Systems
Greenbelts
Regional Open Space or Parks Districts
"Special Districts are agencies which can perform a variety of functions
within limited boundaries, among them acquisition of park lands and other
open space (Govt. Code Sect. 54775). Examples are open space districts
and park districts.
Special districts are created by a vote of the residents of the territory
of the proposed district. LAFCO approval is required for formation.
They are governed by boards of directors elected by subdistrict. The
boundaries of a special district may coincide with that of a county,
cross county lines, or include only part of a county. It is possible to
annex land onto an existing district.
As a practical matter, stable funding for special districts in California
since Prop. 13, is likely only if the district has its own revenue
source, such as a Mello-Roos Tax or special assessment.
Special districts can, under certain circumstances, exercise the power of
eminent domain." (Ref: Kunofsky, Judith. Tools for the Greenbelt. pp.
51 -52.)
Three examples of such special districts in California are the Marin County Open Space
District (MCOSD), the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD), and the East Bay
regional Parks District (EBRPD).
The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD) is a public agency formed under the laws
of the State of California (Public Resource Code 5500 et seq.) with the voter mandate of
acquiring and managing open space lands for the public use and enjoyment.
It is an independent special district created in 1972 by the voters of northwestern Santa
Clara County and joined in 1976 by southern San Mateo County. The District's boundaries
encompass 16 cities and extend from San Carlos to Los Gatos and from Skyline Boulevard to San
Francisco Bay.
The District's sole purpose is to acquire and preserve foothill and bayland open space outside
the urbanized areas of the peninsula for the use and enjoyment of the public.
A-3A
I MROSD is governed by a Board of Directors elected by the voters in each of seven geographic
wards. Board members serve four-year terms. The public is invited to attend regular Board
I meetings held at the District offices. Special public hearings and meetings are also held
periodically. Citizen participation is an essential part of the planning process for the
development and use of the Open Space Preserves.
I The District's 27-member staff includes 13 uniformed Rangers who patrol the Preserves
regularly to assist and educate visitors and to protect the natural resources of the land.
I The District's primary source of revenue is a share of the total property tax collected within
the District boundaries in northern Santa Clara County and southern San Mateo County. This
income is equivalent to about 1.6 cents per $100 of full cash value as assessed on real and
• personal property.
The Open Space District has consistently worked to stretch local tax dollars with Federal and
State grant monies and with gifts or bargain sales of land. These efforts have increased the
I District's purchasing power by more than one-third.
MROSD's goal is to help preserve a greenbelt of open space lands in the foothills and baylands
(stretching from one end of the District to the other. The District's Preserves might be seen
as pieces in a "giant jigsaw puzzle" linking MROSD lands with State and county parklands, and
the Skyline-to-the-Sea Trail, with an overall regional trail system that includes easements
• over privately owned lands.
(The information on the MROSD is quoted from documents produced by the District.)
I The East Bay Regional Parks District (EBRPD) was formed in 1934. It is a special purpose
district operating under state law supported largely by funding from a property tax. At the
time of its formation, special districts for parks did not exist, and therefore, enabling
(legislation was required: an Assembly Bill was approved by the State Legislature in 1933. In
1934 an initiative ballot gained voter approval with an approximate ration of 2.5:1.
Originally covering seven cities, the District has grown by subsequent voter approvals to
I include all of Contra Costa County and all of Alameda County with the exception of the
Livermore area, to reach a current jurisdiction of about 1,500 square miles on the eastern
side of San Francisco Bay. The District is separated into seven wards each of which elects
one member, to serve for four years, to a Board of Directors. Their budget this year is
I approximately $34 million, about 70 percent of which comes from the State (including the
• property tax). Other income sources include:
I . Operating revenues,
The issue by the District of promissory notes including a $17 million issue in 1988,
I . In 1988 a $225 million general obligation bond issue for parks and recreation was
approved by the requisite two-thirds majority.
I The District purchases and operates parkland primarily of a regional character. The EBRPD is
larger than the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District and has a philosophy slightly more
inclined toward active recreation.
I The EBRPD now operates 46 parks and 11 regional trails covering 63,000 acres preserving
natural beauty, protecting wildlife habitat, and offering a wide range of recreational and
• educational opportunities.
A-35
The possibility of establishing a special district such as MROSD and EBRPD would seem to be
worth consideration. In addition to the older authorities described above, there has been
recent activity towards the establishment of another special district, again in the Bay Area.
Senate Bill No. 2581 (in 1988) proposed to:
"...enact the Santa Clara County Open-Space Authority Act and create the
Santa Clara County Open-Space Authority on February 1, 1989. The bill
would authorize the authority to impose an excise tax, not exceeding $80,
on owners of developed parcels within the authority's jurisdiction, and to
issue bonds payable from the proceeds of that tax if approved by a
majority vote of the electors, for the acquisition, and for other duties
of the authority in administering the act. The bill would repeal the act
and abolish the authority if the electors do not approve the excise tax."
The bill was passed by the Legislature by vetoed by the Governor because of the majority vote
requirement. It is believed that if the bill were to be resubmitted with a two-thirds voter
requirement, it would be allowed to proceed to the ballot.
Open Space Trusts
A number of private nonprofit organizations exist in California formed to further open space
goals including The Trust for Public Land (TPL), the Marin Agricultural Land Trust (MALT), the
Sonoma Land Trust, the Napa Land Trust, and the Peninsula Open Space Trust.
Among the techniques employed by such private groups are:
Purchase of development rights on agricultural land and open space land where public
access is not required. The interest in land is held by the private agency in
perpetuity.
Purchase of an interest in land, later sold [or dedicated] to [a] public agency.
Acceptance of gifts of interest by a private group, which then manages the lands.
Among the advantages of this group of techniques are:
Private agencies can often move more quickly than public agencies, with resulting
savings in costs or success in purchasing prior to development.
Private agencies often have more flexibility than public agencies and are subject to
fewer bureaucratic constraints in arranging purchases.
Either no cost or reduced cost to public, while achieving public interest goals.
Well accepted by virtually all segments of the public. [Because of this, the public
often feels more comfortable making financial gifts to a trust than to a city.]
Tax benefits are available to landowners who give land or sell at below market prices to
nonprofit groups.
Among the disadvantages are the uncertainty of funding, as [they are] dependent on donations,
grants, etc., as well as the large amount of money required in order to have a substantial
impact. Additionally some nonprofit organizations are dependent on large amounts of volunteer
time and energy. (Ref: Kunofsky, Judith. Tools for the Greenbelt. pp. 52-53.)
A-36
I Trails System
The third area of activity not found to any significant degree in the City of Carlsbad is a
I commitment to a trails system. Most of the other cities surveyed included endeavors towards
• such a system as part of their open space/recreation planning. There are without doubt
difficulties to overcome with regard to implementation of a trails system, yet the experience
I of other cities seems to suggest they are far from insurmountable. It would seem that at
least in part the inclusion or absence of trails in open space planning is a product of the
structuring of the open space system; ultimately it must be decided what kind of system is
• desired: what is to be the focus of the system.
Greenbelts
I The concept of an encircling greenbelt of open space surrounding a town or city has a long
• history in both planning theory and practice. Intended to serve a variety of functions
including separating the town or city from neighboring communities, providing ready access to
I open space from all sections of the city, and controlling sprawl, greenbelts are a focus of
only three of the cities studied. Pursuit of a perimeter greenbelt is not an objective of
Carlsbad's open space planning.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
A-37
Summary
The open space systems of 14 cities with diverse characteristics have been studied. The
principal conclusions arising from that study are:
For legal and constitutional reason the definitions of open space employed by different
cities are very similar.
Within this context of similarity there are, however, differences in the kinds of open
space systems being pursued.
The major foci of the systems studied are environmental conservation and recreation
provision. Other major functions of open space include aesthetics, public health and
safety, shaping urban form, and growth management.
Cities can be held liable for unjust regulation of land use; therefore, care must be
taken in establishing regulations designed to preserve open space by restricting
development.
The City of Carlsbad is already employing the majority of relevant open space planning
mechanisms. However, four possibilities not being currently used in Carlsbad are the
operation of a regional open space district, the operation of a nonprofit open space
trust, the pursuit of an integrated trails system, and the pursuit of a greenbelt of
open space to encircle the city's built form.
A-38
I
, WRT
I
I
I
I
I
METHODS OF ACQUISITION AND FUNDING
METHODS OF ACQUIRING OPEN SPACE
Development Agreements
I Incentive Zoning
Transfer of Development Rights
Land Trusts/Conservancy
I Special District or Authority
I Williamson Act
' General Plan and Zoning
FINANCING TECHNIQUES
(General Obligation Bonds
Limited Obligation Bonds
Senior Obligation Bonds
Quimby Act Impact Fees
I Public Facilities Fee
• Tax Increment Financing
Sales and Use Tax Increment
I Mello-Roos Community Facilities Districts
Revenue Bonds
Certificates of Participation
I Benefit Assessment District
User Fees
Concessions
Other Tax Revenue
Private Grants or Donations
STATE GRANTS
Coastal Conservancy: Agriculture Preservation Projects
Coastal Conservancy: Coastal and Bay Public Access Program
I Coastal Conservancy: Coastal Restoration Projects
• Coastal Conservancy. Nonprofit Organization Assistance Program
Coastal Conservancy: Enhancement Grants
I Coastal Conservancy: Site Reservation Projects
Coastal Conservancy: Urban Waterfronts Restoration Program
Fish and Game: Public Access Program
I Parks and Recreation: Land and Water Conservation Fund Program
Resources: Environmental License Plate Fund
Proposition 70: Parks and Wildlife Initiative
Water Resources: Davis-Grunsky Act
A-39
METHODS OF ACQUISITION AND FUNDING
This section describes methods of acquiring open space and
financing open space acquisition, and describes grants available
for open space acquisition.
METHODS OF ACQUIRING OPEN SPACE
Development Agreements
Development agreements are negotiated when discretionary
zoning approval is required. The City may require or negotiate
certain public improvements and amenities, including parks, trail
easements and open space, in exchange for subdivision approvals and
development rights. In general, development agreements are
applicable to large property ownerships applying for subdivision
approval, although they may also apply to smaller ownerships in
redevelopment project areas, or ownerships applying for a
conditional use. As part of development agreements, fees may be
paid in lieu of land dedication.
Incentive Zoning
Incentive zoning, also known as bonus zoning, permits property
owners to build at a higher density than normally allowed in
exchange for certain public benefits, such as public plazas, parks,
trails, and other open space which are provided as public easements
on private property. Incentive zoning works best when there is a
market for the additional density the property owner might attain.
In drafting the ordinance, a city must specify the exact nature of
the public amenities desired so that the city does not receive
redundant amenities that are not in the public's interest.
Transfer of Development Rights
A city may allow a property owner to transfer development
A-40
I rights from a portion of the property the city wants as open space
to another portion of the property. Under this method, a city
I obtains the open space while the property owner realizes the value
of the total property even though only a portion of it is
(developed. The portion which receives the transferred development
rights, however, is allowed a higher density than would otherwise
be allowed. Theoretically, a market could be established if a
I property owner is allowed to sell these development rights to other
ownerships, thereby dispersing the transferred density. The trade-
I off to the city is greater than desirable density in one area for
open space in another area.
Land Trusts/Conservancy
I A land trust or conservancy is a private non-profit
organization which uses some public funds combined with private
. individual donations and foundation grants to acquire and maintain
| open space. The most important activity of local trusts is the
acquisition of land facing development pressure, either currently
I or as the city expands. Another opportunity for land trust
activity is found in conservation easements. In these
I arrangements, the trust arranges the easements. The trust is
granted the development rights on rural property, while the
I landowner holds leaseback rights for continued farming. An
' advantage to this method of conservation is that the local
I government does not assume responsibility for maintenance of the
property. Moreover, the owner retains the right to sell the land
for open space uses.
I There are approximately 40 rural land trusts in California,
most of them in northern California.
Special District or Authority
I The city may attempt to establish an Open Space Authority or
' Special District with the power to issue bonds for open space
I acquisition. The authority or district may need special state
A-41
enabling legislation, particularly if granted taxing powers. The
County of Santa Clara recently attempted to form a joint-powers
open space authority which could raise excise taxes on property if
approved by a simple majority. The state legislature passed the
enabling legislation, but the Governor vetoed the legislation,
partly because it did not require a two-thirds voter approval for
the tax increase. Without the taxing powers, debt issued by a
special district or authority would have to be revenue bonds or
certificates of participation, perhaps funded by lease payments
made by the City. These revenue bonds or certificates of
participation amortized by City lease payments might not require
voter approval. The City would have to find a source for funding
the annual lease payments.
Williamson Act
The Williamson Act currently is used in Carlsbad to preserve
agricultural lands in the City. The Williamson Act allows property
owners to pay property taxes based on agricultural use if it is
maintained as agricultural land, even though the property has a
much higher economic use and value.
General Plan and Zoning
The City of Carlsbad already has several zoning ordinances to
protect open space, such as the Open Space Ordinance, Growth
Management Open Space 15 Percent Performance Standard, the Hillside
Ordinance, the Revised Planned Development Ordinance, Residential
and Industrial Park Land Dedication policies, as well as the Open
Space Element of the General Plan. Although zoning can preserve
open space to some extent, and be used to acquire open space
through the subdivision approval process, zoning must allow some
economic use to property, whether that be agricultural use or a use
restricted to a certain portion of the property. Also, zoning is
subject to change over time, particularly in areas experiencing
growth. Appropriate zoning is critical, but does not guarantee
A-42
I
I permanent open space as well as public land ownership through
purchase and dedication.
I
I
I
I
I
FINANCING TECHNIQUES
I General Obligation Bonds
. A city may issue general obligation bonds to acquire open
I space or park land and to build facilities. Proceeds may not be
used for maintenance and operations. Investors consider general
I obligation bonds the most secure form of tax-exempt bonds since
they are secured by an ad valorem tax on all taxable property
I (including commercial, industrial, and residential) at any rate
necessary to amortize the bonds; consequently, interest rates are
I lowest for these types of bonds. The major difficulty of issuing
general obligation bonds is the ability to get the required 2/3rds
I voter approval.
Limited Obligation Bonds
I Limited obligation bonds are similar to general obligation
bonds except that the bonds are secured by a specified source of
I revenues a city already receives, including property and sales tax.
Taxes are not increased; consequently, funds that might be used for
I other city functions are dedicated to these bonds. Limited
obligation bonds also require approval by 2/3rds of the voters.
I Senior Obligation Bonds
The Community Rehabilitation District Law of 1985 permits a
city to rehabilitate capital facilities, such as parks, by forming
a community rehabilitation district in every area except a
redevelopment project area. The city may issue senior obligation
bonds to finance these improvements with only a simple majority
approval of the voters. To secure payment, a portion of property
I
A-43I
tax revenue is dedicated to amortize the bonds.
Quimby Act Impact Fees
The City already uses impact fees authorized by the Quimby Act
to acquire and develop park and recreation facilities. These fees
are paid when parcels are too small to dedicate land for parks or
open space, or when a property owner chooses to pay the fee in-lieu
of dedicating land. The city is divided into four park districts
bounded by El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Road. Fees collected
within these districts must be used for the benefit of the
respective districts. Currently, commercial properties are
excluded from the City's park-in-lieu policies.
c Facilities Fee
The City established the public facilities fee to finance the
incremental infrastructure, including parks, needed to support
incremental new development. The fee was designed so that
developers pay for their share of future improvements as
development occurs. Currently, there in no standard for open space
under the public facility fee, but there is a standard for park
space. The city may add open space or develop a broader definition
of park space to include open space areas.
Tax Increment Financing
Used within a redevelopment project area, tax increment
financing is based upon ad valorem property taxes generated from
the increase in assessed valuation created by new development and
property turnover that occurs in the redevelopment project area.
The assessed valuation of the project is set at a base level during
the year of plan adoption. Each fiscal year following adoption of
a redevelopment plan, a negotiated portion of the taxes generated
by the assessed valuation that exceeds the base year level — the
tax increment — is paid to the redevelopment agency and can be
used for eligible redevelopment activities. A city may use tax
A-44
I
I increment financing to develop parks or acquire open space
elements. Funds used for these purposes, however, do not directly
I increase tax increment in the redevelopment project area, and would
reduce the amount of funds available for other redevelopment
I improvements.
I Sales and Use Tax Increment
A redevelopment agency can impose a sales and use tax of 1
I percent or less on retail sales and use of personal property, if
I the redevelopment agency operates in a city that will give credit
against its own sales and use tax for any taxes paid to the
I redevelopment agency. Consequently, the imposition of this tax
will not increase the tax burden on the local community. This tax
I revenue can be used to develop park space or acquire open space in
a redevelopment project area; however, bonds supported by sales
(taxes are considered more risky than bonds supported by property
tax increment.
I Mello-Roos Community Facilities Districts
A community facilities district may be formed to provide for
I the purchase, construction, expansion or rehabilitation of any
property necessary to meet increased demands resulting from
I development or rehabilitation occurring within the district.
Facilities financed by Mello-Roos include parks. Maintenance costs
I may also be funded by a Mello-Roos District. Revenues are acquired
* through a special tax, and the district may issue bonds secured by
I the proceeds of the special tax, subject to a two-thirds approval
of voters in the district. If the district contains less than 12
owners, such as a district conterminous with a few large
I ownerships, votes are by acreage. Consequently, Mello-Roos
Districts normally are formed to finance improvements associated
I with new communities.
I
I
I A-45
Revenue Bonds
Revenue bonds might be used to finance certain open space or
recreation areas which generate a revenue stream that is sufficient
to secure a bond issue. Debt service payments are met from charges
placed on the users of the facility. For open space or recreation
facilities, a lease revenue bond may be more appropriate. This
instrument is typically issued by non-profit corporations or
authorities to construct a public facility that is leased to
another public entity, such as a city, which holds a security
position to make lease payments that in turn cover debt service
payments on the bond. A city may also issue a lease revenue bond
supported by lease payments made by a private entity, such as a
golf course operator or perhaps even an agricultural operation
using public land acquired in part by the proceeds from the revenue
bond. A revenue bond requires a simple majority approval of the
voters, while a lease revenue bond, which does not constitute
indebtedness, can be authorized by a resolution of the issuer
governing board.
Certificates of Participation
Similar to lease revenue bonds, Certificates of Participation
(COPs) are financed by lease payments (with an option to purchase
or a conditional sale agreement) to finance major public projects
including recreational facilities such as parks and golf courses.
The city leases the facility from a lessor such as a private
leasing corporation, a non-profit corporation, or another public
agency. A financial institution pays the lessor cash for the
present value of future lease payments. The lessor uses the cash
to finance development of the facility. Investors purchase
certificates of participation in the lease; a trustee holds
security, and an escrow agent collects the lease payments and
distributes them to the holders of the certificates of
participation. A city may use general funds, dedicated funds, or
reimbursed revenue to make lease payments. COPs do not constitute
A-46
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
indebtedness under the state constitutional debt limitation and do
not require voter approval.
Benefit Assessment District
I Benefit assessment districts are used to fund public
' improvements that benefit private beneficiaries. Properties within
the benefit area pay a proportional share based on their proximity
to the improvement, assessed valuation, the size or frontage of the
parcel, or some other measure proportional to the benefit received.
I Bonds may be issued secured by the assessments. Maintenance
assessment districts are established to maintain the public
I improvements installed. Special assessment districts are not
limited by Propositions 13 and 4 (the Gann Initiative). Special
I assessment financing is applicable when the value or benefit of the
* improvement can be assigned to a particular set of properties, and
(should not be used if the project is a public good for an entire
community. Examples of open space improvements that may be
- financed by assessment districts include landscaping, trails and
I easements. The assessment district may be initiated by the City
Council or by a petition of 60 percent of the property owners, and
I can be vetoed by a protest of a majority of the property owners.
User Fees
User fees may be imposed to finance on-going maintenance
costs. Fees may include parking fees, camping fees, recreation
program fees, boating fees, etc.
I Concessions
Revenue from private concessions, such as restaurants, food-
I outlets, private recreation operations, etc. may be used to help
finance maintenance and improvement costs elsewhere in the park.
I Concessions are more applicable to active-recreation open space.
A-47
Other Tax Revenue
Revenue may be acquired by raising taxes such as the Transient
Occupancy Tax, Business License, or an excise tax on certain items,
and dedicating this revenue to the acquisition and maintenance of
open space.
Private Grants or Donations
The City or community may establish a local conservancy or
open space land trust and seek private donations, foundation
grants, and government grants for the acquisition and restoration
of open space. Donations may either be land dedication or cash
contributions. The non-profit organization might sponsor fund-
raising drives such as "purchase a square foot of open space."
STATE GRANTS
Several state grant programs exist which provide funds for
open space acquisition or improvements, including the following:
Coastal Conservancy; Agriculture Preservation Projects
Established to work with property owners and local governments
within the coastal zone to find long term solutions to protect
agricultural lands threatened by urban development, using tools
such as the transfer of development rights, purchase of development
rights, the purchase of easements, and realization of supplemental
land uses.
Coastal Conservancy; Coastal and Bay Public Access Program
Established to provide grants or loans for the construction
of public access facilities within the coastal zone.
Coastal Conservancy; Coastal Restoration Projects
Established to correct undesirable development patterns in the
coastal zone by restoring areas which affect the coastal
environment or impeding orderly development because of scattered
A-48
I
I ownerships, poor lot layout, inadequate parks and open space, and
incompatible land uses.
Coastal Conservancy; Nonprofit Organization Assistance Program
(Established to provide technical assistance to non-profit
organizations and land trusts, and to provide loans and grants to
. undertake projects designed to provide access to facilities,
I restore coastal wetlands and other sensitive resources, and to
acquire parcels of land for agricultural protection, viewshed
I protection or related purposes.
I Coastal Conservancy? Enhancement Grants
Established to enhance and restore coastal habitat through
I conflict resolution, acquisition of property including less than
' fee interests, and physical enhancement of sites.
I Coastal Conservancy: Site Reservation Prelects
Established to acquire key coastal lands for parks,
| recreation, fish and wildlife habitat, historical preservation or
other scientific study. The Conservancy may acquire the property
I and hold it until the local agency or nonprofit organization has
the funds to purchase the property from the Conservancy; thereby
protecting the land on an interim basis.I
I Coastal Conservancy; Urban Waterfronts Restoration Program
Established to assist local governments plan and provide
waterfront development and private investment in near-shore areas,
I and to encourage development of high-priority land uses including
public recreation and shore-line access.
I
Fish and Game; Public Access Program
I Established to acquire lands and develop facilities suitable
for recreational purposes, and that are adaptable for conservation,
• propagation and utilization of the state's fish and game resources.
A-49
I
This is not a grant program, but instead facilitates state projects
developed in cooperation with local government. Examples include
lake and stream improvements, artificial marine reefs, trails, land
and water acquisition for habitat preservation, or wildlife
protection and conservation.
Parks and Recreation; Land and Water Conservation Fund Program
Established to provide matching funds, 50 percent grants on
a reimbursable basis, to local agencies to assist in the
acquisition and development of outdoor recreation areas and
facilities.
Resources; Environmental License Plate Fund
Established to support a variety of projects which help
preserve California's environment. For example, Oceanside received
a $165,000 grant for the Buena Vista Lagoon Nature Center.
Proposition 70; Parks and Wildlife Initiative
Passed in 1988 by statewide referendum, this initiative
provides funds, supported by bonds, to finance habitat restoration,
park development, and wildlife preservation.
Water Resources; Davis-Grunsky Act
There are seven types of assistance available to local
agencies under this act for construction projects related to dams
and reservoirs, including grants for the part of construction cost
allocated to recreation and the enhancement of fish and wildlife.
A-50
I
CARLSBAD AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS
I
| I. CITYWIDE POLICY:
I A. PREVENT PREMATURE ELIMINATION
- B. DEVELOP PROGRAMS TO ENCOURAGE IT TO REMAIN
C. PERMANENTLY RESERVE THE FLOWER FIELDS
I
- II. COASTAL ZONE POLICIES
- A. AGUA HEDIONDA LCP
' PERMANENTLY PRESERVE FIELDS
| UNDER SDG&E POWER LINES
- B. MELLO I AND II LCPS
' 1) AG-SUBSIDY PROGRAM
| (REPEALED BY BRADLEY
BILL)
I 2) AG-IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
i 3) COASTAL AG-OVERLAY ZONE - PROVIDES
OPTIONS TO MITIGATE CONVERSION
C. EAST AND WEST BATIQUITOS LCP'S - FEES
MITIGATE CONVERSION
I
I
I D. EFFECT OF OTHER COASTAL ACT AMENDMENTS
I
A-51
5. Agriculture
A. Goals
A.I Prevent the premature elimination of agricultural land and
preserve said lands wherever possible.
B. Objectives
B.I Permit agricultural land uses throughout the city.
B.2 Conserve the largest possible amount of land suitable for
agricultural purposes that are now undeveloped through the
willing compliance of affected parties.
B.3 Develop measures to ensure the compatibility of agricultural
production and adjacent land uses.
C. Implementing Policies and Action Programs
C.I The city should support and utilize all measures available,
including the Will iamson Act, designed to reduce the financial
burdens on agricultural land, not only to prevent premature
development, but also to encourage its continued use for
agricultural purposes.
C.2 The city should participate with neighboring cities and
communities in projects leading to preservation of
agricultural resources and other types of open space along
mutual sphere of influence boundaries.
C.3 The city should consider the acquisition of lands or property
rights for permanent agricultural uses through methods or
means such as trusts, foundations, and city-wide assessment
districts.
C.4 The city should attempt to preserve the flower fields or lands
east of 1-5 to the first ridgeline between Cannon Road and
Palomar Airport Road, through whatever method created and most
advantageous to the city of Carlsbad.
A-52
1.1 Local Coastal Program Boundary
SEGMENT
23 MELLO 1
j^MELLO II
Q| AQUA HEDIONDA
0 VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT
[||WE8T BATIOUITOS
£|3 EAST BATIOUITOS
/
T^
CARLSBAD
LCP
A-53
AGUA HEDIONDA SEGMENT
RflJU
city of carlsbad local coastal
A-54
program
I
I
I
i
i
i
i
\
i
i
2. AGRICULTURE
* Coastal Act Policies
I 30241. The maximum amount of prime agricultural land shall
I be maintained in agricultural production to assure the
• protection of the areas' agricultural economy, and conflicts
shall be minimized between agricultural and urban land
I through all of the following:
(a) By establishing stable boundaries separating urban and
(rural areas, including, where necessary, clearly defined
buffer areas to minimize conflicts between agricultural
and urban land uses.
|
(b) By limiting conversions of agricultural lands around
the periphery of urban areas to the lands where the
viability of existing agricultural use is already
(severely limited by conflicts with urban uses and where
the conversion of the lands would complete a logical
and viable neighborhood and contribute to the
• establishment of a stable limit to urban development.
(c) By developing available lands not suited for agri-
culture prior to the conversion of agricultural lands.
1 (d) By assuring that public service and facility expansions
and non-agricultural development do not impair
I agricultural viability, either through increased
assessment costs or degraded air and water quality.
(e) By assuring that all divisions of prime agricultural
lands, except those conversions approved pursuant to
subdivision (b) of this section, and all development
adjacent to prime agricultural lands shall not diminish
the productivity of such prime agricultural lands.
30242. All other lands suitable for agricultural use shall
not be converted to non-agricultural uses unless (1)
continued or renewed agricultural use is not feasible, or
(2) such conversion would preserve prime agricultural land
or concentrate development consistent with Section 30250.
Any such permitted conversion shall be compatible with
continued agricultural use on surrounding lands.
A-55
Discussion
Agriculture in the Agua Hedionda area is dependent upon a
wide range of factors. The soil resource is not as ideal as
that in other parts of the state, but is well suited to the
existing agricultural operations. Climate is the major
factor which has determined the success of the area's agri-
culture since it allows production during months when
agriculture is precluded in competing areas. Water is a
critical factor, and both direct and indirect energy costs
contribute significantly to agricultural costs. Labor also
represents a substantial proportion of costs; its future
depends to a large extent on government policies toward
undocumented aliens. Access to certain Carlsbad
agricultural areas is difficult during certain times of the
year.Improvement of access would involve a trade-off between
production gains from better access and the potential for
increased vandalism.
Agricultural activities in the plan area are limited to
south shore properties. This area is contiguous with other
large agricultural lands to the south and east.
Policies
2.1 Conversion of agricultural property shall be consistent
with Coastal Act policies, and the policies of this plan.
2.2 The south shore agricultural lands shall be designated
"open space". This area shall be zoned "Exclusive
Agriculture" in the implementation phase of the plan.
2.3 Conversion of the 45 acre SDG&E south shore property
shall be subject to the following conditions:
a) Prior to development SDG&E shall record a permanent open
space easement over the remaining agricultural lands in
favor of the city of Carlsbad. Said easement shall
limit uses to agriculture, utility right-of-way and
maintenance, roadways, and recreation trails that do not
interfere with agricultural operations.
b) SDG&E shall provide a written report demonstrating to
the satisfaction of the city, that preservation of the
site is not necessary to assure reasonable expansion
opportunities for the Encina Power Plant in accordance
with Coastal Act Section 30413(b), and that future
expansion could reasonably be accommodated at the
present power plant site. Said report shall be a
requirement of a future specific development plan for
the property.
A-56
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
r
i
i
\
i
i
i
\
\
i
c) Prior to issuance of a permit for development of the
parcel, the owner shall make a portion of the site
available for development as a public recreational use
if the city finds that current or future recreational
needs require the development of such uses in the south
shore portion of the Land Use Plan area.
d) In the event that the Carlsbad Local Coastal Plan is
amended to allow for a city-sponsored agricultural
program, SDG&E may apply for inclusion in the amended
program.
A-57
MELLO II2. AGRICULTURE
Policy 2-1 CONSERVATION OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS
A. Basic Agricultural Policies
1. Coastal Agriculture:
Consistent with the provisions of sections 30241 and
30242 of the Coastal Act, it is the policy of the City
to contribute to the preservation of the maximum amount
of prime agricultural land throughout the Coastal Zone
by providing for the balanced, orderly conversion of
designated non-prime coastal agricultural lands. Non-
prime agricultural lands identified on Map X (See
Exhibit 3.3, Coastal Agriculture Overlay Zone) are
designated Coastal Agriculture and shall be permitted to
convert to urban uses subject to the agricultural prime
land exchange mitigation, infeasibility determination,
or conversion fee mitigation provisions set forth in the
Local Coastal Program (LCP).
2. Conversion of Coastal Agriculture:
Conversion of designated coastal agricultural lands
shall be permitted provided that: a) conversion would
preserve prime agricultural lands within the statewide
coastal zone consistent with sections 30241 and 30242 or
concentrate new development consistent with Section
30250 of the Coastal Act; or b) continued or renewed
agricultural use is not feasible; or c) payment of an
agricultural conversion mitigation fee in an amount not
less than $5,000 and not more than $10,000 per converted
acre has been made.
A-58
I
I 3. Conversion Options:
Conversion of non-prime coastal agricultural lands shall
I be permitted pursuant to either Option 1 - Mitigation,
| Option 2 - Feasibility Analysis or Option 3 - Conversion
Fee as set forth below in this policy. Consistent with
I Section 30242 of the Act, no feasibility analysis shall
be required if a landowner selects Option 1 or Option
I
I Option 1 - Mitigation (Prime Land Exchange)
Non-prime coastal agricultural lands shall be converted
i to urban use consistent withh the Carlsbad General Plan
1 if, prior to approval of a subdivision map, a mitigation
program is in effect that permanently preserves one acre
I of prime agricultural land within the statewide Coastal
Zone for each acre of net impacted agricultural land in
V the LCP that is converted. For purposes of calculating
I required mitigation acreage, net impacted agricultural
lands are the parcels and acreages designated on Map X
I (See Exhibit 3.3), minus the acreages in steep slopes
(See Exhibit 4-1) (25% or greater) and areas containing
I sensitive coastal resources that would preclude
• development.
I The standards and procedures for such a mitigation
program shall be set forth in LCP implementing
f ordinances. Recipients of prime agricultural land
I interests pursuant to this policy shall be limited to:
I A'59
1) local or statie agencies; or, 2) tax exempt
organizations whose principal charitable purposes are
consistent with the agricultural mitigation program and
qualify under Section 501(c)(3) of the U.S. Internal
Revenue Code. Further, mitigation priority shall be
given to preserving prime agricultural lands in the
coastal zones of counties selected by the State Coastal
Conservancy for pilot programs funding, and other
counties with similarly qualified programs.
Option 2 - Determination of Agricultural Feasibility
If the feasibility of continued agricultur.e is
questionable, either the City or involved landowners may
'complete an agricultural feasibility study for: a) all
coastal agricultural lands in the LCP; b) 3 or 4
subareas (See Exhibit 3.3) which constitute logical
subunits; or, c) contiguous landholdings in a single
ownership of at least 100 acres. If Option 2 is
selected, that portion of the study area determined to
be feasible for continued agriculture, if any, may be
converted upon request of the landowner to urban use
subject to compliance with the provisions of Options 1
or 3. That portion of the study area determined not to
be feasible for continued agriculture could be converted
only after: a) the City approves the feasibility study;
b) an LCP amendment is prepared and submitted to the
A-60
I
I
I
I
Coastal Commission that provides for the conversion; and
c) the Coastal Commission certifies the LCP amendment as
to its conformance with the Coastal Act.
I Option 3 - Agricultural Conversion Mitigation Fee
• Conversion of non-prime agricultural lands shall be
I permitted upon payment of an agricultural conversion
mitigation fee which shall mitigate the loss of
I agricultural resources by preserving or enhancing other
important coastal resources. The amount of the fee
• shall be determined by the City Council at the time it
I considers the proposal for development and shall reflect
the per acre cost of preserving prime agricultural land
m. pursuant to Option 1 but shall not be less than $5,000
nor more than $10,000 per acre. All mitigation fees
I collected under this section shall be deposited in the
| State Coastal Conservancy Fund and shall be expended by
the State Coastal Conservancy in the following order of
I priority:
1. Restoration of natural resources and wildlife
I habitat in Batiquitos Lagoon.
• 2. Development of an interpretive center at Buena
Vista Lagoon.
I 3. Restoration of beaches managed for public use in
the coastal zone in the City of Carlsbad.
\
I A-61
4. Purchase of agricultural lands for continued
agricultural production within the Carlsbad Coastal
Zone as determined by the Carlsbad City Council.
5. Agricultural improvements which will aid in
continuation of agricultural production within the
Carlsbad Coastal Zone as determined by the Carlsbad
City Council.
For purposes of implementation no Option shall have
priority over any other Option.
4. Underlying Urban Designations of Coastal:
To maximize and expedite the preservation of prime
agricultural lands throughout the state coastal zone,
all parcels designated coastal agriculture (See Exhibit
3.3 and Table 5.1)in the LCP shall have an underlying
urban land use designation as identified on Map Y (See
Exhibit 1.2). Conversions of coastal agriculture land
permitted by the City in conformance with either Option
1 or Option 2 as set forth in Policy 2 shall be
consistent with the land use designations on Map Y (See
Exhibit 1.2).
5. Conversions of Coastal Agriculture Inconsistent with
Underlying Urban Designations:
Conversions of parcels designated coastal agriculture
that are requested for uses other than the underlying
land use designation on Map Y (See Exhibit 1.2) shall be
subject to an LCP amendment to allow the City and
Coastal Commission to determine the consistency of
proposed urban uses with other applicable provisions of
the LCP and the Coastal Act.
A-62
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
Designated Coastal Agricultural Lands
"Designated Coastal Agricultural Lands" are those
agricultural lands identified on Map X (See Exhibit
I
I
Site II 377 approximate acres
I Site III 275 "
3.3)attached to the Land Use Plan certified on October 24,
1985. The following are the lands identified on Map X (See
Exhibit 3.3):
Site IV 109
Lusk 93
Bankers 27
Hunt (Mello I 200
I LCP Segment)
Total: 1,081
C. Permitted Uses on Designated Coastal Agricultural Lands
I The land uses described below shall apply to any designated
coastal agricultural land which has not been approved for
I development.
1. On any Class I through Class IV Agricultural Lands:
* (See Exhibit 4.2) the following uses only are
I permitted:
a. Cattle, sheep, goats and swine production, provided
I that the nnumber of any one or combination of said
animals shall not exceed one animal per half acre of
I lot area. Structures for containing animals shall
not be located with fifty feet of any habitable
A-63.
structure on the same parcel, nor within three
hundred feet of an adjoining parcel zoned for
residential uses.
b. Crop production.
c. Floriculture.
d. Horses, private use.
e. Nursery crop production.
f . Poultry, rabbits, chinchillas, hamsters and other
small animals, provided not more than twenty-five of
any one or combination thereof shall be kept within
fifty feet of any habitable structure, nor within
three hundred feet of an adjoining parcel zoned for
residential uses.
g. Roadside stands for display and sale of products
produced on the same premises, with a floor area not
exceeding two hundred square feet, and located not
nearer than twenty feet to any street or highway.
h. Tree farms.
i. Truck farms.
j. Wildlife refuges and game preserves.
k. Other uses or enterprises similar to the above
customarily carried on in the field of general
agriculture including accessory uses such as silos,
tank houses, shops, barns, offices, coops, stables,
corrals, and similar uses required for the conduct
of the uses above.
1. One single family dwelling per existing legal
building parcel.
A-64
I
I
2. On any Class V through VIII Agricultural Lands:
* (See Exhibit 4.2) the following uses only are
I permitted:
a. All of the permitted uses listed above.
I b. Hay and feed stores.
c. Nurseries, retail and wholesale.
I d. Packing sheds, processing plants and commercial
• outlets for farm crops, provided that such -
activities are not located within 100 feet of any
I lot line.
e. Greenhouses, provided all requirements for yard
I
I
setbacks and height as specified in Chapter 21.07 of
the Code are met.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I A-65
LANDS
DESIGNATED CA/SUB AREAsI
SITEJIV
A-66
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
§ 30156.1 PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE
I Repeal
™ For contingent repeal of this section, see Historical Note, post
Historical Note of the Interior is an addition to the Golden Gate National
19M Legislation Recreation Area.
Sec**. ,. 3 and 4 of SUU,9W. , .311. provided: ** W
"Section I. (a) Upon the condition of nonslale funds ••$„. 3. As ,o „,, propeny transferred punuanl to
becoming available to the Department of Fish and Game for Section 1 of this act consisting of 15 acres or less, the
• the purposes of this act. the Department of Transportation Director of Transportation shall except and reserve to the
• shall transfer to the Department of Fish and Game for a 5,»le .n mineral deposits, as defined in Section 6407 of the
• consideration at least equal to the acquisition cost paid by pubuc Resources Code, below a depth of 500 feel, without
the state, that parcel of property excess to the needs of the ,urface rights of entry. As to properly sold pursuant to
Department of Transportation, located east of State Hi|h- Seclion , of ,ni$ »e, con,ijtmg of more ,„„ |S .cr<3i lhe
• way Route 1 in the City of Pacifica in San Mateo County, Director of Transportation shall except and reserve lo the
• consisting of approximately 1 1 acres described in Directors ,ule ,j| mmera| deposits, as defined in Section 6407 of the
• Deed DD-028764-01-01. and situated in the coastal zone pubij,. Resources Code, together with the right to prospect
punuanl to Section 30156.1 of the Public Resources Code. for. mine, .nd remove ,he depojiu. The rights to prospect
|
"(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the for. mine, and remove the deposits shall be limited lo those
Department of Fish and Game, using nonslate funds nude «™» of the property conveyed which the director, after
available lo it for that purpose, may acquire from the consultation with the Slate Lands Commission, determines
Department of Transportation the real property described in lo be reasonably necessary for the removal of the deposits.
subdivision (a) and may sell that property for a considera- "Sec. 4. If the real property described In Section I of
_ lion at least equal to its cost of acquisition lo a public or this act has not been transferred lo the Secretary of lhe
I private entity. It is the intent of the Legislature that, with Interior, by January I, 1994, Sections I. 2. and 3 of this act
I the concurrence of the City of Pacifica. the property de- shall be repealed as of January 1. 1994, unless a later
• scribed in subdivision (a) be made available to the Secretary enacted statute extends or deletes that date."
{ 30170.7. Repealed by Stats.1988. c. 160. § 158
{ 30171.2. City of Carlsbad; local coastal program; agricultural conversion fees; priorities;
reimbursements; claims; appropriation
(a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), on and after January 1, 1985, no agricultural conversion
fees may be levied or collected under the agricultural subsidy program provided in the local coastal
program of the City of Carlsbad which was adopted and certified pursuant to Section 30171. All
other provisions of that program shall continue to be operative, including the right to develop
• designated areas as provided in the program.
• (b) This section shall not affect any right or obligation under any agreement or contract entered
into prior to January 1, 1985, pursuant to that agricultural subsidy program, including the payment
of any fees and the right of development in accordance with the provisions of any such agreement or
I contract As to these properties, the agricultural subsidy fees in existence as of December 31, 1984,
shall be paid and allocated within the City of Carlsbad, or on projects outside the city which benefit
agricultural programs within the city, in accordance with the provisions of the agricultural subsidy
program as it existed on September 30, 1984.
(c) Any agricultural conversion fees collected pursuant to the agricultural subsidy program and
not deposited in the agricultural improvement fund in accordance with the local coastal program or
which have not been expended in the form of agricultural subsidies assigned to landowners by the
local coastal program land use policy plan on January 1, 1985, shall be used by the State Board of
Control to reimburse the party which paid the fees if no agreements or contracts have been entered
into or to the original parties to the agreements or contracts referred to in subdivision (b) in
proportion to the amount of fees paid by the parties. However, if the property subject to the fee was
under option at the time that the original agreement or contract was entered into and the optionee
was a party to the agricultural subsidy agreement, payments allocable to that property shall be paid
to the optionee in the event the optionee has exercised the option. Reimbursements under this
section shall be paid within 90 days after January 1, 1985, or payment of the fee, whichever occurs
later, and only after waiver by the party being reimbursed of any potential legal rights resulting
from enactment of this section.
(d) Any person entitled to reimbursement of fees under subdivision (c) shall file a claim with the
State Board of Control which shall determine the validity of the claim and pay that person a pro rata
share based on the relative amounts of fees paid under the local coastal program or any agreement
or contract entered pursuant thereto.
There is hereby appropriated to the State Board of Control the fees referred to in subdivision (c),
for the purpose of making refunds under this section.
Underline Indicates changes or additions by amendment
2
A-67
PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE § 30251
Note 1
(e) Notwithstanding any geographical limitation contained in this division, funds deposited pursu-
ant to subdivision (b) may be expended for physical or institutional development improvement*
needed to facilitate long-term agricultural production within the City of Carlsbad. These funds may
be used to construct improvements outside the coastal zone boundaries in San Diego County if the
improvements are not inconsistent with the Carlsbad local coastal program and the State Coastal
Conservancy determines that the improvements will benefit agricultural production within the
coastal zone of the City of Carlsbad.
(Amended by Stats. 1988, c. 402, § 1.)
{ 30171.5. City of Carlibad; local coastal program; mitigation fee for development on nonprime
agricultural lands; priorities
(a) The amount of the mitigation fee for development on nonprime agricultural lands in the coastal
cone in the City of Carlsbad that lie outside of the areas described in subdivision (f) of Section 80170
and subdivision (b) of Section 30171 shall be determined in the applicable segment of the local coastal
program of the City of Carlsbad, but shall not be less than five thousand dollars ($5,000), nor more
than ten thousand dollars ($10,000), per acre. All mitigation fees collected under this section shall be
deposited in the State Coastal Conservancy Fund.
(b) All mitigation fees collected pursuant to this section are hereby appropriated to, and shall be
expended by, the State Coastal Conservancy in the following order of priority:
(1) Restoration of natural resources and wildlife habitat in Batiquitos Lagoon.
(2) Development of an interpretive center at Buena Vista Lagoon.
(3) Provision of access to public beaches * * ' in the City of Carlsbad.
(4) Any other project or activity benefiting natural resources in the coastal tone in the City of
Carlsbad that is provided for in the local coastal program of the City of Carlsbad.
(c) Not less than 50 percent of collected and bonded mitigation fees shall be expended for the
purpose specified in paragraph (1) of subdivision (b).
(d) Other than to mitigate the agricultural conversion impacts for which they are collected, none of
the mitigation fees collected pursuant to this section shall be used for elements of a project which,
cause that project to be in compliance with this division or to mitigate a project which would
otherwise be inconsistent with this division. When reviewing a potential project for consistency with
thia subdivision, the State Coastal Conservancy shall consult with the commission.
(Amended by Stats.1987, c. 480, { 1.)
CHAPTER >. COASTAL RESOURCES PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT POLICIES
| 80212. New development projects
Lew Review fiiMenlnlse appeal dismissed, cenionri denied 106 S.Ct 1962, 476 U.S.
NoJlan v. California Coastal Commission: You can't 1111. 90 L.Ed.2d 641.
always get *h»l you want, but sometimes you get whM youneed. Timothy A. Bltlle, 13 Fepperdine L Rev. 343 <I9«I). 2. Review
Whalers' Village dub v. California Coastal Cora'a (App.
2 DUU9IJ) 211 Csl.Rptr 122, 172 CAJd 62 (main vot-
Notee of DecWoM ume) vacated 220 Cal.Rptt. 2, 173 CA.34 240. appeal
1. b sesMnl dismissed, ocrtiorari denied 106 S.Ct. 1962, 476 U.S. Mil.
Whalers' Village Club v. California Coastal Com'n (App. 90 L-Ed.2d 64S.
2 Did. 1913) 220 Cal Rptr. 2, 173 C.A.Jd 240 (main volume]
| 30261. Scenic and visual qualities
•pace easement condition upon issuance of
mmmfrmi D>cl>l P*™"1 w** reasonably related to statutory objective of1. b seism preserving scenic and vitual qualities of coastal area*. PaoU
Evidence in administrative record was sufficient to sup- v. California Coastal Com'n (App. I Disc 19*6) 22) Cat
port California Coastal CommisiioD's conclusion that open- Rptr. 792, 171 C.A.3d 344.
Asterisk* • • • Indicate dctottorw by armndiiMnt
3
A-68
I
I
I
I
I
STAFF REPORT
DATE: MARCH 8, 1989
TO: OPEN SPACE COMMITTEE
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: ADMINISTRATION OF OPEN SPACE
I. BACKGROUND - PUBLIC VS. PRIVATE RESPONSIBILITY
I
I
I
I
I
One of the results of Proposition 13 and subsequent
limitations on the ability to increase general revenue sources
I was for cities to reconsider the responsibility for the
* operation and maintenance of open space. Of primary concern
were areas of improved open space (i.e, parks, active
I recreational areas, trails) but also of concern were the
operational costs of publically-owned natural and,
environmentally-sensitive areas (i.e, canyons, floodplains).
I It became the City's general policy in the early 1980s to keep
I as much of our open space as possible in private ownership and1 therefore not have the City responsible for its administration
and maintenance. In 1982, in conjunction with the update ofIthe Parks and Recreation Element, the City decided to change
the approach of having the City own and maintain numerous
neighborhood parks but rather to concentrate on having fewer
t but larger community-wide parks. The cost of maintenance and
operation of fewer but larger community parks is less than it
would be for many smaller neighborhood parks. At that time,
the idea of having a City-owned and maintained trail system
I interconnecting all four quadrants of the City was dropped.
I Finally, instead of accepting as publically-dedicated open
space areas preserved for natural or visual purposes , the
(policy of the City was to require these areas to remain in
private ownership with, at the most, an easement for public
open space purposes. Because of these changes, it is
I important when discussing the issue of responsibility for the
I operation and maintenance of open space to recognize the
* distinction between public vs. private administration.
II. PUBLIC MAINTENANCE/OPERATION/LIABILITY
The responsibility for the administration, operation and
maintenance of publically-owned open space, principally parks,
falls under the purview of the Parks and Recreation
Department. A representative from the Parks and Recreation
Department will be available at the Open Space Committee's
meeting to give a presentation and answer questions on the
department's role in administrating certain open space areas
A-69
(i.e, parks) and the cost of maintaining improved and
unimproved open space land.
In discussing the issue of liability with the City's Risk
Manager, it was determined that City liability associated with
unimproved publically-owned open space land is minimal. The
liability risks increase (proportionally) if the lands are
improved for active open space uses. There is very little,
if any, liability to the City if an open space area is
retained in private ownership.
III. PRIVATE MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION
Private responsibility and maintenance of open space is
normally handled through a homeowners association (HOA)
operated under provisions of the California Civil Code and
Administrative Code pertaining to Department of Real Estate
regulations. Monthly assessment to each benefitting homeowner
are assessed beginning with the sale of the first lot in the
affected development. Payment of assessments is a contractual
obligation of the homeowner, although the HOA would have
foreclosure power once the assessments became delinquent.
Normally, the HOA would contract with a management company
and/or one or more maintenance contractors. Advantages to
this type of private maintenance and operation are not only
that there are no cost to the City but that there is also no
City administrative function necessary.
Another mechanism that is available to relieve the City of the
maintenance and operation costs associated with open space is
an Open Space Maintenance District. Although the costs of
maintenance and administration would be paid by private
property owners, the open space area must be publically
dedicated and the City must administer the program. The
assessments are levied annually and are collected with the
property tax bill. The City has an adopted policy regarding
the formation of open space maintenance districts which is
attached for the Committee's review.
IV. ENFORCEMENT
In the past couple of years, the City has become increasingly
concerned about the enforcement and monitoring of conditions
which are placed on development projects having to do with the
protection of open space resources. Examples would be
conditions requiring the preservation of a natural resource,
setbacks and buffers from environmentally-sensitive areas and
conditions requiring a certain amount or type of open space.
A Planning Commission Subcommittee was formed last year to
work with staff in developing recommendations to improve the
"quality control" of projects being built in the City. One
of the major items being looked-at is how the City can make
sure that a project is built the way it was approved. Staff
A-70
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
will update the Citizen Committee at your meeting on the work
and recommendation of this Planning Commission Subcommittee.
One additional enforcement item that staff will explain in
more detail including its impact on open space protection is
_ a recent change in the California Environmental Quality Act.
I This change requires that whenever an environmental condition
• or mitigation measure is placed on a project as a result of
the environmental review process, that a monitoring andIreporting program be required to ensure that the condition or
mitigation is fulfilled and that it works.
• V. ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED BY CITIZENS COMMITTEE
Do the benefits derived from having all the open space areas
in the City dedicated to and owned by the public outweigh the
I costs to the general public for maintenance, administration
I and liability? Does the committee wish to recommend a change
to the present City policy of having as much of the open space
I as possible, especially passive areas and neighborhood-level
recreation and resources, owned and maintained by private
property owners? If a change in the policy is recommended,
_ what funding mechanisms are suggested?
arb
A-71
CITY CI:' i'.<MU,n''.AD
COUNCIL POLICY STA'.;:;-;:ih;:;T
il.inf.ral Gubjoci:: OPEN SPACE
Sr>"cifJc Svb-joct- OPEN SPACE MAINTENANCE••-•'•- ' DISTRICTS
-Fj^-lriSiy JIo_^?.3 _?^Q 1 Of 4
Cancel la I:1? on D ••. tc
Copies to: City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, n^par tni-n;- and
Divi.niou Heads, Employee Bulletin Boards", PTC-JG, File
PURPOSE
To establish a policy that will:
1. Outline the circumstances when the City will agree to create,
or allow annexation to, a public district for the maintenance
of open space.
2. Outline procedures for the establishment of open space
maintenance districts.
3. Adopt an open space easement maintenance program as described
in the Landscape Guidelines Manual.
BACKGROUND
As the City develops anu certain areas are s^t aside or established as
open space, it may be nscessary to provide for the maintenance of such
areas. In certain instances Lbe City may provide for the maintenance and
in other instances maintenance must be provided by other means. Kov.-ever,
in nany instances iL may not be necessary to provide for the active
maintenance of op=;n space areas. It is not the intent of this policy to
encourage the formation of maintenance districts. The need to actively
maintain open space should be minimized. The responsibility for open
space maintenance should remain with the individual property owner unless
there are substantial reasons for providing common or public maintenance.
The creation of intensively landscaped areas, which are expensive to
maintain, should be carefully limted. Open space areas should be
developed so as to obviate the need for a public maintenance district.
The intent of this policy is to define criteria for establishing
maintenance districts when appropriate, and to outline the procedure
involved.
The characteristics, degree of development, landscape, and maintenance
standards for open space areas are outlined in the City's Landscape
Guidelines Manuajl. The Manual describes the "Open Space Maintenance
Program" submittai that is required of developments containing open
space.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
jI
In those instances where a public maintenance district is essential, this j
policy will provide guidelines to help injure that open space areas v.-ill •
be adequately maintained. il
A-72
I
CITY 0? CARLSDAD , . -, ,_Policy "To. 23 page 2 of 4
COUNCIL POLICY STATEM^T [ 8/2/83
OP EM SPACE§i Jeaural Sua^ict:
Specific Subject: OPEN SPACE MAINTENANCE
^ T^. T* /"• m r^ T /^ m *^
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
DISTRICTS
Effective Dace 8/2/83
Cancellation. D-it2
Supersedes No. 23 (1/5/77)
Copies La: City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, Dapar trr.er.t and
Division Heads, Employee Bulletin Board:-;', Press, File
DEFINITIONS
Open Space Maintenance Areas; Land and water areas within subdivisions,
specific plans, or planned communities which are dedicated in fee to the
City or upon which easements for open space purposes have been granted,-
excluding the following: City parks to be maintained out of the general
funds of the City; prime open space and conservation areas identified in
the Carlsbad General Plan; private recreation areas not open to the
public.
Maintenance District; A district to provide maintenance of open space
maintenance areas formed pursuant to the "Landscaping and Lighting Act of
1972" (Section 225CO et seq. of the Street and Highway Code).
I Maintain or Maintenance: The furnishing of services and materials for
j the ordinary ai:d usual maintenance, operation, and servicing of any
| improvement, including:
I j (a) repair, removal or replacement of all or any part of any
improvement.
(b) providing for the life, growth, health, and beauty of landscaping,
including cultivation, irrigation, trimming, spraying,
fertilizing, or treating for disease or injury.
(c) removal of trimminqs, rubbish, debris, and other solid waste
(Section 22531, Street and Highway Code).
Public Places; One or any combination of the following;
(a) Any public street, highway, road, alley, lane, boulevard, parkway,,
or other way dedicated to or used for public use.
(b) Any public property, right-of-way, or leasehold interest which is
in use in the performance of a public function and which adjoins
any of the ways described in subdivision (a) (Section 22535,
Street and Highway Code).
CRITERIA FOR ESTABLISHING DISTRICTS;
The City Council will consider the creation of a maintenance district
pursuant to the Landscaping and Liqhting Act of 1972, or the annexation
of addtional territory to an existing district under the - following
conditions:
1. The area to be maintained is a public place as defined herein.
A-73
CITY 0? CA.IU.S2AD
COUNCIL POLICY STATED:,T
1 Subject:OP£N SPACE
Specific Sub;;;;OPEN SPACE MAINTENANCE
DISTRICTS
^icv:_il9 • _13_E^?G 3 of 4
Effective Dat 8-/2/83
Can eel I.g t ion D-?. to
>"P.erca^»s No. 23 (1/5/77)
Copies to: City Council, City Mannasjr, City Attorney, D^prirtrp.3nc and.
Division Meads, Employee Bulletin Boards) Press, Filo
2. An active maintenance program is essential in order for the open
space maintenance area to serve its designated function.
3. The use of a maintenance district is the best way of providing
maintenance.
4. The property owners within the district will benefit by the active
maintenance of open space maintenance areas.
5. The subdivider will bear the cost of the incidental expenses
necessary to establish the district.
6. The subdivider will provide maintenance for a year for all newly
planted areas.
Maintenance district shall not be used to provide maintenance to the
following:
1. Areas designated as City parks.
2. Private recreation areas.
3. Privately owned property unless an appropriate easement has been
granted to the City.
PROCEDURES FOP. ESTABLISHMENT OF DISTRICTS:
The following procedure shall be followed in order to establish a
maintenance district:
1. As part of the development review process, City staff shall analyze
open space requirements in all proposed subdivisions.
2. City staff shall prepare recommendations to the Planning Commission
on the following:
a. the intended function of all proposed open space.
b. maintenance responsibility for all proposed open space.
c. categories of landscape development in proposed open space.
3. The Planning Commission shall recommend what tentative map conditions
will be imposed on subdivisions to insure adequate open space
maintenance.
4. Upon tentative map approval by the City Council, the City staff shall
prepare estimates on the cost of forming a district and the annual
cost of maintenance.
5. City staff report shall be presented to the City Council.
6. If the Council decides to proceed with the formation of a district, a
resolution initiating proceeding should be adopted pursuant to the
provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972.
A-74
rROcnnu;<t:s FOR irr/i'
_ UST;IG Tin:Ann on::,1 SPACE K/MHTEHAKCE DISTRICTC;./,!^ LIGHTING AC:T or 1972 Page 4 of 4
Submits Development Plans.
STAFF KEVINS PLANS
Staff ana3.y7.cs open ppace requirements
and prepares recommendations to the
Planning Commission.
PLAItinHG COM:-yi."s J.ON
Reviews development proposal and estab-
lishes conditions needed to implement
open space requirements of Cencr-il Plan
and Open Space Maintonar.ee District
Polic:y and makes report to City Council.
CITY COUNCIL
City Council approves, conditionally
approves, or disapproves Planning
Commission Report.
I
SUBDIVIDJ:R
Submits landscape improvement plans to
Park fi Recreation Director.
PARKS AND RECK*DIPKCTOR
Evaluates plans and specifications ror
confonnance to City stanciarda and pre-
pares estimate of annual maintenance cost
and improvement costs.
Prepares estimats cf cost- of for.Tii.ig
district and prep-ires report to City
Council.
I
CITY COUNCIL .
Adopts resolution initiating proceedings
to form district. Authorises employment
of engineering consultant to prepare
neccssRry reports.
ENGINEERING CON'SULT/'iNT
Prepares report -as required by Section
22565-22574 of the Street & Highway Code.
Files report v/ith City Clark for
submission to City Council.
CITY COUNCIL
After approval of the report. City
Council ttdopts Resolution of Intention.
The'resolution shall, among other things,
fix a time and place for a public hearing.
CITY CLERS
Shall give notice of hearing as provided
in the Act.
CITY CO li ^I I.
Hold hearing a:j provided in the Resolu-
tion of Intention. If a majority proter.t
has not bvn filed or is overruled, the
City Count:'j. 1 nuy ailupt a resolution or-
dering the i.niprovi:i:v.Mitn and tho lornui-
tion of Llio auiicr.Liinont district.
A-75
STAFF REPORT
DATE: MARCH 8, 1989
TO: OPEN SPACE COMMITTEE
FROM: Planning Department
SUBJECT: TRAIL SYSTEM
In 1982 in conjunction with the review of the revised Parks and
Recreation Element, the City decided not to pursue the idea of a
publically-dedicated and maintained, citywide-interconnecting trail
system. At that time, the consultant working on the revised
element was recommending a "Hiking/Equestrian Corridor Plan" which
would connect all four quadrants of the City and provide a link
between Carrillo Ranch, La Costa, Batiquitos Lagoon, Macario Park
and Lake Calavera (refer to attached diagram, Exhibit "A"). When
the revised Parks and Recreation Element was being considered at
public hearings by the Planning Commission, the decision not to
pursue the plan was made for the following reasons:
1. Improvement costs particularly those associated with bridging
major roads such as El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Road
2. Continual maintenance costs
3. Public liability
4. Impact to adjacent private property particularly where the
trail might have to be next to homeowners private yards
5. Security/policing problems
Besides deleting the hiking/equestrian diagram, the following
policy statement and action program were removed from the Element:
1. "Develop land dedication requirements for hiking/equestrian
corridors."
2. "Develop requirements for irrevocable offers of land
dedication by the private sector for open space as shown on
the Hiking/Equestrian Corridor Plan."
These statements were replaced with the following policy which now
is included in the existing Parks and Recreation Element. "If a
recreational trail system is established, they shall be provided
by developers and maintained by private property owners."
Although the 1973 Open Space and Conservation Element contained a
couple of general statements or references to a trail system, it
appears that the main implication that the City would pursue some
A-76
I
I
I
I
I
sort of a citywide, interconnecting trail system is reflected in
the 1973 Prime Open Space and Conservation Map (attached as Exhibit
"B") . The map reflects corridors or linkage between major open
space areas using in part utility easements and railroad right-of-
way.
(The draft updated Open Space and Conservation Element still
contains general references to considering trails as a open space
use but because of the decisions which were made when the Revised
Parks and Recreation Element was adopted in 1982, no specific
policies or action programs regarding a comprehensive trail system
were included in the draft update.
Staff is not sure that a citywide, interconnecting trail system as
envisioned prior to 1982 is still physically possible. Staff would
need to do some extensive review including field work to see if
(private development has precluded the possibility of complete
linkage. In order to make a interconnecting citywide system work,
staff believes that the trails would have to be publically
(dedicated and maintained by the City in order to ensure common
improvement and maintenance and to guarantee use by the general
public. Staff does not believe that a system focusing on
equestrian use would be used anymore given the development patternsIthat have occurred in the City. If the Citizens Committee wishes
to further pursue the idea of a complete, city-wide interconnecting
trail system, staff would recommend that the Committee's report to
I the City Council include a recommendation to have a more detailed,
in depth evaluation including dedication requirements, physical
constraints and improvement and maintenance costs.
(Providing separate trail systems within individual, undeveloped
communities in the City is of course still possible if the
committee wishes to recommend it. If they just provide access
I within an individual community area, they can probably be retained
in private ownership and maintenance. Goals and policies could be
added to the updated Open Space Element to require future Master
Plans for the undeveloped portions of the City to address providing
interconnecting trails within the Master Plan areas. The issues
of dedication, maintenance, security would need to be addressed.
Attachments
Exhibit "A"
Exhibit "B"
arb
I
I
I
I
I
I
I A-77
CD
I
XUJ
<0g>: .Qp
tz <5 = 2:°i £TRAILSDC
in
OUJ
'3
Z cREST STOP LOCATEDWfTHIN MACARIO/HUB^ PiySSuJ
<»— ttr-OC>tn|D<<
tt«JppIju* 4 « ii jc <r
°-g°-5^u>>lipcomOuJ
£2^wzo-
gi
e
5
.
A-78
I
I
I
If*§;
hi
mxX
HI
I *
h/
"•«##$•-X. vi;
•«&.
*§s«
>\
•W K <
'v-^Tc7y,.v.i-:I"f;7
f
V\I/-v:."*•'*s*
V
5
1$ \/M.,,^
.(•'n-i>\'3.Vrf
i
/*, if. ..%, ^ 'K
\\\ \
ipl
[ V*s
*f•&*¥T^?ji"v>- .yf; ¥
%v\feSMS;j?0,...
i ^jasr->\t s\\- S^ Sr VXff\\i»f-^tv.?:«.\ -^'AvvA-mfe *«a
"N. ><^^- ^r
•4,'. ../ I .
F»V ,•s-rfH^V
I
•«?'=€r<?M..
!^^>;
*
*!^J.£',:t f-~\*>-.>,y=£-»•$• V5.^ ^.,*!*? V!
V,ftto«(«S§3B»j|
;'i*»*»!>fw«stB'IJ!''e.'SS-Ji
'UWilfSi
i>'~^.^ai^-i
K'Jw'fii. BM*iui'.awJsV*1
^^^^""^%
»<
r vV
^
>"
f^f-*'
,JJ'
}S*»tti
.^.,. »:^i,,
- ••..,>; V--..MI;^fe?'(.J?^":"
y^'^>
^^•;
<rf
CijlKrfl
4tl
*fi
K^
.^!•i**1,***,"•"'.**
}v£
A-79
MARCH 22, 1989
TO: CITIZENS COMMITTEE TO STUDY OPEN SPACE
FROM: Planning Department
OPEN SPACE MAP
I. DESCRIPTION/PURPOSE OF OPEN SPACE MAP
The Open Space Map (attached as Exhibit "A") is a graphic
representation of the existing and future open space which will be
provided in the City. It is comprised of the following:
1. Existing and future open space areas as presently shown
on the General Plan Land Use Map including all
publically-owned or dedicated open space lands (i.e,
parks, Lake Calavera, Macario Canyon and San Marcos
Canyon).
2. Additional areas of environmentally-sensitive lands which
are prohibited from development by the Open Space
Ordinance (Ordinance No. 9795, attached as Exhibit "B")
as identified by the Natural Resource Inventory. These
lands include beaches, lagoons, wetlands, floodways,
other permanent water bodies, riparian areas and steep
slopes.
3. Additional areas of open space which were obtained
through the Master Plan, Planned Development or
development approval process. Because of the scale of
the map only the larger ones are shown.
4. The map also shows the areas of the City where the
additional 15% open space requirement of the Growth
Management Plan applies. Until the Local Facilities
Management Plans are prepared for the areas, the specific
location of the open space is not mapped but cannot
include environmentally-sensitive lands which are
prohibited from development by the Open Space Ordinance.
As mentioned previously, the Open Space Map is intended to be a
graphic representation of existing and future open space. It is
not meant to reflect precise legally-defined parcel boundaries.
There are over 22,000 parcels in the City. The scale of the base
map presently used to prepare all City planning maps is at a scale
of one inch (1") equals one thousand feet (1,000')). The City does
not presently have a map which shows the legal boundaries of all
the parcels in the City. Although the City is pursuing the
preparation of parcelized base maps, it is a long term project
which will require probably a number of series of separate maps and
will cost at least a quarter of a million dollars. For these
reasons, the State Guidelines for the preparation of General Plan
A-80
and its elements, like the Open Space Element, recommends that maps
contained in the General Plan be referred to as "diagrams" which
I are graphic expressions of the Plan's goals, objectives and
implementing programs. Although the map or diagram must be
consistent with the General Plan text, it is not typically meant
to have the same regulatory nature as written ordinances, standard
I or policies or to be parcel specific. The State Guidelines for
• preparation of General Plan Elements suggests following a recent,
published opinion of the Attorney General which is as follows:
I A "diagram" is commonly defined as "a graphic design that
explains rather than represents: a drawing that shows
(arrangement and relations." (Webster's New World Internat.
Diet. (3d ed. 1966) p. 622.) " 'A diagram is simply an
illustrative outline of a tract of land....At best, it is but
an approximation.1" (Burton v. State (Ala. 1897) 22 So. 585,
586.)
It is for these reasons, that staff has consistently recommended
in the past that a General Plan Map or diagram not be used to
legally enforce or lock into place a requirement of the City. A
General Plan goal, objective or requirement can be more adequately
implemented and enforced if it is put into written form by adopting
standards and ordinances.
II. AMENDMENT TO THE OPEN SPACE MAP
Concern has been expressed in the past about the procedure for
substantially changing or modifying the Open Space Map. Once the
map is adopted as part of the updated Open Space Element, any major
deviation from the map will require a formal amendment to the
General Plan with noticed public hearings. Should the Citizens
Committee feel that a more detailed or additional procedure for
(amending or deviating from the map is needed, two alternatives
which the Committee may want to discuss are as follows:
1. More specifically describe in written form in the Open
Space Ordinances, the boundaries of the areas that are
being protected and which are prohibited from
development. Precise definitions could be included.
2. Create a formalized procedure for adjusting the
boundaries of any open space area shown on the map.
Findings required for the approval of a boundary
adjustment to the map could include the following:
A. The open space area is of equal or greater area; and
B. The open space area is of equal or greater
environmental quality; and
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
A-81
C. The boundary modification is made in order to
provide an enhancement to an environmentally
sensitive area; and
D. The adjusted open space is contiguous or within
close proximity to the open space shown on the Open
Space Map.
E. The City Council may also modify the boundary
location shown on the Open Space Map if it finds
that the modification is necessary to mitigate a
sensitive environmental area which is impacted by
development provided the boundary modification
preserves open space at a 2 to 1 ratio and is within
close proximity to the original area of open space.
Attachments
Exhibit "A"
Exhibit "B"
arb
A-82
OPEN SPACE MAP
CITY OF CARLSBAD
Auguct 9. 1MS
IMC tr* Ml Mwitfod 10 f*praM«t pr*dM
ZOOM RequttigSwptonwntal Open Space
*•**•* H> BddMtOMM 19% Of totf »*• In IM»
com to b* Ml uKto tor poiinanotH opon «MG«. TM
EXHIBIT A A-63
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
EXHIBIT B
ORDINANCE NO. 9795
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA AMENDING TITLE 21, CHAPTER 21.53
OP THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE BY THE ADDITION OF
SECTIONS 21.53.230 AND 21.53.240 TO RESTRICT DEVELOPMENT
ON CERTAIN OPEN SPACE AREAS IDENTIFIED IN THE GENERAL
PLAN AND TO EXCLUDE CONSIDERATION OF OPEN SPACE LAND
FROM DENSITY CALCULATIONS.
The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California,
does ordain as followst
SECTION It That Title 21, Chapter 21.53 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code is amended by the addition of Section 21.53.230 to
read as followst
21.53.230 Residential Density Calculations, Residential
Development Restrictions on Open Space and Environmentally
Sensitive Lands.
HP) For
code, residential
of dwelling units
(b)
undevelopable
or more
easements
The
and
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
the purposes of title 20 and Title 21 of this
density shall be determined based on the number
per developable acre of property.
following lands are considered to be
shall be excluded from density calculations:
beaches
permanent bodies of water
floodways
slopes with an inclination of greater than 40%
significant wetlands
significant riparian or woodland habitats
land subject to major power transmission
environmental
process for »
(c)
(8) land upon which other significant
features as determined by the environmental review
project are located
(9) railroad track beds
No residential development shall occur on any
property listed in Subsection (b). Subject to the provisions of
Chapter 21.31 and 21.33, the City Council may permit limited
development of such property if, when considering the
property as a whole the prohibition against development would
constitute an unconstitutional deprivation of property. The
Planning Commission or City Council, whichever the final
discretionary body for a residential development may permit
accessory facilities, including but not limited to, recreational
facilities, view areas, and vehicular parking areas, to be
located in floodplains (subject to Chapter 21.31) and on land
subject to major power transmission easements.
(d) Residential development on slopes with an
inclination of 25 to 40 percent inclusive shall be designed to
A-84
I
I
I
1
2
3
4
5
6
I 7
i:
| 10
11
IK
I"14
I"
l"• 17
[18
19
I 20
I21
'22
I23
24
125
I'6
27
k
minimize the amount of grading necessary to accommodate the
project. For projects within the coastal zone, the grading
provisions of the Carlsbad Local Coastal program shall apply,
(e) Projects which have received ail discretionary
approvals under the provisions of Title's 20 and 21 prior to the
effective date of this ordinance may obtain a final map without
complying with this section for a period of two years from the
date of the tentative map approval. Any time during which
approval of the final map is prohibited oy Ordinance No. 9791 or
any other growth management ordinance, shall be added to the two
year period. Upon expiration of the tentative map, the standards
of this ordinance shall apply to the property.
(f) Projects with all discretionary approvals under
the provisions of Title's 20 and 21 and with a final map approved
prior to the effective date of this ordinance or approved
pursuant to Subsection (e), or for which a subdivision map is not
reguired, may obtain building permits without complying with this
section for a period of two years from the effective date of this
ordinance. Once building permits are obtained, construction must
be diligently pursued to completion or the provisions of this
section will apply. Upon expiration of the two year period or
the building permits, the standards of this ordinance shall apply
to the property.
SECTION 2: That Title 21, Chapter 21.53 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code is amended by the addition of Section 21.53.240 to
read as follows:
21.53.240 Non-residential development restrictions on
Open Space and Environmentally Sensitive Lands."~
Non-residential Development shall be designed to avoid
development on lands identified in Section 21.53.230.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall be effective
thirty days after its adoption, and City Clerk shall certify to
the adoption of this ordinance and cause it to be published at
least once in the Carlsbad Journal within fifteen days after its
adoption.
INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the
Carlsbad City Council held on the 27th day of May ,
1986, and thereafter
A-85
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17 i
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
PASSED A1 /OPTED at a regular meeting of said City
Council held on tb«. 3rd day of June , 1986. by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Lewis, Kulchin and Pettine
NOES: Council Members Casler and Chick
ABSENT: None
APP80VED AS--TO FORM AND .LEGALITY
VINCENT'F.O, JR.j;Gity Attorney
'/i/Uo^, V .
MARX H.yCASLER, Mayor
ATTEST:
ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, City
A-86
I
I WRT
DATE: March 30, 1989
I TO: OPEN SPACE COMMITTEE
I
FROM: WALLACE ROBERTS & TODD
SUBJECT: OPEN SPACE ADMINISTRATION SYSTEMS
I I. BACKGROUND
This report describes and discusses common approaches to administration of park and open
I space systems. The most common administrative systems used by cities rely on city
I departments with functions either centralized in a single department or divided between
two. A third less common approach is the establishment of a Park Commission which
I operates independently of the city, but generally reports to the City Council for
funding or budget approvals. Other groups also administer open space within city
boundaries either in coordination with city staff or as a response to the city
_ subdivision approval process. These groups may operate on either a local level, in the
I case of the homeowners associations (HOA), or at a regional level, in the case of the
* regional park and open space agencies and land trusts.
I II. CITY-LEVEL ADMINISTRATION
The most common form of city administration is a decentralized system in which two
(separate departments are responsible for different stages of administering open space,
each department being independently accountable to the City Council. Under the
decentralized system the Planning Department is commonly responsible for identifying and
obtaining potential open space areas. Once acquired a site is turned over to the ParksIand Recreation Department which is responsible for design, construction, maintenance and
security. For cities with well defined, park and recreation open space areas in urban
settings this administrative system works well. Additional special open space such as
I road Right-of-Ways are typically administered by the Department of Public Works.
A second type of city administration is a centralized system in which all open
- space-related functions are organized under one department which reports to the City
I Council. Under this system a Public Services Division may control all aspects of open
• space administration. In general, one superintendent within the Public Services
Division handles planning, design and acquisition while another deals with maintenanceIand security. Both superintendents report to the Public Services Department
Administrator.
I The City of Walnut Creek has adopted a centralized administrative system for its open
space. This system allows the city to efficiently coordinate, operate and manage over
3,000 acres of ridgelines and valleys associated with Mount Diablo, a regional landmark
in the San Francisco Bay Area. The Public Services Department staff can coordinate
I easily with the Regional Parks and Recreation Authority staff and information is quickly
* transmitted to the maintenance and security arm of the department. Because the system
is centralized, programming and maintenance needs are more easily coordinated. For
(example, two rangers patrol the large, regional open space area, maintain trails, lead
nature programs and provide basic maintenance.
A-87
WRT
Some cities provide a full range of public open space from intensively developed parks
to open space areas of a more regional nature, such as the relatively undeveloped lands
in Walnut Creek for hiking, bird watching and other forms of more passive recreation.
In general, if a city owns and maintains this type of regional open space, it will not
own more than a single parcel, typically not exceeding 500 acres. Providing maintenance
and security for a number of extremely large separate parcels taxes the resources of
most cities.
A third, less common, approach to administering open space is for the city to establish
a Parks and Open Space Commission which operates relatively independently. One good
example is the Fairmount Park Commission in Philadelphia. This is an independent
policy-making body with power over all use and management of the Fairmount Park system,
which comprises roughly 8700 acres of diverse, non-contiguous open space and parkland.
The Commission's power is limited in that its primary funding source is through the
General Fund of the City of Philadelphia, appropriated by City Council through the City
Administration. In recognition of their responsibilities affecting the management of
Fairmount Park, the Mayor, City Council, and the Recreation Department, the Water
Department, the Streets Department, and the Department of Public Property are
represented by ex officio members of the Commission. In addition to acting as
administrative and policy body, the Commission employs its own staff for planning,
design, maintenance, and security. (In 1983 the full time staff totalled 391
personnel.)
III. PRIVATE ADMINISTRATION AND MAINTENANCE
Requiring operation and maintenance of open space by homeowners associations (HOA) as a
condition of subdivision approval is the most common form of ensuring pubic easements or
trails while minimizing open space acquisition and liability costs. This type of open
space should primarily benefit the homeowners association membership. If the private
open space is not maintained at city standards, the city can use a nuisance abatement
ordinance to require compliance from the HOA.
Most cities rely on the subdivision approval process to ensure that land designated as
open space remains in open space. The land is generally zoned as open space and is
designated for that use on the General Plan Land Use Map. The City of Mill Valley also
formally retires the development rights to the open space parcel and sets the area aside
in perpetuity. The City accomplishes this objective by requiring the HOA to grant the
development rights to the City. All restrictions on land use associated with the parcel
are then recorded as a note on the subdivision map. The public access rights are also
recorded.
III. REGIONAL-LEVEL ADMINISTRATION
The two major regional-level groups which may buy, maintain, assume liability for and
administer large scale, relatively passive open space areas are regional park and
recreation districts and land trusts. Regional park and recreation districts often take
the place of county-run open space departments and administer large areas which supply
the need for parkland of regional character, large natural preserves, and/or resource
conservation. The regional authority staff coordinates with city planning department
staff to design trail alignments and negotiate land purchases and transfers involving
incorporated land. The primary source of revenue for regional open space districts is
usually a property tax.
A-88
I
I WRT
I
The Solano Farmlands and Open Space Foundation is an example of a land trust. The need
I to protect farmland threatened by urbanization in the vicinity of the City of Fairfield
and provide an open space greenbelt around the City led to the establishment of the
Foundation in 1984. The City Council set up a Mello-Roos district to provide basic
_ financing for the Foundation. The city does not intervene with the management of the
I Foundation except to require a written notice of any purchase proposed by the Foundation
• which the City Council has the right to veto within 15 days. Additional financing has
been acquired through grants and contracts with other jurisdictions.
I The Foundation generally acquires farmland, retires its development rights and then
sells the land to people who want to farm but cannot afford the market price for a piece
I of land. The Foundation has also bought marsh land which will probably be leased to the
California Department of Fish and Game to manage. The Foundation has benefitted the
City by helping to establish a permanent open space buffer, by assuming the liability of
open space areas, holding mitigation lands, and conducting negotiations for lands within
I and in the vicinity of the City.
IV. ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED BY CITIZENS COMMITTEE
I For any type of open space, important questions include who will be the major user, to
what level will it be developed, who will benefit from the area, how will the city
I retain a measure of control over maintenance and future use of privately held open
I space, and are proposed open space areas of a regional scale easily administered within
" the City's current system? If the City of Carlsbad wishes to protect and acquire more
open space areas such as farmland, greenbelt buffer areas, wetlands, or scenic areas,
I would the establishment of a land trust suit this purpose?
881356.1:carlsbad
A-89
I
I
I
I
I
I SECTION V
I
B. COMMITTEE MINUTES
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
\
PAGE
I Minutes Dated:
• December 14, 1988... B- 1
January 11, 1989... B- 4
I January 25, 1989... B - 8
. February 8, 1989... B - 12
February 22, 1989... B- 16
I March 8, 1989... B - 20
March 22, 1989... B - 23
• April 1, 1989... B- 28
I April 12, 1989... B - 33
April 26, 1989... B- 37
I May 1, 1989... B - 41
I May 10, 1989... B- 48
May 15, 1989... B - 53
I May 22, 1989... B- 58
July 17, 1989... B- 61
B-ii
MINUTES
Meeting of:
Time of Meeting:
Date of Meeting:
Place of Meeting:
Citizen's Committee to Study Open Space
6:00 p.m.
December 14, 1988
Carlsbad Safety & Service Center
1.CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 6:11 p.m. by Michael
Holzmiller, Planning Director. The following members and
staff were present:
Members: Carman Cedola
Tom Freeman
Courtney Heineman
Homer B. Hupf
S, Elaine Lyttleton
Kip K. McBane
Julianne Nygaard
Kathy Parker
Alan Recce
Fay 0. Round, Jr.
Margaret Stanton
Cindy Ward
Patricia M. White
Robert E. Wilkinson
Alternate
Members: Girard W. (Lefty) Anear
Mario B Monroy
Absent: Stephen M. Novak
Staff: Michael Holzmiller
Raymond Patchett
Charles Grimm
Philip Carter
Martin Orenyak
Michael Howes
Bobbie Hoder
Consultants:
Wallace Roberts & Todd (WRT)
Cathy Garcia
Carl Brookwood
Economic Research Assoc. (ERA)
Bill Anderson
2.INTRODUCTIONS
Members of the task force introduced themselves and gave a
brief biographical sketch of their background and interest
in open space.
3.ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN & VICE-CHAIRMAN
The names of Kip McBane and Elaine Lyttleton were nominated
for the position of Chairman. The names of Fay Round and
Courtney Heineman were nominated for the position of
Vice-chairman.
B-l
December 14, 188 CITIZEN'S OPEN SPACF OMMITTEE Page 2
Motion was duly made, seconded, and carried to keep the
nominations open until the next meeting at which time the
vote would be taken.
Homer Hupf requested clarification on how the election would
be conducted. Michael Holzmiller replied that it would be
by majority vote.
Julianne Nygaard suggested that nominees provide a written
biographical sketch to be included with the packets for the
next meeting.
Courtney Heineman recommended that voting be conducted by
secret ballot. Motion was duly made, seconded, and carried
in favor of a secret ballot.
4. DISTRIBUTION AND EXPLANATION OF COMMITTEE WORKBOOK
Michael Holzmiller reviewed the Committee Workbook and gave
an explanation of each section. He requested members to
review the Committee procedures which will be voted on at
the next meeting.
Kip McBane inquired if staff is preparing a copy of the
revised Open Space Plan and changes since its inception in
1974. Michael Holzmiller replied that staff is currently
preparing this original copy with revisions noted in the
margin area.
Courtney Heineman inquired if the Committee automatically
terminates in April 1989. Michael Holzmiller replied that
the interim ordinance states August 1989 or until an open
space report is completed.
Kip McBane would like to see the existing and proposed
revisions to the Parks & Recreation and Land Use ordinances
provided. He would also like to see the open space
ordinances of some other cities such as Laguna Beach,
Rolling Hills, Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz, Palo Alto, and
Mill Valley.
Kip McBane suggested that a library of documents be
available for checkout by members rather than making copies
for everyone.
5. SCHEDULE FOR FUTURE MEETINGS
The schedule and time of future meetings was discussed. The
least conflict would be the 2nd and 4th Wednesdays.
Motion was duly made, seconded, and carried to have meetings
on the 2nd and 4th Wednesdays to begin at 5:30 p.m. and end
no later than 8:30 p.m.
B-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
December 14, 988 CITIZEN'S OPEN SPACI 'OMMITTEE Page 3
Elaine Lyttleton advised that she has a conflict on
January 14, 1989 and requested a schedule change to
I January 21st. Motion was duly made, seconded, and carried
to change the January 14, 1989 meeting to January 21, 1989.
6. OTHER MISCELLANEOUS PROCEDURAL ITEMS
The method for picking up meeting packets was discussed.
I The packets will be available on the 1st and 3rd Wednesday
I • from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. at the Community Development1 Department on Las Palmas Drive or the City Manager's office.
Members will notify Bobbie Hoder as to where they wish their
packet to be available.
Kip McBane would like to have a proposal on utilizing
alternates, should a member replacement be necessary.
Fay Round suggested that all members of the Committee
provide a written biographical sketch for inclusion in the
next meeting packet but a motion was not made.
Michael Holzmiller announced that staff members Holzmiller,I Grimm, and Howes may be contacted for clarification of
information contained in reports and that Bobbie Hoder may
be contacted for administrative questions.
I Michael Holzmiller advised members that contact with the
consultants should be made only through staff. Requests for
information should go through the Chairman or Vice-chairmanIof the Committee after the election. He added that support
will also be available from the City Manager, the City
Attorney, and the Community Development Department,
(representatives of which will attend the Committee meetings
if needed.
7. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
ER
Minutes Clerk
B-3
MINUTES
Meeting of: Citizen's Committee to Study Open Space
Time of Meeting: 5:30 p.m.
Date of Meeting: January 11, 1989
Place of Meeting: Carlsbad Safety & Service Center
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m. by Michael
Holzmiller, Planning Director. The following members and
staff were present:
Members: Tom Freeman Staff: Michael Holzmiller
Courtney Heineman Raymond Patchett
Homer B. Hupf Charles Grimm
S. Elaine Lyttleton Martin Orenyak
Kip K. McBane Michael Howes
Stephen M. Novak Bobbie Hoder
Julianne Nygaard Brian Hunter
Kathy Parker Erin Letsch
Alan Recce
Fay O. Round, Jr. Consultants:
Margaret Stanton Wallace Roberts & Todd (WRT)
Cindy Ward Paul Rookwood
Patricia M. White
Robert E. Wilkinson
Alternate
Members: Girard W. (Lefty) Anear
Mario R. Monroy
Absent: Carman Cedola
1. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE
Dennis Meehan addressed the meeting and requested that Kip
McBane remove his name from nomination for Chairman due to
his intentions of candidacy for the City Council.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
(a) Fay Round requested clarification of paragraph two
on page 2 regarding the method of majority vote. Mr.
Holzmiller replied that the nominees would be voted on in
order of nomination and would require a majority vote of the
committee to be elected, i.e. since the committee has 15
members, eight votes is a majority. If no nominee receives
a majority on the first ballot, nominations would be
reopened and another vote would be taken.
B-4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
January 11, If < CITIZEN'S OPEN SPACE MMITTEE Page 2
(b) Courtney Heineman inquired about the secret ballot
and Mr. Holzmiller referred to the staff memo dated
January 3, 1989 which states that the Committee is subject
to the Brown Act and a city ordinance on public meeting
rules which prohibits the use of a secret ballot.
(c) Kip McBane requested a revision to Item #4,
paragraph two, to delete "...revised Open Space Plan and
changes since its inception in 1974" and replace it with
"...existing open space element interlined with all changes
and deletions proposed in the September 7, 1988 draft."
(Motion was duly made, seconded, and carried (13-0-1) to
approve the minutes of December 14, 1988 as amended.
Stephen M. Novak abstained.
I (d) Kip McBane requested that in the future, numbers
on the minutes match those on the agenda, and that the
I minutes reflect the number of votes in favor and against any
motion.
3. ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN & VICE-CHAIRMAN
(a) Mr. Holzmiller reviewed the slate of nominees for
the office of Chairman and called for additional
nominations. The name of Fay Round was placed in nomination
for the office of Chairman. The nominees for Chairman were
as follows:
I Chairman: Kip McBane
• Elaine Lyttleton
Fay Round
I Motion was duly made, seconded, and unanimously carried
(14-0) to close the nominations for the office of Chairman.
I Mr. Holzmiller called for the vote for the first nominee,
Mr. Kip McBane. Mr. McBane received eight votes in his
favor, which was a majority, and was therefore declared to
be the Chairman.
(b) Mr. Holzmiller reviewed the slate of nominees for
the office of Vice Chairman and called for additional
nominations. The nominees for Vice Chairman were as
follows:
Vice Chairman: Fay Round
Courtney Heineman
Motion was duly made, seconded, and unanimously carried
(14-0) to close the nominations for the office of Vice
Chairman.
B-5
January 11, 11 CITIZEN'S OPEN SPACE MMITTEE Page 3
When the vote was called, each nominee received seven votes
in their favor.
Motion was duly made, seconded, and carried (12-2) to leave
the nominations open for the office of vice Chairman.
(c) The meeting was turned over to Chairman McBane.
4. ADOPTION OF PROCEDURES
Chairman McBane called for changes to the procedures, as
outlined in the Committee notebook. The following comments
were made and/or changes suggested:
(a) Item #3 - Revise the time of the meetings from
5:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m.
(b) Item #7 - Revise the second sentence to read,
"Requests to place items on the agenda which require
additional work by staff shall be approved by a majority
vote of the Committee."
Add another sentence to read, "Agenda items shall be
submitted to the Chairman no later than noon on the Monday
nine days prior to the meeting."
Motion was duly made, seconded, and carried (13-1) to
approve the above changes to Item #7 of the procedures.
(c) Item #8 - Revise the first sentence to read,
"Committee members will be not be allowed to individually
request new information from staff or consultants."
Revise the second sentence to read, "Individual requests for
new information should be made through the Chairman or
Vice-chairman and approved by a majority vote of the
Committee."
Motion was duly made, seconded, and unanimously carried
(14-0) to approve the above changes to Item #8 of the
procedures.
(d) Item #9 - in response to a question regarding who
prepares the summary report and why, Michael Holzmiller
replied that after each meeting staff prepares a summary
report on Committee actions which is then submitted to the
City Council, to keep them advised of current actions.
Chairman McBane requested that the staff summary reports be
provided to Committee members.
(e) Item til - In response to a question regarding
attendance at the Committee meetings by members of the City
Council, Michael Holzmiller replied that Council Members
B-6
I January 11, II ' CITIZEN'S OPEN SPACE MMITTEE Page 4
Pettine and Larson have been appointed by the Mayor to
attend the Committee meetings and report back to the
I Council.
(f) Item §13 - Revise the first sentence to read,
("...prepare a final report which may include minority
reports as submitted."
• Motion was duly made, seconded, and carried (13-1) to
I approve the above change to Item #13 of the procedures.
I
I
I
I
I
(g) Add Item #16 - "The Committee shall be kept
advised by staff, in a timely manner, of all meetings
planned or program changes which affect open space or open
space standards in the city."
Motion was duly made, seconded, and unanimously carried
(14-0) to add Item #16 to the procedures.
5. STAFF PRESENTATION
The meeting recessed at 6:22 p.m. and reconvened at 6:32
I p.m. while staff prepared the room for the slide
I
presentation which followed. A list of of the slides
presented is included with these minutes.
Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director, presented the
background and focused on the definition of open space.
Charles Grimm, Assistant Planning Director, presented a
comprehensive overview of the existing plans and programs
affecting open space.
The third and final part of the staff presentation will be
by bus tour on Saturday, January 21, 1989. Mr. Holzmiller
(requested Committee members to hold questions until after
the bus tour.
6. ADJOURNMENT
Respectfully submitted.
I The staff presentation ended at 7:26 p.m. and the meeting
was adjourned to Saturday, January 21, 1989.
I
I
I
I
I
BETTY BUCKNER
Minutes Clerk
B-7
MINUTES
Meeting of:
Time of Meeting:
Date of Meeting:
Place of Meeting:
Citizen's Committee to Study Open Space
5:30 p.m.
January 25, 1989
Carlsbad Safety & Service Center
1.CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 5:40 p.m. by Chairman
McBane. The following members and staff were present:
Members Staff:Carman Cedola
Tom Freeman
Courtney Heineman
Homer B. Hupf
S. Elaine Lyttleton
Kip K. McBane
Stephen M. Novak
Julianne Nygaard (left at 7:15 p.m.)
Kathy Parker
Fay 0. Round, Jr.
Margaret Stanton
Cindy Ward
Patricia M. White
Robert E. Wilkinson
Michael Holzmiller
Charles Grimm
Michael Howes
Bobbie Hoder
Consultants:
Wallace Roberts & Todd (WRT)
Kathy Garcia
Paul Rookwood
Alternate
Members: Girard W. (Lefty) Anear
Mario R. Monroy
Absent: Alan Recce
2. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE
There were no comments from the audience.
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND ADOPTED PROCEDURES
(a) Minutes of January 11, 1989
Chairman McBane requested a correction to the minutes on
page 3, item 4 (c) to read "...individually request new
information from...".
Elaine Lyttleton requested another copy of the list of
slides which were referenced in the minutes.
Motion was duly made, seconded, and unanimously carried
(13-0-1) to approve the minutes as corrected.
B-8
• January 25, : 59 CITIZEN'S OPEN SPACE OMMITTEE Page 2
I
I
I
I
I
(b) Procedures
Carman Cedola noted that item 7 of the procedures did not
reflect the change made in the last minutes regarding
placement of items on the agenda, i.e. "Agenda items shall
be submitted to the Chairman no later than noon on the
Monday nine days prior to the meeting."
(Motion was duly made, seconded, and unanimously carried
(13-0-1) to approve the procedures as corrected.
4. ELECTION OF VICE CHAIR
Chairman McBane reviewed the slate of nominees for the
office of Vice Chair and called for additional nominations.I The name of Homer Hupf was placed in nomination for the
office of Vice Chair. The nominees for Vice Chair were as
follows:
I Homer Hupf
Courtney Heineman
Fay Round
• Motion was duly made, seconded, and unanimously carried
(14-0) to close the nominations for the office of Vice
I Chairman.
A ballot was taken and the votes received were Hupf (1),
I Heineman (6), Round (7). Since it requires 8 votes to elect
the Vice Chair, the ballot was inconclusive.
Homer Hupf requested to remove his name from nomination.
I A second ballot was taken and the votes received were
Heineman (7), Round (7) which was still inconclusive.
Mr. Holzmiller reviewed the options:I
(a) Wait until all members of the Committee are
I present to take another ballot.
(b) Let the two nominees share the office of Vice
I Chair.
(c) Let the City Council select the Vice Chairman.
I Courtney Heineman advised the Committee that he would be
willing to share responsibilities; Fay Round concurred that
he would also be willing to share responsibilities.
I Motion was duly made, seconded, and ytjWrffrritfvteZtf carried
(13-1) that the office of Vice Chair would be shared equally
I by Committee members Heineman and Round.
B-9
January 25, : 59 CITIZEN'S OPEN SPACE OMMITTEE Page 3
5. DISCUSSION ON STAFF PRESENTATION AND TOUR
Chairman McBane noted that several of the Committee members
had questions regarding the presentation at the last meeting
and the tour which took place on January 21st. Staff
responded to various questions concerning open space,
including:
(a) How changes are made to the General Plan
(b) The 15% open space requirement (and exemptions) of
Growth Management
(c) Environmental constraints
(d) Scale and uses of the open space map
(e) Consistency of various City ordinances which
affect open space
(f) Pedestrian uses of utility/railroad easements
(g) Natural open space versus recreational open space
(h) Open space setbacks/buffers in PC zones
Chairman McBane noted that the open space conceptual map was
missing from the open space plan which was provided to
Committee members. Mr. Holzmiller replied that Committee
members were supposed to get a copy of the existing open
space element which includes the map which was inadvertently
omitted. It will be mailed to the Committee tomorrow.
6. DISCUSSION ON WORK PLAN AND FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
Mr. Holzmiller discussed the proposed work plan and
requested input from Committee members regarding future
agenda items. The agenda items suggested were:
(a) Definitions and uses of open space
(b) Preciseness of the open space map
(c) Financing options
(d) Types of open space used to meet performance
standard
(e) Density transfer/clustering
(f) Procedure for amending, modifying, and changing
the open space map
B-10
I January 25, : )9 CITIZEN'S OPEN SPACE OMMITTEE Page 4
(g) Maintenance, liability, and responsibility for
I open space areas
" (h) Administration of open space—monitoring,
enforcement
I (i) Input on open space from the general public
|
(j) Consistency with other City ordinances, standards,
plans
(k) Comparison of Carlsbad with other cities
* The work product of the Committee will be a report on open
space, including a critique of the updated open space
I element.
7. ADJOURNMENT
I The meeting was adjourned at 8:02 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
I
I
I
I
I
I
BETTY M. BUCKNER
Minutes Clerk
I
I
I
I B-ll
MINUTES
Meeting of:
Time of Meeting:
Date of Meeting:
Place of Meeting:
Citizen's Committee to Study Open Space
5:30 p.m.
February 8, 1989
Carlsbad Safety & Service Center
1.CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 5:42 p.m. by Chairman
McBane. The following members and staff were present:
Members: Carman Cedola
(arrived at 6:00 p.m.!
Courtney Heineman
Homer B. Hupf
S. Elaine Lyttleton
Kip K. McBane
Stephen M. Novak
Julianne Nygaard
(left at 7:50 p.m.)
Kathy Parker
Alan Recce
Fay O. Round, Jr.
Margaret Stanton
Cindy Ward
Patricia M. White
Robert E. Wilkinson
Alternate
Members: Girard W. (Lefty) Anear
Mario R. Monroy
Staff: Michael Holzmiller
Raymond Patchett
Charles Grimm
Martin Orenyak
Michael Howes
Bobbie Hoder
Brian Hunter
Consultants:
Wallace Roberts & Todd (WRT)
Kathy Garcia
Paul Rookwood
Absent Tom Freeman
2.COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE
There were no comments from the audience or Committee
alternates.
Chairman McBane reminded Committee members that packets are
available after 3:30 p.m. on the Wednesday before the
scheduled meeting. Questions on the packets should be
directed to Bobbie Hoder.
Chairman McBane also noted that Committee member Julianne
Nygaard must leave the meetings early in order to attend
School Board meetings. In order for her to be present for
B-12
I
I
I
I
I
February 8, 39 CITIZEN'S OPEN SPACF OMMITTEE Page 2
the staff presentations, he suggested a procedural change to
move audience comments to the end of the meetings.
• Motion was duly made, seconded, and unanimously carried
(13-0) to move the audience comments to end of the agenda.
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Homer Hupf requested a correction to the minutes of January
25, 1989 on page 2, last paragraph, to remove the word
'unanimously' from the motion.
I
I
I Motion was duly made, seconded, and carried (12-0-1) to
I
approve the minutes of January 25, 1989 as corrected. Alan
Recce abstained.
4. APPROVAL OF DRAFT WORK PLAN
I Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director, reviewed the draft
I work plan through April 26, 1989. At the next meeting on
' February 22nd he noted that the consultants would be making
a presentation showing comparison between Carlsbad and other
I cities.
Carman Cedola noted that the definition issue needs to be
resolved before the consistency with other cities'
ordinances can be determined.
Motion was duly made, seconded, and unanimously carried
(14-0) to request staff to prepare a narrative report for
the February 22nd meeting outlining Carlsbad's definition of
open space and the definitions of open space by otherIcities, which would also include a matrix comparison of open
space between the various cities.
I After reviewing the draft work plan, it was determined that
two additional meetings of the Committee will be needed on
April 26th (to review final recommendations) and May 16th
(to approve the final report).
I Motion was duly made, seconded, and unanimously carried
(14-0) that the Committee adopt the draft work plan as
(presented and establish as its final deadline the third
Wednesday in May to complete its work and recommendations to
the City Council.
The possible use of a Saturday morning for the public input
workshop was discussed. It was suggested that this would
make the March 22nd meeting available for overflow itemsIsince the projected workload is quite heavy and there may
not be time to cover all subjects as they have been
scheduled.
I
I B-13
February 8, 39 CITIZEN'S OPEN SPACF OMMITTEE Page 3
Motion wad duly made, seconded, and unanimously carried
(14-0) to direct staff to find a Saturday morning to hold a
public workshop.
5. UPDATED OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION ELEMENT
Mike Howes, Principal Planner, showed a slide presentation
of open space areas that could not be visited during the
recent bus trip. The slides shown were of the following
areas:
(a) San Marcos Canyon
(b) Calavera Hills
(c) Lake Calavera
(d) Squires Dam
(e) Dawson Los Monos Reserve
(f) Sunny Creek
(g) Carrillo Ranch
(h) AT&SF easements
Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director, reviewed the role of
the General Plan (which is required by California law) and
the three level process which provides planning consistency
throughout the city.
Charles Grimm, Assistant Planning Director, reviewed the
process of how the General Plan is updated, i.e. public
hearings, Planning Commission, and City Council actions.
After the staff presentation, the following items were
discussed:
(i) School properties which are counted as open space
(j) Beach areas
(k) Systematic trail systems
(1) Environmentally sensitive areas
(m) Undevelopable land
RECESS
The Committee recessed at 7:15 p.m. and reconvened at 7:25
p.m.
6. 15% GROWTH MANAGEMENT OPEN SPACE
Mr. Holzmiller reviewed the requirements for open space in
the growth management program. The following items were
discussed:
B-14
I February 8, : J9 CITIZEN'S OPEN SPACE OMMITTEE Page 4
(a) The types of open space which make up the 15%
. performance standard.
• (b) The procedure for applying density credit to the
15% performance standard.
I (c) The use of clustering and density transfer.
I 7. ADJOURNMENT
I The meeting was adjourned at 8:29 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
B-15
BETTY M. BUCKNER
Minutes Clerk
I
MINUTES
Meeting of:
Time of Meeting:
Date of Meeting:
Place of Meeting:
Citizen's Committee to Study Open Space
5:30 p.m.
February 22, 1989
Carlsbad Safety & Service Center
1.CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 5:47 p.m. by Chairman
McBane. The following members and staff were present:
Members: Carman Cedola
Tom Freeman
Courtney Heineman
Homer B. Hupf
S. Elaine Lyttleton
Kip K. McBane
Stephen M. Novak
Julianne Nygaard
Kathy Parker
Alan Recce
Fay O. Round, Jr.
Margaret Stanton
(arrived 5:50 p.m.)
Cindy Ward
(arrived 5:52 p.m.)
Patricia M. White
Robert E. Wilkinson
Alternate
Members: Mario R. Monroy
Absent: Girard W. (Lefty) Anear
Staff: Michael Holzmiller
Raymond Patchett
Charles Grimm
Martin Orenyak
Michael Howes
Bobbie Hoder
.Erin Letsch
Consultants:
Wallace Roberts & Todd (WRT)
Kathy Garcia
Paul Rookwood
Economic Research Assoc. (ERA)
Bill Anderson
2.APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion was duly made, seconded, and carried (12-0-1) to
approve the minutes of February 8, 1989. Tom Freeman
abstained.
Motion was duly made, seconded, and carried (13-1-0) to
approved the Revised Work Plan dated February 22, 1989.
Homer Hupf opposed.
3.COMPARATIVE STUDIES PRESENTATION
Paul Rookwood, a consultant with Wallace, Roberts & Todd,
gave a presentation on comparative studies between Carlsbad
B-16
I
I
I
I
I
February 22, 89 CITIZEN'S OPEN SPACE OMMITTEE Page 2
and 14 selected cities between San Diego to San Francisco
which had a divergence of characteristics. He noted that
I there was a great deal of similarity in the planning
I
I
endeavors of the various cities. Some highlights of his
presentation were:
(a) Consistency Requirement; Open Space Definitions -
He reviewed the origin of the mandatory open space element,
the legislative definition of open space, and the fourfold
definition of open space adopted by the City of Carlsbad as
found in Municipal Code Ordinance No. 9838.
|
(b) Legal Protection - Mr. Rookwood stated that the
"taking clause" of the Fifth Amendment to the U. S.
Constitution poses a significant restraint on the regulation
I of land use. He reviewed the concept of "taking" which
dates back to medieval England, and stated that the critical
distinction lies between a "valid" regulation of the use of
. land and a "taking" that requires compensation. He noted a
I recent judicial decision involving the Lutheran Church which
• supports paying compensation for the temporary loss of
property rights.
I (c) Open Space Systems - He reviewed a comparative
studies matrix (Figure 2) which summarized the kinds of
I ordinance and open space policies which the different cities
have adopted. Mr. Rookwood noted that the percentage of
open space was difficult to obtain because the drawing of
municipal boundaries has, in some cases, included extensiveInatural and undevelopable areas within a city boundary
whereas other similar areas are defined as unincorporated
county land. He reviewed the open space priorities matrix
(Figure 3) and noted that environmental conservation and
recreation appear to be the principle focus of most cities.
(d) Opportunities for the City of Carlsbad - Mr.
Rookwood noted that the City of Carlsbad is already
employing the majority of open space planning mechanisms
appropriate to its characteristics. He reviewed four
strategies which are not currently being used and have
operated successfully in other cities:
Regional Open Space or Park District
Open Space Trusts
Trail Systems
Greenbelts
4. ACQUISITION AND FINANCING PRESENTATION
Bill Anderson, a consultant with Economics Research
Associates, gave a presentation on methods of acquisition
and funding. Some highlights of his presentation were:
B-17
February 22, 89 CITIZEN'S OPEN SPACE 3MMITTEE Page 3
(a) Methods of Acquiring Open Space - Mr. Anderson
cited nine methods of acquiring open space, defined each
method, and discussed how and why it is used.
Development Agreements
Incentive Zoning
Transfer of Development Rights
Land Trusts/Conservancy
Special District or Authority
Williamson Act
General Plan and Zoning
Private Provision
Outright Acquisition
(b) Financing Techniques - Mr. Anderson reviewed 16
financing techniques which are available to the City to
finance open space.
General Obligation Bonds
Limited Obligation Bonds
Senior Obligation Bonds
Quimby Act Impact Fees
Public Facilities Fees
Tax Increment Financing
Sales and Use Tax Increment
Mello-Roos Community Facilities Districts
Revenue Bonds
Certificates of Participation
Benefit Assessment District
User Fees
Concessions
Other Tax Revenue
Private Grants or Donations
State Grants
A question and answer period followed the presentations.
Motion was duly made, seconded, and unanimously carried
(15-0-0) to request staff to present information on how and
why the trail system which had originally been proposed for
Carlsbad had been dropped and what could be done to revive
it.
Motion was duly made, seconded, and unanimously carried
(15-0-0) to request more information on the remaining
strategies not being utilized by Carlsbad at present
(Regional Open Space/Park Districts, Open Space Trusts, and
Greenbelts) and a tentative recommendation on the methods of
implementation.
5.COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE
There were no comments from the audience or Committee
alternates.
B-18
I February 22, ^89 CITIZEN'S OPEN SPACE OMMITTEE Page 4
Chairman McBane stated that four articles concerning open
space had been given to him and they would be supplied to
I members in their next packet.
Future agendas were discussed. Kathryn Dougherty of the
{Arboretum Foundation requested permission to make a ten
minute visual presentation on the proposed bird sanctuary
for Carrillo Ranch. After discussion, it was determined
I that this presentation could be made during the public forum
I which is being planned for April 1st in the City Council
• Chambers.
I
I
Mike Howes, Principal Planner, reported that he had received
requests for another tour for those who were unable to
participate in the first tour. The makeup tour was
tentatively proposed for Saturday, March 4th. Those
interested should contact Mike Howes.
Homer Hupf recommended that a committee be selected to begin
I the outline in preparation of the report which will be
• submitted to the City Council. After discussion, it was
determined that staff will create a one page outline whichIwill then be reviewed by the Committee Chairman and two Vice
Chairs at a meeting on Friday, March 10th, at 1:00 p.m.
6. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:44 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
\
I
I
I
I
\
I
I
I
I B'19
BETTY M. BUCKNER
Minutes Clerk
MINUTES CORRECTED
Meeting of:
Time of Meeting:
Date of Meeting:
Place of Meeting:
Citizen's Committee to Study Open Space
5:30 p.m.
March 8, 1989
Carlsbad Safety & Service Center
1.CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 5:37 p.m. by Chairman
McBane. The following members and staff were present:
Members: Carman Cedola
Tom Freeman
Courtney Heineman
Homer B. Hupf
S. Elaine Lyttleton
Kip K. McBane
Stephen M. Novak
(arrived 5:50 p.m.)
Julianne Nygaard
(left at 8:10 p.m.)
Kathy Parker
Alan Recce
Fay O. Round, Jr.
Margaret Stanton
Cindy Ward
(arrived 6:20 p.m.)
Patricia M. White
Robert E. Wilkinson
Alternate
Members: Girard W. (Lefty) Anear
Absent: Mario R. Monroy
Staff: Michael Holzmiller
Charles Grimm I
Keith Beverly •
Michael Howes
Bobbie Hoder •
Consultants:
Wallace Roberts & Todd (WRT) -
Paul Rookwood I
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion was duly made, seconded, and carried (13-0-0) to
approve the minutes of February 22, 1988 as presented.
3.PROCEDURAL MATTERS
After discussion, motion was duly made, seconded, and
carried (12-0-2) to change the starting time of the meeting
to 6:00 p.m. (Kip McBane and Elaine Lyttleton abstained.)
B-20
I March 8, 198? CITIZEN'S OPEN SPACE COMMITTEE Page 2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
\
\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4. AGRICULTURAL PRESENTATION
Gary Wayne, Principal Planner, gave a in-depth presentation
on agricultural programs and fees and how they affect open
space policies. He defined Carlsbad's agricultural
policies, goals, and implementation programs and gave an
historical perspective of the Coastal Zone policies and how
they apply to Carlsbad. He covered:
Agua Hedionda LCP
Mello I and II LCP's
East and West Batiquitos LCP's
Williamson Act (Ecke property)
5. OPEN SPACE ADMINISTRATION PRESENTATION
Keith Beverly, Parks and Recreation Management Analyst, gave
a presentation on the administration of open space within
the City of Carlsbad. He reviewed the current/previous
performance standards for parks and the 1982 Parks and
Recreation element which changed the park philosophy in
favor of community parks. He stated that the element is
currently under revision including an updated Parks and
Recreation inventory.
He reviewed the operating, maintenance, and liability costs
and several maintenance questions were raised by Committee
members.
Motion was duly made, seconded, and carried (15-0-0) that
the consultants provide a range of alternatives, with
illustrations, of those cities in which parks/open
space/recreation administration is in a different chain of
command than parks/open space/real estate acquisition,
administration, and maintenance; if the policy has changed
within the last five years; and why the change was made.
Due to the lateness of the hour, the presentation and
discussion regarding open space enforcement was deferred to
the next meeting.
6. TRAIL SYSTEM PRESENTATION
Due to the lateness of the hour, the presentation and
discussion regarding trail systems was deferred to the next
meeting.
7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT ON WORK ITEMS
Chairman McBane announced that he and the two Vice Chairs
would be meeting with staff on Friday, March 10th, at
2:30 p.m. to begin working on the report outline.
B-21
March 8, 1989 CITIZEN'S OPEN SPACE COMMITTEE Page 3
Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director, announced that
preparations were underway for the public meeting to be held
in the Council Chambers on Saturday morning, April 1st.
8. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE
There were no comments from the audience.
Lefty Anear, Alternate Committee Member, addressed the
Committee and stated that both he and Mr. Monroy are very
knowledgeable on many of the items being presented and feels
that they should be able to participate in the discussion
process of the meetings. He realizes that they would be
unable to vote.
Motion was duly made, seconded, and carried (14-0-0) to add
the subject of Alternate Committee Member participation to
the next agenda.
9. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:17 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
BETTY M. BUCKNER
Minutes Clerk
B-22
MINUTES REVISED
Meeting of:
Time of Meeting:
Date of Meeting:
Place of Meeting:
Citizen's Committee to Study Open Space
6:00 p.m.
March 22, 1989
Carlsbad Safety & Service Center
1.CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 6:02 p.m. by Chairman
McBane. The following members and staff were present:
Members: Carman Cedola
Tom Freeman
Courtney Heineman
Homer B. Hupf
S. Elaine Lyttleton
Kip K. McBane
Stephen M. Novak
(arrived 6:14 p.m.)
Julianne Nygaard
(left at 8:15 p.m.)
Kathy Parker
Alan Recce
Fay O. Round, Jr.
Margaret Stanton
Cindy Ward
Patricia M. White
Robert E. Wilkinson
Alternate
Members: Girard W. (Lefty) Anear
Mario R. Monroy
Staff: Michael Holzmiller
Raymond Patchett
Charles Grimm
Martin Orenyak
Keith Beverly
Michael Howes
Bobbie Hoder
Dave Bradstreet
Consultants:
Economic Research Assoc.
Bill Anderson
(ERA)
Chairman McBane noted for the record that the meeting agenda
stating the start time of the meeting at 5:30 p.m. was in
error and had been revised.
2.APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The motion in item 5, page 2, of the minutes dated March 8,
1989 was corrected to «Ld4/^rfe74ri£££^d/vW4£/ read as
follows: "...in which parks/open space/recreation
administration is in a different chain of command than
parks/open space/real estate acquisition...".
Motion was duly made, seconded, and unanimously carried
(14-0-0) to approve the minutes of March 8, 1989 as amended.
B-23
March 22, 19 CITIZEN'S OPEN SPACI :OMMITTEE Page 2
3. PROCEDURAL MATTERS
The subject of allowing alternate members to participate in
the committee dialogue was discussed.
Motion was duly made, seconded, and carried (8-6-0) to
include alternates as ex-officio members of the committee.
Chairman McBane suggested that a one-page action record be
produced by staff to briefly indicate actions taken at •
committee meetings which will ultimately affect preparation
of the final report to the City Council.
Motion was duly made, seconded, and carried (14-0-1) to
direct staff to maintain a concise summary action record for
use in the preparation of the final report.
4. ENFORCEMENT OF OPEN SPACE PRESENTATION
Charles Grimm, Assistant Planning Director, gave a
presentation on staff concerns about the enforcement and
monitoring of conditions which are placed on development
projects having to do with the protection of open space
resources. It has been estimated that there is an 82%
non-compliance factor throughout the state; however, he
believes that Carlsbad has only about a 20% non-compliance
factor. Carlsbad has recently implemented several new
procedures which require field inspections at various phases
of project development in order to ensure that open space is
being protected. Some of the enforcement problems cited
were:
Parking infringment into open space areas
Illegal grading
After discussion, Homer Hupf requested an agenda item to
discuss the possibility of an Open Space & Conservation
Commission which would give the citizens of Carlsbad an
opportunity to assist in the enforcement of open space.
The pros and cons of publicly-owned vs. privately-owned open
space was discussed.
Motion was duly made, seconded, and carried (15-0-0) to
recommend that the existing City policy of encouraging a
combination of both public and private open space be
continued and that it is not necessary for open space to be
entirely provided by the public sector.
After discussion, Chairman McBane requested an agenda item
to discuss the subject of open space maintenance districts.
B-24
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
r
i
i
i
Separate trail systems within individual,
I undeveloped communities is possible, if desired,
I which could be retained in private ownership and1 maintenance.
I
\
I
March 22, 19 CITIZEN'S OPEN SPACI '.OMMITTEE Page 3
5. TRAIL SYSTEM PRESENTATION
Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director, reviewed the
background on the citywide, interconnecting trail system
envisioned prior to 1982. He stated that staff would need
to do some extensive review and field work to determine if
private development has precluded the possibility of
complete linkage. A slide presentation was shown of two
cities (Valencia and Poway) which have citywide
interconnecting trail systems.
At the conclusion of the slide presentation, Mr. Holzmiller
cited several staff observations:
It may be necessary to use existing sidewalks at
certain locations in order to provide complete
linkage.
The trails would probably have to be publicly
dedicated and maintained by the City in order to
ensure common improvement and maintenance and to
guarantee use by the general public.
A system focusing on equestrian use would probably
not be feasible, given the development patterns
which have occurred in the City.
If the committee desires to pursue the citywide,
interconnecting trail system, staff recommends
that an in depth evaluation be done to include
dedication requirements, physical constraints,
improvements, and an estimate of maintenance
costs.
Goals and policies could be added to the updated
Open Space Element to require future Master Plans
to address interconnecting trails.
Mike Howes, Principal Planner, showed a conceptual plan of a
proposed trail system in La Costa.
After discussion, motion was duly made, seconded, and
unanimously carried (15-0-0) that the Committee, in its
final report, include a recommendation that the City Council
direct staff to conduct an in depth study (to be completed
no later than year end 1989) on the feasibility of a
publicly accessible, primarily pedestrian (with bicycle use
where feasible), citywide, interconnecting trail system or
B-25
March 22, 19 CITIZEN'S OPEN SPACI :OMMITTEE Page 4
as extensive a system as is possible if an interconnecting
system is not possible.
Motion was duly made, seconded, and unanimously carried
(14-0-0) that when studying the trail system, staff include
all possible linkages throughout the City; that the natural
trail system be linked to other trail systems (using public
sidewalks and walkways, if necessary) to create continuity
wherever possible.
Motion was duly made, seconded, and unanimously carried
(14-0-0) that the Committee strongly endorse the concept of
a citywide, interconnecting trail system, subject to the
results of a study in furtherance of that idea.
Motion was duly made, seconded, and unanimously carried
(14-0-0) that there be no bias in the continuity and
homogeneity of the trail system and that it be sensitive to
local environmental concerns.
Motion was duly made, seconded, and unanimously carried
(14-0-0) that the trail system be designed to serve
recreational as well as non-automotive transportational
purposes.
Motion was duly made, seconded, and unanimously carried
(14-0-0) to recommend linkage of the trail system from major
recreation/open space areas to other types of activity, i.e.
employment, schools, libraries, and viewpoints.
6. OPEN SPACE MAP
Motion was duly made, seconded, and carried (14-0-0) that
discussion on the open space map be moved to the public
meeting which will be held at the City Council Chambers from
9:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon on April 1, 1989.
7. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE
There were no comments from the audience.
8. ADDED ITEMS AND REPORTS
Chairman McBane reported that he and the two Vice Chairs had
met and were making progress on the outline for the final
report to the City Council.
Chairman McBane requested the record to show that he had
received a letter from the League of Women Voters appointing
Inez Yoder to serve as backup to their representative,
Margaret Brownley.
B-26
I
I
March 22, 19 CITIZEN'S OPEN SPAC1 iOMMITTEE Page 5
Chairman McBane reported that he had received an article
from The Tribune dated March 9, 1989 entitled "City
I Considers Cost of 'Free' Open Space."
Chairman McBane reported that he had received a reprint of
I the results of a 1987 public opinion survey taken by the
State of California Parks & Recreation Commission regarding
open space.
I
I
I
\
\
\
I
I
I
I
9. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
BETTY M. BUCKNER
Minutes Clerk
B-27
MINUTES
Meeting of:
Time of Meeting:
Date of Meeting:
Place of Meeting:
Citizen's Committee to Study Open Space
9:00 a.m.
April 1, 1989
Carlsbad City Council Chambers
1.CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 9:08 a.m. by Chairman Kip
McBane. The following members and staff were present:
Members: Carman Cedola
Tom Freeman
Courtney Heineman
Homer B. Hupf
S. Elaine Lyttleton
Kip K. McBane
Stephen M. Novak
Julianne Nygaard
Kathy Parker
(left at 11:40 a.m.)
Alan Recce
Fay 0. Round, Jr.
Margaret Stanton
Cindy Ward
Patricia M. White
Robert E. Wilkinson
Staff: Michael Holzmiller
Philip Carter
Michael Howes
Bobbie Hoder
Brian Hunter
Ray Patchett
City Council Members:
John Mamaux
Mark Pettine
Planning Commissioners:
Jeanne McFadden
Facilitator:
Michele Moomaugh
Alternate
Members: Girard W. (Lefty)
Mario R. Monroy
Consultants:
Anear Wallace Roberts & Todd (WRT)
Kathy Garcia
Paul Rookwood
2.PROCEDURE FOR MEETING
Michele Moomaugh, Facilitator, reviewed the procedures of
the meeting for the benefit of the audience.
3. FORMAL PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS
(a) Carlsbad Arboretum Foundation
Mr. Bill Dougherty, 2600 La Golondrina, Carlsbad, showed an
8-minute slide presentation on the proposed bird sanctuary
near the City-owned Carrillo Ranch in South Carlsbad. At
the conclusion of the slide presentation he requested the
Committee to consider making the following recommendation in
their final report to the City Council:
B-28
I April 1, 198f CITIZEN'S OPEN SPACE 'OMMITTEE Page 2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
That the natural resource area in the Los Quiotes
Valley be zoned as open space with adequate buffer
zones surrounding them to ensure their preservation for
all time.
(b) Hofman Planning AssociatesIBill Hofman, 2386 Faraday, Suite 120, Carlsbad, showed a
I 10-minute slide presentation on the inaccuracies of the open
I space map and the cause of the inaccuracies. At the
* conclusion of the slide presentation he suggested that the
open space map is not a good tool for defining open space
I boundaries and that a specific definition of open space
applied at a project level (project by project) would better
ensure that good open space will be preserved and that
undesirable areas will not be forced to become permanent
open space.I
_ He would like to see staff have the authority to make
I administrative changes, give or take 10%, as necessary
• during the approval process.
I (c) Rick Engineering Company
Because a representative from Rick Engineering was not
present, Facilitator Moomaugh read a letter dated March 30,
1989 from Robert C. Ladwig, on behalf of the Zone 18
landowners, to Chairman McBane.
Mr. Ladwig noted many inaccuracies regarding
environmentally-sensitive areas on the current open space
map because few undeveloped areas have been mapped to
provide adequate information. He suggested that:
The open space map indicate different types of open
space;
Major changes pertaining to General Plan open space
require a General Plan Amendment;
Staff be given flexibility to make minor administrative
changes pertaining to environmentally sensitive areas
based on the input of refined mapping, environmental
studies, and City approved development plans;
Consideration be given to how well specific "sensitive"
areas serve the goals and objectives of open space.
A copy of the letter is included with these minutes.
RECESS
The meeting recessed at 9:52 a.m. and reconvened at
10:06 a.m.
B-29
April 1, 198f CITIZEN'S OPEN SPACE OMMITTEE Page 3
4. INFORMAL, GENERAL PUBLIC INPUT
(a) Margie Monroy, 3610 Carlsbad Boulevard, Carlsbad,
addressed the meeting and stated that she is concerned about
the definition of open space since the State law defines
open space as "unimproved areas" while the City counts some
areas which are improved, i.e. golf courses, park sites, and
schools. She does not understand when open space can become
a park and cited the trail area in Hosp Grove.
(b) Henry Thompson, 330 Chestnut Avenue, Carlsbad,
addressed the meeting and stated that he is concerned about
the setbacks on the lagoon bluff edge of the Sammis
property. He understood that there was to be a 300 ft.
buffer which has been eroded to 100 ft., then 45 ft., and
now the buffer is only 10 ft. which includes a 5 ft.
walkway. He is concerned about the lagoon and wildlife
habitat and feels that a new environmental impact report is
needed. He suggested that trails be pinned down on a map so
that they do not become lost in the future.
Lefty Anear requested that Michael Holzmiller respond to the
Sammis problem because Mr. Thompson was unaware of the
complete facts. Mr. Holzmiller prefers to address the issue
at the next Open Space meeting on April 12th.
(c) Barbara Otwell, 2040 Avenue of the Trees,
Carlsbad, addressed the meeting and stated that staff
flexibility can work to a disadvantage and the Sammis
problem could probably have been avoided with less
flexibility. She suggested that staff only have authority
to make 5% changes.
(d) Adrienne B. Curiale, 901-B Caminito Estrada,
Carlsbad, addressed the meeting and stated that she would
like to see the committee address open space availability
along the shore line from Palomar Airport Road to the
Batiquitos Lagoon.
Mr. Holzmiller replied that an RFP has been sent out for a
study on the shore line open space to determine what
opportunities and recreational uses are available. (Copies
of the RFP will be included in the next meeting packet.)
The State will share the cost of the study. It could be
approximately nine months before the results are available.
(e) Adrienne B. Curiale, 901-B Caminito Estrada,
Carlsbad, submitted a card inquiring whether the balcony
areas in planned developments are still being counted as
open space.
Mr. Holzmiller replied that balconies do not qualify as open
space but are counted only toward the private recreational
area requirement in planned developments.
B-30
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
April 1, 198f CITIZEN'S OPEN SPACF OMMITTEE Page 4
5. PUBLIC INPUT WRAP-UP
The public session concluded at 10:34 a.m. and the meeting
was turned over to Chairman McBane.
6. DISCUSSION OF OPEN SPACE MAP
Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director, made a presentation
on the open space map. He stated that the open space map is
comprised of:
Existing and future open space areas presently shown on
the General Plan Land Use Map;
Additional areas of environmentally-sensitive lands
prohibited from development as identified by the
Natural Resource Inventory;
Additional (larger) areas obtained through the
development approval process;
The 15% open space requirement of the growth management
plan for those Local Facilities Management Plans which
have been approved.
He stated that the open space map is intended to be a
graphic representation of existing and future open space and
is not meant to reflect precise legally-defined parcel
boundaries since the map scale is 1:1000. Once the map is
adopted as part of the updated open space element, any major
deviation from the map will require a formal amendment to
the General Plan with noticed public hearings. He then
provided a couple of alternatives to the Committee on how
minor boundary adjustments to the map could be handled.
After discussion, motion was duly made, seconded, and
unanimously carried (15-0-0) that the City's open space map
be used as a conceptual representation of open space
intentions in the City.
After discussion, motion was duly made, seconded, and
carried (14-1-0) that staff be given the flexibility to add
to the open space map new open space areas which may be
created by circumstances.
(Carman Cedola opposed.)
After discussion, motion was duly made, seconded, and
unanimously carried (14-0-0) to adopt paragraph 2 (A through
E) as shown on pages 2 and 3 of the staff report regarding
procedures for amending or deviating from open space
boundaries.
B-31
April 1, 198f CITIZEN'S OPEN SPACE OMMITTEE Page 5
After discussion, motion was duly made, seconded, and
unanimously carried (14-0-0) that as detail becomes
available on open space areas that precise information be
depicted on zone maps and that the City's open space map be
updated to reflect that additional level of detail.
After discussion, motion was duly made, seconded, and
carried (11-3-0) that staff prepare an overlay to the open
space map to show publicly accessible and private open space
areas, including bodies of water and those open space areas
which are inaccessible due to hazards.
Robert Wilkinson inquired about the possibility of
subcommittees to discuss some of the open space concerns.
Chairman McBane replied that a preliminary report outline
will be available in the next meeting packet and that the
possibility of subcommittees could be addressed as an agenda
item at the next meeting.
7. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 12:04 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
BETTY M. BUCKNER
Minutes Clerk
B-32
I
MINUTES
Meeting of:
Time of Meeting:
Date of Meeting:
Place of Meeting:
Citizen's Committee to Study Open Space
6:00 p.m.
April 12, 1989
Carlsbad Safety & Service Center
1.CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 6:03 p.m. by Chairman
McBane. The following members and staff were present:
Members: Carman Cedola
(arrived 6:07 p.m.)
Tom Freeman
Courtney Heineman
Homer B. Hupf
S. Elaine Lyttleton
(arrived 6:05 p.m.)
Kip K. McBane
Stephen M. Novak
(left at 7:50 p.m.)
Julianne Nygaard
(left at 7:50 p.m.)
Kathy Parker
Alan Recce
Fay 0. Round, Jr.
Margaret Stanton
Cindy Ward
Patricia M. White
Robert E. Wilkinson
Alternate
Members: Mario R. Monroy
Absent: Lefty Anear
Staff: Michael Holzmiller
Raymond Patchett
Charles Grimm
Michael Howes
Bobbie Hoder
Brian Hunter
Consultants:
Wallace Roberts & Todd (WRT)
Kathy Garcia
2.APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Chairman McBane requested that the minutes of March 22, 1989
reflect the revised wording in the correction to the minutes
of March 8, 1989.
Motion was duly made, seconded, and unanimously carried
(13-0-0) to approve the minutes of March 22, 1989 as amended
and the minutes of April 1, 1989 as presented.
B-33
April 12, 19 CITIZEN'S OPEN SPACE OMMITTEE Page 2
3. PROCEDURAL MATTERS
Because Mr. Cedola had not yet arrived, item #3 was deferred
until after his arrival.
4. DEFINITION AND USES OF OPEN SPACE
Courtney Heineman gave a report and recommendation on the
definition of open space.
After discussion, motion was duly made, seconded, and
unanimously carried (15-0-0) to approve the open space
definition with the following changes:
(a) Paragraph 1, second sentence - Replace the word
"It" with "The open space."
(b) Paragraph 2 - Add the word "may" so that the
sentence reads, "Open space may fall into...."
(c) Paragraph la - Add the words "trees, forests," so
that the sentence reads, "...preservation of trees, forests,
plant, and animal life, including...."
(d) Paragraph le - Add the words "and canyons" so that
the sentence reads, "Hillsides, slopes, and canyons
necessary for...."
(e) Paragraph 4a - Add a phrase to the end of the
sentence so that it reads, "...cultural value, including
significant geological, paleontological, and archaeological
areas."
(f) Paragraph 5a - Add the words "flood plains" so
that the sentence reads, "...unstable soils areas,
watersheds, flood plains, areas...."
Chairman McBane commented that he would like to see
standards for open space established by type of open space,
rather than the general category of open space.
After discussion, motion was duly made, seconded, and
carried (12-3-0) that, to the extent it is practical,
standards for open space be established by type of open
space rather than the general category of open space. This
will be referred to the subcommittee which will report back
to the full committee as to what extent it is practical.
5. OUTLINE FOR FINAL REPORT
Fay Round gave a report on the proposed outline for the
final report.
B-34
I April 12, 19' CITIZEN'S OPEN SPACF OMMITTEE Page 3
I
I
I
I
I
Motion was duly made, seconded, and unanimously carried
(15-0-0) to adopt the outline format as a basic guide for
the subcommittees in putting together the final report.
6. SUBCOMMITTEES
I Mike Holzmiller, Planning Director, presented a draft of the
proposed subcommittees and their topics, together with a
revised schedule of meetings.
Motion was duly made, seconded, and unanimously carried
(13-0-0) to adopt the subcommittees and revised meeting
schedule as presented.
Margaret Brownley, representing the League of Women Voters,
was asked to draw names to determine the makeup of each
subcommittee. The subcommittees were established as
follows:
I (a) Quantity of Open Space Subcommittee - White,
Lyttleton, and Freeman.
(b) Protection of Open Space Subcommittee - Parker,
Hupf, and Wilkinson.I
I (c) Composition of Required Open Space Subcommittee -
I Ward, Novak, and Cedola.
(d) Use of Open Space Subcommittee - Recce, Stanton,
I and Nygaard.
Alternates may attend the subcommittee of their choice.
I Staff will provide an abbreviated format for the
subcommittee reports so that their recommendations can
easily be assimilated into the final report.
7. OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION COMMISSION
Homer Hupf made a motion that the final report of the
Committee include a recommendation that the City Council
establish an Open Space & Conservation Commission. The
general scope of the Commission would be to address issues
which could significantly affect, alter, or impact defined
open space and conservation areas in Carlsbad. Specific
objectives and composition of the Commission to be defined
by the City Council.
After discussion, it was felt that this motion should be
considered after the subcommittees have had a chance to meet
and formulate their recommendations to the full committee.
B-35
April 12, 19 CITIZEN'S OPEN SPACI OMMITTEE Page 4
Motion was duly made, seconded, and carried (14-1-0) to
continue Homer Hupf"s motion for action at the April 26,
1989 meeting.
8. CONSULTANT REPORT ON OPEN SPACE SYSTEMS
Kathy Garcia, representing Wallace Roberts & Todd, gave a
report on the types of public and private open space
administration systems used by other cities. She stated
that the most common form of city administration of open
space is a decentralized system in which two separate
departments are responsible for different stages of open
space administration, each department being independently
accountable to the City Council. She stated that Carlsbad
uses the decentralized system.
Motion was duly made, seconded, and unanimously carried
(15-0-0) that this issue be given to the Protection of Open
Space Subcommittee and brought back on April 26, 1989.
3. PROCEDURAL MATTERS
Motion was duly made, seconded, and carried (9-5-1) that the
Alternates not be given an opportunity to speak as Committee
members and only be given an opportunity to speak during the
public comment period.
Mike Howes, Principal Planner, reviewed the new map which
staff had created showing open space accessible to the
public, accessible at a future date, accessible for a fee,
existing school sites, future school sites, and those areas
of open space which are not accessible.
9. COMMENTS FROM THE ALTERNATES
There were no comments from the alternates.
10. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE
There were no comments from the audience.
11. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:09 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
BETTY M. BUCKNER
Minutes Clerk
B-36
I
MINUTES
Meeting of:
Time of Meeting:
Date of Meeting:
Place of Meeting:
Citizen's Committee to Study Open Space
6:00 p.m.
April 26, 1989
Carlsbad Safety & Service Center
1.CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Vice Chair
Fay Round. The following members and staff were present:
Members: Carman Cedola
(arrived 6:04 p.m.)
Tom Freeman
Courtney Heineman
S. Elaine Lyttleton
Kip K. McBane
(arrived 6:04 p.m.)
Stephen M. Novak
Julianne Nygaard
(left at 7:45 p.m.)
Kathy Parker
Fay 0. Round, Jr.
Margaret Stanton
(arrived 6:04 p.m.)
Cindy Ward
Patricia M. White
Robert E. Wilkinson
Alternate
Members: Girard W. (Lefty) Anear
(left at 7:45 p.m.)
Mario R. Monroy
Absent:Homer B. Hupf
Alan Reece
Staff: Michael Holzmiller
Michael Howes
Bobbie Hoder
Brian Hunter
Consultants:
Wallace Roberts & Todd (WRT)
Kathy Garcia
Paul Rookwood
2.APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion was duly made, seconded, and unanimously carried
(10-0-0) to approve the minutes of April 12, 1989 as
presented.
Mike Howes, Principal Planner, made a few comments regarding
a newspaper clipping from the Blade-Tribune which he passed
out to Commission members regarding interest in an
inter-area equestrian trail which would link the communities
B-37
April 26, 19 CITIZEN'S OPEN SPACF COMMITTEE Page 2
of Carlsbad, Oceanside, Vista and San Marcos. Comments were
solicited.
3. SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS
(a) Quantity of Open Space Subcommittee - Elaine
Lyttleton gave the subcommittee report which was also
provided to members in a written form. She stated that the
main item discussed at the recent subcommittee meeting was
how to get an accurate estimate on the actual amount of
space that the City of Carlsbad currently has designated as
open space. At the next meeting, the subcommittee will
discuss acquisition and financing options.
Discussion ensued regarding the subcommittee
recommendations. Motion was duly made, seconded, and
carried (12-1-0) to take recommendations on each
subcommittee's report as it are reviewed.
Motion was duly made, seconded, and carried (13-0-0) to
recommend that rather than many small pockets of open space
to try for fewer but larger areas since open space will
"appear" to be more if development is clustered and open
spaces are larger and linked.
Motion was duly made, seconded, and carried (13-0-0) to
recommend that a certain percentage of land next to
sensitive (riparian) areas should be designated to act as a
buffer.
Motion was duly made, seconded, and carried (8-5-0) to
recommend the creation of natural and man-made links between
open space areas to give the visual (and real) perception of
large open space areas, facilitate a trail system, and
provide viable habitat areas.
Motion was duly made and seconded to recommend that, to the
extent possible, standards for all the different types of
open space should be developed. Vote on this motion was
continued until after all of the subcommittee reports have
been made.
Motion was duly made, seconded, and carried (12-1-0) that
the open space list on pages 2 and 3 of the subcommittee
report constitute a basic inventory listing in the City
which could be added to or modified in the future.
Motion was duly made, seconded, and carried (12-1-0)
that the Committee recommend that there be an
annual review of the methods and programs for acquiring
parks in the City of Carlsbad including, specifically, but
not limited to, the Quimby Act standards and the
park-in-lieu fees.
B-38
I April 26, 19 CITIZEN'S OPEN SPACF 'OMMITTEE Page 3
I
I
I
I
I
Motion was duly made, seconded, and failed (4-9-0) to
recommend that if such an annual review shows that the City
has the right to collect more park lands under the Quimby
Act, that that standard be raised to the maximum possible
without acquisition costs to the City.
RECESS
The Committee recessed at 7:30 p.m. and reconvened at
7:40 p.m.
(b) Protection of Open Space Subcommittee - Robert
nson gave the subcommittee report
provided to members in a written form.
I Wilkinson gave the subcommittee report which was also
I Due to the lateness of the hour, the procedure of voting on
items after 8:00 p.m. was discussed. Motion was duly made,
seconded, and carried (11-0-1) to amend the procedures so
I that a vote can be taken at any time that a quorum is
I present. Chairman McBane abstained.
Motion was duly made, seconded, and carried (12-0-0) toIrecommend that the City adopt precise written definitions of
the various forms of open space including visual corridors.
As examples, specific areas should be identified within the
• City to meet these definitions.
Motion was duly made, seconded, and carried (12-0-0) to
recommend to revise and amend Open Space Ordinance No. 9795
I to (1) more precisely identify and define lands considered
• as undevelopable, (2) include provisions for buffer areas
around sensitive lands, (3) define the word significant, and
1 (4) include specific conditions and restrictions on
non-residential development.
Motion was duly made and seconded to recommend that the City
shall have facility management zone plans identify an option
for open space where areas of open space of a type and size
that will benefit the community will be eligible for a
maintenance district. Eligibility items: A minimum of
18-20% area of a net developable in a zone, a high habitat
value, a high scenic value, or a high physical use value.
Vote on this motion was continued until members have had an
opportunity to research more information and the pros and
cons of maintenance districts.
Motion was duly made, seconded, and carried (12-0-0) to
recommend that in order to protect open space by increasing
the public's perception of it as a valued resource, the City
should identify existing open space for potential
enhancement to increase its habitat, visual, or physical
values.
B-39
April 26, 19 CITIZEN'S OPEN SPACI '.OMMITTEE Page 4
Motion was duly made, seconded, and carried (12-0-0) to
recommend that any agricultural land that in the future can
be changed from agriculture to a non-open space use shall
not be counted as open space.
Motion was duly made, seconded, and carried (11-1-0) to
recommend that any grading, grubbing, or clearing of
vegetation in undeveloped areas should require a City permit
approved by the Planning Director.
Motion was duly made, seconded, and carried (12-0-0) to
recommend that the Open Space Ordinance should define the
City's responsibilities to monitor the full development/
construction process from beginning to end.
Due to the lateness of the hour, motion was duly made,
seconded, and carried (12-0-0) to continue further
discussion of Subcommittee #2's report and Agenda Item #4
(Open Space and Conservation Commission) until the next
meeting on Monday night at 6:00 p.m. at Magnolia School.
5. COMMENTS FROM THE ALTERNATES
There were no comments from the alternates.
6. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE
There were no comments from the audience. Chairman McBane
noted that a citizen had written to him indicating that he
did not feel welcome to speak at the last meeting. A copy
of that letter is filed with these minutes.
7. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:57 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
BETTY M. BUCKNER
Minutes Clerk
B-40
MINUTES
Meeting of:
Time of Meeting:
Date of Meeting:
Place of Meeting:
Citizen's Committee to Study Open Space
6:00 p.m.
May 1, 1989
Magnolia School
1.CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 6:04 p.m. by Vice Chair
Courtney Heineman. The following members and staff were
present:
Staff:Members: Carman Cedola
Tom Freeman
Courtney Heineman
Homer B. Hupf
S. Elaine Lyttleton
Kip K. McBane
(arrived 6:13 p.m.)
Stephen M. Novak
(left at 7:50 p.m.)
Julianne Nygaard
Kathy Parker
Alan Recce
(arrived 6:25 p.m.)
Fay O. Round, Jr.
Margaret Stanton
Cindy Ward
Patricia M. White
Robert E. Wilkinson
Absent: Girard W. (Lefty) Anear (Alternate Member)
Mario R. Monroy (Alternate Member)
Michael Holzmiller
Charles Grimm
Michael Howes
Bobbie Hoder
Brian Hunter
Consultants:
Wallace Roberts & Todd (WRT)
Kathy Garcia
Economic Research Assoc. (ERA)
Bill Anderson
2.SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS
(a) Protection of Open Space Subcommittee (continued
from last meeting) - Robert Wilkinson stated that the
subcommittee needed to have a 15 minute meeting before
additional information could be presented. After
discussion, it was decided to hear the remaining
subcommittee reports and then have a recess, at which time
committee members could break into groups for 15 minutes
before reconvening the meeting.
(b) Composition of Required Open Space Subcommittee -
Carman Cedola gave the subcommittee report which was also
provided to members in written form.
B-41
May 1, 1989 CITIZEN'S OPEN SPACF OMMITTEE Page 2
Motion was duly made, seconded, and carried (14-1-0) that
the recommendation be returned to the subcommittee for
further rewording and broken into three separate
recommendations.
(c) Use of Open Space Subcommittee - Margaret Stanton
gave the subcommittee report which was also provided to
members in written form.
Motion was duly made, seconded, and unanimously carried
(15-0-0) to adopt recommendations 1-21, with the corrections
outlined below. A copy of the subcommittee report is filed
with these minutes.
(1) Recommendation #2 - Delete the words
"decomposed granite" in the second sentence; add the
words "except to enhance the environmental value of the
area" at the end of the third sentence.
(2) Recommendation #10 - Delete existing wording
in its entirety and substitute the following: "The
City should participate with other North County
communities to establish an inter-community open space
linkage."
(3) Recommendation #11 - Add the words "with
appropriate buffers and/or fencing" to the end of the
sentence.
(4) Recommendation #18 - Delete the word "only"
and add the words "and where economically viable" to
the end of the sentence.
After discussion, it was determined that a recommendation
regarding a scenic drive should be included but it would be
necessary for the subcommittee to work out the exact wording
during the break.
RECESS
The Committee recessed at 7:15 p.m. and broke into
subcommittees for further discussion. The meeting
reconvened at 7:50 p.m.
(d) Use of Open Space Subcommittee - Motion was duly
made, seconded, and unanimously carried (14-0-0) to adopt
the following recommendation within the Aesthetic Open Space
section:
"Identify scenic routes to public open space with
sensitivity to increased traffic in residential areas."
(e) Composition of Required Open Space Subcommittee -
After discussion, the subcommittee decided to eliminate the
B-42
I May 1, 1989 CITIZEN'S OPEN SPACF 'OMMITTEE Page 3
' first sentence of the recommendation in their written
report.
I Motion was duly made, seconded, and unanimously carried
(14-0-0) to adopt the following recommendation:
I "Land area that otherwise qualifies for measurement
towards the standard but which is not available without
some monetary or other consideration for use by the
I general public will be considered as meeting only a
• certain percentage of the performance standard, that
percentage to be determined by the adoption of a newICity standard. All other land area which qualifies for
measurement towards the performance standard will be
given 100% credit towards those standards."
I Motion was duly made and seconded and failed (7-7-0) to
adopt the following recommendation:
I
I
I
I
"The following land uses will be given no credit
towards the performance standard: (a) school sites,
and (b) power line easements."
After discussion and due to the tie vote, a recommendation
will be drafted by the report writing committee and included
in the final report for consideration by the full committee.
(f) Protection of Open Space Subcommittee - Robert
Wilkinson reported that the subcommittee discussed the
recommendation for an open space commission and identified
the following objectives of the proposed commission:
(1) An advocate for open space.
(2) Community representation to the Planning
Commission and City Council.
(3) Continue to develop and revise open space
policies as defined by the City and the open space
ordinance.
(4) Monitor implementation of open space
policies.
(5) Recommend priorities for open space including
acquisition, use, and maintenance programs, on an
annual basis.
(6) Set and refine guidelines for specific
I project review of open space.
Motion was duly made, seconded, and unanimously carried
. (14-0-0) to recommend that the City Council establish an
I Advisory Open Space Commission, including a staff member, to
I B-43
May 1, 1989 CITIZEN'S OPEN SPACI 'OMMITTEE Page 4
review and address the many issues pertaining to open space
including, but not limited to, definitions, designations,
and potential map changes. The Commission's
responsibilities shall also include those outlined by the
Protection of Open Space Subcommittee [as outlined under (f)
(1) - (6) above] and shall be established coincident with
termination of the interim open space ordinance.
(g) Quantity of Open Space Subcommittee - The pro's
and con's of maintenance districts and financing options for
open space were discussed.
Motion was duly made, seconded, and unanimously carried
(14-0-0) that the consultant prepare a conceptual matrix on
financing options to be included in the final report, with a
preliminary draft to be presented at the next regular
meeting on May 10th.
3. OPEN SPACE COMMISSION
This item was acted upon during the subcommittee reports.
4. COMMENTS FROM THE ALTERNATES
Neither alternate was in attendance at the meeting.
5. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE
There were no comments from the audience.
Julianne Nygaard announced to the meeting that through her
connection with Cablevision the committee might be able to
prepare a visual presentation on open space to the City
Council along with the written report. Those interested in
working on a possible visual presentation should contact her
directly.
6. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
BETTY M. BUCKNER
Minutes Clerk
B-44
I
I
I
I
USE OF OPEN SPACE
Subcommittee Report (#4)
I
The recommendations provided by the Subcommittee on the Use of Open
I Space are provided below. These recommendations have been
categorized as they fall into several different areas of use. Also
provided, following the recommendations is a discussion or
justification for the inclusion of the proposed recommendations.
GENERAL: These recommendations are broad and do not fall under a
particular category of Open Space.
I 1. Strive for a balance of visual, passive and active open space
uses within each of the four quadrants of the City.
1 2. The degree of improvements recommended for open space areas
should depend on the type of open space and the use
proposed.For example, improvements in active areas such asIcommunity parks would be more complex. Improvements for
passive areas such as trails would be minor in comparison and
include items such as decomposed granite pathways, benches and
I trash receptacles. No improvements should be made in
environmentally sensitive areas.
3. Encourage public.access to all open space areas except where
sensitive resources may be threatened or damaged, or where the
public health and safety may be compromised.
1 4. The City should acquire or negotiate for public access to
lands that could be used for passive recreational uses.
I 5. Encourage the development of cultural/educational amenities
I within open space areas such as botanical gardens,
• interpretive centers, and arboreta.
I ACTIVE OPEN SPACE: Typically provide more complex site
improvements and generally contains organized recreation.
6. Continue to pursue a high quality active community park system
within appropriate open space areas.
7. Obtain appropriate user fees from non-residents utilizing
Carlsbad's active recreation facilities.
PASSIVE: Often provides minimal or no improvements and includes
undemonstrative or subdued activities.
8. Passive recreation areas should be distributed throughout the
four quadrants of the City and should be separate from active
recreational uses where possible.
B-45
9. The feasibility study to be prepared for a unified trail
system shall include, but not be limited to, an analysis of
cost, options for financing, liability, ownership,
maintenance, possible trail locations and linkages, and the
types of trails needed for different areas.
10. Establish a trail system for dogs with poop receptacles
located at appropriate intervals.
11. Trails should be encouraged near or adjacent to
environmentally sensitive areas.
12. Trails should be sensitive to surrounding land uses and
should normally be placed at a significantly different
elevation than adjacent residential uses.
13. Rather than purely recreational use, trails should also
provide a means of pedestrian transportation between
residential and commercial areas.
14. Major development applications must address trails and trail
interconnection on proposed plans.
15. When trails are proposed or required the City should obtain
an irrevocable offer to dedicate or a permanent easement for
trailways where feasible.
AESTHETIC OPEN SPACE: Natural or enhanced open space that is
valuable for its attractiveness, buffering effect or visibility of
or from other areas.
16. Utilize open space to delineate the City's boundaries and to
buffer major land uses within the City.
17. Identify and acquire, where feasible, higher topographic
areas suitable as panoramic viewpoints for public use. (i.e.
Mt. Soledad).
18. Encourage the preservation only of highly visible agricultural
areas that are particularly suitable for flower production.
NATURAL OPEN SPACE: Includes environmentally constrained and non-
constrained areas that are in, or similar to being inf their natural
state.
19. Visually attractive or high quality natural areas should be
acquired and preserved when ever possible.
20. Natural open space areas should remain in as natural state as
possible.
B-46
I
I 21. Identify, acquire, and protect natural open space areas
visible from public gathering places in order to help
create a more rural atmosphere in an urban environment.
DISCUSSION
I The Subcommittee feels that a balance of open space uses is
desireable in the community and that emphasis in the past has been
oriented toward active recreation. Although emphasis should
I continue with regard to active uses, more consideration should be
* given to acquiring and maintaining more passive areas such as
trails, viewpoints, and natural areas. These areas should be
(separated from active areas whenever possible. The Subcommittee
feels that passive areas may be improved but not to the extent
where they could become active. For example, a trail might include
I a decomposed granite walkway with benches and trash receptacles
located at appropriate distances along the path. The Subcommittee
is recommending that no improvements take place within
environmentally sensitive areas but that it may be appropriate to
I have trails or an interpretive center located nearby.
It is being recommended that the City should take advantage of
(opportunities to acquire natural open space and the natural areas
acquired as open space should remain in their natural state. The
Subcommittee also feels that natural areas should be used to
. delineate the City boundaries, where possible, and separate major
I land uses. In addition, the Subcommittee felt that natural areas
" should be located to be visible from large public gathering areas
such as the mall and roadways. The intent is to preserve
I Carlsbad's rural flavor in more urbanized areas.
Since the Open Space Committee has approved the concept of trails
I as an open space use and is recommending a study this Subcommittee
felt that the analysis should include a discussion of liability,
ownership, cost maintenance, location and types of trails including
surfaces (e.g., asphalt etc.). It was recommended that major
I developments proposed in the city address trails and that any
» trails proposed be sensitive to existing uses.
I
I
I
I
I
I
Subcommittee
Julianne Nygaard
Alan Recce
Margaret Stanton
B-47
MINUTES
Meeting of:
Time of Meeting:
Date of Meeting:
Place of Meeting:
Citizens Committee to Study Open Space
6:00 P.M.
May 10, 1989
Carlsbad Public Safety Center (Fox Room)
1.CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 6:06 PM by Chairman McBane. The
following committee members, alternate members, staff members and
consultants were present:
Committee Members:
Alternate Members:
Absent:
Consultants:
Staff Members:
Carman Cedola
Tom Freeman
Courtney Heineman
Homer B. Hupf
Kip McBane
Stephen M. Novak
Julianne Nygaard
Kathy Parker
Fay O. Round, Jr.
Cindy Ward
Patricia M. White
Robert E. Wilkinson
Girard W. "Lefty" Anear
Mario R. Monroy
S. Elaine Lyttleton
Alan Recce
Margaret Stanton
Kathy Garcia (Wallace Roberts & Todd)
Bill Anderson (Economic Research Associates)
Michael J. Holzmiller
Charles D. Grimm
Erin K. Letsch
2.APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A MOTION WAS DULY MADE, SECONDED, AND CARRIED (10-0-2) TO APPROVE
THE MINUTES OF APRIL 26, 1989, AS SUBMITTED.
A MOTION WAS DULY MADE, SECONDED, AND CARRIED (11-0-1) TO APPROVE
THE MINUTES OF MAY 1, 1989, WITH A CORRECTION TO THE MOTION ON PAGE
3, LAST PARAGRAPH, TO READ "...THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ESTABLISH AN
OPEN SPACE COMMISSION WHICH COULD WORK IN AN ADVISORY CAPACITY. ..."
B-48
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HAY 10, 1989 CITIZENS COMMITTEE TO STUDY OPEN SPACE PAGE
3. UPDATE FROM THE REPORT-WRITING SUBCOMMITTEE (MCBANE, ROUND,
HEINEMAN
Kip McBane, Committee Chairman, indicated to the Committee that the
subcommittee's draft report was handed out to everyone for their
review. He suggested to the Committee that they take the report
home, review it, and bring any suggestions, changes, etc., to the
next meeting.
Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director, for clarification purposes,
gave an overview of each of the sections in the report, and
depicted the sections which were prepared by the subcommittee. Mr.I Holzmiller further explained why the sections were prepared as they
were and further added that the report also contained the
Committee's actual motions, which were in bold, followed by the
vote. In conclusion, Mr. Holzmiller stated that some sections were
not completed, but would be complete by next Monday.
Kip McBane, Committee Chairman, stated that the subcommittee was
going to be meeting on Monday morning and if anyone had anything
they wanted added to the report, or perhaps if they thought they
were going to be making a motion that night to please try to get
that information to staff before Monday. He also indicated to the
Committee that Cindy Ward had submitted a fairly comprehensive
document, which was passed out tonight with some points that needed
to be discussed. (Copy attached.)
Fay Round, Committee Member, discussed the table of contents, and
explained why Section III is outlined the way it is. TheIsubcommittee recommends that Section III, D, be eliminated from the
outline.
A MOTION WAS DULY MADE, SECONDED, AND CARRIED (12-0-0) THAT THE
OUTLINE BE MODIFIED JUST TO THE EXTENT THAT SECTION III,D, BE
ELIMINATED.
Fay Round, Committee Member, discussed, in detail, the approach
used in Section III. Mr. Round stated that no action had to be
taken on this item tonight, but the subcommittee would like to
adopt as much of the material as possible next Monday night. The
subcommittee was also suggesting a change to add wording to the
previous motion approved by the Committee regarding trails located
on page 17 of the draft report.
Discussion ensued among the Committee members regarding the last
recommendation on page 17, of the draft report.
B-49
MAY 10, 1989 CITIZENS COMMITTEE TO STUDY OPEN SPACE PAGE 3
A MOTION WAS DULY MADE, SECONDED, AND CARRIED (11-1-0) TO REMOVE
THE BRACKETS ON THE LAST MOTION ON PAGE 17, AS OUTLINED IN THE
REPORT .
A MOTION WAS DULY MADE, SECONDED, AND CARRIED (7-5-0) TO CHANGE THE
WORD MUST TO SHOULD ON THE LAST MOTION ON PAGE 17, AS OUTLINED IN
THE REPORT.
A MOTION WAS DULY MADE, SECONDED, AND CARRIED (12-0-0) TO ADOPT,
IN TOTAL, THE REVISED WORDING ON THE LAST MOTION ON PAGE 17, AS
OUTLINED IN THE REPORT.
Discussion ensued among the Committee Members regarding the fourth
motion on page 21, as outlined in the report.
A MOTION WAS DULY MADE, SECONDED, AND CARRIED (11-1-0) TO ADD TO
THE FOURTH MOTION ON PAGE 21, AS OUTLINED IN THE REPORT, THE WORDS
"AND/OR1* AT THE END OF THE THIRD SENTENCE.
A MOTION WAS DULY MADE, SECONDED, AND CARRIED (12-0-0) TO ADD TO
THE FOURTH MOTION ON PAGE 21, AS OUTLINED IN THE REPORT, START WITH
THE WORDS "WHENEVER FEASIBLE" r AND ADD AFTER -4PHE-LAST-WORD-*»ANP»».
THE ~
Discussion ensued among the Committee Members regarding the
proposed Open Space and Conservation Element.
Discussion ensued among the Committee Members regarding Section
III, Overall Findings and Major Policy Recommendations, page 4 of
the report, first paragraph.
A MOTION WAS DULY MADE, SECONDED, AND CARRIED (12-0-0) THAT THE
COMMITTEE RECOMMEND THAT THE CITY DEVELOP A COHESIVE POLICY AND
MASTER PLAN SETTING FORTH OPEN SPACE GOALS AND GUIDING ACQUISITION,
MAINTENANCE AND FINANCING.
Cindy Ward, Committee Member, presented her subcommittee report
regarding "Composition of Open Space", which was also provided to
Committee Members in typed form.
Discussion among Committee Members ensued regarding Section II of
the document "Composition of Open Space", as presented by Cindy
Ward, Committee Member.
Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director, stated to the Committee that
more time was needed to study this document presented by Cindy
Ward.
B-50
I
I
MAY 10, 1989 CITIZENS COMMITTEE TO STUDY OPEN SPACE PAGE 4
Discussion among Committee Members ensued regarding Section III.A,
Major Power Line Easements, as outlined in the document submitted
by Cindy Ward.
A MOTION WAS DULY MADE, SECONDED, AND CARRIED (7-5-0) THAT
POWERLINE EASEMENTS SHALL NOT BE COUNTED TOWARDS MEETING THE 15%
OPEN SPACE STANDARD.
A MOTION WAS DULY MADE, SECONDED, AND CARRIED (10-2-0) THAT MAJOR
POWERLINE EASEMENTS WILL RECEIVE PARTIAL CREDIT WHEN THEY ARE
ENHANCED OR IMPROVED AND PROVIDE KEY LINKS IN THE TRAIL SYSTEM.
THE EXTENT OF CREDIT SHALL BE DETERMINED BY A NEW STANDARD.
I Discussion among Committee Members ensued regarding Section III,B,
Private Golf Courses, as outlined in the document submitted by
Cindy Ward.
A MOTION WAS DULY MADE, SECONDED, AND CARRIED (10-2-0) THAT PRIVATE
GOLF COURSES WILL RECEIVE PARTIAL CREDIT IN MEETING THE PERFORMANCE
STANDARDS IF SIGNIFICANT VISUAL BENEFIT IS DETERMINED.
Discussion among. Committee Members ensued regarding Section
III,C,D, Larger Single Family Lots and Schools, as outlined in the
document submitted by Cindy Ward.
A MOTION WAS DULY MADE, SECONDED, AND CARRIED (12-0-0) THAT SCHOOLS
SHALL NOT BE COUNTED IN MEETING THE 15% PERFORMANCE STANDARDS -
PRIVATE OR PUBLIC.
Julianne Nygaard and Stephen Novak left at 8:00 PM.
4. DISCUSSION OF DRAFT FINANCING MATRIX - CONSULTANT
Bill Anderson, consultant (Economic Research Associates) discussed
the draft financing matrix which he had prepared.
Discussion among Committee Members ensued regarding the draft
financing matrix.
Bill Anderson, consultant, stated to the Committee that he would
have another draft of the financing matrix with their recommended
inclusions and changes at their next Monday meeting.
Tom Freeman left at 8:21 PM.
5. COMMENTS FROM THE ALTERNATES
Girard "Lefty" Anear stated to the Committee his concern regarding
powerline easements and the Williamson Act.
B-51
MAY 10, 1989 CITIZENS COMMITTEE TO STUDY OPEN SPACE PAGE 5
6. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE
Gene Carl, (Bressi Ranch) expressed concern about fire hazards,
powerlines and firmly recommended that the green grassy area be
maintained..
7. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further comments from the audience or the Committee,
the meeting was adjourned at 8:32 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
ANITA RAMOS-BONAS
Secretary
Attachment
B-52
I
MINUTES
Meeting of:
Time of Meeting:
Date of Meeting:
Place of Meeting:
Citizen's Committee to Study Open Space
6:00 p.m.
May 15, 1989
Magnolia Elementary School
1.CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 6:10 p.m.. by Vice Chair
Heineman. The following members and staff were present:
Staff: Michael Holzmiller
Michael Howes
Bobbie Hoder
Brian Hunter
Consultants:
Wallace Roberts & Todd (WRT)
Kathy Garcia
Paul Rookwood
Members: Carman Cedola
(arrived 6:11 p.m.)
Courtney Heineman
Homer B. Hupf
Kip K. McBane
(arrived 6:11 p.m.)
Julianne Nygaard
Kathy Parker
Alan Recce
Fay 0. Round, Jr.
Margaret Stanton
Cindy Ward
(arrived 6:17 p.m.)
Patricia M. White
Robert E. Wilkinson
Alternate
Members: Girard W. (Lefty) Anear
Mario R. Monroy
Absent: Tom Freeman
S. Elaine Lyttleton
Stephen M. Novak
Mr. Heineman noted that minutes from the last meeting and
tonight would be presented for approval at the next meeting
on May 22, 1989.
2.CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF DRAFT FINAL REPORT
Chairman McBane stated that the latest revision of the
report includes information identified on the last report as
"To be provided" in addition to several recommendations by
the Executive Committee (found on pages 5, 39, 41, and 42)
which is set out in brackets.
Motion was duly made, seconded, and unanimously carried
(12-0-0) to adopt Section I of the report (found on pages
B-53
May 15, 1989 CITIZEN'S OPEN SPACE OMMITTEE Page 2
1-3) with a minor revision in paragraph one, page 3, to read
as follows: "... that several additional measures could be
taken which would...".
Motion was duly made, seconded, and unanimously carried
(12-0-0) to adopt Section II of the report (found on pages
4-6) except item 5 on page 5, with a minor revision in
paragraph one, page 4, to read as follows: "Based on its
evaluations, the Committee concluded that...".
Motion was duly made, seconded, and unanimously carried
(12-0-0) to adopt Section III A.I. (found on pages 7-11) as
presented.
Section III A.2. (pages 11-19) is new information and will
be reviewed and voted on at the next meeting.
Motion was duly made, seconded, and unanimously carried
(12-0-0) to adopt Section III B.I. (found on pages 20-21) as
presented.
Section III B.2. (pages 21-26) is new information and will
be reviewed and voted on at the next meeting.
Motion was duly made, seconded, and unanimously carried
(12-0-0) to adopt Section III C.I., a, b, and c (pages
27-31) excluding paragraph 7 regarding powerline easements
on page 31, with the following minor revisions:
Page 29 - Relocate the vote shown at the end of the
sentence on item e) to a separate line below item e).
Page 30 - Paragraph two to read, "A formalized
procedure should be created for adj usting...".
The discussion on page 32 is new information and will be
reviewed and voted on at the next meeting.
Motion was duly made, seconded, and unanimously carried
(12-0-0) to adopt Section III C.2., a and b, (pages 33-38)
excluding paragraph 9 regarding powerline easements on page
36.
Motion was duly made, seconded, and carried (9-2-1) to adopt
paragraph 7 on page 31 and paragraph 9 on page 36 (regarding
powerline easements) as written.
Motion was duly made, seconded, and unanimously carried
(12-0-0) to adopt Section III C.2.c. (page 39) as written.
Section III C.2.d on pages 39-40 is new information and will
be reviewed and voted on at the next meeting.
B-54
I May 15, 1989 CITIZEN'S OPEN SPACE DMMITTEE Page 3
I
I
I
I
I
Motion was duly made, seconded, and unanimously carried
(12-0-0) to adopt Bullet 2, page 41 with the following
revision: Add the word "protected" on line 2 after
"acquired" on line 2.
I Motion was duly made, seconded, and unanimously carried
(12-0-0) to adopt Bullet 4, page 41 with the following
revision: Add the word "protect" after "acquire" on
- line 1.
* Motion was duly made, seconded, and unanimously carried
(12-0-0) to adopt Bullet 6, page 41 with the following
I revisions: Add the words "at least" after "support" on line
2 and delete lines 3-5 in their entirety.
Motion was duly made, seconded, and unanimously carried
(12-0-0) to adopt Bullet 7, page 41 to read as follows:
"...but not be limited to legislative protection, Quimby Act
dedication, park-in-lieu fees, industrial recreation fees,
setback...".
Motion was duly made, seconded, and unanimously carried
| (12-0-0) to adopt Bullet 8, page 41 as presented.
Motion was duly made, seconded, and unanimously carried
((12-0-0) to adopt Bullet 1, page 42 with the following
revision: Add the word "protections" after "acquisitions"
on line 3.
I' Motion was duly made, seconded, and unanimously carried
(12-0-0) to adopt Bullet 2, page 42 with the following
revisions: Change "indemnification" to "identification" on
line 1 and add the word "protections" after "acquisitions"
on line 2.
Motion was duly made, seconded, and unanimously carried
(12-0-0) to adopt Bullet 3, 4, and 5, on page 42 with the
following revisions:
Bullet 3 - Add the words "Where public funding is
necessary" at the beginning of the sentence before "for
new open space", and change lines 2-3 to read,
"...Bonds are a highly desirable source of funding...".
Bullet 4 - Add the word "General" before "obligation"
on line 2 and capitalized "obligation" and "bond" in
that sentence; revise line 4-5 to read, "...from the
issue and in proportion to their benefit...".
Motion was duly made, seconded, and unanimously carried
(12-0-0) to adopt Bullet 6, page 42, as presented.
B-55
May 15, 1989 CITIZEN'S OPEN SPACE OMMITTEE Page 4
Motion was duly made, seconded, and unanimously carried
(12-0-0) to adopt item 5, page 5, with the following
revisions:
Paragraph 1 - Add the word "protection" after
"acquisition."
Paragraph 2 - Add the words "at least" after support
(line 2); delete remainder of sentence after
"developments" (line 3); replace "rezoning" with
"legislative protection" (line 6); replace "refunding"
with "dedication" (line 7); add "industrial recreation
fees" after "park-in-lieu fees" (line 7); add
"protection" after "acquisition" (line 11).
Paragraph 3 - Replace the words "the most" with "a
highly" (line 2); add "protections" after
"acquisitions" (line 3); replace "no" with "not"
(line 7).
Paragraph 4 - Add the word "protection" after
"acquisition" (line 2).
Fay Round recommended including a statement in the final
report regarding the Comprehensive Open Space Network
Diagram. Motion was duly made, seconded, and unanimously
carried (12-0-0) to insert the suggested statement on page
36 after Bullet 3 regarding trail systems, with the
following revisions:
First paragraph - Insert "be prepared" before
"incorporating" (line 2); insert "linked" after
"comprehensive" (line 2); delete "linkages" after
"open space" (line 2); change "includes" to "would
include" (line 3),
Paragraph 1) - Change "Identifies" to "Identify"
(line 1); add "and potential sites" after "community
parks" (line 2).
Paragraph 2) - Change "Identifies" to "Identify"
(line 1); change "linkage" to "linkages" (line 1).
Paragraph 3) - Change "Identifies" to "Identify"
(line 1).
Paragraph 4) - Change "Identifies" to "Identify"
(line 1).
Sixth paragraph - Add "by the Committee" after
"recognized" (line 1); change "potential linkage
routes are not precise" to read "potential linkage
routes would not be precise" (line 1); add "or
protection" after "acquisition" (line 5).
B-56
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
May 15, 1989 CITIZEN'S OPEN SPACE DMMITTEE Page 5
Seventh paragraph - Change "right-of-way" to
"rights-of-way" (line 1); replace "feasible" with
"desirable" (line 3).
Add a sentence to the end of paragraph seven to read,
"Consideration should be given to safety and
aesthetics."
I
I
I
I
I Mike Holzmiller, Planning Director, reviewed the items to be
voted on next week, which were:
Pages 11-19 (III A.2)(Pages 21-26 (III B.2)
Page 32
Page 38
I Pages 39-40 (III C.2.d)
Mike Holzmiller advised the Committee that the City Council
- needs to take action on the open space element of the
I General Plan within the very near future to eliminate some
* of the legal loopholes which now exist. He did not seem to
think that the Council could postpone revision in order to
(incorporate the Committee's recommendations since it could
take another six months to a year to do so. After
discussion, the Committee liked the idea of including a
J recommendation in the report that a subcommittee attempt to
merge the Committee's recommendations into the open space
element and report back to the full committee within 45
days. A formal motion will be made and voted on at the next
I meeting.
3. DISCUSSION OF FINANCING MATRIX
Kathy Garcia stated that most of the areas of concern were
covered in the motions made on the draft report.
4. COMMENTS FROM THE ALTERNATES
Mr. Anear commented on the fact that only two General
Obligation Bonds had been approved by Carlsbad voters in the
past 20 years.
5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE
There were no comments from the audience.
6. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:27 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
BETTY M. BUCKNER
Minutes Clerk
B-57
MINUTES CORRECTED
Meeting of:
Time of Meeting:
Date of Meeting:
Place of Meeting:
Citizen's Committee to Study Open Space
6:00 p.m.
May 22, 1989
Magnolia Elementary School
1.CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 6:10 p.m. by Chairman
McBane. The following members and staff were present:
Staff:Michael Holzmiller
Charles Grimm
Michael Howes
Bobbie Hoder
Brian Hunter
Consultants:
Wallace Roberts & Todd (WRT)
Kathy Garcia
Paul Rookwood
Economic Research Assoc. (ERA
Bill Anderson
Members: Carman Cedola
Tom Freeman
Courtney Heineman
Homer B. Hupf
S. Elaine Lyttleton
Kip K. McBane
Julianne Nygaard
Kathy Parker
Alan Recce
Fay O. Round, Jr.
Margaret Stanton
Cindy Ward
Patricia M. White
Robert E. Wilkinson
Alternate
Members: Girard W. (Lefty) Anear
Mario R. Monroy
Absent: Stephen M. Novak
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Because some Committee members had been unable to pick up
their packets, motion was duly made, seconded, and
unanimously carried (14-0-0) to defer approval of the
minutes for May 10, 1989 and May 15, 1989 until the next
meeting.
3.CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF FINAL REPORT
Motion was duly made, seconded, and unanimously carried
(14-0-0) to approve the entire Committee report as modified
by the submotions set forth below:
B-58
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
9
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I May 22, 1989 CITIZEN'S OPEN SPACE COMMITTEE Page 2
I "
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Accept staff errata memo dated May 17, 1989, with the
following changes:
Item 4, delete the period after the word possible.
Item 6, change the year to 1987.
Item 11, change the total to agree with the Parks
& Recreation Element.
Item 17, line 2, after maintain add a comma and
the words and protect.
Page 4, paragraph 2, line 6, change the word set to
recommend.
I • Page 5, capitalize "general obligation bonds"
throughout.
Page 5, paragraph 3, line 4, delete the word
maintenance and change line 3 to read, "...funding for
acquisitions, protections, and improvements and
specifies further...".
Page 12, item 9), delete the word preservation.
Page 12, under subheading "Active Park Areas," line 4,
after volleyball, add the word courts.
Page 26, line 9, change the word otherwise to
potentially.
Page 40, paragraph 5, line 7, delete The reason for
this strong vote was the Committee's concern and
replace with the following, In addition to its desire
to preserve Open Space within the City, the Committee
was also concerned...
Page 41, last paragraph, lines 4 and 6 after the word
acquisition, add the word maintenance.
Page 41, last paragraph, add a sentence to the end of
the paragraph which reads: "All land set aside as Open
Space that can be mapped, shall be zoned Open Space."
Page 41, last paragraph, add another sentence to the
end of the paragraph which reads: "At the time of any
discretionary approval, any land set aside for its
habitat or scenic value shall have an appropriate
easement placed on it for resource protection."
Capitalize "open space" throughout the report.
B-59
May 22, 1989 CITIZEN'S OPEN SPACE COMMITTEE Page 3
Motion was duly made, seconded, and carried (13-1-0) to
adopt recommendation #3 of staff memo dated May 19, 1989
regarding the Updated Open Space Element.
Motion was duly made, seconded, and carried (7-6-1) to
reword the second sentence of the recommendation to read:
"The Committee's report to the City Council will be
delivered when an updated element is prepared." Cindy Ward
abstained.
Motion was duly made, seconded, and carried (12-1-1) to
adopt recommendation #3 as amended in unanimity. Elaine
Lyttleton abstained.
Motion was duly made, seconded, and unanimously carried
(14-0-0) that the Open Space Element Update Subcommittee
will consist of Kip McBane, Courtney Heineman, Julianne
Nygaard, and Robert Wilkinson.
Motion was duly made, seconded, and carried (13-0-1) that
the subcommittee also work on the Conservation Element.
Cindy Ward abstained.
The date for the next Committee meeting was tentatively set
for July 10, 1989 at which time a draft of the Open Space
Element would be presented. Carman Cedola requested that
the draft be made available to Committee members at least
five days in advance of the meeting.
4. COMMENTS FROM THE ALTERNATES
There were no comments from the alternates.
5. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE
There were no comments from the audience. Chairman McBane
wished Margaret fciWri£ji# Brownley happy birthday on behalf
of the Committee.
6. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
BETTY M. BUCKNER
Minutes Clerk
B-60
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chairman McBane reviewed the method that the subcommittee
I used for updating the Open Space and Conservation Element.
I He stated that every part of the 1973 element was compared to
MINUTES
Meeting of: Citizen's Committee to Study Open Space
Time of Meeting: 6:00 p.m.
Date of Meeting: July 17, 1989
Place of Meeting: Carlsbad Safety & Service Center
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 6:10 p.m. by Chairman
McBane. The following members and staff were present:
Members: Courtney Heineman Staff: Michael Holzmiller
Homer B. Hupf Charles Grimm
Kip K. McBane Michael Howes
Stephen M. Novak Bobbie Hoder
Julianne Nygaard
Kathy Parker Consultants:
Alan Recce . Wallace Roberts & Todd (WRT)
Fay 0. Round, Jr. Kathy Garcia
Cindy Ward Paul Rookwood
Patricia M. White
Robert E. Wilkinson Economic Research Assoc. (ERA)
Bill Anderson
Alternate
Members: Girard W. (Lefty) Anear
Mario R. Monroy
Absent: Carman Cedola
Tom Freeman
S. Elaine Lyttleton
Stephen M. Novak
Margaret' Stanton
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Chairman McBane requested two changes on page 3 of the
May 22, 1989 minutes: (1) paragraph 4, line 2, to read
"... that the Open Space Element Update Subcommittee..."; and
(2) item 5, line 2, to correct "Browning" to "Brownley".
Motion was duly made, seconded, and unanimously carried
(10-0-0) to approve the minutes of May 22, 1989 as corrected.
3. UPDATED OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION ELEMENT DISCUSSION
I B-61
July 17, 1989 CITIZEN'S OPEN SPACE COMMITTEE Page 2
the 1988 element and Open Space Committee recommendations in
order to arrive at the version being presented tonight.
Motion was duly made, seconded, and unanimously carried
(10-0-0) to accept Faye Round's wording changes as follows:
Page 1, paragraph 1, change line 2 to read,
"...decisions related predominately to the...".
Page 1, paragraph 2, change line 2 to read,
"...conservation, acquisition, and maintenance of open
space...".
Page 1, paragraph 4, change line 1 to read,
"...economic, aesthetic, and environmental benefits...".
Page 1, last paragraph, line 5, replace the word
outstanding with important to read, "...maps identify
important recreation...".
Page 5, paragraph B.7, change line 1 to read, "To
encourage increased setbacks along...".
Page 21, add the following sentence to paragraph 10,
"This list may be added to or modified in the future, as
deemed necessary."
Capitalize the words "open space" throughout the
document.
Motion was duly made, seconded, and unanimously carried
(10-0-0) to accept Cindy Ward's wording changes as follows:
Page 9, paragraph A.5, change the sentence to read,
"...hillsides, ridges, valleys, canyons, lagoons...".
Page 10, paragraph C.4, change the sentence to read,
"...hillsides, ridges, valleys, beaches, canyons,
lagoons...".
Motion was duly made, seconded, and unanimously carried
(10-0-0) to accept Mario Monroy's wording change as follows:
Page 10, paragraph C.8, add a comma and the following
words to the end of the sentence, "...with appropriate
penalties for violations."
Appendix, page 3, paragraph 1, change line 3 to read,
"...or when the City allows a property owner to pay the
fee in-lieu...".
Motion was duly made, seconded, and unanimously carried
(10-0-0) to accept Lefty Anear's wording change as follows:
B-62
I July 17, 1989 CITIZEN'S OPEN SPACE COMMITTEE Page 3
Page 14, paragraph C.5, line 2, delete the words pool
and spa water.
• Motion was duly made, seconded, and unanimously carried
(10-0-0) to accept the element as amended, including the
(Comprehensive Open Space Network Map showing the larger open
space areas and potential locations for linkage of these
areas into a future trail system.
I
4. FINAL REPORT DISCUSSION
The final report was discussed with regard to changing the
words "master plan" to "plan" in several sentences on pages
4, 40, and 41. Motion was duly made, seconded, and
unanimously carried (10-0-0) to approve the changes as
proposed.
Chairman McBane inquired about the remaining approval
. process, and Mr. Holzmiller explained the events to occur
I prior to the City Council presentation. He stated that the
• report would appear on an August agenda. The updated element
would then receive a public hearing by the Planning
Commission as part of the General Plan revision.
Chairman McBane requested the City Council presentation be
made, if possible, during the second or third week of August
so that all members of the Committee will be in town and able
to attend.
I Julie Nygaard gave a brief report on the progress of the
video being created by Cablevision through the grant process,
Motion was duly made, seconded, and unanimously (10-0-0)
carried to approve oral presentation of the Final Report to
the City Council by Open Space committee members McBane,
Round, Heineman, Nygaard, and Wilkinson.
5. COMMENTS FROM ALTERNATES
There were no comments from the alternates.
6. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE
There were no comments from the audience.
7. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:11 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
BETTY M. BUCKNER
Minutes Clerk
B-63
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SECTION V
I C. COMMENTS/INPUT FROM PUBLIC
I
I
I
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
Transcription from flip chart
I Public input session... C- 1
- Written Comments
Nora La Corte... C- 2
I Eugene G. Carl... C- 3
Transcription of Presentation
• Bill Hofman... C- 4
I Reprint of Public Opinion Survey provided by the
Carlsbad Arboretum Fdn... C- 11
\
I
I
I
C-/7
I OPEN SPACE COMMITTEE
I PUBLIC INPUT SESSION - APRIL 1, 1989
I TRANSCRIPTION FROM FLIP CHART
" 1. REGARDING SAMMIS PROJECT
I a. Setback from bluff
I b. Trail
I c. E.I.R. requirements
I 2. OPEN SPACE ALONG SHORELINE BETWEEN PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD AND BATIQUITOS
* LAGOON.
I 3. NOT TOO MUCH FLEXIBILITY.
I NOTE: ATTACHED ARE WRITTEN COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM INDIVIDUALS IN ADDITION TO
THOSE PRESENTED AT THE MEETING
1. Nora La Corte
' 2. Gene Carl
I
I
I
I
C-l
I
OPEN SPACE COMMITTEE - CITIZEN INPUT (APRIL 1)
(1) Open space areas are often unbuildable steep slopes left to
be a fire hazard due to brush. When brush is finally cut
(i.e, after a brush fire) the large cuttings are left on the
ground.
Faulty reasoning uses the natural cycle analogy -although the
system has been disrupted, due to building houses too close
to open space. In nature. brush fires may occur every few
years to revitalize an area. Such fires may kill people
living in an overbuilt La Costa.
Please recommend cutting and removing brush by Mav l. every
year and proper landscaping by developers (not by overburdened
homeowners or homeowner associations). Note: Proper
landscaping is drought tolerant and does not promote slides
- like heavy ice plant - as well as being fire retardant.
(2) "Open" space is closed by homeowner associations due to
liability (e.g, coyotes, rattlesnakes, gopher holes, fire
danger, etc.) and insurance costs. Open space should be real.
(3) Leo Carrillo Ranch should be natural (e.g, hiking, bird
sanctuary, not commercial (e.g, Disneyland).
NORA LA CORTE, PHD
C-2
I
I STEWARDSHIP & ECO HYBRIDIZATION
I A broad conceptual interpretation of conservation
1. Preserve the land
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
a. soil conservation - erosion control
b. reconstitute soil retention measures
Beautify the land
a. drought tolerant trees and plants
b. retain native vegetation in areas over 50 acres
c. discipline all development run-off water
Encourage agricultural use of open space including tree
planting, nurseries, etc.
Limit fuel for fires, rodent buildup, and alien use of14. ijimit ruej. Lor tijres, roaent. DUJ.J.
native coastal sage habitat areas
5. Open area maintenance protection
a. organized use only (park-like)
Scenic areas, buffer zones, greenbelts, visual reliefs
and such will all be developed and maintained by owners,
special tax assessments, etc.
EUGENE G. CARL
Lone Pine Nursery
C-3
HOFMAN PLANNING ASSOCIATES
Planning » P-oiect Management • Fiscal Analysis
Presentation to the Citizen Committee to Study Open Space
Public Workshop - April 1, 1989
Carlsbad City Council Chambers
Thank you members of the Citizen Committee to Study Open
Space. My name is Bill Hofman of Hofman Planning
Associates with addresses at 2386 Faraday Avenue, Suite
120, Carlsbad, California.
First, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to
provide you with my input. I have attended most of your
meetings and I think you should be complimented on your
ability to understand the many complex issues related to
open space in such a short time period. Also, I believe
your staff and its consultants have done an excellent job
of presenting these issues in an easy to understand manner.
Today, I am here to discuss the City's "Open Space Map."
Specifically, I want to address its usefulness as a precise
planning tool in implementing the City's open space
regulations.
I have a slide presentation to demonstrate two key points:
1. The "Open Space Map" is useful as a general,
graphic representation of existing and future
open space; and
2. The "Open Space Map" is not a good tool for
accurately defining open space boundaries, nor
is it useful as a precise planning document.
I will try to make this clear in my slide presentation. At
the conclusion of the slide presentation, I would like to
offer the committee some recommendations regarding the open
space map.
C-A
2386 Faraday, Suite 120 • Carlsbad • CA 92008 • [619)438-1465
I
Slide Presentation Narrative
I ZONE 7
1. "Open Space Map." - Zone 7
This series of slides of Zone 7 demonstrate show how
the open space boundary lines were derived. Within
this zone, the open space boundaries were not based
on actual open space or constraints, but instead, it
was based on a very general open space map adopted
as part of the Calavera Hills Master Plan in the
1970's.
2. Southeast Corner of Zone 7 "Open Space Map" (blow
up)
The example I want to show you is the open space
finger in the southeast portion of Zone 7. PleaseInotice on this map the configuration of the open
space finger and the alignment of College Blvd
through this finger.
I
I
I
I
3. original Calavera Hills Master Plan Open Space Map
This is the map that was used to determine the
boundary of the "Open Space Map." This is an 8 1/2"
x 11" exhibit contained in the Calavera Hills Master
Plan text.
4. Calavera Hills Master Plan O. S. Map - Close Up of
the Southeast Area
I From what I have been able to determine, this map is
not based on any hard topographical data or field
investigation. It is merely a graphic
I representation of open space areas as envisioned by
* the Master Plan. The lines are not accurate, nor
were they intended to be.
I 5- Zone 7 - General Plan Land Use Map - Close Up of the
Southeast Area
I This is the General Plan Land Use Map of the same
" area within Zone 7. Notice the change in the
configuration of the Open Space boundary and theIfact that College Avenue is no longer shown going
through the open space finger area.
I The General Plan Land Use Map for Calavera Hills was
prepared after the adoption of the Calavera Hills
Master Plan.
C-5
6. Southeast Corner of Zone 7 "Open Space Map" (blow
up) - (Same as Slide No. 2)
I believe this series of slides of Zone 7 shows the
potential inaccuracies of the "Open Space Map." It
demonstrates the point that it is not a precise
planning tool and the boundaries should not be
considered definitive.
7. Field Slide of the Area in Proximity to the Open
Space Finger in Southeast Zone 7.
In the field, the closest landform to the map
depiction is this mesa. Unfortunately, this mesa
isn't even close to the area shown on either the
General Plan Land Use Map nor the "Open Space Map."
The point I am trying to make is that not until you
are at a project level can precise open space
boundaries or relative open space worth be
determined.
ZONE 12
8. Zone 12 - "Open Space Map"
The next area I would like to discuss is Zone 12
located in the Southwest portion of the La Costa
Master Plan. The two specific areas I want to
address are:
1. The major Riparian Woodland in the west central
portion of the Zone; and
2. The Open Space Corridors in the eastern portion
of the Zone.
9. Field Slide - The Riparian Area looking from the
East towards the West
As this slide shows, the Riparian area within Zone
12 is quite extensive.
10. Field Slide - The Riparian Area looking from the
West towards the East
This is the same Riparian area looking towards the
east.
C-6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
11. Field Slide - Close UP of Riparian Vegetation
a significant biological and wildlife habitat.
12. Zone 12 - "Open Space Map" - Close Up of major
Riparian Woodland
Here is the Riparian area as depicted on the "Open
Space Map." Notice the more precise line drawing
along its southern boundary and the looser line
drawing along the northern boundary.
13. Zone 12 - General Plan Land Use Map - Close Up of
major Riparian Woodland
This is the existing General Plan land use
designations for this area. Notice:
I a. The Riparian area is not considered a prominent
feature on this map,
I b. The northern boundary of the Riparian closely
follows the "Open Space Map" while the southern
boundary, although drawn more precisely, does
not match the General Plan.
I The riparian boundaries on the "Open Space Map,"
therefore, was derived from two different sources
one of which appears more accurate than the other.
14. Zone 12 - Aerial Photograph of Zone 12
This aerial photograph shows the boundary of the
riparian area as it actually exists. The southern
boundary matches closely the boundary of the "Open
Space Map." The northern boundary, however, shows a
larger amount of riparian area than is shown on the
"Open Space Map."
15. Zone 12 - Constraints Map
This is a more detailed constraints map of the area.
This shows more exactly the boundaries of the
riparian area and demonstrates that the "Open Space
Map" was inaccurately drawn.
C-7
16. Zone 12 - "Open Space Map"
Again, this slide shows the loss of the riparian
open space area on the "Open Space Map."
Also, notice the open space corridors north of the
riparian area and in the eastern portion of the
site. These were derived from the existing General
Plan Land Use Map. At one time, these corridors
were to be part of an overall pedestrian trail
system as a part of the La Costa Master Plan.
17. Zone 12 — Field Slide of Approximate Location of
Open Space Corridor
This is approximately the area of the Open Space
corridor. As you can see, there is no discernible
unique, physical feature here that would indicate an
open space corridor.
Again, I believe these slides of Zone 12 question
the usefulness of the "Open Space Map" as a precise
planning tool. Flexibility is needed when
interpreting this map.
18. Zone 12 - "Open Space Map" Eastern Area
The other area in Zone 12 I want to discuss is the
Eastern portion in what is known as the SW Phase I.
This is to show you how the history of planning
actions has resulted in some of the open space
boundaries on the "Open Space Map."
19. Zone 12 ~ General Plan Land Use Map
The open space corridors align pretty much with the
General Plan.
20. La Costa Master Plan Open Space Exhibit, dated 1980
This is an early version of the La Costa Master Plan
Open Space Map. This is where many of the open
space boundaries in La Costa were derived from.
21. La Costa Master Plan - Blow Up of Southwest I
Notice that the open space corridor lines match
exactly with the General Plan. As you can see, this
corridor was intended to be a trail system. There
was no other thought given to the location than as a
boundary between two neighborhoods.
This shows how the Open Space map in several places
was derived from outdated Master Plans that are not
C-8
I
* relevant to existing conditions.
I 22. Zone 12 - Constraints Map - Blow Up of Southwest I
What the "Open Space Map" does not include, however,
I is a fairly significant riparian area shown on this
constraints map. Since it wasn't on the General
Plan Map it did not get placed on the Open Space
_ Map.
I
23. Field Slide of Riparian Area in Southwest I
As you can see, it is a significant woodland area
that is being preserved under the proposed Master
Plan.
I The point that I am trying to make here is that the
Open Space Map contains many inaccuracies, omissions
and errors. Much of it was derived from outdatedIMaster Plan Exhibits. It should not be locked into
concrete and used as a precise planning tool. Its
purpose should be to graphically depict areas that
I can later be looked at more precisely when a project
is proposed. Precise definition can come at the
project level.
I 24. Zone 24 - "Open Space Map"
Very quickly, I want to show other inaccuracies and
(inconsistencies of the "Open Space Map." This is
the "Open Space Map" for Zone 24. This open space
depicts the YMCA property. Notice the band of
developable land shown within this open space area.i
i
i
25. Zone 24 - General Plan Land Use Map
Here is the difference on the General Plan. Notice
that the boundaries do not coincide at all.
26. Field Slide of the YMCA Property
Here is property from El Camino Real.
27. Field Slide of the YMCA Property
This is the Grove. From a topographical and
biological point of it is hard to determine why
there is a difference between the "Open Space Map"
and the General Plan Map.
C-9
So based on my research, I would offer the following
recommendations:
1. Do not set the Open Space Map in concrete.
At its present scale, it just cannot be accurate
enough to be used a precise planning tool.
Hopefully, I have demonstrated this to you today.
2. Develop precise written definitions of Open Space
and apply these definitions on a project by project
basis.
It is at the project level that exact boundaries of
Open Space can be determined, and proper tradeoffs
can be made. This leaves the precise definition of
open space to your experts, the Planning Staff and
the draftsman.
3. With regard to definitions. I would recommend those
contained in the Citv/s Open Space Ordinance and the
Growth Management Ordinance.
These two ordinances combined, I believe, are the
most restrictive open space regulations in the State
of California.
4. With respect to changes in the Open Space
Boundaries. I would recommend the following:
A. General Plan Open Space - Significant changes
to General Plan Open Space should be done by a
General Plan Amendment. The staff, however,
should be given the flexibility of modifying
the General Plan Boundary lines when reviewing
individual projects where minor changes of less
than 10% are required to conform to actual open
space features.
B. Environmentally Sensitive Open Space areas
shown on the map should only require
administrative changes if, at a project level,
it can be shown that the changes result in more
accurate boundary lines. Also, staff should be
given the ability to trade off bad or
insignificant open space for good or
significant open space.
C-10
IReprinted from State of California, Parks and Recreation Public Opinion Survey
1987.
- Table 1
• OUTDOOR ACTIVITY PARTICIPATION (1987 SURVEY)
(Figures are Annual)
Walking
Driving for pi easure
Visiting museums, zoos, etc.
Beach activities
Picnicking - developed sites
Use of open turf areas
Swimming - lakes, rivers, ocean
Attending sports events
Attending cultural events
Birdwatching, nature study
Camping - developed sites
Trail hiking/mountain climbing
Freshwater fishing
Play equipment/tot lots
Swimming - pools
Softball, baseball
Sledding, snow play, ice skating
Camping - primitive/backpacking
Bicycling
Power boating
Saltwater fishing
Tennis
Downhill skiing
Golf
Kayaking, rowboating, etc.
Water ski ing
Four-wheel driving
Target shooting
Off-road vehicles
Jogging/running
Horseback riding
Hunting
Basketball
Sailing, windsurfing
Cross-country skiing
Football
Soccer
Surfing
Percent
Participating
76.62
75.6
72.0
67
64
64
59.0
50.4
49.7
47.4
46.
37,
36.
34.0
31.1
25.6
25.0
24.9
23.0
19.8
18.5
17.6
17.5
16,
15.
14,
14.
14.0
13.0
12,
12,
11.
10,
9.5
9.1
7.4
4.1
Average Days
Per Participant
52.5 Days
33.4
10.1
24.5
14.4
28.1
18.8
16.2
7.9
23.4
12.5
10.0
19.5
24.7
31.5
21.0
7.6
10.4
32.9
16.6
13.7
21.4
8.4
30.7
7.2
12.0
23.1
9.4
22.4
58.3
16.3
15.0
23.1
11.5
6.3
15.8
43.8
25.7
Total Estimated
Household
Participation
Days (millions}
149.6
81.8
31.7
69.0
31.6
69.1
42.6
28.1
15.1
31.5
18.3
14.8
19.5
35.1
33.3
19.2
5.4
8.2
46.0
9.7
9.5
18.2
4.9
16.8
4.1
5.6
8.3
4.2
9.6
55.1
6.1
3.9
10.3
4.2
2.2
6.0
9.5
5.5
C-ll
Table 2
RESULTS OF RECREATION NEEDS ANALYSIS
Priority 1
Camping - developed sites
Visiting museums, zoos, etc.
Walking
Picnicking
Attending outdoor cultural events
Beach activities
Bicycling
Birdwatching/nature study
Priority 2
Camping - primitive areas/backpacking
Use of open turf areas
Priority 3 .
Freshwater fishing
Priority 4
Swimming - lakes, rivers, ocean
Trail hiking/mountain climbing
Swimming - pool s
Driving for pleasure
Priority 5
None
Priority 6
None
Priority 7
Play equipment, tot lots
Priority 8
Attending sports events
Horseback riding
Index of
Public Support
for Funding
25.50
16.63
15.54
14.22
11.36
11.28
11.11
10.97
13.02
12.60
8.53
9.24
8.84
6.71
5.22
9.42
3.47
2.70
Latent
Demand
Index
18.37
16.12
15.11
11.46
12.68
10.07
11.62
10.21
8.50
8.50
10.10
9.40
8.40
6.93
8.13
4.91
6.69
7.98
C-12
Priority 9
Jogging/running
Hunting
Off-road vehicles
Golf
Saltwater fishing
Target shooting
Four-wheel driving
Basketball
Softball, baseball
Power boating
Sledding, snow play, ice skating
Soccer
Tennis
Kayaking, rowboating, etc.
Downhill skiing
Water skiing
Cross-country skiing
Sail boa ting/windsurfing
Footbal1
Surfing
Index of
Public Support
for Funding
4.
3.
3,
2.
2,
2.
1,
1,
1.
0.
70
35
10
91
86
53
1.84
.77
.60
,43
.39
1.36
.28
.11
.09
,91
0.77
0.52
0.42
0.22
Latent
Demand
Index
3.
3.
3,
4.
3,
3.
75
30
30
00
44
23
2.04
2.94
2.13
2.16
1.44
1.54
64
48
40
03
76
03
0.44
0.39
(Legend: .00 - 4.95 3 Low Priority
4.95 - 9.4 = Medium Priority
Over 9.9 - High Priority)
C-13
SECTION V
\
\ D. LIST OF APPROVED MOTIONS
1
I
I
I
I
Updated: 5/23/89
OPEN SPACE COMMITTEE ACTIONS
MARCH 22. 1989
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
*• There be no bias in the continuity and homogeneity of the
trail system and that it be sensitive to local environmental
I concerns. (14-0-0)
> The trail system be designed to serve recreational as well as
non-automotive transportational purposes. (14-0-0)
To recommend that the existing City policy of encouraging a
combination of both public and private open space be continued
and that it is not necessary for open space to be entirely
provided by the public sector. (15-0-0)
The committee, in its final report, include a recommendation
that the City Council direct staff to conduct an in depth
study (to be completed no later than year end 1989) on the
feasibility of a publicly accessible, primarily pedestrian
(with bicycle use where feasible), citywide, interconnecting
trail system or as extensive a system as is possible if an
interconnecting system is not possible. (15-0-0)
When studying the trail system, staff include all possible
linkages throughout the City; that the natural trail system
be linked to other trail systems (using public sidewalks and
walkways, if necessary) to create continuity wherever
possible. (14-0-0)
The committee strongly endorse the concept of a citywide,
interconnecting trail system, subject to the results of a
study in furtherance of that idea. (14-0-0)
»• To recommend linkage of the trail system from major
recreation/open space areas to other types of activity, i.e,
employment, schools, libraries, and viewpoints. (14-0-0)
APRIL 1. 1989
»• The City's open space map be used as a conceptual
representation of open space intentions in the City. (15-0-
0)
»> That staff be given the flexibility to add to the open space
map new open space areas which may be created by
circumstances. (14-0-0) (Cedola opposed.)
D-l
> To adopt paragraph 2 (A through E) as shown on pages 2 and 3
of the staff report regarding procedures for amending or
deviating from open space boundaries. (14-0-0) (Following
is the text.)
A formalized procedure should be created for adjusting the
boundaries of any open space area shown on the map. Findings
required for the approval of a boundary adjustment to the map
could include the following:
A. The open space area is of equal or greater area; and
B. The open space area is of equal or greater environmental
quality; and
C. The boundary modification is made in order to provide an
enhancement to an environmentally sensitive area; and
D. The adjusted open space is contiguous or within close
proximity to the open space shown on the Open Space Map.
E. The City Council may also modify the boundary location
shown on the Open Space Map if it finds that the
modification is necessary to mitigate a sensitive
environmental area which is impacted by development
provided the boundary modification preserves open space
at a 2 to 1 ratio and is within close proximity to the
original area of open space.
> As detail becomes available on open space areas that precise
information be depicted on zone maps and that the City's open
space map be updated to reflect that additional level of
detail. (14-0-0)
APRIL 12. 1989
» Approved a definition of open space (see attached) with the
following changes:
(a) Paragraph 1, second sentence - Replace the word "It" with
"The open space."
(b) Paragraph 2 - Add the words "trees, forests," so that the
sentence reads, ".. .preservation of trees, forests, plant, and
animal life, including..."
(d) Paragraph le - Add the words "and canyons" so that the
sentence reads, "Hillsides, slopes, and canyons necessary
for..."
D-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(e) Paragraph 4a - Add a phrase to the end of the sentence
so that it reads, "...cultural value, including significant
geological, paleontological, and archaeological areas."
(f) Paragraph 5a - Add the words "floodplains" so that the
sentence reads, "...unstable soils areas, watersheds,
floodplains, areas..." (15-0-0)
> After discussion, motion was duly made, seconded, and carried
(12-3-0) that, to the extent it is practical, standards for
open space be established by type of open space rather than
the general category of open space.
APRIL 26. 1989
»• That rather than many small pockets of open space, to try for
fewer but larger areas since open space will "appear" to be
more if development is clustered and open spaces are larger
and linked. (13-0-0)
*• That a certain percentage of land next to sensitive (riparian)
areas should be designated to act as a buffer. (13-0-0)
»• Recommend the creation of natural and man-made links between
open space areas to give the visual (and real) perception of
large open space areas, facilitate a trail system, and provide
viable habitat areas. (8-5-0)
> That the open space list on pages 2 and 3 of the subcommittee
report constitute a basic inventory listing in the City which
could be added to or modified in the future. (12-1-0) Text
as follows:
Type of Open Space Quantity Now Quantity/Build Out Goal
- Ecological Preserves
- Streams
- Lagoons, active:
skiing
wind surfing
canoeing
- Lagoons, passive
- Beaches: ocean
1agoon
lake
- Hillsides/canyons
- Wood!ands
- Equestrian facilities
D-3
Type of Open Space
- Agricultural:
Flower fields
Greenhouses
Horticulture
Field Crops
- Aquaculture
- School Grounds
- A. Pks/Rec. Public:
soccer
tennis
golf
picnic
softball
play apparatus
football
basketball
swimming
handball
skateboarding
- B. Pks/Rec. Private:
soccer
tennis
golf
picnic
softball
play apparatus
football
basketball
swimming
handball
skateboarding
- Utility Easements
- Railroad Corridors
- Arterial Setbacks
- Trails:
walking
biking/skate bd & roller
equestrian
- Campground:
public
private
- Golf Courses:
public
private
D-A
- Historic Areas
- Paleontological Areas
- Geological Areas (unique)
- Greenbelt Buffers
>• That there be an annual review of the methods and programs for
acquiring parks in the City of Carlsbad including,
specifically, but not limited to, the Quimby Act standards and
the park-in-lieu fees. (12-1-0)
»• That the City adopt precise written definitions of the various
forms of open space including visual corridors. As examples,
specific areas should be identified within the City to meet
these definitions. (12-0-0)
> To revise and amend Open Space Ordinance No. 9795 to (1) more
precisely identify and define lands considered as
undevelopable, (2) include provisions for buffer areas around
sensitive lands, (3) define the word significant, and (4)
include specific conditions and restrictions on non-
residential development. (12-0-0)
+ That in order to protect open space by increasing the public's
perception of it as a valued resource, the City should
identify existing open space for potential enhancement to
increase its habitat, visual, or physical values. (12-0-0)
> Any agricultural land that in the future can be changed from
agriculture to a non-open space use shall not be counted as
open space. (12-0-0)
> That any grading, grubbing, or clearing of vegetation in
undeveloped areas should require a City permit approved by the
Planning Director. (11-1-0)
- The Open Space Ordinance should define the City's
responsibilities to monitor the full development/construction
process from beginning to end. (12-0-0)
MAY 1. 1989
*• Strive for a balance of visual, passive and active open space
uses within each of the four quadrants of the City. (15-0-0)
»> The degree of improvements recommended for open space areas
should depend on the type of open space and the use proposed.
For example, improvements in active areas such as community
parks would be more complex. Improvements for passive areas
such as trails would be minor in comparison and include items
D-5
such as pathways, benches and trash receptacles. No
improvements should be made in environmentally sensitive
areas, except to enhance the environmental value of the area.
(15-0-0)
Encourage public access to all open space areas except where
sensitive resources may be threatened or damaged, or where the
public health and safety may be compromised. (15-0-0)
The City should acquire, protect or negotiate for public
access to lands that could be used for passive recreational
uses. (15-0-0)
Encourage the development of cultural/educational amenities
within open space areas such as botanical gardens,
interpretive centers, and arboreta. (15-0-0)
Continue to pursue a high quality active community park system
within appropriate open space areas. (15-0-0)
Obtain appropriate user fees from non-residents utilizing
Carlsbad's active recreation facilities. (15-0-0)
Passive recreation areas should be distributed throughout the
four quadrants of the City and should be separate from active
recreational uses where possible. (15-0-0)
The feasibility study to be prepared for a unified trail
system shall include, but not be limited to, an analysis of
cost, options for financing, liability, ownership,
maintenance, possible trail locations and linkages, and the
types of trails needed for different areas. (15-0-0)
The City should participate with other north county
communities to establish an inter-community open space
linkage. (15-0-0)
Trails should be encouraged near or adjacent to
environmentally sensitive areas, with appropriate buffers
and/or fencing. (15-0-0)
Trails should be sensitive to surrounding land uses and should
normally be placed at a significantly different elevation than
adjacent residential uses. (15-0-0)
Rather than purely recreational use, trails should also
provide a means of pedestrian transportation between
residential and commercial areas. (15-0-0)
When trails are proposed or required the City should obtain
an irrevocable offer to dedicate or a permanent easement for
trailways where feasible. (15-0-0)
D-6
Utilize open space to delineate the City's boundaries and to
buffer major land uses within the City. (15-0-0)
Identify and acquire, where feasible, higher topographic areas
suitable as panoramic viewpoints for public use. (i.e, Mt.
Soledad.) (15-0-0)
Encourage the preservation of highly visible agricultural
areas that are particularly suitable for flower production,
and where economically viable. (15-0-0)
Visually attractive or high quality natural areas should be
acquired, protected and preserved whenever possible. (15-0-
0)
Natural open space areas should remain in as natural state as
possible. (15-0-0)
Identify, acquire, and protect natural open space areas
visible from public gathering places in order to help create
a more rural atmosphere in an urban environment. (15-0-0)
Identify scenic routes to public open space with sensitivity
to increased traffic in residential areas. (14-0-0)
Land area that otherwise qualifies for measurement towards the
standard but which is not available without some monetary or
other consideration for use by the general public will be
considered as meeting only a certain percentage of the
performance standard, that percentage to be determined by the
adoption of a new City standard. All other land area which
qualifies for measurement towards the performance standard
will be given 100% credit towards those standards. (14-0-0)
City Council establish an Open Space Commission which could
work in an advisory capacity, including a staff member, to
review and address the many issues pertaining to open space
including, but not limited to, definitions, designations, and
potential map changes. The Commission's responsibilities
shall also include:
(1) An advocate for open space;
(2) Community representation to the Planning Commission and
City Council;
(3) Continue to develop and revise open space policies as
defined by the City and the open space ordinance;
(4) Monitor implementation of open space policies;
(5) Recommend priorities , for open space including
acquisition, use, and maintenance programs, on an annual
basis;
(6) Set and refine guidelines for specific project review of
open space;
D-7
and shall be established coincident with termination of the
interim open space ordinance. (14-0-0)
MAY 10. 1989
Zone plans, major development applications and applications
involving potential linkage should address trails and trail
interconnection opportunities on proposed plans. (12-0-0)
The City develop a cohesive policy and master plan setting
forth open space goals and guiding acquisition, maintenance
and financing. (12-0-0)
Powerline easements shall not be counted towards meeting the
15% open space standard. (7-5-0)
Major powerline easements will receive partial credit when
they are enhanced or improved and provide key links in the
trail system. The extent of credit shall be determined by a
new standard. (10-2-0)
Private golf courses will receive partial credit in meeting
the performance standards only if significant visual benefit
is determined. The extent of the credit shall be determined
by a new standard. (10-2-0)
Whenever feasible, natural and man-made links should be
created between open space areas to give the visual (and real)
perception of large open space areas, facilitate a trail
system, and/or provide viable habitat areas. (12-0-0)
MAY 15. 1989
As a policy statement, new development should support at least
the open space needs of the occupants of its projects. (12-
0-0)
In support of the above policy, exactions from new
developments should include, but not be limited to,
legislative protection, Quimby Act funding, park-in-lieu fees,
industrial recreation fees, setback requirements, the
provision of essential improvements, and the adoption of
appropriate Local Facility Management Plans, Master Plans, and
Specific Plans. (12-0-0)
Recognizing that certain elements of the proposed open space
plan and public trail system may not be available through
exactions, and may therefore require other forms of
acquisition, maintenance or financing, the Committee
recommends that, to the maximum degree possible, those
benefitting from the acquisition or improvement provide
D-8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
funding in direct proportion to the benefits derived. (12-0-
0)
The City should promptly create a trust or other mechanism to
facilitate private donations for open space acquisitions,
protections, improvements, or maintenance. (12-0-0)
The City should create a program for identification of private
donations with specific open space acquisitions, protections,
improvements, or maintenance in order to encourage private
participation as a funding mechanism. (12-0-0)
Where public funding is necessary for new open space in
"built-out" sections of the City, the Committee feels that
General Obligation Bonds are a highly desirable source of
funding in that they: 1) generate new revenues; 2) spread the
cost of such acquisitions over the widest possible base; and
3) match the financing with the long-term nature of the asset
being acquired. (12-0-0)
The Committee believes that the likelihood for voter approval
of a General Obligation Bond issue by the required two-thirds
majority will be enhanced in proportion to the number of
voters who will benefit from the issue and in proportion to
their benefit. The Committee therefore recommends that any
General Obligation Bond issue placed before the voters propose
a well-balanced acquisition program, providing a variety of
open space opportunities spread throughout the community.
(12-0-0)
Recognizing that the two-thirds majority required to approve
issuance of General Obligation Bonds has traditionally been
difficult to achieve, the Committee recommends that other
funding sources also be considered. (12-0-0)
None of the Committee's recommendations are intended, nor
should they be construed, as authorizing the City to exercise
its power to adopt, amend or repeal an open space or
conservation zoning ordinance in a manner which will take or
damage private property for public use without payment of just
compensation therefore. These recommendations are not
intended to increase or decrease the rights of any owner of
property under the Constitution of the State of California or
of the United States. (12-0-0)
A graphic, conceptual representation of the City's Open Space
Plan be prepared incorporating a comprehensive linked system
of Open Space. The diagram would include the following
features:
D-9
1. Identify the larger, publicly-dedicated Open Space areas,
community parks and potential sites which would be linked
together by the network.
2. Identify existing Open Space linkages.
3. Identify additional potential linkage routes. These
potential links would help to complete the overall
network and could be used for trails, natural Open Space
buffers and peripheral greenbelts.
4. Identify potential linkage points with adjoining cities.
It is recognized by the Committee that the potential linkage
routes would not be precise locations and have not been
preserved as public Open Space. It is proposed that these
links be obtained through compliance in meeting the City's
Open Space performance standards or through other means of
public acquisition or protection.
Public streets rights-of-way or major powerline easements
shall be used for linkage in the network only if it is
determined that no other desirable alternative is available
to the City without public purchase. Consideration should be
given to safety and aesthetics. (12-0-0)
MAY 22. 1989
All land set aside as Open Space that can be mapped, shall be
zoned Open Space. (14-0-0)
At the time of any discretionary approval, any land set aside
for its habitat or scenic value shall have an appropriate
easement placed on it for resource protection. (14-0-0)
D-10
SECTION V
I E. MATRIX OF COMPARISON WITH OTHER CITIES
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Open Soace Element (Date Adopted)
Parks and Recreation/Recreation Element
Parks Master Plan
Trails Master Plan
Hillside Ordinance
Constrained Lands Ordinance
Open Space Ordinance
Ooen Space Zone
Ooen Space Mao (Separate from Land Use Mao)
Areas Totallv Prohibited from Development
Ouimbv Ordinance
Public Facilities Fee for Open Space/Parks
Planned Development Ordinance
Site Plan Review Ordinance
Growth Management Ordinance
Resource District Conservation Ordinance
Wetland Preservation Policies/Measures
Rideeline Protection Policies/Measures
Agriculture Protection Policies/Measures
Floodolain Protection Policies/Measures
Coastal Zone Protection Policies/Measures
Land Trust/Conservancv
Open Space Authority
Permit Processing Brochures
Percent Area Open Space Now
Percent Open Space at Build Out
Area fSauare Miles)
Population Now (OOO's)
Population at Build Out (OOO's)
Build Out Year
Self Insured
-Cc
C<
«•kc
3a2
86
ft5
•
•
—
—
•
•
•
•
—
•
—
—
•
—
—
•
•
—
—
^M
30
'£
m>
'l X.
i>
\ C.
i
i
. ^
&4
—•
•
•
—
—
•
•
•
—
—•
—
—•
•
•
•
•
•
—_
fr
at
X5
#
•
V
•^oc
"c
Ct
13
75
•
^~
3
•2
t •
^
«£
V9
—
•
•
•
-
•
•
•
•
—
•
—
—
•
•
—
•
—
—
•
™
5
13
'b
*
•
etuB
£.u
R
C
R*•
CK
V
72
•
•
•
24-
77
c
K<*«Crc/-
19
86
1!
4-7
c
C!>C
2>\
S>\
—
—
—
—
—
•
•
•
•
•
•
—
•
•
—
•
—
—
—
40
2.7
40
w>
010
•
c
•ccc
bu.
73-
•
•
•
•
—
36
67
~<'<^L.
if
14
1*
•
•
—
-
—
—
•
—
•
—
•
•
—
•
•
-
•
—
34
lo
HO
too
•
cto.
<
_c
c:a.
73
-
—
•
—
—
•
—
—
—
—
•
—
—
•
•
•
•
—
•
•
bo
bo
&
65
W
*•
>Kz
0c.
b*
53
•
•
y\
*0
•cccEJZ_t
(2
&>
t*
—
—
•
—
—
—
•
•
•
—
•
•
•
—
•
•
—
•
&
50
51
114-
wo
•
.*01<ub.U
c1!
^
14
1/
—•
•
—
—
•
•
•
—
•
•
-
—•
—•
—•
—
&
n
&
1*
20*
•
coEVk.U.
1%
01
•
•
•
•
JO
to
•oc
J/h_
CQO
74
52
•
—
•
•
•
•
•
•
—
•
•
•
—
•
—
—
•
•
—
—
4*
40
tt
&
Z0I3
•
Figure 2 - COMPARATIVE STUDIES MATRIX E-l
• Postive
— Negative
f"l Information Not Available
^ City Built Out Already
SECTION V
F. FINANCING MATRIX
in
3o
2 X
S U)
ui *~
z z< o
2 1z
u.
inui
z
Z I
E £1— r~
Of —
U ^
* 1
iZ
V)UJ
O
O 2
llL!O *"
E §
5 FS S< E^ oK
hinancingTechniques P>uo|i*ziuc|jo Xiiunuiuio;} mojduoN
ai«AMd
jsruj_ iyojduof|
suoiscaauo^
«»»j jasn
•aosty IJJUMOSUJOH/-JSJQ juaiussassy
tooy-o||»VAj
t punj fcjauar)
aaj uo|U»AuoD |*jni|n3ulv
*UO|1«UOQ
•/d'O'D
ipuog "O'D
tiumi*)
)3(J1*|Q luauinat ly
•ooM-°n»w
(»aj ioy Xquimt)
••d ^»W3»d 9RQnd
pun j (ijauag
papaaf^ Supuiutj of|
— ^S~
lujuoj •A|iu»au| jaisnQ
lay uoiui«tn*/vV
.uo|itt|nb9y i»iui luojduo^
siuauiaajly )uauido|aA8Q
uouaaiojd aA[ic|*!*>1
•lnH %ST I»*UI«IBUB^ qiMOjt)PLANNING AREASBUILT OUT -SMALL OWNERSHIPS (For example. Zone 2)O
o
•*
o
oo
o
*
g
oo
o
4
]
ii
i:
*O
O
O
o
oo
0
o
*
g
0o
o
*
1E
O
0o
0
*
o
o
o
*o
*
o
3
b
K
*
O
0
0
*
g
6
+
o
o
1M1.
ll
0
o
o
*
o
oo
*0
*
o
0
?e
UNDEVELOPED -MULTIPLE OWNERSHIPS (For example. Zone 18)O
O
o
0
*
o
oo
0
o
4
O
06
0
oo
*• bnvironmentally Constrained*O
0oo
0
0
oo
o
•*
g
0o
o
0
**
^m
> t
O
oo
•¥
o
0
0
oo
*
*o
J
o
\:
c •
*
o
o
*
g
o
*o
*
i
£
O
o
*oo
o
oooo
*
*oo
Q
*
o
0
•*
i
IM
UNDEVELOPED -LARGE OWNERSHIPS (For example. Zone 15)O
0
*
*o
o
oo
o
0
*
o
0
0
*•*• Environmentally Constrained*O
*
*O
0
o
oo
o
*
Q
O
Q
*
*O
BMII
M
> I
o
oo
*
*o
o
o
*
*-n
0
o
*
I
Ir <
*
O
O
*
Q(<
0<
*O(
0
*(
1
w1 J
H
O)(0
in
m
F-l