HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-02-21; Parks & Recreation Commission; 202-6; Larwin Park Master Plan ApprovalPARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION -AGENDA BILL
AB# 202-6
LARWIN PARK MASTER PLAN APPROVAL MTG. DATE: 2/21/02
TITLE : 0 INFO
ACTION
STAFF: CAHILU I
KETABIAN I I I
RECOMMENDED ACTION :
Approve the Larwin Park Master Plan including development for additional parking spaces (5) at
the existing Dog Park.
ITEM EXPLANATION :
Since 1984, a variety of plans for both passive and active development have been brought
forward to the Parks and Recreation Commission for consideration in developing Larwin Park.
Most recently, in 1992, in response to community concerns, the commission approved a passive
park plan. Although this plan was approved, the recession of the early 1990’s delayed
development of the park.
Last year (2001) recognizing the need to fulfill requirements outlined in the Growth Management
Plan, staff resumed developing plans for Larwin Park. The City Council has appropriated funds in
the FY 2001-02 CIP for this project. A consultant, Wilkinson Design Group, was hired and worked
with staff to prepare concepts for a passive use park plan.
The proposed Master Plan, which is scaled back further from the 1992 plan, limits development
to those areas previously disturbed by grading and to areas not impacting biologically sensitive
habitat, nesting sites for the endangered California gnatcatcher, or steep hillside slopes.
The vision for the park is to provide passive recreational opportunities to those living in close
proximity to the park who could either walk or drive a short distance to use the tot lots, picnic
areas, walk or hike the trails and pathways, and use the informal turfed areas.
The proposed Master Plan includes the following :
Upper Site: (at existing Dog Park)
Additional 5 Parking Spaces w/ trail head access for proposed trail to lower site
Trail- 6-8’ width w/ native soil or compacted DG (volunteer built)
Lower Site:
Parking- (to be increased from 10 to14 spaces)
Screen walls for parking lot
Entry Arbor
Group Picnic Shelter - (omitted)
Picnic Areas - (2 to be omitted)
Seating Areas- (reduced to 3) 2 benches each area
Play Areas- (2) 3-6 yr. olds area -Approx. 2,250 s.f.
6-12 yr.olds area-Approx. 5,024 s.f.
Walking Paths- 6’ wide, concrete
Turfed Areas
Restroom Facility- Approx. 600 s.f.
Pedestrian Lighting-12’ height along walkways
AB#
Page 2
r Split Rail Fencing -Top of slope
Tree Plantings
Pedestrian Bridge-Tanglewood Community /Park Connection (omitted)
Site. Furnishings- Drinking Fountains (2), Bike Rack (I), Benches (12) Trash(3)
On January 30,2002, the City conducted '&public meeting at Calavera Hills
Community Park for the purpose of soliciting input and comment on the proposed
Master Plan for the park. Public notice included mailings to all homeowners within
600' of the park, as well as providing flyers to the Tanglewood Homeowners
Association' and other Home Owner Associations within the noticing area. City staff"
from Recreation, Engineering and Planning were in attendance to answer questions
and gather input from the public. Previous concept plans from years past were
displayed, along with background information on how and why'a passive type park'
development was determined most appropriate for the design of the current Master
Plan. Also presented was pertinent information on the site analysis and a biological
constraints map. Approximately 45 people attended the public meeting and provided
comment. Exhibit 2 is a summary of the public comments received at that meeting.
After receiving input from residents at the recent public meeting, staff reviewed
parking standards used for similar passive uses at other parks in the City and found
that elements in the proposed plan needed to be scaled back in order to match up
parking with the proposed park uses. It was also determined that removal of the
group picnic shelter would also reduce another opportunity for large groups of
people to come to the park to use that facility. Discussion at the public meeting about
removing the pedestrian bridge connection from Tanglewood to the park was also
taken in consideration. Therefore, the following revisions will be made to the plans:
0 the group picnic shelter will be omitted
0 2 picnic areas will be omitted
parking will be increased from 10 to I4 spaces
the pedestrian footbridge will be omitted
After receiving the Commission's input, staff will finalize the Master Plan for Lawin
Park and present the plan to the City Council in mid March. Following
Council's approval, the plan will be submitted for environmental review, permit
processing, and Planning Commission review. Construction is anticipated to begin
in late summer or early fall of 2002.'
EXHIBITS:
1. Lawin Park Master Plan
2. Public Comment Summary
3. Letter from Tanglewood Homeowners Association
.
City of Carlsbad
EXHIBIT 1
LARWIN PARK PUBLIC MEETING SUMMARY
MEETING DATE: January 30,2002
LOCATION: Activity Room at Calavera
Hills Community Park
ATTENDEES: General Public- Approx. 46
RESIDENTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS
LIVING WITHIN
600’ OF THE PARK BOUNDARY
CITY STAFF:
Director Recreation, Ken Price
Park Development Manager, Mark Steyaert
Municipal Project Manager, John Cahill
Senior Management Analyst, Keith Beverly
Park Planner, Liz Ketabian
Deputy City Engineer, Robert Johnson
Senior Planner, Elaine Blackburn
Associate Engineer, Frank Jimeno
Recreation Supervisor II, Gail Watts
Park Planner, Scott Bradstreet /c
COMMENTS RECEIVED INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING:
PARKING LOT, VEHICULAR ACCESS AND TRAFFIC ISSUES:
- 10
Explore a 2-way roadway from the upper site down to the lower site, with parking at the
lower site
Explore parking at the upper site with a path leading to the lower site of the park
Traffic on Vancouver is already a problem, provide no vehicular or pedestrian access to
current park entry on Vancouver St.
Would like City staff to provide a projected park usage for proposed development,
especially in regard to parking lot usage
Eliminate proposed parking lot at Vancouver St. as it will attract public nuisance with
cars parking there at night and entering park
Develop the park, but provide primary access off of Carlsbad Village Drive
Fence all along Tanglewood
Eliminate pedestrian bridge access from Tanglewood P
029 EXHIBIT 2
,-
Park users wilt park in exiting alleys of Tanglewood community which are near the park and use them as another way tu gain access to the park via the proposed pedestrian
bridge
Intersection of Concord and CBVD - Residents feel current vehicular access onto CBVD
from Concord St. is dangerous and are concerned that development of the park with a
parking lot off of Vancouver for the park will create additional traffic at that intersection
and pose an additional traffic concern
Not enough parking at Dog Park, Dog Park users may use lower parking lot, causing
increased traffic on Vancouver St. disturbing residents who live on the cul-de-sac.
RESTROOM FACILITY:
Facility must be locked at night to help in preventing vandalism or being used by
vagrants
Needs to be lighted at night so people don’t hang around
SUGGESTED ADDITIONS:
Phone in Rest Room area for emergency use
Consider providing a privacy wall along property line that abuts rear yards of
homeowners on Vancouver St.
PARK ELEMENTS THAT WERE LIKED ABOUT THE PLAN:
Picnic areas
Tot lots
Trail
Keep lights to a minimum along walkways
OTHER:
Environmental concerns with fertilizers being used on turf areas and leaching into the
ground and water
Dogs getting off leashes may be a problem from those using the dog park and going thru
the lower site and vice versa
Birds will be shot by kids
Park will attract homeless
Park not visible from street
Close off Vancouver
P No park at all
Fire hazard
d30
Tiburon earlsbad
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
’ 31 15 Avenida de Anita
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Tel (760) 729-3048
FAX (760) 729-4909
Carlsbad City Parks & Recreation Dept.
ATIN: Liz Katabian, ASLA
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008-1989
RE: Larwin Park Concept Plan dated January 2002
Dear Ms. Katabian:
As members of the Tiburon Carlsbad Homeowners Association Board of Directors, we thank you
for the opportunity to provide comment on the City’s Lanvin Park Concept Plan.
As you know, the Park’s Master Plan dated January 2002 features a number of amenities, including
several “tot lots,” large turf areas, picnic and barbecue facilities, restrooms and view benches. These
features are entirely appropriate to a city park. There are several features, however, that we find
problematic with the design as it is currently envisioned. We will list these here, in order of
importance to the Tanglewood community:
1. Pedestrian Footbridge - The concept plan calls for a pedestrian footbridge to be built over
the deep drainage culvert separating the Tanglewood grounds from the Park property.
While we cannot tell exactly where this bridge is to be located from the concept drawing,
we can approximate its location. In addition to the fact that such a bridge at this location
appears to be quite an expensive engineering undertahng, the concept itself, though
presented as a feature is, in our view, in fact a flaw.
F
The bridge is designed, if our understanding is correct, to provide access for Tanglewood
residents to the SDG&E access road, the Park’s hihng trail, and ultimately the Park itself
(including the Dog Park). We have several related concerns with this access. Access from
Tanglewood also implies access TO Tanglewood. If parlung is inadequate in the Park’s
proposed lots (and we believe it is; see comments below), and if it is “discovered” by
non-Tanglewood residents that the Park can be accessed from the lower area, we believe
. that some, though certainly not all, park users will avail themselves of what appears to be
additional free parking and access from one or more of our Vias. As you may know,
these Vias are private property, and are, for the most part, not designed to provide off-
street parhng for Tanglewood residents, let alone non-residents. Since they are private
property, our Association must provide liability insurance to cover them. Any increase in
people or vehicle traffic increases our liability exposure, to say nothing of additional
enforcement problems that it creates (the City’s police department will not respond to
such problems, since again, these are private vias). So, the footbridge provides liability
concerns as well as potential enforcement costs and problems for our Association. For
these reasons, we believe that the access bridge should be deleted from the concept plan.
Page 1
(1 3 1 EXHIBIT 3
2/ 1 1 /02
f-
r
2. Parking and Access - Insufficient parking spaces for this facility seems rather obvious.
Given that a portion of any parlung must be reserved for dsabled access, the addition of
15 total spaces for a project of this size seems inadequate. While your traffic engineers
may have done studies to suggest that such a number is appropriate, common sense
would seem to indicate that if the park is to feature a group picnic shelter which can be
reserved and used for large group parties perhaps lasting an entire day, such a number of
spaces appears inadequate. Thus, the project appears to assume the utilization of city
streets for addltional parhng. While we cannot speak for the residents who live on or
near Vancouver and Waterbury Wap in the vicinity of the park entrance, the increase in
traffic and noise attendant with this situation hardly makes it seem as though the parlung
plan has been thoroughly thought through.
Attendant to this situation is the park’s access in and of itself. That the park design
would provide for main traffic access through a residential area designed as cul-de-sacs
seems ill-conceived. Constructing a parking lot directly between two residential
structures seems of similar poor design, no matter how well it is mitigated by
landscaping, walls, etc. Access to the park from Carlsbad Village Drive, as well as
sufficient parlung at the current entrance to the Dog Park, seems far more preferable.
Any design- that. does not provide for this feature but instead calls for parlung access
from Vancouver Street in all likelihood creates the potential for an untenable situation
for the residents there and should be reconsidered.
3. Open, Unsecured Access - The large undeveloped area below the park and directly
adjacent to the Tanglewood property is already a magnet for a number of “recreational
activities,” of the type one would not necessarily characterize as family-oriented. Our
securi? personnel already have quite a time discouraging alcohol- and drug-related
parties from this area. Partygoers regularly disperse into the brush when they are chased
away by our personnel. Many of these persons are non-residents of Tanglewood, as
evidenced by the unidentified cars that are parked near the area. This brush area also
provides living quarters for a number of vagrants and transients, or to use the city’s
euphemism “serial inebriates,’’ some of whom regard the dumpsters in our complex as
diners or sources for shelter-building materials. The addition of restroom facilities will
not discourage such activities, but will in fact provide an additional reason to camp out
or par? in the hills below the park. Again, since the police will not patrol our private
vias, such open access would further exacerbate an already difficult security situation for
us. While a perimeter fence might solve the problem, the negative impact on wildlife
such as coyotes, rabbits and other species might be severe and undesirable.
4. Fire Concerns - The Park features barbecue pits not far from a large open brush area,
bordering both the Tanglewood grounds as well as the homes on Vancou& and
Waterbury Way. This seems like a fire disaster in the malung, and as similarly ill-
conceived as the features outlined above.
As was mentioned to you after the January 30,2002 Larwin Park Public Forum meeting,
Tanglewood is already saddled with high and ever-increasing liability insurance rates, and a carrier
who appears to be loolung for an excuse to cancel us outright. We are concerned that the addition of
7-
Pago 2
the Park :IS currcntl~~ proposed \vi11 pro\.ide additional reason for our carrier to question our
.Ass< )ciatlon’s insurabiliG-.
Thc dt-i\-ing impetus for development of Lanrin Park appears to have more to do u.ith fulfilling
requirements of the Cin of Carlsbad’s General Plan in the Northeast Quadrant than lvith fulfilling a
pcrcci\,eci or expressed nerd of the quadrant’s residents. W’e believe that the Park as concei\.ed totiai
fails on a number of key points as listed above. \Ye would not support its de\,cloprnent \\idlout
significant design changes.
licspcctfullv submitted,
Thc Tiburon Carisbad Homeowners Association Board of Directors
Signed, .
A
I’nyc. z