HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-01-18; Parks & Recreation Commission; 0107-5; Disruptive Basketball Play La Costa Canyon ParkPARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION - AGENDA BILL
AB# 0107-5
MTG. DATE: 01/18/07
STAFF: LANCASTER
REPORTED DISRUPTIVE BASKETBALL PLAY
ON WEEKEND MORNINGS, AS RELATED
TO THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE
EXISTING LA COSTA CANYON PARK
D INFO
\E\ ACTION
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Review the reports of disruptive basketball play on weekend mornings - as related to the Conditional use
Permit for the existing La Costa Canyon Park, consider the options available in response to those reports,
and advise staff of the Commission's selection.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
Background
Over the past two years, The Parks Maintenance Department has participated in oversight of the
contractual remodeling/reconstruction of selective restrooms within City parks to ensure compliance with
the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). To date, three such restroom projects have been undertaken -
two at Holiday Park, and one at Laguna Riviera Park. The last of these projects is expected to be
completed next month. Prior to the issuance of building permits for the work at each of these sites, the
Planning Department required that Conditional Use Permits (CUPs) be issued, as the parks had been
constructed many years prior without having such documents on file. Entitlement applications for those
sites were therefore submitted to the Planning Department. Planning Commission Public Hearings on
those sites were later held, there were no objections voiced, and the CUPs/building permits were
subsequently issued.
Recognizing that La Costa Canyon Park was in need of similar remodeling for ADA compliance, an
entitlement application was submitted to the Planning Department for that site as well. A vicinity map
(Exhibit 1) and an aerial map (Exhibit 2) of La Costa Canyon Park are attached. A Planning Commission
Public Hearing on the matter was subsequently scheduled for July 20, 2005, with the required public
noticing of the matter being accomplished in advance of the meeting. On July 15, 2005, staff received
the attached e-mail message (Exhibit 3) from Linda Lespesa, as an "ad hoc representative of the
concerned residents" near La Costa Canyon Park. In that message, she described problems associated
with the basketball court that are "all related to a group on non-residents who fill the parking lot with cars
on weekends, and ignore pleas and warnings from both the neighbors and Carlsbad police." On July 19,
2005, staff sent the attached e-mail message (Exhibit 3) to Ms. Laspesa in response to the concerns
raised.
On July 20, 2005, the Planning Commission Public Hearing was held on the CUP application for La Costa
Canyon Park. Staff presented the attached report (Exhibit 4) and responded to the Commissioner's
questions. Ms. Laspesa and her adjacent neighbor also provided public comment, similar to that
contained in the July 15, 2005 e-mail message, and responded to the Commissioner's questions. After
deliberating, the Planning Commission approved the Conditional Use Permit for La Costa Canyon Park,
with an added condition that staff was to return in six months at an another Public Hearing to discuss the
permit's status. In the interim, Ms. Laspesa and her adjacent neighbor were advised to contact the
Carlsbad Police Department during any disruptive incidents on the basketball court so that officers could
be dispatched to the site. The approved minutes (Exhibit 5) of that meeting are attached.
II
AB#0107-5
Page 2
Planning staff workload prevented the scheduling of the additional Public Hearing within the stated time
frame. Shortly after the hearing, however, Parks Maintenance staff installed signs at the basketball court
requesting that the players "Please Be Respectful of the Neighbors - No Profanity, No Loud Noises, No
Littering, No Fighting" (photo attached). In addition, both the Parks Maintenance and Police Department
staff periodically monitored weekend morning activity at the site for over a one year period. Staff found
that: (a) the few dogs observed within the park were generally being taken from the parking lot to the trail at
the back of the park - where leashed dogs are allowed, (b) any litter near the basketball court was readily
controlled, (c) there were no negative impacts to the parking lot, and (d) the basketball play was within
normal expectations for a community park setting. On occasion, the assigned Police Officers also made
contact with the basketball players and advised them of the concerns that had been raised by neighbors.
During this period of over one year, complaints from Ms. Laspesa or other neighbors regarding the
basketball activity were minimal. On September 21, 2006, however, Ms. Laspesa sent the attached e:mail
message (Exhibit 6) reminding staff that the Public Hearing to review the status of the Conditional Use
Permit had not occurred, and advising that problems with unauthorized dogs and abusive basketball
players were continuing on Sunday mornings. According to Ms. Laspesa, the neighborhood consensus
was that "the players appeared to be more respectful for a period of time, but ...reverted to the same
behavior as prior." On September 22, 2006, staff sent the attached e:mail message (Exhibit 6) in response
to Ms. Laspesa, and communicated with the Planning Department on the need to schedule a Public
Hearing. Staff also traded the attached e:mail messages (Exhibit 7) with Ms. Laspesa on September 28,
2006, regarding an isolated parking lot sweeping incident.
On November 15, 2006, an additional Planning Commission Public Hearing was held on the status of the
park's CUP. Staff presented the attached report (Exhibit 8) and responded to the Commissioner's
questions. Ms. Laspesa, her adjacent neighbor, and four other nearby residents provided public comment
and responded to the Commissioner's questions. After considerable deliberation, the Planning
Commission voted against the adoption of a resolution to allow the CUP to remain in effect indefinitely,
subject to annual review by the Planning Director. Instead, the Commission directed staff to draft a
resolution of denial for the CUP, and return to their next regularly scheduled meeting. The approved
minutes of that meeting (Exhibit 9) are attached.
On December 6, 2006, another Planning Commission Public Hearing was held on the resolution of denial
for the park's CUP. Staff presented the attached report (Exhibit 10) and responded to the Commissioner's
questions. Ms. Laspesa's adjacent neighbor and one other nearby resident provided supplemental public
comment. A different nearby resident submitted the attached letter (Exhibit 11) dated December 6, 2006 as
public comment. After additional deliberation, the Planning Commission voted to continue this item to April
7, 2007 - or preferably sooner - to allow staff the opportunity to present this matter to the Parks and
Recreation Commission, and return with any suggestions to resolve the issues at hand. The approved
minutes (Exhibit 12) of that meeting are attached.
Since the November 15, 2006 Public Hearing, Recreation staff has joined the Parks Maintenance and
Police Department staff in periodically monitoring- weekend morning activity at the park. Staff has
continued to find that: (a) the few dogs observed within the park were generally being taken from the
parking lot to the trail at the back of the park, (b) any litter near the basketball court was readily controlled,
and (c) there were no negative impacts to the parking lot, and (d) the basketball play was within normal
expectations for a park. A log (Exhibit 13) of this monitoring activity is attached.
Historical and Geographical Data
The following information is offered as historical and geographical data for use when considering the
options available in response to the reports regarding basketball activity at this site.
AB#0107-5
Page3
Construction of La Costa Canyon Park began in the late 1970s. Located in a residential neighborhood
north of La Costa Avenue and between San Marcos Canyon and Cadencia Street, the 14.85-acre park
features tot lots, a sand volleyball pit, lighted tennis courts, a lighted basketball court, turfed open space
areas, and group picnic areas. Serving park patrons are a 26-space parking lot and a restroom building.
A large portion of the park consists of an undeveloped canyon and hillsides. Meandering across the
hillsides are trails that connect the park with an SDG&E .easement and nearby homes. The SDG&E
easement and the park's undeveloped areas serve to buffer park amenities from many of the nearby
residences.
The park has an Open Space General Plan designation and a Planned Community (P-C) zone in
recognition of the fact that the park is part of the La Costa Master Plan. The facility is identified as a public
park by the La Costa Master Plan. The Master Plan states that the park is subject to the standards of the
Open Space (O-S) Zone. According to the Zoning Ordinance, public parks are permitted uses while tennis,
volleyball, and other sports courts are conditional uses in the O-S Zone. The site is also designated as a
Community Park by the Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan.
According to Section G.1., 'Primary Park Classifications', of that Element, Community Parks are defined
as "leisure facilities, approximately 20 to 50 acres in size; however, due to the 1982 revision of the Parks
and Recreation Element, pre-1982 neighborhood parks of less than 20 acres have been reclassified and
"grandfathered" into the Community Park classification. This reclassification was approved by the Parks
and Recreation Commission in May 1987 and the City Council in August 1987." Although La Costa
Canyon Park falls short of the acreage range of current Community Parks, it does provide similar
amenities. "Community Parks generally provide active and passive amenities; however, they are not
limited to the exclusive use of either."
Community Parks are also generally intended for the use of residents within the larger vicinity - not solely
for the use of the neighborhood in which they are located. "Typically, Community Parks are designed to
serve the recreational needs of several neighborhoods....and the primary access orientation is vehicular."
In these respects, La Costa Canyon Community Park falls within the same classification as Stagecoach,
Poinsettia, Aviara, Pine Avenue, Hidden Canyon, and Calavera Hills Community Parks. Each of these
Community Parks also have residential neighbors either adjacent to, or across a street from, their various
amenities. Poinsettia and Calavera Hills Community Parks specifically contain full basketball courts. The
applicable sections of the Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan (Exhibit 14) are attached.
Options Available
The listing below notes the full range of options available in response to the reports of disruptive
basketball play on weekend mornings at La Costa Canyon Community Park.
1. Staff could forward a recommendation to the City Council that the basketball court be removed
from the park, and that the La Costa Canyon Park Master Plan be amended in a corresponding
fashion.
2. Staff could arrange for the modification of the full basketball court into (a) two half basketball
courts, or (b) one half basketball court and one half children's play court., or (c) one standard half
court and one open play court.
3. Staff could retain the current court configuration, post new signage at the basketball court
indicating play is not allowed until a later hour on weekend mornings (e.g., 10:00 a.m.), and
continue to advise nearby neighbors to contact the Carlsbad Police Department during any
disruptive incidents.
AB#0107-5
Page 4
EXHIBITS:
1. Vicinity Map of La Costa Canyon Park
2. Aerial Map of La Costa Canyon Park
3. E:Mail Messages between Linda Laspesa and Kyle Lancaster, dated 7/15/05-7/18/05
4. Report to the Planning Commission on CUP 05-05 - La Costa Canyon Park, dated 7/20/05
5. Planning Commission Minutes of CUP 05-05 - La Costa Canyon Park, dated 7/20/05
6. E:Mail Messages between Linda Laspesa and Kyle Lancaster, dated 9/21/06-9/22/06
7. E:Mail Messages between Linda Laspesa and Kyle Lancaster, dated 9/27/06-9/28/06
8. Report to the Planning Commission on CUP 05-05 - La Costa Canyon Park, dated 11/5/06
9. Planning Commission Minutes of CUP 05-05 - La Costa Canyon Park, dated 11/15/06
10. Report to the Planning Commission on CUP 05-05 - La Costa Canyon Park, dated 12/6/06
11. Letter to Don Neu from Marcela Escobar-Eck, dated 12/6/06
12. Planning Commission Minutes of CUP 05-05 - La Costa Canyon Park, dated 12/6/06
13. La Costa Canyon Basketball Court Monitoring Log, dated 11/11/06-12/31/06
14. Parks and Recreation Element of the City of Carlsbad General Plan, dated 7/03
EXHIBIT 1
TO SCALE
SITE MAP
La Costa Canyon Park
CUP 05-05
^
EXHIBITS
Hubbs" < Lhubb@ci.carlsbad.ca. us >; "Mark Steyaert" < MStey@ci.carlsbad.ca. us >;
"Paul Meadows" < pmead@ci.carlsbad.ca.us >; "Scott Donnell"
< Sdonn@ci.carlsbad.ca. us >
Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 5:46 PM
Subject: Re: Conditional Use Permit for La Costa Canyon Park
> Dear Ms. Laspesa:
>
> This message is a follow-up to our telephone conversation last
> Thursday, and your subsequent e:mail, regarding the Parks Maintenance
> Division and the Conditional Use Permit Application for La Costa Canyon
> Park.
>
> Please be advised that since our phone conversation, I have requested
> that two new signs be posted at this park's basketball court, indicating
> that players should be courteous to the neighbors (specifically 'No
> Profanity' and 'No Fighting'). In addition, an existing sign at the
> court requests that basketball play not start until 8:30am, though the
> park actually opens at 7:00am. With regard to the litter around the
> court, I have requested that our maintenance staff closely monitor this
> area and address it accordingly.
>
> In addition, I left a detailed voicemail for Corporal Douglas with the
> Police Department advising him of your concerns regarding
> foul/disruptive language, fighting, and general 'bullying' by certain
> basketball players. By copy on your e-mail, he is now also aware of the
> presence of unauthorized dogs at this park. I've asked that he refer
> this information to the applicable Community Relations Officer for
> appropriate action.
> X
> Lastly, please be advised that, although you are correct in the fact
> that Stagecoach Park currently has four half-court facilities, none of
> those baskets/backboards are mounted at a reduced height. Each of those
> baskets is at the same regulation height (10') as the two at La Costa
> Canyon Park. The City's parks do not have any reduced height baskets,
> in part due to the potential for adults to use them for slam dunk
> competitions, and damage/break the equipment in the process. I have,
> however, forwarded your comments to Park Development Manager Mark
> Steyaert for further review.
>
> We appreciate you and your neighbors providing comments on these items.
> Should you have any other Parks Maintenance related needs, please feel
> free to contact me, or Public Works/Parks Supervisor Jerry Rodriguez at
> (760) 434-2857.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Kyle Lancaster
> Parks Superintendent
> City of Carlsbad
> (760) 434-2941
\7
iKyle Lai roaster-Re: CITY OF CARLSBAD | CONTACT US ^ : : Page 1
From: PW Internet Email
To: David Douglas; Ken Price; Kyle Lancaster; Lloyd Hubbs; Mark Steyaert
Date: 07/18/2005 8:43:41 AM
Subject: Re: CITY OF CARLSBAD | CONTACT US
Good Morning,
The below email was sent to the Public Works email, addressed to you.
Thank You
Deborah
PW Administration
>» <LHansonLaspesa@adelphia.net> 07/15/2005 2:42:17 PM >»
A visitor to the City of Carlsbad Web site has completed and posted the "Contact Us" form to department,
Public Works.
FOR SECURITY REASONS, DO NOT CHANGE THE SUBJECT LINE.
Below, please find the information that was submitted:
NOTE: A HARD COPY OF THIS DOCUMENT IS ALSO BEING SENT VIA USPS.
To: City of Carlsbad - Kyle Lancaster, Parks Superintendent
Ken Price, Recreation Director
Lloyd Hubbs, Public Works
Mark Steyaert, Parks Development Manager
Corp. David Douglas, Sr. Police Officer
From: Corona La Costa Homeowners c/o Linda Laspesa
Date: 14 July, 2005
Re: Conditional Use Permit for La Costa Canyon Park; Neighboring Residents' Concerns
Many of us residents in the development surrounding La Costa Canyon Park (Corona La Costa
Homeowners Association) recently received the Notice of Public Hearing published July 8, 2005; Case file
# CUP 05-05. We understand that the conditional use permit addressed in the letter concerns bringing
the park's sports courts into compliance with current zoning ordinances.
We are concerned, however, that the issues concerning nearby residents are not being addressed. There
has been an on-going problem over the last several years regarding the use of the La Costa Canyon Park
(LCCP) basketball courts. The majority of the problems associated with the basketball courts are all
related to a group of non-residents who fill the parking lot with cars on weekends, and ignore pleas and
warnings from both neighbors and Carlsbad Police. These include 1) early morning excessive noise on
weekends, 2) loud arguments and frequent profanity by players, 3) litter including beer containers around
the court, 4) dogs either tied or loose in the park in violation of the posted signs (M.C. 11.32.030 (11) &
(30), and 5) inaccessibility of the courts to neighboring residents and children due to "bullying" their way
onto the court when this group wants access.
Furthermore, we feel that the placement of the basketball court makes it very inappropriate for full court
basketball under MOST circumstances. It is surrounded by homes on three sides of the park, many within
20-30 feet, and is situated next to the tot lot play area in the park. The sign stating "No profanity" has been
;Kyle Lan-oaster: Re: CJT/OFj:Ar^A
removed (most likely by the players themselves) but the profanity has not. It has become bad enough to
prevent many of us residents from bringing children to the park during their games.
The use of Carlsbad Police officers to respond to on-going complaints by neighbors is not the best use of
the City of Carlsbad's budget nor its officers. There has been a long-standing awareness by the Police
Department, and current and former Parks Department employees of this problem at La Costa Canyon.
We believe NOW is the time to address these issues, before issuing the Conditional Use Permit
mentioned above.
(Page 1 of 2)
We residents are not lodging these complaints without proposing a solution. There has been a long and
collective thought process ongoing in the Corona La Costa Development, and we believe we can propose
a solution that is both cost-effective and fair to all concerned, including the "problem" basketball players.
We suggest dropping one of the basketball hoops at La Costa Canyon, and converting the court for
half-cpurt play. To provide a full court facility nearby, we propose raising or exchanging the hoop and
backboard with one of the many half-courts in existence at Stagecoach Park. There are several benefits -
1) resolution of the current problems at LCCP, 2) players who wish to play full-court basketball have a
nearby facility. If they drive to LCCP, they can drive to Stagecoach, 3) the homes neighboring any of the
Stagecoach Park courts are located considerably further away than those at LCCP, 4) the children of our
neighborhood at Corona.La Costa will finally have a low basketball hoop accessible to them without
leaving the immediate neighborhood, and 5) parents will be able to use the playground area at LCCP
weekend mornings without worry about inappropriate adult activities close by.
Having dealt with this group of basketball players over many years, area residents are certain that the
group will seek out a full court facility and not return to LCCP regularly. In the past, they have stated they
sought out THIS specific court configuration. This will go a long way towards resolving the current
problems, without the major expense of relocating the entire basketball court.
While several of us plan to attend the July 20th Planning Commission meeting, and/or the City Council
Meeting on July 19th, we urge you in advance to address these concerns immediately, prior to issuing the
Conditional Use Permit, or at least contingent upon addressing our concerns. We area residents
appreciate the benefits of the park, and seek to improve the use and accessibility for all the Carlsbad
parks to all residents. Thank you in advance for your consideration.
Please feel free to address responses to any of the Corona La Costa Homeowners, or directly to Linda
Laspesa, as ad hoc representative of the concerned residents. Her contact information is as follows:
Residence: 3014 Rana Court, Carlsbad 92009
Phone:(760)436-6116
Fax: (760) 436-8084
Email: LHansonLaspesa@adelphia.net
(2 of 2)
Linda Laspesa
3014 Rana Court Carlsbad, CA 92009
LHansonLaspesa@adelphia.net
The City of Carlsbad Planning Department
EXHIBIT 4
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Item No.
P.C. AGENDA OF: July 20,2005
Application complete date: April 28,2005
Project Planner: Scott Donnell
Project Engineer: John Maashdflf
SUBJECT: CUP 05-05 - LA COSTA CANYON PARK - Request for a Conditional Use
Permit for (he existing La Costa Canyon Park, which is located on a 14.85-acre
site on Pueblo Street, located north of La Costa Avenue and west of Cadencia
Street in Local Facilities Management Zone 6.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 5934
APPROVING Conditional Use Permit CUP 05-05, based upon the findings and subject to the
conditions contained therein.
II. INTRODUCTION
This proposal involves the processing of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for existing La Costa
Canyon Park. No improvements or changes to the park are proposed.
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
The City of Carlsbad Public Works - General Services Department is requesting approval of a
Conditional Use Permit for La Costa Canyon Park. Located in a residential neighborhood north
of La Costa Avenue and between San Marcos Canyon and Cadencia Street, the 14.85-acre park
features a sand volleyball pit, lighted tennis and basketball courts, and lawn and picnic areas.
Serving park patrons are a 26-space parking lot and restrooms. A large portion of the park
consists of an undeveloped canyon and hillsides. Meandering across the hillsides are trails that
connect the park with an SDG&E easement and nearby homes. The SDG&E easement and the
park's undeveloped areas serve to buffer park amenities such as the tennis courts from many of
the nearby residences.
Construction of La Costa Canyon Park began in the late 1970s. The park has an Open Space
General Plan designation and a Planned Community (P-C) zone in recognition of the fact that the
park is part of the La Costa Master Plan. The facility is identified as a community park by the
General Plan Parks and Recreation Element and as a public park by the La Costa Master Plan.
The Master Plan states that the park is subject to the standards of the Open Space (O-S) Zone.
According to the Zoning Ordinance, public parks are permitted uses while tennis, volleyball and
other sports courts are conditional uses in the O-S Zone. Currently, these existing facilities at La
Costa Canyon Park do not have a Conditional Use Permit. The Conditional Use Permit
application submitted by General Services will apply to the whole park and will bring the
facilities into compliance with zoning regulations.
CUP 05-05 - LA COSTA CANYON PARK
Ju]y20,2005
Page 2 ;
s .
La Costa Canyon Park is subject to the following regulations:
A. General Plan;
B. La Costa Master Plan (MP 149);
C. Open Space Zone (Zoning Ordinance Chapter 21.33);
D. Conditional Use Ordinance (Zoning Ordinance Chapter 21.42); and
E. Zone 6 Local Facilities Management Plan.
IV. ANALYSIS
Staff developed the recommendation for approval of this project by analyzing the project's
consistency with the applicable policies and regulations listed above. The following analysis
section discusses compliance with each of these regulations/policies.
A.Genera! Plan
La Costa Canyon Park is consistent with the applicable polices and programs of the General
'Plan. Particularly relevant to the park are the Land Use and Parks and Recreation Elements. The
table below indicates how the park complies with these particular elements.
La Costa Canyon Park- General Plan Compliance
Element
Land Use
(Overall Land
Use Pattern
Policy C.8.)
Parks and
Recreation
(Park
Development
Objective B.I 2)
Use Classification, Goal,
Objective, or Program
Provide for a sufficient
diversity of land uses so
that schools, parks and
recreational areas,
churches and
neighborhood shopping
centers are available in
close proximity to each
resident of the City.
To ensure that park and
recreational facilities are
compatible with
surrounding uses.
Requested use and
improvements
La Costa Canyon Park is a well-
established use in a residential
area. The park provides
neighborhood recreational
opportunities such as tennis,
basketball, a tot lot, and walking
trails.
La Costa Canyon Park is adjacent
to homes and open space and is
identified as a public park in the
La Costa Master Plan. Much of
the park features an undeveloped
canyon and hillsides, and many
park amenities are significantly
setback from residences, Further,
amenities are appropriate for the
park's residential setting.
Compliance?
Yes
Yes
CUP 05-05 - LA COSTA CANYON PARK
July 20, 2005
Page 3
La Costa Canyon Park- General Plan Compliance Continued
Eiemcnt
Parks and
Recreation
(Park
Development
Objectives.]')
Use Classification, Goal,
Objective, or Program
To provide a minimum of
three (3) acres of
Community Parks or
Special Use Areas for
each 1, 000 population
within each of the four (4)
park quadrants of the City.
Requested use and
improvements
At 14.85 acres, La Costa Canyon
Park contributes toward meeting
the acreage requirement for
community parks as reflected in
this objective.
Compliance?
Yes
B. La Costa Master Plan
Originally adopted in 1972, the La Costa Master Plan (MP-149) established the land use pattern
for the La Costa area. The Master Plan identifies La Costa Canyon Park as a public park site and
shows it as part of an extensive open space corridor that includes San Marcos Canyon. The
Master Plan indicates that uses and improvements in the open space corridors are to be regulated
by the Zoning Ordinance Open Space standards.
C. Open Space Zone
The project site is subject to the requirements of the Open Space (O-S) Zone as contained in
Zoning Ordinance Chapter 21.33. Among other things, these regulations permit city parks,
picnic areas, trails, and playgrounds. Furthermore, the regulations conditionally permit tennis,
basketball, and volleyball courts. Chapter 21.33 also allows the park's public restrooms and
parking lot as accessory uses. Section C below discusses the park's compliance with the
Conditional Use Permit regulations.
With regard to development standards, the Open Space Zone provides specific standards for
minimum lot area and building height (a maximum 25-feet is permitted) and requires compliance
with Zoning Ordinance parking and sign standards. There are no requirements established for
other development standards, including setbacks or building coverage. Regarding lot area and
building height, La Costa Canyon Park complies because the 14,85-acre park size is adequate to
accommodate all park amenities, and the public restroom building is less than 25 feet high. An
existing wood monument sign, located next to the park entrance on Pueblo Street, is
approximately 18 square feet in area. This size is less than the maximum 30 square foot sign
area that city standards permit for public park monument signs.
Zoning Ordinance Chapter 21.44 establishes parking requirements. However, it contains no
standards for parks or amenities such as tennis courts and tot lots. When parking requirements
for a use are not specified, Section 21.44.030 allows the Planning Commission to determine the
parking needs, based on the requirements for the most comparable use as listed in Chapter 21.44.
However, the City's parking standards do not list any uses comparable to many typical park uses,
including those uses found in La Costa Canyon Park.
In the absence of applicable parking requirements, the City's Parks and Recreation Department
has developed parking standards for various park amenities. However, the Department developed
CUP 05-05 - LA COSTA CANYON PARK
July 20, 2005
Page 4
i -
the standards to recognize the parking needs of large, fully featured facilities such as Poinsettia
Park and the future Alga Norte Park. Because of their larger size, more community-wide
location, and/or amenities such as baseball and soccer fields and community centers, these parks
are likely to attract users in cars and on a community and region-wide basis. Accordingly, such
fully featured parks need more parking than a neighborhood-serving park such as La Costa
Canyon.
Recognizing its neighborhood location and orientation, staff has applied a 25 percent reduction
from the full City parking standard for each amenity at La Costa Canyon Park. This reduction is
based on the findings of a parking study prepared for Pine Park. As with La Costa Canyon, this
study concluded Pine Park's neighborhood location and lack of unique amenities warranted a 25%
parking space reduction. The Planning Commission approved this reduction through the
Conditional Use Permit for Pine Park (CUP 03-18). More recently, the Commission approved
the reduction through the Conditional Use Permit for Laguna Riviera Park (CUP 04-29).
Applied to La Costa Canyon Park, the 25% reduction modifies the park's parking requirement
from a total of 40 spaces to 30 spaces. Parking to meet this requirement is met by the park's 26-
space parking lot and available on-street parking along the park's Pueblo Street frontage.
Located on either side of the parking lot driveway, this frontage is sufficient to accommodate
four cars.
Attached Exhibit A, the project site plan, features a table that establishes La Costa Canyon
Park's parking requirements. In the table, each amenity (e.g., the tennis courts) and its parking
need are identified, along with the total available on and off-street parking.
D. Conditional Use Ordinance
According to Sections 21.33.040 (3) and (10) of the Zoning Ordinance Open Space chapter,
playfields, including courts, and tennis courts require a Conditional Use Permit if located in the
Open Space Zone. Four findings must be made in order to approve a Conditional Use Permit.
These findings, elaborated in the attached Planning Commission resolution, deal primarily with
the project's compatibility with the General Plan, desirability for the community, and
compatibility with its site and surroundings.
As discussed in Section A above, La Costa Canyon Park is consistent with the applicable
elements of the General Plan. The park is desirable for the community as it provides public open
space and passive and active recreational opportunities within walking or bicycling distance of
many homes. The park also helps to meet the Growth Management Performance Standard for
park acreage in the Southeast Quadrant. Regarding compatibility, the park's amenities are
appropriate for its residential location, and the amenities fit easily on the park site. Furthermore,
many park amenities are separated from nearby homes by the undeveloped areas of the park.
The two lighted tennis courts, for example, are situated near the middle of the park and are
setback a minimum 75-feet from the nearest homes to the south, and over 300-feet from homes
to the north.
Compatibility of the park with its serving street system is another finding that must be made. La
Costa Canyon Park is accessed from La Costa Avenue by Quinta Street, Del Rey Avenue, and
Pueblo Street. With the exception of La Costa Avenue, these streets are local streets designed to
CUP 05-05 - LA COSTA CANYON PARK
July 20,2005
Page 5
carry low volumes of traffic typical of residential neighborhoods. La Costa Canyon Park's size
and amenities are appropriate for the neighborhood and are not oriented toward attracting
community or regional users who may increase street traffic.
In the attached resolution, staff has proposed a condition that would allow the Planning Director
to approve minor additions and new accessory buildings at La Costa Canyon Park without the
need to amend the Conditional Use Permit. Such improvements would need to be consistent
with the public use and enjoyment of the park. Under the proposed condition, additions to
existing buildings could not exceed ten percent of the existing floor area, and new buildings
could not exceed 1,500 square feet.
£. Zone 6 Local Facilities Management Plan
La Costa Canyon Park is located within Local Facilities Management Zone 6. There are no
special development conditions in the zone plan that would apply to the existing park, and all
public facilities needed to serve the park exist. Therefore, the project is consistent with the
provisions of Local Facilities Management Zone 6.
/
V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Staff has determined that the La Costa Canyon Park Conditional Use Permit is exempt from the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This exemption is pursuant to CEQA Guideline
15301, Existing Facilities. This Guideline exempts the permitting of existing public facilities
and structures when little or no expansion is proposed. The City will file a Notice of Exemption
with the County Clerk if the Planning Commission approves the project.
ATTACHMENTS;
1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5934
2. Location Map
3. Disclosure Statement
4. Background Data Sheet
5. Reduced Exhibit
6. Exhibit "A" dated July 20, 2005
EXHIBITS
Planning Commission Minutes July 20,2005 Page 2
1. CUP 95-07x2 - SDG&E COMMUNICATION FACILITY - Request for an extension of
CUP 95-07x1 to allow the continued operation of a wireless communication facility
located on the 400-foot tower within the Enclna Power Plant at 4600 Carlsbad Boulevard
In Local Facilities Management Zone 3.
2. CUP 00-22x1 - RANCHO LA COSTA VILLAGE - Request for a 5-year extension of
CUP 00-22 to allow the continued operation of a drive-thru prescription drug window at
7760 Rancho Santa Fe Road In Local Facilities Management Zone 11.
4. PCD 05-02 — 1212 OAK AVENUE - Request for approval of a Planning Commission
Determination to allow two panhandle lots as part of a four-lot minor subdivision on 1.1
acres located on the north side of Oak avenue, east of Pio Pico Drive, In Local Facilities
Management Zone 1.
5. CUP 05-02 -VERIZON WIRELESS FACILITY - Request for a Conditional Use Permit to
allow the installation of an unmanned Wireless Communication Facility on a 1.77-acre
site located at 2710 Loker Avenue West In the P-M Zone and Local Facilities
Management Zone 5.
7. SDP 05-02 - FARADAY LOT 6 OFFICE BUILDING - Request for approval of a Site
Development Plan to develop a three-story, 97,500-square-foot office building on a
vacant 4.74-acre property located south of Faraday Avenue and on the west side of
, Priestly Drive In the Local Facilities Management Zone 5.
Mr. Neu stated Items 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7 are normally heard in a public hearing context; however, they
appear to be minor In routine and nature with no outstanding issues and Staff is recommending approval.
He recommended the public, hearing be opened and closed, and that the Commission take all items as a
group and proceed with a vote as consent. If the Commission or any members of the public wish to pull
the items, Staff would be available to respond to any questions.
Chairperson Segail asked if the Commissioners or any members of the public wished to pull Items 1,2,4,
5, and 7 or speak on one of the Items, Chairperson Segail asked Staff to pull Item 5, as there was a
member of the audience who wished to speak on the item.
MOTION
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Montgomery, and duly seconded, to approve Hems 1,
2,4, and 7, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein.
VOTE: 5-0-2
AYES: Chairperson Segail, Commissioners Baker, Cardosa, Montgomery, and Whitton
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Domlnguez and Heineman
Chairperson Segail closed the public hearing on Items 1, 2 4, and 7 and asked Assistant Planning
Director Don Neu to Introduce the next Item.
3. CUP 05-05 - LA COSTA CANYON PARK - Request for a Conditional Use Permit for
the existing La Costa Canyon Park, which is located on a 14.85-acre site on Pueblo
Street, located north of La Costa Avenue and west of Cadencia Street In Local Facilities
Management Zone 6.
Mr. Neu introduced Mem 3 and stated Associate Planner Scott Donnell would make the Staff presentation.
Chairperson Segail opened the public hearing on Item 3,
Mr. Donnell gave a detailed presentation on La Costa Canyon Park. He discussed communication
received In regards to concerns about excessive noise problems with the full size basketball court, use of
profanity during games, dogs off their leash, bullying of neighborhood children, and litter. Mr. Donnell
concluded his presentation and stated Staff would be available to answer any questions.
Planning Commission Minutes July 20,2005 Page 3
Chairperson Segall asked if there were any other questions of Staff.
Commissioner Baker asked for discussion from Staff or the Parks Department regarding the suggestion
received about turning the full size basketball court into a half court and possibly creating a full size
basketball court at Stagecoach Park. She asked if the Police Department would be able to have en effect
on reducing some of the problems mentioned In the communication received by Staff. Public Works
Supervisor Dale Schuck responded that there is not a full size basketball court at Stagecoach Park and
that to create one, it would need to be approved by several Commissions, incorporated tn the budget
process, and that the estimated cost would be In excess of $75,000. Mr. Schuck stated his concerns on
changing the full size basketball court at La Costa Park to a half court and that a policy decision change
would need to be made after discussion with the residents.
Commissioner Baker asked if one of the basketball goals could be removed. Parks Superintendent Kyle
Lancaster responded stating one of the basketball goals could be removed, but stated his concerns that
this may not reduce the problems with foul language and excessive noise.
Commissioner Baker asked what the Police Department has done when and if they have been called to
alleviate the problems. Mr. Lancaster staled the Police Department have only responded when Ihey have
been called, on a complaint basis, and the neighbors have limited their calls Jo the Police Department, as
they do not feel this is an appropriate use of the service. Mr. Lancaster stated he has encouraged the
neighbors to contact the Community Relations Officers because they are available to assist with these
types of community Issues and provide additional patrols.
' Commissioner Baker asked if there were any other parks in the City that encounter these problems. Mr.
Lancaster stated it is presumed the same issues may be present at various parks, but no complaints have
been received.
Commissioner Baker asked.if the Police Department is willing to assist by showing up at the park when
complaints are received and would this stop some of the occurring problems. Mr. Lancaster stated the
Police Department would respond as necessary in an effort to curtail the activity.
Chairperson Segall asked why sport courts are conditional uses In parks. Mr. Donnell stated this is to
ensure the activities associated with these uses fit into the surrounding community, and that it allows the
City to regulate the activity or use.
Chairperson Segall asked what the setback is for this particular basketball court in regards to the homes
and if they were lit for night games. Mr. Donnell stated the basketball court is approximately 10 feet
below the homes and about 30 to 40 feet away, and that they do have lights for evening games.
Chairperson Segall asked ff the parking was sufficient for the use of the residents and the people who are
using the full basketball court. Mr. Donnell responded the park meets all the parking requirements and
standards.
Chairperson Segall asked about the process In which the parks are developed and set up and stated that
the communication received mentions that since the park Is well lit, full sized and secluded it is being
used by people outside the community and is creating a problem for residents. Park Development
Manager Mark Steyaert stated the park had been developed before the homes were built and that the
uses in La Costa Park may not be considered for uses In newer park developments. Mr. Steyaert also
stated that since the park Is secluded that people who live outside a ten-mile radius from the park, such
as in Oceanside, probably would not use the park.
Chairperson Segall asked if this park offers something that other parks do not have that would attract
people from outside the Immediate neighborhood and causing a potential problem. Mr. Lancaster stated
that approximately three other parks within the City offer full size basketball courts that are well used. Mr.
Lancaster stated there have been sporadic complaints received on this particular court's usage, but he Is
not aware of a particular usage problem about a full parking lot or late night use.
Commissioner Montgomery stated that in the communication received, It was asked If there Is a way for
the residents to recoup the use of the park for themselves and Ihe children. Mr. Lancaster stated the
Community Relations Officers would try to curtail Illegal activities and as well as disturbance of the peace
Planning Commission Minutes July 20,2005 Page A
activities; however, it would be difficult lo legally enforce efforts to curtail some activities. Mr. Lancaster
stated there have been signs posted on the courts listing rules such as hours of operation, no fighting or
use of profanity to assist in the consideration of the residents and children.
Commissioner Montgomery asked if there were programs that allow children separate time to play and If it
would alleviate some of the resident's problems. Mr. Lancaster stated there are no planned activities for
children at this particular park through the Recreation Division, and that use of the facilities at La Costa
Canyon Park are on first come basis.
Commissioner Whitton asked if the referenced teams are neighborhood or coming from outside the
community. Mr. Lancaster stated these are *pick-up games" where players show up on a particular day
and time and are selected to play and it Is difficult to determine if they are from the neighborhood.
Commissioner Whitton asked what happens If the community asked for the full size basketball court to be
removed because of the continuous problems and noise it has created. Mr. Steyaert stated this park is
for the community as a whole and it would be difficult to close the activities In parks that disturb nearby
residents without eliminating all the facilities or parks.
Commissioner Whitton asked rf there are any other parks in the City that have full size and lighted
basketball courts that are as close (o the residential homes in this particular park. Mr. Steyaert stated the
lighted baseball fields at Poinsettla Park are closer to the residential homes than this particular basketball
court. Mr. Lancaster stated If there are continual problems then removal of the basketball court could be
discussed during annual review of the CUP.
t'
Commissioner Cardosa asked if there is any other codified law that may be posted In relation to the
issues to this particular park. Deputy City Attorney Ronald Kemp stated that the Penal Code could be
posted. Commissioner Cardosa asked if there were any other laws that state hours of operation. Mr.
Kemp stated the City Council could legislate an ordinance that regulated the hours. Mr. Lancaster stated
he has requested that signs on the park to be changed to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., and that
games not start until 8:30 a.m.
Chairperson Segall asked If there were any other questions of Staff. Seeing none, he opened Public
Testimony.
Linda Laspesa, 3014 Rana Court, Carlsbad, staled she has lived in the neighborhood since 1982. She
slated the neighborhood has met with the Home Owner's Association, and complaints have been made to
Parks and Recreation as well as the Police Department She stated some of the major Issues received
from about 40 residents are: the particular group of players who have developed proprietary ownership of
the court; players disregard of the Police Department, park employees and resident complaints; a number
of players who are from the Oceanside area; inability of some residents with small children to use the
park due to the players behavior; and dogs roaming freely. She thanked the Planning Commission and
Staff for their assistance and concern with this matter.
Chairperson Segall asked if there were any questions of Ms. Laspesa.
Commissioner Baker asked if the Police Department has been called in these situations or If the residents
are simply tolerating the problems. Ms. Laspesa stated complaint calls are limited as the Police
Department Is not always able to respond, which causes neighbors to simply tolerate problems. Ms.
Laspesa staled it Is fell the Police Department has limited resources and should not be concerned with
this ongoing problem.
Commissioner Baker asked if the park existed when Ms. Laspesa purchased her home. Ms. Laspesa
stated the park existed, but the basketball court was still under development and problems have evolved
over the years. Ms. Laspesa stated the suggestion of a half court is not to denying use of the park, but a
way to move the full court basketbaH games to a park such as Stagecoach Park and alleviate some of the
problems.
Chairperson Segall asked If the noise was noticeable In within her home. Ms. Laspesa stated there is a
resonating effect throughout the canyon and the player's conversation can clearly be heard within the
homes.
Planning Commission Minutes July 20,2005 Page 5
Chairperson Segall asked if the same players would always be present If a person were to show up on a
Saturday morning. Ms. Laspesa stated It is mostly Sunday mornings at present, but in the past It had
also been on Saturday momfngs.
Chairperson Segall asked at what time the players normally arrive. Ma. Laspesa stated players arrive
around 8:00 a.m., the problems begin about 10:00 a.m., and the games end between 11:00 a.m. and
12:30 p.m.
Chairperson Segall asked if the players bully the children off the court if they are present. Ms. Laspesa
staled the parents and children don't frequent the park on the weekend mornings because of the players,
but during the week there are players who come after work and force the children off the court.
Chairperson Segafl asked if there were any other questions or rf any other members of the audience
wished to speak on the item.
Suzanne Rosser, 3012 Rana Court, Carlsbad, reiterated Ms. Laspesa's concerns and stated her own
concerns as a parent with small children and not being able to use the park during Sunday mornings as
well as Friday afternoons during the school year. Ms. Rosser thanked the Parks Department for all their
work.
Chairperson Segali asked if there were any other questions or If any other members of the audience
wished to speak on the item. Seeing none, he closed Public Testimony. Chairperson Segail asked if
Staff would like to respond to the public comments or if the there were any questions of Staff. Seeing
'none, he asked if the Commissioners had any questions or comments.
Chairperson Segatl asked If this issue should be referred to the Parks and Recreation Department and
their Commission. However, he proposed haying an informal review within a six-month period once
Parks and Recreation has time to respond to the issue. Mr. Neu recommended allowing the Parks and
Recreation Staff time to attempt to resolve the issue operationally and if there is a continued problem then
Staff could bring the CUP before the Planning Commission for amendments.
Commissioner Baker thanked the public for suggesting alternative solutions, but stated her concerns
about restricting who is able to use the parks. She recommended allowing the Parks and Recreation
Department one year to resolve any issues and then modify the CUP ff there are continued problems.
She suggested that the Police Department show up on Sunday mornings in an effort to show the players
that they will act on any problems. Commissioner Baker slated she Is in favor of approving the CUP.
Commissioner Whltlon stated the Planning Commission has completed their job by recording the Public
Testimony comments. He recommended allowing the Parks and Recreation time to respond to the
problems and is also In favor of approving the CUP.
Commissioner Cardosa stated he is In favor of approving the CUP and would like to see a report within
six months. He stated with Parks and Recreation and the Police Departments diligence the problem can
be resolved.
Commissioner Montgomery stated the problem may still exist within six months and some physical
modification might resolve the issue, but Is in favor of approving the CUP.
Chairperson Segall asked if the Planning Commission would like to hear a report within six months.
Commissioner Baker asked the Parks and Recreation Staff If six months would be sufficient to provide a
report the effects of the Police Department presence. Mr. Lancaster stated this would allow adequate
time to review park activities with the Police Department, but that one year would allow time to have a
complete report of the Impacts. Commissioner Baker suggested a six-month review.
Chairperson Segall asked if there was a consensus among the Commissioners for a six-month review.
All Commissioners concurred. Chairperson Segall asked if this would be a formal or informal review. Mr.
Neu staled the Commission would only receive a report, but recommended a Public Hearing If the
Commission would like the option to make adjustment to the CUP.
Planning Commission Minutes July 20,2005 Page 6
Commissioner Whitton stated he preferred a report.
Commissioner Baker asked if the public would be noticed on a report. Mr. Neu stated that the 600' radius
noticing could be used.
Chairperson Segall asked if the public could still address the Commission if it is not a Public Hearing Item,
and Mr. Kemp stated the public could address the Commission prior to the meting.
Commissioner Baker stated her concerns and that she would like them to have the opportunity to address
during the report.
Commissioner Whitton recommended sending the report to the public.
Chairperson Segall staled his concerns that the Commission would not be able to ask the public any
questions.
Commissioner Baker recommended having a Public Hearing.
Mr. Lancaster stated Ms. Laspesa offered to be the neighborhood representative and could comment on
if (he progress is agreeable to the community.
Ms. Laspesa slated she would continue to be the neighborhood contact, but preferred a Public Hearing to
address the issue.
Chairperson Segal! asked if there was a consensus to have a public hearing and all Commissioners
concurred.
MOTION
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Montgomery, and duly seconded, that the Planning
Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 5934 approving
Conditional Use Permit CUP 05-05, based upon the findings and subject to the
conditions contained therein, incorporating a condition to return in six months to a
Public Hearing to discuss the status of the CUP.
DISCUSSION
Chairperson Segall thanked Ms. Laspesa for her letter.
VOTE: 5-0-2
AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Cardosa, Montgomery, and Whitton
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Dominguez and Heineman
Chairperson Segall closed the Public Hearing on Item 3 and asked Mr. Neu to introduce the next item.
5. CUP 054)2 - VERIZON WIRELESS FACILITY - Request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow
the installation of an unmanned Wireless Communication Facility on a 1.77-acre site located at
2710 Loker Avenue West in the P-M Zone and Local Facilities Management Zone 5.
Mr. Neu Introduced Item 5 and stated Assistant Planner Greg Fisher would make the Staff presentation.
Chairperson Segall opened the Public Hearing on Item 5.
Mr. Fisher gave a description and location of the wireless facility and stated the project Is In compliance
with all regulations and requirements. He concluded his presentation and slated he would be available to
answer any questions.
, ^ v. „ _„. ,. Re'rCgnjjti'onal _Us£ Permjtjor La .Costa Canyjin Parlk_&_Cleaning Co.
EXHIBITS
From: Scott Donnell
To: Kyle Lancaster
Date: 09/27/2006 4:50:09 PM
Subject: Re: Conditional Use Permit for La Costa Canyon Park & Cleaning Co.
Kyle,
I spoke with Ms. Laspesa. She pretty much repeated what she had put in her email below. She indicated
things were better then before. I indicated to her I would shoot for the 11/15 PC meeting and asked her if
that would work alright with her schedule. I was thinking that that date might affect plans she may have to
get a group together or further meet with you. She felt 11/15 was okay, and also indicated the
neighborhood might form a committee to deal with the park problems.
She also let me know about a parking lot cleaning company that apparently cleans the park parking lot
between 5 and 6 a.m. She asked if the cleaning could be done any later. I'm passing this on to you so you
are aware of her concern and because she would like a reply.
Thanks
Scott
>» Kyle Lancaster 09/22/2006 10:48:55 AM >»
Dear Ms. Laspesa-
In terms of the follow-up meeting to review of the Conditional Use Permit for La Costa Canyon Park, I
have copied Associate Planner Scott Donnell on this message for a response. I can assure you, however,
that after posting the supplemental signage at the park/court, the site did receive periodic monitoring by
the Community Policing Officers.
I received several reports from Corporal Dave Douglas indicating that the playing of the basketball games
was generally found to be in an acceptable manner. On selective occasions, the assigned officers also
made contact with the players and advised them of the concerns that had been raised by neighbors. My
strong presumption is that if dogs were observed tied to trees and barking on those occasions, the players
would have also been advised of the need to remove the dogs.
I personally inspected the site on a few weekends as well. As with the Community Policing Officers, I
found the play of the basketball games to be normal and acceptable. The only dogs I observed on my
visits were not associated with the basketball games, but rather, their owners were taking them directly
from the parking lot to the trail entry.
Although I would agree that the concept of posting additional signage and monitoring the site was not
intended to target specific individuals, it was intended to regulate specific behavior/actions. If there are two
individuals that are instigating or exhibiting the recent unruly behavior/unpermitted actions, I would ask
that you contact Corporal Douglas (760) 931-2217 soon with personal descriptions, and contact the main
Police Dispatch (760) 931-2197 when these behaviors/actions are occurring. I have also copied Corporal
Douglas on this message so that he can arrange for appropriate patrols by the Community Policing
Officers.
The tot lot improvement project that has commenced on site has been in the design/budgeting/bidding
stages for approximately three years. It is not an expansion of the existing tot lot foot print, but simply a
replacement of former equipment that became outdated for ADA compliance, and older seating that was
removed.
The park was designed and constructed with two adjoining sections of age diverse tot lot equipment. One
of those structures was removed a few years ago, leaving vacant sand. We are now replacing that
structure and adding some shaded seating for the parents.
2>o
Although the neighbors you have spoken with have not requested the replacement play equipment, that
particular tot lot is a well utilized park amenity, and will benefit the community as a whole.
In addition, this work is not being performed 'in lieu of fixing an existing problem.' We certainly respect
your comments regarding the basketball players/dogs, and we have attempted to address your concerns
through the signage and monitoring program noted. The initial decision to not convert the one full
basketball court to two half courts was not strictly based on available funding, but more over on the belief
that the conversion would not necessarily eliminate the issues that had been raised
(noise/language/fighting/barking).
I am very willing to meet with you to discuss these items further, and review the available options. Please
suggest a day/time for the meeting and I will check on the schedule. I will be glad to drive out to the park,
if that is most convenient for you.
Respectfully,
Kyle Lancaster
Parks Superintendent
City of Carlsbad
(760) 434-2941
>» "Linda Hanson Laspesa" < LHansonLaspesa@adelphia.net > 09/21/06 10:30 PM >»
I am recently in contact with several neighbors as we are all aware that the
followup meeting to the 6 month "review" of the conditional use permit did
not occur. We continue to have ongoing problems with the unauthorized dogs
is park on Sunday mornings along with abusive basketball players. It appears
that the neighborhood concensus is that the players appeared to be more
respectful for a period of time, but have now reverted to the same behavior
as prior. There have been 2 particular individuals in the Sunday AM group
that seem to be the instigators of the noise/abusive
language/fighting/barking dog tied to tree in park. These two don't always
play each Sunday at Sam (thank you!) but in general the games/players are
tolerable without them. How to handle, I don't know, as we are not
specifically targeting individuals. I've been in touch with the Community
Service Officer - who frankly seems not overly concerned.
Since there is currently a project going on as we speak in the playground to
add a rock climbing area/other play equipment, those of us who voiced our
concerns and ideas about converting the basketball courts to half-court play
don't understand why there are funds for this additional play equipment, but
NOT to convert the courts?!?! To my knowledge, NONE of us in the
neighborhood have requested additional play equipment in lieu of fixing an
existing problem. Again, I am speaking on behalf on the "silently
suffering" whose needs don't seem to be getting met. Perhaps a followup
meeting with you prior to the next board meeting might be in order? Please
contact me at 760.436.6116 or via email, and I will attempt to organize.
Thank you, Linda Laspesa
La Costa Canyon Park Area Resident
Original Message
From: "Kyle Lancaster" < Klanc@ci.carlsbad.ca.us >
To: < LHansonLaspesa@adelphia.net >
Cc: "David Douglas" < ddoug@ci.carlsbad.ca.us >; "Dale Schuck"
< DSchu@ci.carlsbad.ca.us >; "Greg Clavier" < Gclav@ci.carlsbad.ca.us >; "Joe
Pimentel" < Jpime@ci.carlsbad.ca.us >; "Jerry Rodriguez"
< Jrodr(5)ci.carlsbad.ca.us >; "Ken Price" < Kpric@ci.carlsbad.ca.us >; "Lloyd
Costa Cla^^ . .....
EXHIBIT?
From: Kyle Lancaster
To: Linda Hanson Laspesa; Ursula Centers
Date: 09/28/2006 1:44:50 PM
Subject: RE: La Costa Canyon Park - Parking Lot Sweeping
You're very welcome. The contract with the subject street sweeping company was recently revised. We
will certainly direct the contractor to avoid sweeping the La Costa Canyon Park after 7am from this point
forward. Our Parks Maintenance Staff has also previously been advised not to use power (noise
generating) equipment on such sites until after 7am.
I again apologize for the 4:30am disturbance caused by the sweeping company. Other City sites will be
scheduled for these early morning hours.
-Kyle Lancaster
>» "Centers, Ursula" <ursula.centers@pfizer.com> 09/28/06 12:10 PM >»
Thanks you so much for addressing this. I will say that I was FURIOUS to
be woken up at that hour and can't imagine how families with kids
reacted. IN general, there seems to be little consideration of the fact
that this park in located in the middle of a quite, residential
community. The schedule for regular maintenance should be looked at so
that a park like Stagecoach is first on the daily schedule.
Ursula Centers
----- Original Message -----
From: Linda Hanson Laspesa [mailto:LHansonLaspesa@adelphia.net1
Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 10:35 AM
To: Kyle Lancaster
Subject: Re: La .Costa Canyon Park - Parking Lot Sweeping
You're welcome, and thanks for addressing. Just saw my neighbor who'd
called
after they'd arrived at 4:30 am, and let her know to spread the word
that
it's been addressed. We'll all appreciate the extra sleep!
- — Original Message -----
From: "Kyle Lancaster" <Klanc@ci. carlsbad. ca.us>
To: <LHansonLaspesa@adelphia.net>
Cc: "Clayton Dobbs" <Cdobb(o)ci.carlsbad.ca.us>: "Dale Schuck"
<DSchu(S)ci. carlsbad. ca.us>: "Greg Clavier" <Gclav(g)ci. carlsbad. ca.us>:
"Paul
Meadows" <pmead@ci. carlsbad. ca.us>: "Scott Donnell"
<Sdonn@ci. carlsbad. ca.us>
Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2006 6:01 PM
Subject: La Costa Canyon Park - Parking Lot Sweeping
> Ms. Laspesa-
> Scott Donnell informed me that you had expressed a concern regarding
> the City's contract street sweeping company providing service to the
La
> Costa Canyon Park parking lot between 5am and 6am. This contractor
was
> recently directed to provide service to such lots twice a month.
' ^ejlancaster - RE: La .Costaj5anyon_Park -
> We will request that the contractor not sweep the La Costa Canyon Park
> parking lot until after 7am from this point forward. I apologize for
> any prior disturbances.
>
> Thank you for bringing this item to our attention.
> -Kyle Lancaster
LEGAL NOTICE
Unless expressly stated otherwise, this message is confidential and may be privileged. It is intended for
the addressee(s) only. Access to this E-mail by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not an addressee,
any disclosure or copying of the contents of this E-mail or any action taken (or not taken) in reliance on it
is unauthorized and may be unlawful. If you are not an addressee, please inform the sender immediately.
CC: Clayton Dobbs; Greg Clavier; Joe Pimentel; Paul Meadows
The City of Carlsbad Planning Department
EXHIBITS
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING
COMMISSION
Item No.
P.C. AGENDA OF: November 15, 2006
Application complete date: April 28, 2005
Project Planner: Scott Donnell
Project Engineer: David Hauser
SUBJECT: CUP 05-05 - LA COSTA CANYON PARK - Review of the approved
conditional use permit for La Costa Canyon Park, a community park on Pueblo
Street, located north of La Costa Avenue and west of Cadencia Street in Local
Facilities Management Zone 6.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 6200
FINDING that La Costa Canyon Park does not have a substantial negative effect on
surrounding properties or the public health and welfare and that the findings and
conditions of Planning Commission Resolution No. 5934, including the condition
requiring annual review of Conditional Use Permit CUP 05-05 by the Planning Director,
are adequate, based upon the finding contained in Planning Commission Resolution No.
6200.
II. INTRODUCTION
At its July 20, 2005 meeting, the Planning Commission approved a conditional use permit (CUP)
for La Costa Canyon Park. The park, completed over 20 years ago, lacked a CUP, which is
necessary for the facility's tennis, volleyball, and basketball courts. The Planning Commission
approved the CUP, but because of concerns expressed by residents living near the park about
some of the park users, voted to discuss the status of the permit at a public hearing in six months.
Staff workload prevented the scheduling of this item within the stated time frame.
Attached are the staff report, approving resolution, and minutes from the July 20, 2005 meeting.
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
La Costa Canyon Park is a 14.85-acre facility featuring play equipment, a sand volleyball pit,
two lighted tennis courts, a lighted basketball court, lawn and picnic areas, and meandering trails.
A large portion of the park consists of an undeveloped canyon and hillside: Serving park patrons
are a 26-space parking lot and restrooms.
The park has an Open Space General Plan designation and a Planned Community (P-C) zone in
recognition of the fact that the park is part of the La Costa Master Plan. The facility is identified
as a community park by the General Plan Parks and Recreation Element and as a public park by
the La Costa Master Plan. The Master Plan states that the park is subject to the standards of the
St.
CUP 05-05 - LA COSTA CANYON PARK
November 15,2006
Page 2
Open Space (O-S) Zone. According to the Zoning Ordinance, public parks are permitted uses
while tennis, volleyball and other sports courts are conditional uses in the O-S Zone.
In response to the July 2005 public hearing notice for the CUP, a resident living near the park
sent an email to the City (dated July 15, 2005, and attached). The email, which was distributed
to the Planning Commission, described several concerns that park neighbors have with the park
that were primarily related to weekend use of the basketball court. The concerns, reiterated by
this and another park neighbor at the public hearing, are listed below:
• Non-residents who fill the park parking lot and dominate use of the basketball court,
which prevents access by neighborhood residents and children
• Early morning excessive noise on the weekends by basketball players
• Loud arguments and frequent profanity by basketball players
• Players' disregard of requests from residents, park employees, and the police for
reasonable behavior
• Litter around the basketball court
• Dogs either restrained or loose in the park
The residents also noted in both the email and at the hearing that the problems had been ongoing
for several years and caused the park to be unusable at certain times, particularly by parents with
small children. As a solution, the email suggested the full-size basketball court at La Costa
Canyon Park be converted to a half court facility. In exchange, one of the existing half-courts at
nearby Stagecoach Park could be changed to a full court facility. In addition, at the public
hearing, both residents and city Parks and Recreation Department staff noted Carlsbad Police had
responded to complaints received regarding the problems at the park.
Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission voted to approve the CUP for La Costa
Canyon Park. The approval included a modification (in bold) of the standard condition
regarding review of the CUP:
This Conditional Use Permit shall be reviewed by the Planning Director within
six months of the effective date of this approval at a noticed public hearing
and thereafter annually to determine if all conditions of this permit have been
met and that the use does not have a substantial negative effect on surrounding
properties or the public health and welfare. If the Planning Director determines
that the use has such substantial negative effects, the Planning Director shall
recommend that the Planning Commission, after providing the permittee the
opportunity to be heard, add additional conditions to reduce or eliminate the
substantial negative effects.
The basketball court at La Costa Canyon Park is situated near the front of the park, just beyond
the parking lot. The court is lighted and about ten feet below and 30 to 40 feet away from the
nearest homes, which are separated from the basketball court by a landscaped slope.
IV. ANALYSIS
In response to the concerns cited by residents, the city's Parks and Recreation Department took
the following steps, most of which commenced before or soon after the July 2005 public hearing:
CUP 05-05 - LA COSTA CANYON PARK
November 15, 2006
Page 3
• Installed two signs at the basketball court requesting park users to be respectful of
neighbors and refrain from littering, fighting, loud noises, and profanity.
• Requested parks maintenance staff to closely monitor the basketball court area for litter.
• Advised the Police Department of the residents' concerns, including the presence of dogs.
• Corresponded with one of the concerned residents and provided that resident with contact
information for appropriate parks and recreation department and police department
personnel.
• Monitored the park on weekends when basketball games were underway. Carlsbad
Community Policing Officers also periodically monitored the site. All monitoring efforts
revealed basketball games were proceeding in a generally normal, acceptable fashion.
Furthermore, on selective occasions, the Community Policing Officers made contact with
players and advised them of the concerns that had been raised by the park's neighbors.
• Based on monitoring efforts, noted that dogs visible did not appear to be associated with
the basketball games but rather with owners walking their dogs from the parking lot to
adjacent trails. (Note: It is not known if police officers observed any dogs.)
• Recently installed a basketball court sign stating "no basketball allowed prior to 8:30
AM." This sign replaced a similar sign that prohibited basketball prior to 8:00 AM.
Additionally, a "no dogs allowed" sign has been located for quite some time at the park entrance.
Dogs are not permitted in any city park pursuant to Municipal Code Sections 11.32.030(11) and
(23). Pictures of this and the other signs mentioned above are shown below.
'•sak^j'X t~4i-*f^'" *
Furthermore, the park entrance sign pictured above, which advises that park hours begin at 7:00
AM, is scheduled to be replaced by a new sign informing that park hours begin one hour later at
8:00 AM.
Regarding the resident suggestion that the basketball court be converted from a full to half court
facility, Parks and Recreation Department staff believe that conversion would not necessarily
eliminate the offensive behavior. Parks and Recreation Department staff notes that two half
courts might actually draw more players, as four teams, rather than two teams, could play.
Additionally, there are both policy and budget implications associated with a conversion of
CUP 05-05 - LA COSTA CANYON PARK
November 15,2006
Page 4
courts at both La Costa Canyon and Stagecoach Parks. Among other things, discussion with
neighborhood residents and park users should occur before changes to facilities at either park are
made.
Another option expressed in the attached email is that one of the basketball hoops at the La Costa
Canyon Park be lowered to discourage full court play. While this may be desirable for younger
children, Parks and Recreation Department staff worry that a lowered hoop would encourage
adult slam dunk contests and possibly result in damaged equipment.
In September 2006, Parks and Recreation Department staff received an email from the same
resident who had written the previous email. The latest email reports that the neighborhood
continues to have problems with unauthorized dogs and basketball players, primarily on Sunday
mornings. The email notes that basketball players appeared to have exhibited a more respectful
conduct for a period of time. However, while the basketball games and players are generally
tolerable, the unpleasantness of the past once again was a problem due primarily to the behavior
of two individuals. The email also described the presence of a barking dog tied to a park tree.
Parks and Recreation Department staff replied to the email and requested that the resident
contact a specific individual in the Police Department as well as Police Dispatch when any
offensive actions are occurring. Department staff also offered to meet with the resident should
the resident desire.
Staff acknowledges concerns expressed by neighbors over the basketball court at La Costa
Canyon Park. Likely, similar problems occur periodically at other city parks as well. When
unpleasant situations occur, the Parks and Recreation Department and, when necessary, the
Police Department, have procedures, rules, and staff in place to respond to and address situations
appropriately. As demonstrated by the City's response to neighbors' concerns, problems with
the basketball court, although they may not be resolved, are and will continue to be addressed as
needed.
Based on existing and ongoing efforts by the city to address neighborhood concerns and meet
with residents, the Planning Department believes problems with the park are being and will
continue to be appropriately monitored and addressed. Accordingly, the Planning Department
recommends the Planning Commission find that (1) La Costa Canyon Park, and particularly its
basketball court, do not have a substantial negative effect on surrounding properties or the public
health and welfare; (2) the findings and conditions of Planning Commission Resolution No. 5934
remain adequate; and (3) annual review of the park CUP by the Planning Director, as the
standard condition requires, is adequate.
V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The original approval and current review of the La Costa Canyon Park CUP are exempt from the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This exemption is pursuant to CEQA Guideline
15301, Existing Facilities. This Guideline exempts the permitting and operation of existing
public facilities and structures when little or no expansion is proposed. After the Planning
Commission's approval of the CUP in 2005, the City filed a Notice of Exemption with the
County Clerk.
ATTACHMENTS:
CUP 05-05 - LA COSTA CANYON PARK
November 15, 2006
Page 5
1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6200
2. Planning Commission staff report dated July 20, 2005
3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5934
4. Planning Commission meeting minutes dated July 20, 2005
5. Email dated July 15, 2005
6. Location Map
7. Background Data Sheet
8. Reduced Exhibit
9. Exhibit "A" dated November 15, 2006
EXHIBIT 9
Planning Commission Minutes November 15, 2006
remedy. Commissioner Segall asked which business would be cited in the case of parking violations, Ms.
Mobaidi stated Code Enforcement would determine which business is responsible for the issue.
Commissioner Segall asked if the center would be responsible. Ms. Mobaldl stated the determination
before the Commission applies to this particular applicant. Code Enforcement would first look to the
applicant, and if they determine the applicant is not causing the parking problem, then Code Enforcement
would look to the other business owners.
Commissioner Segall stated the Commission is reviewing this project to make a determination that will
protect the shared parking issue. He added if the lunchtime parking exceeds the anticipated numbers, he
would like to see some safeguard in place.
Ms. Mobaidi conferred with Acting Planning Director Don Neu and stated Staff prefers the language to be
left as is. There is no continuing jurisdiction of the Planning Commission on this particular application;
Code Enforcement would have to determine which of the businesses is causing the problem. Ms. Mobaidi
added it would be a factual determination which would best be left to the future. The mandatory language
in the Condition obligates this particular applicant to abide by their own representations with regard to
parking.
Commissioner Dominguez stated his support of the project and the reduction in the parking requirement
for this particular use. He added this is a highly specialized and specific use that is allowed in this zone.
The studies conducted satisfy any concerns about parking in the area.
Commissioner Cardosa stated he believes The Boxing Club will be a reciprocal parking neighbor within
the facility and offered support of the project.
Vice Chairperson Baker asked if any member of the public wished to speak on Item 3. Seeing none, she
opened and closed public testimony.
MOTION
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Cardosa, and duly seconded, that the Planning
Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 6198 approving
Planning Commission Determination PCD 06-01 based on the findings and
subject to the conditions contained therein.
VOTE: 5-0
AYES: Vice Chairperson Baker, Commissioners Cardosa, Dominguez, Segall, and
Whitton
NOES: None
ABSENT: Chairperson Montgomery and Commissioner Heineman
Vice Chairperson Baker closed the Public Hearing on Item 3 and asked Mr. Neu to introduce the next
item.
4. CUP 05-05 - LA COSTA CANYON PARK - Request for a Conditional Use Permit for the
existing La Costa Canyon Park, which is located on a 14.85-acre site on Pueblo Street,
located north of La Costa Avenue and west of Cadencia Street in Local Facilities
Management Zone 6.
Mr. Neu introduced Agenda Item 4 and stated that Associate Planner Scott Donnell would make the Staff
presentation.
Vice Chairperson Baker opened the Public Hearing on Item 4.
Mr. Donnell gave a presentation and stated he would be available to answer any questions. He added
Superintendent of Parks Kyle Lancaster and Police Corporal Scott Meritt were in attendance and
available to answer questions.
Vice Chairperson Baker asked if the Commission had any questions of Staff.
3"!
Planning Commission Minutes November 15,2006 Page 5
Commissioner Segall asked if the letter of September 2006 that was mentioned in the Staff Report was
included. Mr. Donnell stated the correspondence of September 2006 was in the form of an email sent
directly to Staff and was not included in the report.
Commissioner Segall asked for the details of that email, Mr. Donnell stated the email noted the previous
problems seem to have subsided, but as of late there were problems associated with the basketball court
that could be traced to two individuals and primarily on Sunday mornings. One of the individuals had a
restrained dog in the park.
Commissioner Segall asked what the residents could do to mitigate a situation like that. Mr. Donnell
stated residents are advised to contact police dispatch. Commissioner Segall asked if the residents had,
in fact, taken the suggested course of action. Mr. Donnell stated he did not know.
Commissioner Dominguez asked if Staff had any knowledge of an allegation that one of the newly posted
signs had been removed. Mr. Donnell stated he believes the allegation does not pertain to any recently
posted signs and has to do with removal of a sign closer to the July 2005 hearing. Commissioner
Dominguez asked If this alleged removal was recent event. Mr. Donnell stated he believes it is not.
Commissioner Dominguez asked if either the Parks and Recreation or Police Departments have
maintained any record of park monitoring or visits they may have conducted. Mr. Donnell stated he
believes there is a record and Mr. Lancaster or Officer Meritt could respond to that.
Commissioner Dominguez asked how many times City Staff had visited the park on Sunday mornings.
Mr. Donnell stated he believes at least half a dozen contacts were made. Commissioner Dominguez
asked if it is half of a dozen for both the Parks Department and the Police Department or half of a dozen
for each department. Mr. Donnell stated Mr. Lancaster had been out to the park on at least half of a
dozen occasions. Commissioner Dominguez asked how many times the Police Department had been out
to the park to investigate. Mr. Donnell stated he was not aware of that number.
Vice Chairperson Baker asked Mr. Lancaster and Officer Meritt to come to the front and answer this
question.
Mr. Lancaster stated, he had monitored the site on at least half a dozen occasions since the July 2005
hearing. He added on those instances he had observed the gamut of no activity on weekend mornings to
full-court, five-on-five basketball games occurring. Most recently, this past Sunday there were five
gentlemen on a shoot-around, not actually participating in a game, but simply shooting baskets. Mr.
Lancaster stated the times of his visits to the park varied from 9:00 a.m. to 10:30 a.m., and during those
time periods he had walked the park to observe the noise levels. He stated there was noise associated
with the basketball games, but the noise was not any different than any other parks where sport games
are taking place. He added that he had not observed any profane language, fighting, or any other abusive
behavior.
Officer Meritt stated he adopted the project in August 2006 from Corporal Douglas. Since that time he
stated he has visited the park at least half a dozen times, mostly in the evening due to scheduling
constraints. Officer Meritt added the only violations he had witnessed are from citizens who have had
their dogs off-leash in the park. The two to three contacts of this type have been with residents of Hataca
Road or the surrounding streets. Warnings were given and no citations were issued. Officer Meritt stated
he has not witnessed any incidents in the park on Sunday mornings, but he has passed the information to
the patrol shifts in the area on Sunday mornings. Officer Meritt stressed the Police Department is
available at all times in the event of any behavior that is causing a disturbance to the public.
Commissioner Segall asked what the normal course of action is if a citizen is found causing a disturbance
and how "disturbance" is defined. Officer Meritt stated publicly cussing is within the first amendment rights
of every individual. He added fighting is illegal and could be cited as a misdemeanor. Officer Meritt stated
he did not bring specific statistics regarding each individual call to the park within the last year. He added,
in his opinion, it is a minimal nuisance in the bigger picture of the Police Department's role. He reiterated
the Police Department is completely available to address any issue at the park called in by one of the
residents.
Planning Commission Minutes November 15,2006 Page 6
Commissioner Segall asked what the ramifications are to any individuals who violate the posted,
requested basketball start time of 8:30 a.m. Officer Meritt stated this issue is not a Code Enforcement
issue and the Parks Department would address it. Mr. Lancaster stated basketball play is actually allowed
by Municipal Code between the park's open hours of 8:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.
Commissioner Segali asked what would be done in a case where people were found playing basketball at
7:30 a.m. Officer Meritt stated the hours of play indicated are per the Municipal Code; therefore, a citation
could be written.
Vice Chairperson Baker asked if the basketball court is lighted. Mr. Lancaster stated that it is.
Commissioner Segall asked if other parks in the City have homes situated close to sports fields.
Mr. Lancaster stated, in terms of basketball courts, La Costa Canyon Park probably has the closest one
in proximity to the neighboring homes. Regarding other types of sport courts, this proximity is not unusual.
The baseball fields in Poinsettia Park are very close to adjoining properties, and the homes in Calavera
Mills are situated close to both soccer/baseball fields and basketball courts.
Vice Chairperson Baker asked if the homes on Hataca Road are situated a bit higher than the basketball
courts. Mr. Donnell stated the homes are situated approximately 10 feet higher and 30 to 40 feet back
from the basketball courts.
Commissioner Whitton asked if the homes across from the tot lot and the group of homes on Hataca
Road were present when the recreation area was built. Mr. Lancaster stated La Costa Canyon Park was
completed in 1982. Commissioner Whitton asked if the houses and the park were constructed
concurrently. Mr. Lancaster stated the presumption is the park and homes were built within the same
development and the park was connected to that housing tract.
Commissioner Dominguez asked Officer Meritt if he had received any feedback from Corporal Douglas,
the previous officer who was involved with this project. Officer Meritt stated that Corporal Douglas had
informed him of his visits to the park during morning hours on the weekends. He added Corporal Douglas
had observed normal basketball sportsmanship comparable to any other games being played at city
parks.
Commissioner Segall asked if the surrounding residents know the correct telephone number to call in the
event they need to report an issue in the park. Officer Meritt stated the number is a publicly published
number for the Carlsbad Police Department. He added if any resident had called 911 they would be
directed to the appropriate number to report a non-emergency. Mr. Lancaster added the two residents
who had contacted the Parks Department were given the non-emergency number and encouraged to call
the Police Department whenever any undesirable activities occur.
Commissioner Whitton asked if the non-emergency number for the Police Department is published on
any of the signs located in the park. Mr. Lancaster stated the 911 emergency numbers is posted, but the
dispatch number is not currently posted.
Vice Chairperson Baker asked if there were any further questions of Staff; seeing none, she asked if any
members of the audience wished to speak on Item 4. She reviewed the 'procedure to be followed and
opened public testimony.
Linda Laspesa, 3014 Rana Court, Carlsbad, stated her appreciation of the measures the City has taken
to curtail the undesirable activities in the park. She added the changes she has witnessed have not
addressed the situation as a whole. One of the issues that were previously discussed was the appropriate
usages for a small community park such as La Costa Canyon. Ms. Laspesa stated the homes on Hataca
Road pictured in the Staff presentation appear to be farther from the basketball court than they actually
are. She added the basketball players do not practice appropriate behavior, and perhaps the placement
of the basketball court was ill-conceived from the beginning. Ms. Laspesa added basketball by its very
nature is an aggressive sport and fosters lesser desirable qualities in its participants.
Commissioner Segall asked if Ms. Laspesa had observed bullying occurring in the park. Ms. Laspesa
stated in the past she had witnessed bullying, but not during this past year. Commissioner Segall asked if
Planning Commission Minutes November 15,2006 Page?
this type of behavior was taking place at this point in time. Ms. Laspesa stated it is not happening nearly
as much.
Commissioner Cardosa asked Ms. Laspesa to indicate her residence on the posted map of the park and
surrounding community. Ms, Laspesa approached the map and pointed to the location of her home on
Rana Court.
Angela Drees, 3016 Pueblo Street, Carlsbad, stated her concern about the tot lot area and its proximity to
the basketball court. She added she has witnessed, in varying degrees, the consumption of alcohol,
profane language, volatile behavior, and dogs in the park. Ms. Drees stated she had assisted unattended
children in the tot lot and believes the guardians of these children were occupied with a basketball game.
She added her family avoids the park during basketball games because of these reasons and safety
concerns. Ms. Drees stated Sunday morning is by far the worst time and she does not feel the need to
get involved by calling the police. She added this problem should be reviewed and resolved.
Commissioner Baker asked if Ms, Drees has ever called the Police Department when she has
encountered unpleasant behavior. Ms, Drees stated she has not. She avoids the park rather than going to
the park, having an encounter, and calling the Police for assistance.
Commissioner Whitlon asked when Ms. Drees became a resident of the community. Ms. Drees stated
she moved into her home nine and one-half years ago and at that time the tot lot area, basketball court,
tennis court, and volleyball court were present. She added the tennis court is a non-issue because of the
nature of the sport and, even when both courts are fully engaged, the participants only occupy eight
parking spaces. When a game is occurring, lobbing balls and grunting can be heard, but it is nothing like
a full adult basketball game being played.
Commissioner Segall asked Ms. Drees to indicate her residence on the posted map of the park and
surrounding community. Ms. Drees approached the map and pointed to the location of her home on
Pueblo Street.
Commissioner Segall stated his presumption that the individuals who engage in the basketball games are
not residents of the surrounding community. Ms. Drees stated she does not recognize any of the
basketball players in spite of being in the area quite frequently.
Commissioner Segall asked if the parking lot is full during the basketball games. Ms. Drees stated it is,
and the surrounding streets are used as well.
Commissioner Dominguez asked if Ms. Drees uses the tot lot on a regular basis. Ms. Drees stated she
does.
Commissioner Dominguez asked if Ms. Drees has observed a general time pattern of activities that
prevent her usage of the tot lot. Ms. Drees stated Sunday morning games are the main problem. There
are occasionally Saturday and weekday games that are not an issue.
Tammy Lougee-Gretsch, 3102 Hataca Road, Carlsbad, approached the map, pointed to the location of
her home on Hataca Road and stated she is situated 10 to 15 feet from the basketball court.
Ms. Lougee-Gretsch stated she has three children ranging in age from two to ten years old and they all
avoid the park on Sundays because of the noise, profanity, and loud radio volume, Ms. Lougee-Gretsch
stated players line up at 7:30 a.m. to prepare for the game and, while in line, their discussions include
inappropriate language. She added she has installed double-pane windows on her home to insulate her
family from the sounds produced by the basketball games. Her family does not use their backyard and, in
fact, they leave their residence on Sunday mornings in order to avoid the noise generated from the
basketball games. She stated her husband plays on an adult basketball league that is held at the more
appropriate location of Stagecoach Park. Ms. Lougee-Gretsch stated the parking overflows from the
parking lot onto the streets in front of and to the side of her home. She stated she has witnessed
unattended children in the tot lot who have required her assistance.
Commissioner Whitton asked Ms. Lougee-Gretsch how long she has resided in her home. Ms. Lougee-
Gretsch stated she has lived on Hataca Road for three and one-half years.
Planning Commission Minutes November 15,2006 Page 8
Commissioner Whitton asked how many times Ms. Lougee-Gretsch has called the Police Department or
the Parks and Recreation Department in response to the unacceptable behavior in the park. She stated
she had called on one occasion when she first moved in, but now just avoids the situation. Commissioner
Whitton asked why she chose this course of action. Ms. Lougee-Gretsch stated she believes her
complaints will not be resolved. She added on the occasion she did call with regard to a barking dog, the
police came and addressed the issue with the dog's owner.
Commissioner Segal! asked if the only problem is the basketball court. Ms. Lougee-Gretsch confirmed
this is her only complaint.
Antonio Antunes, 3010 Rana Court, Carlsbad, stated he has two children ages four and seven. He added
he had made a decision to avoid the. park a long time ago because of the vulgar language and violent
behavior exhibited at the basketball games. Mr. Antunes stated he concurs with the statements made by
his neighbors, but adds that he has called the Police Department on several occasions. He stated he
called 911 in response to witnessing a fight involving flying beer bottles but by the time the police arrived,
the people involved were clearing the area of the broken bottles. The police did place one person in the
back of a police car. He stated on another occasion, three weeks later, the noise and language were so
offensive he called the police for assistance. Mr. Antunes stated he waited for forty-five minutes and the
police did not arrive. He added he believes there are records of these calls. Mr. Antunes does not believe
that La Costa Canyon Park is an appropriate location for a full-size basketball court. He suggested
changing the court into two half-courts by moving the poles from the ends and replacing them at the
middle, back-to-back.
Commissioner Whitton asked Mr. Antunes how long he has resided in his home. Mr. Antunes stated he
has lived on Rana Court for eleven years,
Commissioner Whitton asked when the incidents that Mr. Antunes described occurred. Mr. Antunes
stated they both happened within the last year.
Commissioner Dominguez asked if Mr. Antunes had 'ever participated in a community discussion
regarding the proposal of removing the basketball courts. Mr. Antunes stated that he had spoken with
someone at the City and made that suggestion.
Ursula Centers, 3017 Pueblo Street, Carlsbad, stated her residence is located directly across the street
from the entrance to the parking lot of the park. She added she has lived in the neighborhood for twenty
years and selected this community because of its proximity to La Costa Canyon Park. Ms. Centers stated
her family has avoided the park for the first seven years of her son's life and added she has persistently
contacted the City on many occasions. She stated she has given up on the cause, and it is her belief that
this is a poor use of police officer time and taxpayer dollars. Ms. Centers explained that her neighborhood
is very small and the homes are virtually on top of the park. She added on Sunday mornings at 7:30 a.m.,
cars begin to converge on the community with their windows down and radios blaring. Ms. Centers stated
she has witnessed the consumption of alcohol, unsupervised children, profanity, and aggressive
behavior. She added that the basketball court is inconsistent with the intended use of the park.
Suzanne Rosser, 3012 Rana Court, Carlsbad, stated she has lived in her home since the year 2001 and
has two small children. She stated the basketball court is child-size and was originally placed beside the
tot lot because it was intended to be used by children. Ms. Rosser stated her family avoids the park on
Sundays between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. but uses the park on Sunday afternoons and every
other day of the week.
Vice Chairperson Baker asked if there were any other members of the audience who wished to speak on
this issue; seeing none, she closed public testimony.
DISCUSSION
Commissioner Whitton asked what impact would be felt as a result of removing the basketball court and
replacing it with another type of sports court.
Ms. Mobaldi stated the Municipal Code provides that it is the Park and Recreation Commission's power
and duty to make recommendations to the City Council regarding specific facilities, both indoor and
Planning Commission Minutes November 15,2006 Page 9
outdoor, within a park. She added if some current use were going to be removed and replaced, it would
be more of a Park and Recreation Commission function and added she is not sure they would be
prepared to address that in this context.
Commissioner Whitton stated his understanding of Ms. Mobaldi's statement and his awareness that it is a
Conditional Use Permit being addressed by the Planning Commission at the present hearing. He added
the Planning Commission is being placed in a policing mode in terms of conduct at the park.
Commissioner Whitton again posed the question of removing the basketball court and what ramifications
might be experienced.
Mr. Lancaster stated it would be feasible to remove the basketball court, but it is necessary to review this
action from a communitywide perspective. He added the surrounding residents, neighboring communities,
and other cities would be denied the use of an amenity that has been in place for twenty-plus years. Mr.
Lancaster stated that it is his opinion changing the full-court to two half-courts would not necessarily
resolve the issues of aggression and abusive language. He added two half-courts could potentially attract
more players than one full-court. Typically, full-court basketball is played five-on-five and if the play is
separated into two half-courts, each court could potentially have two three-on-three games or even two
four-on-four games and the number of players is increased. If those players exhibited the same
unacceptable behavior, the problem would only be compounded. Mr. Lancaster summarized that it would
be possible to alter the recreational uses at the park, but this would entirely eliminate a significant portion
of the park because of a weekly four-hour period of disruptive behavior. He added the Parks and
Recreation Department has suggested to the residents they contact the Police Department when these
behaviors are occurring. With regular enforcement the behavior will curtail to a level acceptable to the
residents, while allowing the public to utilize the facility.
Vice Chairperson Baker stated it seems the Commission is being asked to determine if the current usage
of the park has a substantial negative effect on the surrounding properties, but it appears to have come
down to the issue of the basketball court, not the whole park. Vice Chairperson Baker requested guidance
from Ms. Mobaldi prior to continuing any discussion centering on a small portion of the park. Ms. Mobaldi
stated the Planning Commission's determination focuses on the use of the park as a whole. She added
the issues expressed regarding the basketball court are more appropriately Parks and Recreation
Department and enforcement issues, and the Parks and Recreation Commission could review the
basketball court issue.
Commissioner Segall stated this Conditional Use Permit first came before the Commission in July of 2005
and at that time the Commission continued the item for six months. He added it is now over one year later
and asked if the Parks and Recreation Commission had any involvement with this issue during this past
year. Mr. Lancaster stated he is not aware of any Parks and Recreation Commission involvement.
Commissioner Segall stated he feels this is the issue and the item should be referred to the Parks and
Recreation Commission for a determination. He added he is ready to deny the Conditional Use Permit
because no finding can be made based on the information provided. It seems the situation has
deteriorated and any measures taken have not mitigated the problem.
Vice Chairperson Baker asked if the Planning Commission has the ability to refer this matter to the Parks
and Recreation Commission for review. Ms. Mobaldi stated the Planning Commission does not have that
power, but if a consensus is reached to deny this recommendation, the City could appeal the decision
and at that point the matter would move to'City Council and City Council has the authority to refer the
matter to the Parks and Recreation Commission for review.
Commissioner Dominguez stated the park was poorly designed twenty years ago and has had a problem
for many years. He added he is amazed that no resolution to this matter has been found and is in
agreement with Commissioner Segall. He stated he would not support the Staff recommendation to issue
the Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Dominguez stated the measures taken by the City to mitigate
the situation during the past year were inadequate and, throughout this period of time, it is the
neighborhood who has suffered a hardship.
Commissioner Whitton asked if any opportunity exists where the Planning Commission could make a
determination in favor of the Conditional Use Permit but remove the backboards from the basketball
courts. He stated he is prepared to approve the Conditional Use Permit with the condition that the
Planning Commission Minutes November 15, 2006 Page 10
basketball court is shut down until a further determination can be made by the Parks and Recreation
Commission. Ms. Mobaldi requested a moment to confer with Staff.
RECESS
Vice Chairperson Baker recessed the meeting for a ten-minute break at 7:29 p.m. with all Commissioners
present.
MEETING CALLED TO ORDER
Vice Chairperson Baker reconvened the meeting at 7:43 p.m.
Ms. Mobaldi stated the best way to solve this issue is to deny the recommendation to approve the
Conditional Use Permit. The City will have the opportunity to appeal the Planning Commission decision
and the park will be in use pending appeal and final action by the City Council. The City Council can
make a determination as to which uses are appropriate in the park or they can refer the matter to the
Parks and Recreation Commission for their recommendation. Staff will return a resolution of denial to the
Planning Commission should this be the chosen action. Ms. Mobaldi added in any hearing where a use of
this type is being considered for discontinuation, Staff would probably perform some public noticing to
allow all individuals affected by the action an opportunity to contribute to the discussion.
Commissioner Whitton asked if the suggestion given by Ms. Mobaldi would allow the Planning
Commission to make a recommendation for removal of the backboards from the basketball courts
pending a determination by the City Council. Ms. Mobaldi stated the Planning Commission does not have
the authority to take that action.
Commissioner Segall asked how long the matter would take to appear on the City Council agenda and if
the Planning Commission could suggest City Council expedite this matter. Ms. Mobaldi stated the
applicant, the City of Carlsbad, has ten days to appeal the Planning Commission decision. At which time
"the City Clerk shall schedule the appeal for hearing before the City Council as soon as practicable." as
stated in Municipal Code, Title 21, §21.54.150. Ms. Mobaldi stated she could not give any definitive time
frame.
Commissioner Segall asked if the fees involved with an appeal would be paid by the City of Carlsbad. Ms.
Mobaldi stated the appellant pays the associated fees, and Vice Chairperson Baker added the current fee
amount is $870.
Vice Chairperson Baker stated the Planning Commission has no authority to recommend removal of the
basketball court or refer the matter to the Parks and Recreation Commission. In order to curtail the use of
the basketball court during the four-hour period on Sunday mornings, the Planning Commission will have
to deny the Conditional Use Permit for La Costa Canyon Park and allow the appeal process to move the
matter to City Council for review and determination.
Vice Chairperson Baker asked if there were any further questions of Staff or any further Commission
discussion.
Commissioner Whitton stated he is prepared to deny CUP 05-05 but wants the record to reflect his
opinion that this denial has accomplished very little. The basketball court will still be in use and the
questions about this usage remain.
Commissioner Segall stated the action taken tonight will send a quick and clear message to City Council
who he suspects will take expedient action.
Commissioner Dominguez .encouraged the residents, who spoke on this item, to continue in their
persistence and follow the matter to the City Council appeal hearing.
Commissioner Cardosa urged the residents in this community to contact the Carlsbad Police Department
whenever any significant issue exists. He added the demonstration by residents this evening was an
outpouring of serious concern, but they seem to have dropped the ball with regard to contacting City Staff
when issues are present.
Planning Commission Minutes November 15, 2006 Page 11
MOTION
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Cardosa, and duly seconded, that the Planning
Commission deny Planning Commission Resolution No. 6200 finding that La
Costa Canyon Park does not have a substantial negative effect on surrounding
properties or the public health and welfare and that the findings and conditions of
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5934, including the condition requiring
annual review of Conditional Use Permit CUP 05-05 by the Planning Director, are
adequate, based upon the finding contained in Planning Commission Resolution
No. 6200.
VOTE: 5-0
AYES: Vice Chairperson Baker, Commissioners Cardosa, Dominguez, Segall, and
Whitton
NOES: None
ABSENT: Chairperson Montgomery and Commissioner Heineman
Commissioner Segall asked if the actual denial of the Conditional Use Permit with findings would be
presented at the next Planning Commission meeting. Ms. Mobaldi stated the resolution of denial would be
presented at the next Planning Commission meeting and it would include the concern over the basketball
court as justification for the denial.
Vice Chairperson Baker stated it is important to clarify the basketball court is the issue and not the park
itself.
Vice Chairperson Baker closed the Public Hearing on Item 4 and asked Mr. Neu to introduce the next
item.
5. GPA 04-12/ZC 04-08/LCPA 04-08/CT 04-10/CP 05-05/HDP 04-05/SDP 04-07/CDP 04-
23/HMPP 06-08 - POINSETTIA PLACE - Request for a recommendation of approval for
adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program and recommendation of approval for a General Plan Amendment (GPA 04-12) to
change the property's General Plan Land Use Designation from Residential Low Medium
Density (RLM) and Residential Medium Density (RM) to Residential High Density (RH),
Residential Medium-High Density (RMH), and Open Space (OS); a Zone Change (1C 04-08)
to change the property's Zoning from Limited Control (L-C) to Residential Density-Multiple
(RD-M) and Open Space (OS); a Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA 04-08) to
change the Local Coastal Program Land Use and Zoning designations to be consistent with
the City's General Plan and Zoning designations; a Tentative Tract Map (CT 04-10),
Condominium Permit (CP 05-5), Hillside Development Permit (HDP 04-05), Site
Development Plan (SDP 04-07), Coastal Development Permit (CDP 04-23), and Habitat
Management Plan Permit (HMPP 06-08) for the subdivision of 20.4 acres into 2 residential
lots for 90 condominiums and 3 Open Space lots on property generally located southeast of
the intersection of Cassia Road and Poinsettia Lane in the Mello I) segment of the Local
Coastal Program and Local Facilities Management Zone 21,
Mr. Neu introduced Agenda Item 5 and stated that Senior Planner Christer Westman would make the
Staff presentation.
Vice Chairperson Baker stated with a General Plan Amendment, four votes would be required for
approval and asked if the applicant wished to proceed with only five Commissioners present. The
applicant indicated his wish to proceed.
Vice Chairperson Baker opened the Public Hearing on Item 5.
Mr. Westman gave a presentation and stated Item 5 will first be reviewed by the Planning Commission
where recommendations will be made to City Council. After review and approval by the Planning
Commission and an affirmative decision by City Council, the Local Coastal Program Amendment will be
heard by the California Coastal Commission. He added the bundled actions being heard at this evening's
hearing will be contingent upon approval of the Local Coastal Program Amendment by the California
The City of Carlsbad Planning Department
EXHIBIT 10
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING
COMMISSION
Item No.
P.C. AGENDA OF: December 6, 2006
Application complete date: April 28, 2005
Project Planner: Scott Donnell
Project Engineer: David Hauser
SUBJECT: CUP 05-05 - LA COSTA CANYON PARK - Adoption of findings to deny the
Conditional Use Permit for La Costa Canyon Park, a community park on Pueblo
Street, located north of La Costa Avenue and west of Cadencia Street in Local
Facilities Management Zone 6.
At its July 20, 2005 meeting, the Planning Commission approved a conditional use permit (CUP)
for existing La Costa Canyon Park. The Planning Commission approved the CUP, but because
of concerns expressed by residents living near the park about some of the park users, voted to
discuss the status of the permit at a subsequent public hearing.
The Planning Commission heard the CUP again at a public hearing on November 15, 2006.
Based on additional resident comments expressed at the November hearing primarily about users
of the park's basketball court, the Planning Commission voted to deny proposed Planning
Commission Resolution No. 6200. This resolution recommended that La Costa Canyon Park did
not have a substantial negative effect on surrounding properties or the public health and welfare
and that the findings and conditions of Planning Commission Resolution No. 5934, including the
condition requiring annual review of Conditional Use Permit CUP 05-05 by the Planning
Director, were adequate.
Based on the Planning Commission's action, staff has prepared the attached resolution of denial.
The resolution includes the concern over the basketball court as justification for the denial.
Subsequent to the November 15 meeting, staff reviewed possible options to denial of the CUP.
A feasible alternative for Commission consideration is to continue this matter to no later than the
April 4, 2007 meeting. Such a continuance would allow staff the opportunity to present the
matter to the Parks and Recreation Commission, which in turn could review the issues about the
basketball court and suggest ways and manners to resolve any problems. Following the Parks
and Recreation Commission's analysis, staff would return the CUP to the Planning Commission
for a noticed public hearing.
Should the Planning Commission choose to deny the CUP, the denial action would be statutorily
exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15270 of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA). This section states that CEQA does not apply to projects which a public
agency rejects or disapproves.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6224 (CUP Denial)
EXHIBIT 11
December 6, 2006
Don Neu, Planning Director
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
RE: La Costa Canyon Park Conditional Use Permit - Planning Commission Hearing
Mr. Neu:
It has come to my attention that the Planning Commission took an action to deny the Conditional
Use Permit for La Costa Canyon Park, specifically expressing concerns relating to the basketball
courts. My residence abuts the upper part.of La Costa Canyon Park and I too am-faced with various
noise issues associated with the park use. Having said that when we purchased our home we were
fully aware of the fact that we were going to be living adjacent to a Neighborhood Park and that
while convenient it would pose certain challenges. There has rarely been an instance where we have
not been able to resolve a noise or nuisance issue by simply talking to the park users. On the
occasion where some of the park users become disrespectful or problematic we have been able to call
the Carlsbad Police Department non-emergency number and they have assisted in those cases.
My children and I use the basketball court quite frequently, we are regular users of all aspects of the
park including the walking and jogging trails. I too can hear the rowdy basketball games on weekend
mornings, I have gone by on several occasions and asked them to tone it down and in most cases they
do. It would be extremely disappointing to have a facility that is primarily enjoyed by neighborhood
children removed because of a handful of users that are causing problems. As our City continues to
move towards more infill development the number of complaints about perceived incompatible uses
will start to rise. As I jogged by the park last Sunday morning, the basketball game was in process
and the noise coming from the basketball game was significantly less than the noise coming from the
five families with screaming toddlers at the play structures. The play structures also abut a series of
single-family homes. Is removal of the play structures next?
I ask that you please forward my concerns (which are shared by many of my neighbors) to the
Planning Commissioners. It is my hope that they reconsider their action on the Conditional Use
Permit or at least continue the item in order to give the Park and Recreation Council an opportunity to
consider the matter.
Sincerely,
Marcela Escobar-Eck
Corona La Costa Homeowner's Association Resident
[Click here and type slogan]
EXHIBIT 12
Planning Commission Minutes December 6, 2006
Mr. Neu stated the parking space width requirement in open parking spaces is 8 feet. Typically,
spaces are 8 to 9 feet in width and that will offer a point of reference for the proposed tandem
garage width.
Chairperson Montgomery stated his understanding that most vehicles are a maximum of 7 feet
in width and it's the mirrors that add the extra dimension.
Chairperson Montgomery asked if there were any further questions of Staff.
Commissioner Dominguez commented he would like to revisit this subject in three to five years
to review the tandem garage standard and determine its effectiveness.
Mr. Neu stated it has been four years since the last revision to the Zoning Code Ordinance and
it is anticipated future adjustments will occur.
Commissioner Whitton commended Staff on a thorough examination of the proposed changes
and for giving an outstanding presentation. He added he is appreciative of the participation by
Scott Molloy and his suggestions.
Commissioner Baker stated her appreciation of Staff's diligent efforts in reaching out to the
building community. She added the tandem parking issue is one she would like to see
monitored for its effectiveness in practical use. Commissioner Baker stated the concept of the
HOA being responsible for the enforcement and monitoring is one she favors.
Commissioner Segall thanked Staff for their thorough public outreach with regard to the
proposed changes.
Chairperson Montgomery applauded Staff for their investigation into the availability of public RV
storage facilities in the area. He added he concurs with Staff on the tandem parking
recommendation, stating it is an effective tool.
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Baker, and duly seconded, that the Planning
Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 6140
recommending adoption of a Negative Declaration and adopt Planning
Commission Resolutions No. 6141 and 6142 recommending approval of
ZCA 05-02 and LCPA 05-07 based on the findings contained therein.
VOTE: 6-0
AYES: Chairperson Montgomery, Commissioners Baker, Dominguez, Heineman,
Segall, and Whitton
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Cardosa
Chairperson Montgomery closed the Public Hearing on Item 1 and asked Mr. Neu to introduce
the next item.
2. CUP 05-05 - LA COSTA CANYON PARK - Adoption of findings to deny the
Conditional Use Permit for La Costa Canyon Park, a community park on Pueblo
Street, located north of La Costa. Avenue and west of Cadencia Street in Local
Facilities Management Zone 6.
Mr. Neu introduced Agenda Item 2 and stated that Associate Planner Scott Donnell would make
the Staff presentation.
Chairperson Montgomery opened the Public Hearing on Item 2.
Planning Commission Minutes December 6,2006 Page 9
Mr. Donnell gave a presentation and asked the Planning Commission to consider two items.
The first being the resolution of denial of the Conditional Use Permit for La Costa Canyon Park
and the other being the consideration of the alternative of continuing Agenda Item 2 to the
Planning Commission meeting of April 4. This second alternative would allow time for the Parks
and Recreation Department staff to present the item to the Parks and Recreation Commission
for review and recommendation. Mr. Donnell stated he is available to answer any questions.
Chairperson Montgomery asked the Commissioners to address Agenda Item 2 regarding the
consideration of a continuance.
Commissioner Whitton stated this matter had appeared before the Commission over one year
ago, and at that time the recommendation was made that Staff direct this matter to the Parks
and Recreation Commission for appropriate review. He added no apparent action was taken in
this regard. Commissioner Whitton stated the decision to move forward with a resolution of
denial was made as a result of deliberation that occurred at the last Planning Commission
-meeting. He added his understanding that bringing the matter before City Council for referral to
the Parks and Recreation Commission would be the appropriate course of action. He stated he
stands by his previous decision to deny the Conditional Use Permit and added his concern for
any further delay in some type of resolution in this matter.
Mr. Neu stated by continuing this item Staff would have an opportunity to refer it to the Parks
and Recreation Commission for review and recommendation. He added Parks and Recreation
Department staff took action when this matter first came before the Commission in 2005.
Several mitigation measures were engaged in an effort to address the compatibility issues, but
unfortunately they did not resolve the matter to everyone's satisfaction. Mr. Neu stated Staff is
now attempting to take the next step and move forward with this matter and bring it before the
Parks and Recreation Commission. This could be accomplished by continuing the matter to
allow Staff time for this action.
Commissioner Whitton stated it appears circumstances have taken things on a course to deny
the Conditional Use Permit for La Costa Canyon Park and, since that decision was made, he
believes the Commission should stick to it.
Commissioner Segall stated he shares the concerns expressed by Commissioner Whitton;
however, he added he supports the continuation of the item. He added he encourages Staff to
obtain a recommendation from the Parks and Recreation Commission sooner than April of
2007.
Commissioner Heineman stated he concurs with Commissioner Segall and would like to see a
resolution as quickly as possible.
Commissioner Dominguez stated he concurs with his fellow Commissioners and requests some
type of assurance from the representatives from the Parks and Recreation Department that this
matter can be resolved sooner than the April 4 hearing.
Commissioner Baker stated after further consideration of this matter she regrets her decision to
deny the Conditional Use Permit. She stated her concern that this matter seemed to be viewed
from only one side and would like to hear from the participants conducting the sporting activities
that are allegedly causing the problem. Commissioner Baker stated she is in favor of a
continuation.
Chairperson Montgomery stated he is in favor of a continuance. He added La Costa Canyon
Park has been in operation for twenty-plus years and he is not in favor of discontinuing its
current use.
Planning Commission Minutes December 6, 2006 Page 10
Commissioner Dominguez stated the basketball court located at La Costa Canyon Park has
been a source of irritation to residents of the surrounding area for many years. He added the
entire park is not the issue and everyone had an equal opportunity to be heard on this matter at
previous hearings. Commissioner Dominguez stated he is willing to continue the item, but urges
Staff to compel the Parks and Recreation Commission to hear this matter sooner rather than
later.
Commissioner Segall stated the Parks and Recreation Commissioner meets on a quarterly
basis, and it appears there are two holidays between now and April 2007 that are causing the
delay. He added his observance that the Parks and Recreation Commission could hold a
special meeting to address this matter. Commissioner Segall stated the public outreach on this
matter could have been conducted in a more thorough manner. He added the basketball
players' residences are located out of the noticing area. They are commuting into the area and
would not have received any notice via U.S. mail.
Commissioner Segall stated the issue of public noticing and outreach on this matter needs to be
reviewed.
Commissioner Whitton stated he has no interest in closing La Costa Canyon Park. He added he
is interested in a resolution that is favorable to all concerned parties. When the matter was
initially presented to the Planning Commission, it was approved, in spite of several outstanding
issues. Since that time, it seems as though the Planning Commission has been placed in a
position of policing the park's uses. Commissioner Whitton stated he is in favor of the Parks and
Recreation Commission holding a special meeting to hear this matter and make some kind of
recommendation.
Commissioner Heineman asked what mechanism is in place to impress upon the Parks and
Recreation Commission the importance of this matter and its timely resolution. Mr. Neu stated
the Planning Commission and the Planning Department have established a record through
hearings, meeting minutes, and Staff reports, which describe the mounting since of urgency.
Additionally, Staff will take forward further issues heard and the measures taken to reach a
resolution at this level. He added it appears additional action is necessary.
Commissioner Whitton stated he is in favor of removing the backboards from the basketball
courts to allow an immediate resolution and give Staff time to reach a more permanent solution.
Chairperson Montgomery asked Parks Superintendent Kyle Lancaster to respond to the
concerns presented.
Mr. Lancaster stated the Parks and Recreation Commission meets on the third Monday of each
month. The potential delay is due in part to holiday scheduling. The December 2006 meeting of
the Parks and Recreation Commission has been rescheduled to Friday, December 8. At that
time, a special meeting will be requested for January or February of 2007. No regular meeting of
the Parks and Recreation Commission will be held on the third Monday in the month of January
in observance of Martin Luther King Junior Day. Mr. Lancaster stated no regular meeting of the
Parks and Recreation Commission will be held on the third Monday in the month of February in
observance of Presidents Day. He added no promise of a scheduled hearing for the first part of
2007 can be made until the Commissioners have consulted their calendars and that is expected
to occur on Friday, December 8. Mr. Lancaster stated the Parks and Recreation Department
has the full intent to bring this matter before the Parks and Recreation Commission prior to April
2007. He added April 4, 2007, is being earmarked for the next Planning Commission hearing of
this matter to provide for the instance where the Parks and Recreation Commission is unable to
reach a resolution at the special hearing date that is to be determined on December 8. Mr.
Lancaster stated the next regularly scheduled Parks and Recreation Commission meeting date
is March 19, 2007, and would be the date for a subsequent review of the matter by the Parks
£>)
Planning Commission Minutes December 6, 2006 Page 11
and Recreation Commission in the event that a January or February hearing resulted in a
continuance.
Commissioner Dominguez stated this item has been at issue for some time. He asked if the
Parks and Recreation Department could offer some temporary measure at the special meeting
until a permanent solution could be found. Mr. Lancaster stated at the special meeting of the
Parks and Recreation Commission Staff intends to present all proposed solutions offered,
including temporary remedies.
Commissioner Whitton asked if Mr. Lancaster would consider asking the Parks and Recreation
Commission to recommend removal of the backboards as an interim solution while considering
all of the various permanent solutions. Mr. Lancaster stated that could be offered as one of the
proposed alternatives.
Commissioner Segall stated the meeting of the Parks and Recreation Commission to be held on
Friday, December 8, will not address any of these issues due to the fact that it is not a publicly
noticed meeting. He added the meeting would only be considering the date for a special
meeting to be held in January or February 2007. Mr. Lancaster confirmed this would be the
intent of the Parks and Recreation Department. Commissioner Segall asked if the special
meeting would be a publicly noticed meeting with public outreach being conducted. Mr.
Lancaster stated the Parks and Recreation Department would perform public noticing and post
signs at the park.
Chairperson Montgomery asked if there were any further questions of Staff. Seeing none, he
opened public testimony.
Ursula Centers, 3017 Pueblo Street, Carlsbad, stated she has seen a marked improvement in
the situation, but there has not been any long-term solution to the problem. She added the
residents are willing to stay the course until April 2007 providing they are given an opportunity to
participate in the dialogue regarding proposed solutions. Ms. Centers stated the residents are
not requesting the removal of the basketball courts. She added an observation that members of
the Parks and Recreation Department may have an interest in keeping the situation status quo.
Ms. Centers stated she had a conversation with a member of Staff who indicated he was friends
with the basketball players. She added she felt worried by this statement and maybe the
interests of the residents were incongruent with the interests of the Parks and Recreation
Department. Ms. Centers stated it is the taxpayers, who this Commission serves, that are
expressing their concerns.
Suzanne Rosser, 3012 Rana Court, Carlsbad, stated she would not like to see the basketball
court removed, but instead used for its original intent. Ms. Rosser stated the size of the
basketball court indicates that its original intended user was children and it is currently being
used for adult league basketball play. She added it appears the basketball players are aware of
the residents' concerns and are self-policing. On one hand this is positive, on another hand this
practice could skew the results of any data collected. Ms. Rosser stated in the past when the
numbers of complaints rise, the basketball players quiet down, but after a period of time, the
questionable activities resume. She added she is in favor of the continuance.
Mr. Lancaster addressed the concerns expressed by Ms. Centers regarding biased
observations from the Parks and Recreation Department and staff members' acquaintance with
basketball players. He stated between the July 2005 hearing and the November 2006 hearing,
100 percent of the Parks and Recreation staff monitoring of the situation was performed by him.
He added he is not familiar with a single player actively participating in the Saturday or Sunday
basketball games. Mr. Lancaster stated after the decision of the Planning Commission to
recommend denial of the Conditional Use Permit, staff was aware of the potential to have the
Planning Commission Minutes December 6, 2006 Page 12
basketball courts removed or the park closed. He added in an attempt to curtail unacceptable
behavior on the basketball courts, one of the recreation area managers visited the park on the
Sunday following the hearing in November to advise the players of the residents' concerns.
Mr. Lancaster stated he believes the area recreation manager is familiar with some of the
individuals engaged in play on this court due to the fact that he is continually involved in
programming basketball leagues in gyms and other locations in the City. To indicate that
perhaps these friendships swayed any observations presented to the Commission by staff
would be absolutely incorrect.
Mr. Lancaster stated that adult league basketball is programmed by the Parks and Recreation
Department. The basketball court at La Costa Canyon Park is not being used for any league
play. He added he would describe the games as pick-up games conducted by a core group of
individuals who apparently show up regularly, but this is not something that is programmed by
his department. He stated the area recreation manager may know some of the same individuals
because they also play on leagues in some of the City's community centers. Mr. Lancaster
stated the Parks and Recreation Department generally does not program league on outside
courts. He added he has no evidence that the original intended use for this court was for
children. If anything, the topography caused it to be slightly smaller than regulation size because
it is surrounded by a sloping area.
Chairperson Montgomery asked if there were any other members of the audience who wished
to speak on Agenda Item 2; seeing none, he closed public testimony.
MOTION
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Baker, and duly seconded, that the Planning
Commission vote to continue the La Costa Canyon Park Conditional Use
Permit CUP 05-05 to a date no later than April 4, 2007, with the
expectation that it will be presented to the Planning Commission sooner.
VOTE: 6-0
AYES: Chairperson Montgomery, Commissioners Baker, Dominguez, Heineman,
Segall, and Whitton
NOES: None
ABSENT: Chairperson Cardosa
RECESS
Chairperson Montgomery closed the Public Hearing on Item 2 and recessed the meeting for a
ten-minute break at 8:05 p.m. with all attending Commissioners present.
MEETING CALLED TO ORDER
Chairperson Montgomery reconvened the meeting at 8:16 p.m. and asked Mr. Neu to introduce
the next item.
3. CT 06-10/PUD 06-09 - OPUS POINT LOTS 23 & 24 - Request for approval of a
Tentative Tract Map and Nonresidential Planned Development Permit to
subdivide a 5.31-acre site currently approved for seven nonresidential buildings,
into 13 airspace nonresidential condominiums on property generally located
along the north side of Lionshead Avenue and west of Eagle Drive in Local
Facilities Management Zone 18.
Mr. Neu introduced Agenda Item 3 and stated that Assistant Planner Pam Drew would make the
Staff presentation.
EXHIBIT 13
LA COSTA CANYON PARK BASKETBALL COURT MONITORING
Day
Saturday
Sunday
Sunday
Sunday
Sunday
Sunday
Sunday
Sunday
Sunday
Sunday
Sunday
Sunday
Sunday
Sunday
Sunday
Sunday
Saturday
Saturday
Sunday
Sunday
Sunday
Sunday
Sunday
Sunday
Sunday
Sunday
Sunday
Sunday
Sunday
Sunday
Sunday
Sunday
Sunday
Sunday
Date
11/11/2006
11/12/2006
11/19/2006
11/19/2006
11/24/2006
11/24/2006
12/3/2006
12/3/2006
12/3/2006
12/3/2006
12/3/2006
12/3/2006
12/3/2006
12/3/2006
12/3/2006
12/3/2006
12/9/2006
12/9/2006
12/10/2006
12/10/2006
12/10/2006
12/10/2006
12/10/2006
12/10/2006
12/10/2006
12/10/2006
12/10/2006
12/10/2006
12/17/2006
12/17/2006
12/17/2006
12/17/2006
12/17/2006
12/17/2006
Time
10:05 a.m.
9:15 a.m.
9:15 a.m.
11:40a.m
9:15 a.m.
11:15a.m.
8:45 a.m.
9:15 a.m.
9:45 a.m.
10:00 a.m.
10:15 a.m.
10:45 a.m.
11:30 a.m.
12:00 p.m.
12:30 p.m.
2:30 p.m.
8:05 a.m.
12:50 p.m.
8:45 a.m.
9:00 a.m.
9:15 a.m.
9:45 a.m.
10:15 a.m.
10:45 a.m.
11:00 a.m.
11:15 a.m.
12:15 p.m.
12:30 p.m.
8:45 a.m.
9:15 a.m.
9:45 a.m.
10:00 a.m.
10:15 a.m.
10:45 a.m.
Monitor
KL
KL
KL
KL
KL
KL
BR
BR
BR
KL
BR
BR
BR
SE
SE
SE
KL
KL
BR
KL
BR
BR
BR
BR
KL
BR
SE
SE
BR
BR
BR
KL
BR
BR
Parking Spaces
Available
22-25
18-20
14-16
20-22
14-16
20-22
10
6
4
6
7
8
20
20
20
All Open
25
24
All Open
All Open
All Open
All Open
All Open
25
25
24
23
22
All Open
All Open
All Open
All Open
All Open
All Open
Players
0
7
10
4
10
4
14
18
20
17
17
16
4
4
4
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No Game
Game in progress
Game in progress/I curse
No Game
Game in progress
No Game
Shooting around
Game in progress
Game in progress
Game in progress/2 curses
Game in progress
Game in progress
Shooting around
Shooting around
Shooting around
No game
No game
Shooting around
No game
No game
No game
No game
No game
No game
No game
No game
No game
No game
Kids playing in park
No one in park
Family in playground
Family in playground
No one in park
No one in park
Sunday
Sunday
Sunday
Sunday
Sunday
Sunday
Sunday
Sunday
Sunday
Sunday
Sunday
Sunday
Sunday
Sunday
Sunday
Sunday
Sunday
Sunday
Sunday
Sunday
Sunday
Sunday
Sunday
Sunday
Sunday
12/17/2006
12/24/2006
12/24/2006
12/24/2006
12/24/2006
12/24/2006
12/24/2006
12/24/2006
12/31/2006
12/31/2006
12/31/2006
12/31/2006
12/31/2006
12/31/2006
12/31/2006
12/31/2006
1/7/2007
1/7/2007
1/7/2007
1/7/2007
1/7/2007
1/7/2007
1/7/2007
1/7/2007
1/7/2007
11:15a.m.
8:45 a.m.
9:15 a.m.
9:45 a.m.
10:15 a.m.
10:45 a.m.
11:15 a.m.
11:45 a.m.
8:45 a.m.
9:15 a.m.
9:45 a.m.
10:15 a.m.
10:45 a.m.
11:05 a.m.
11:15a.m.
11:45 a.m.
8:45 a.m.
9:00 a.m.
9:15 a.m.
9:45 a.m.
10:15 a.m.
10:45 a.m.
11:15a.m.
11:45 a.m.
11:55 a.m.
BR
BR
BR
BR
BR
BR
BR
BR
BR
BR
BR
BR
BR
KL
BR
BR
BR
KL
BR
BR
BR
BR
BR
BR
KL
All Open
17
13
13
14
22
23
23
14
12
8
8
14
24
24
22
17
10
10
10
9
7
9
11
14-16
0
11
13
11
0
0
0
0
11
15
16
11
11
0
0
0
8
16
17
16
15
14
13
14
5
No one in park
Shooting around
Game in progress
Shooting around
No game
Family in park
Family in park
Family in park
Shooting around
Game in progress
Game in progress
Shooting around
Game in progress
Family in park
Family in park
Family in park
Game not started/Players arriving
Game in progress
Game in progress
Game in progress
Game in Progress/One curse
Game in progress/Family in park
Game in progress/Family in park
Game in progress/Family in park
No game/Family in Park
'ARKS & RECREATION ELEMENT
EXHIBIT 14
F. PARK AND RECREATIONAL
NEEDS GENERATED BY
INDUSTRIAL USES
Although the Quimby Act itself does not
apply to industrial or commercial subdivisions, a
local agency is permitted to impose fees or
exactions as a condition of approval of a proposed
development, provided those fees and exactions
do not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of
providing the service or facility. In addition, the
Growth Management Ordinance (CMC 21.90)
authorizes special facility fees to pay for
improvements or facilities which are related to
new development. Since there is a substantial
impact on existing recreation facilities from an
increasing industrial employment base, a need to
impose and implement a park mitigation fee for
industrial development was recognized. In
November 1987, the City Council adopted its first
park mitigation fee for the Zone 5 Local Facilities
Management Plan. Additionally, a park mitigation
fee was required as part of the Zone 16 and 13
Local Facilities Management Plans. The purpose
of a fee is to ensure adequate recreational
facilities to accommodate the demand created for
them by the daily influx of the industrial work force
and population as industrial development grows
throughout the City.
G. PARK INVENTORY
INTRODUCTION
The pre-1982 Parks and Recreation
Element emphasized more passive use concepts
with the acquisition and development of smaller
neighborhood, mini, and vest pocket parks.
Additionally, natural open space areas, meant to
serve as connective corridors and greenways
throughout the City, were accepted as park
requirements dedicated under the Quimby
Ordinance. Due to the characteristics of these
natural open space areas, many of the sites once
accepted for park purposes are considered
undevelopable by today's park development
standards.
Today, current and future parkland
dedicated under the Quimby Ordinance is subject
to more stringent conditions than were once
required. Noting the shift in acquisition policy,
developable parkland is considered to be
buildable acreage similar to acreage associated
with the subdivision for which dedication is
required. Typically, it has slopes of less than 10%
and is not to be located in an area on which
building is precluded due to environmental
constraints as defined by City ordinance or other
laws, geological constraints, flooding, easements,
or other encumbrances and/or restrictions.
Current recreational trends identify a
request for both active and passive recreation. In
order to accommodate those trends, parkland
dedication requirements are geared toward the
acquisition of developable parkland, which may
provide both active and passive use. In addition
recent City surveys indicate a demand for access
to Open Space and trails as a priority quality of life
issue for residents of the community. In response
to this demand, City Council adopted the Citywide
Trails Plan Report in November of 2001 outlining
implementation of a Citywide Trails Program.
Carlsbad's present park development
philosophy concentrates on providing larger
community parks, which incorporate a balance of
both active and passive recreational amenities.
The result has created a more realistic park
program in terms of meeting the recreational
needs of the residents, tourists, employees, the
Growth Management requirements, and is more
financially feasible from an operational and
maintenance standpoint.
The development of small neighborhood
parks is no longer pursued primarily because of
the high cost of maintenance. Because these
parks typically provide one or two recreational
uses, they have been incorporated within the
current Special Use Area park classification.
Some sites previously acknowledged as
Neighborhood Parks have been incorporated
("grandfathered") into the Community Park
classification, and although they may not meet the
current acreage requirement, they do provide
amenities characteristic of the Community Park
category.
July 2003 PageS
"*ARK5 & RECREA TON ELEMENT
1. PRIMARY PARK CLASSIFICATIONS
Presently, the City of Carlsbad's Parkland
Inventory is composed of three primary park
classifications:
• Community Parks
• Special Use Areas
• Special Resource Areas
Although these classifications are the basis
for the City's standards, to ensure optimum park
and recreational facilities, three special resource
areas and one community park have been
identified as Regional Open Space Parks within
the San Diego Association of Governments
Report, "Regionally Significant Open Space." The
standards for each park classification are as
follows:
Community Parks
Special Use Areas
2.5 acres/1,000 pop.
.5 acres/1,000 pop.
(Collectable Park
Standard)
Special Resource Areas
3.0 acres/1,000 pop.
2.5 acres/1.000 pop.
OVERALL PARK
AC. STANDARD 5.5 acres/1,000 pop.
"The City of Carlsbad's
Parkland Inventory is
composed of three primary
park classifications:
Community Parks; Special Use
Areas; and, Special Resource
Areas."
The City defines these Park Classifications
as follows:
Community Parks - These are leisure
facilities, approximately 20 to 50 acres in size;
however, due to the 1982 revision of the Parks
and Recreation Element, pre-1982 neighborhood
parks of less than 20 acres have been reclassified
and "grandfathered" into the Community Park
classification. This reclassification was approved
by the Parks and Recreation Commission in May
1987 and by the City Council in August 1987. Any
future acquisition and development of community
park sites within the northwest quadrant, where a
near buildout situation exists, in all likelihood will
require community park development of sites
under 20 acres in size.
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 lot 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 interests and
needs of the community in which the
park is located.
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.
Special Use Areas - These are typically
local facilities that contain only one or two activity
type uses, either passive or active in nature. They
are between one and five acres in size and
generally provide the basic widely 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, off leash dog parks, skateboard
parks, play lots, picnic and interpretive walk areas.
Based on City Council policy in August
1987, and confirmed in November of 1990,
community school activity fields can be
incorporated within the Special Use Area
classification and included within the Park Area
Page 4 July 2003
'ARKS & RECREATION ELEMENT
Inventory. However, only these current school
sites which operate under "joint-use" facility
agreements between the City of Carlsbad and the
corresponding school district are, in fact,
incorporated within the Parks Inventory.
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
category which typically defines the nature of
these areas.
Adequate access should be a primary siting
criteria utilized in determining the location of a
Special Use Area.
Special Resource Areas - These 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 a
combination thereof. Consequently, the Special
Resource Area as defined has a visitor attraction
or drawing power to users locally and beyond.
Typically, Special Resource Areas provide a
unique character and/or use not found in
Community Parks or Special Use Areas and in
general, they are larger than Community Parks.
2. ACTIVE/PASSIVE AREAS
In addition to a parks primary classification,
the City may describe a park as containing active
and/or passive areas. Parks can be developed
with either active or passive park amenities or a
combination of both. Active park areas typically
provide a form of organized, supervised, often
extracurricular recreation. Park amenities
denoting active use may include gymnasiums,
swim complexes, multi-use ballfields, tot lots, hard
court play surfaces, volleyball, horseshoe areas,
or a combination thereof.
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.
3. REGIONAL OPEN SPACE PARKS
Three of the City's Special Resource Areas
and one community park (Lake Calavera, Agua
Hedionda Lagoon, Batiquitos Lagoon and
Veterans Memorial) have been identified as
Regional Open Space Parks in addition to their
primary city park classification. These sites have
been identified as Regional Open Space Parks
consistent with the recommendations of the San
Diego Association of Governments' (SANDAG)
report, Regionally Significant Open Space -
Definition. Although parks have been identified as
part of the regional park system, they will continue
to function pursuant to their primary park
classification as identified above. The
identification of a city park as a Regional Open
Space Park simply denotes that the park is part of
the region's park system.
A regional park is a major park that may
contain any one or combination of such attributes
as natural beauty, unique topographic features,
historical structures or unusual scenery. Such
parks are usually developed for at least two
outdoor activities, but the greatest part of the
acreage may remain as undeveloped open space.
Usually a regional park has at least 200 acres, 50
acres of which are developable. The size may be
smaller for unique regional resources.
H. MISCELLANEOUS
LANDSCAPE/OPEN SPACE
AREAS
Miscellaneous landscape/open space areas
are secondary classifications within the park
inventory. This category has been established to
provide accountability for additional acreage
currently under maintenance responsibility of the
Park Operations Division, however, is not useable
to meet the City's park collectable standards. In
addition, accountability is provided for the natural
open space areas once considered as parkland;
however, by today's standards, they are not
considered to be conducive to park use and/or
development, which may have once been
considered, i.e.: Veteran's Memorial Park. These
miscellaneous landscape/open space areas are
July 2003 PageS
PARKS & RECREATON ELEMENT
identified in Appendix 1, Miscellaneous
Landscape/Open Space Areas.
I. FACILITY STANDARDS
Table 2: Facilities Standards, summarizes
the development standards for each recreation
facility, based on its park classifications. These
standards are provided to ensure that the
recreational facilities in Carlsbad meet the needs
of residents, tourists and employees of the City.
acquisition, construction, and
maintenance and operation costs.
ongoing
"Facility Standards are
provided to ensure that the
recreational facilities in
Carlsbad meet the needs of
residents, tourists and
employees of the City."
Typically, parkland acquisition is provided
under the Quimby Ordinance 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, the priority
established for Public Facility construction and the
cost associated with ongoing maintenance and
operation.
Additional funding sources for acquisition,
development, maintenance and operation, or
rehabilitation may be provided by general
obligation bonds, special taxes, state and federal
park bond acts, assessment districts or donations.
Prior to acceptance, all future parkland acquisition
is subject to a stringent environmental review
process to identify and eliminate constraints in an
TABLE 2: FACILITIES STANDARDS
*1 Increased from 2.0 to 2.5 ac/1 ,000 pop. on Sept. 3, 1985
*2 Although no specific standard (e.g. ac/1 ,000 employees) has been adopted, a fee based upon square
footage of industrial floor area is required. As of Nov. 24, 1987, the required fee was 40 cents/sq. ft.
of industrial floor area
CLASSIFICATION
Special Resource
Area
Community
Special Use
Recreation facilities
for industrial areas
SIZE/SIGNIFICANCE
100 Acres + unique
character and/or use
not found in
Community Parks
20 to 50 acres as
guidelines*
'Where acquisition of
sufficient acreage is
possible
1 to 5 acres
Negotiated with
developer
LEVEL OF
SERVICE
Citywide
Community
Neighborhood and
Community
In proximity to
business and
industry
employees
ACCESS
Vehicular
Bicycle
Pedestrian
Vehicular
Bicycle (located
adjacent to
secondary arterial
or greater)
Pedestrian
Vehicular
Bicycle
Pedestrian
Pedestrian
Vehicular
Bicycle
OWNERSHIP
Public
Public
Public, private and
quasi-public
Public/private
STANDARD
2.5 ac/1 ,000
population
2.5 ac/1 ,000
population *1
.5 ac/1 ,000
population
No standard *2
J. FUTURE RECREATIONAL
DEVELOPMENT
Several areas have been earmarked for
future park development and identified in the
current park inventory. Although the timing for
acquisition and development depends primarily on
the requirements of the Growth Management
Program as development occurs, the City Council
ultimately approves the financing methods for
effort to maximize site potential in terms of park
development. Public review during the master
planning process of all future park sites will
guarantee the recreational needs of the
community are being addressed. Table 3:
Anticipated Future Park Development Projects
summarizes the anticipated future parks to be
developed in the City.
Page 6 July 2003