Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-05-17; Parks & Recreation Commission; MinutesMinutes of: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION Time of Meeting: 530 P.M. Date of Meeting: May 17,1999 Place of Meeting: City Council Chambers - . Chairman Richards called the Regular Meeting to order at 530 p.m. I3!xl&u Present: Chairman Richards, Commissioners Baker, Cunningham, and Schulberg Absent: Vice-chairman Davidson, Commissioners Cox and Pieratt Staff Members Present: Ken Price, Recreation Director Keith Beverly, Senior Management Analyst Doug Duncanson, Park Superintendent Mark Steyaert, Park Development Coordinator Erin Letsch, Risk Manager Jane Mobaldi, Assistant City Attorney Pat Guevarra, Construction Maintenance Supervisor Greg Woods, Supervisor, Public Works Walter Brown, Engineering Department Tony Reynolds, Consultant Project Manager /L ANNOUNCEMENTS None. APPROVAL OF MINUTES ACTION: On motion by Commissioner Baker, the Minutes of the AYES: Chairman Richards, Commissioners Baker, Cunningham, and Schulberg NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Vice Chairman Davidson, Commissioners Cox and Pieratt Regular Meeting held on April 19, 1999 were approved. - PRESENTATlONS Keith Beverly, Senior Management Analyst, introduced Dave Felt, Community Services Officer rc v None. Parks and Recreation Commission -2- - May 17, 1999 ACTION: On motion by Commissioner Baker, the Agenda for May 17, 1999 was AYES: Chairman Richards, Commissioners Baker, Cunningham, and Schulberg NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Vice Chairman Davidson, Commissioners Cox and Pieratt approved. 1. 599-1 COMMISSIONER’S RFPOR7: To accept and file the Commissioner’s Report for Mayl999. 2. AB #599-3 SUMMARY REPORT To approve, accept and file the Summary Report of the April 1999 Parks and Recreation Commission meeting. ACTION: On motion by Commissioner Baker, AB #599-1 and AB #599-2, of the Consent Calendar for May 17, 1999 were approved. AYES: Chairman Richards, Commissioners Baker, Cunningham, and Schulberg NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Vice Chairman Davidson, Commissioners Cox and Pieratt PUBLIC HEARINGS None. s 3. LMFNTmmEN ClRClE Keith Beverly explained the Commission’s roles regarding street trees. He stated that one of the many roles of the Parks and Recreation Commission was to act in an advisory capacity with regard to the planting of, removal of, and trimming of the many street trees planted and/or removed in the City’s rights of ways. Doug Duncanson, Park Superintendent, gave the staff presentation on this item. He explained that the Commission was revisiting the issue of street tree replacement or preservation of street trees on Charieen Circle and Seacrest Drive. He described what was discussed at the January Parks and Recreation Commission meeting and stated that the Commission directed staff to develop a holdharmless agreement for the property owners to sign. Mr. Duncanson added that to date only one hold harmless agreement was signed. He presented slides which showed the damage that was done by the trees, and explained that it was dangerous for residents and visitors. He explained that staff was concerned that root pruning would weaken the ability of the trees to survive, and added that the City was responsible for providing a safe environment for Carlsbad residents. -. Packs and Recreation Commission -3- 1 - May 17,1999 - Bob Edie, 3400 Seacrest Drive, Carlsbad, explained that he was present before the Commission for the second time. He mentioned that at the last meeting a request was made for the City to develop a hold harmless agreement similar to the one signed for Donna Drive. He stated that instead he received a two page hold harmless agreement which was nothing like the one signed for Donna Drive. Mr. Edie added that he would have no problem signing an agreement similar to the one developed for Donna Drive, but that he had a problem with the new one. He questioned how much of the removal of the roots and top of the trees would have to be * done which would affect the life of the tree. He suggested that the Commission look at the hold harmless agreement signed for Donna Drive. (Commissioners Cox and Pieratt arrived at 555 p.m.) Ruth Wheeler, 2031 Charleen Circle, Carlsbad, distributed photos of other trees in Carlsbad. She stated that she felt that staff was presenting a very biased proposal to the Commission. She mentioned that the majority of residents on Charleen Circle were comfortable with signing a hold harmless agreement, but was concerned about the lack of repair and maintenance on the trees over the years. Ms. Wheeler mentioned that replacement trees died because she felt that the City did not have a genuine interest in them. She mentioned that she was also representing Gordon Baker and Sue Shea who were out of town. Ms. Wheeler stated that the ways to safely preserve the trees were not properly evaluated and - made the following recommendations: - She suggested that the City do a better job of informing residents on how the trees would be maintained and asked the Commission to give the residents enough time to review the hold harmless agreement. She added that she did not receive hers and felt that the City was acting in a mean-spirited way. - She distributed a photo which showed what the street looked like without trees and described why two trees were removed and replaced. - She showed photos taken on Grand Street where curving gave the trees more room and suggested that it be looked into for Charleen Circle as well. Eric Brown, 2031 Charleen Circle, Carlsbad, distributed pictures and submitted a petition. He mentioned that he had been living in the house all his life and always played in the trees with his friends. He stated that the street would not be the same without the trees. He added that he and his friends2kateboarded on the street, and particularly enjoyed the bumps. He stated that he did not want the City to cut down the trees. Questions and discussion included the following issues: + Differences between the Donna Drive hold harmless agreement and the one currently + Consequences of doing nothing and not requiring hold harmless agreements + Impact of hold harmless agreement on visitors + Reasons for additional requirements in the new hold harmless agreement + Verification that notification was sent out to Ms. Wheeler + Acknowledgement of a petition submitted by Eric Brown with 197 signatures + Possible damage downstream to Charleen Circle drafted c m 8 * Pa5ks and Recreation Commission -4- - May 17,1999 Results at Donna Drive Implications of what could be done to the trees if a hold harmless agreement was signed by a homeowner Concern about trimming the top of the tree and roots at the same time Rights and obligations of the City if there was no hold harmless agreement Inability of determining how much of the tree or canopy should be cut until seeing the actual roots No guarantee that the trees would not be cut down if a hold harmless agreement was signed A motion was made by Commissioner Baker, AB #599-3, that the City go forward with the project to prune the roots and canopy while insisting that the homeowners sign a hold harmless agreement in the form presented by the City. After discussion, Commissioner Baker withdrew the motion. Comments on the motion were as follows: Commissioner Schulberg mentioned that the transfer of the hold harmless agreement with the property was a necessity. Chairman Richards stated that we are always smarter the second time around. He added that he was in favor of saving the trees if possible and he would like the City to compromise its position. He added that he could not vote in favor of the motion Commissioner Cox stated that he felt the City has gone out of its way to work with the residents Commissioner Schulberg mentioned that the solution was to start planting new trees that would not interfere with the sidewalk. Commissioner Baker indicated that it was not pleasant to talk about removing trees, but she was concerned that it affected streets downstream and felt that planting new trees was important for the future ACTION: On motion by Commissioner Schulberg, AB #599-3, to recommend to the City Council that staff proceed with the curb and gutter replacement program with the removal of street trees as required unless homeowners in the affected area sign the hold harmless agreement. AYES: Commissioners Baker, Cunningham, Schulberg, Cox, and Pieratt NOES: Chairman Richards ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Vice Chairman Davidson .4. AB#599-4SON/DOG PARK SITE DATION Ken Price, Recreation Director, gave the staff presentation on this item. He explained the background of the item, particularly the formation of a sub-committee in June 1998. He indicated that there were five issues that were reviewed: Design criteria, site location, policy issue, neighborhood notification, and development and maintenance costs, and stated that the - rc Parks and Recreation Commission -5- - May 17,1999 J three recommended sites were Larwin Park Lower, Lannrin Park Upper, and Cannon Lake Park. He explained all the issues in detail, as outlined in the memo from the Dog Park Sub-committee to the Parks and Recreation Commission, dated May 9, 1999, included in the Commissioners’ packet for the evening. In answer to a query by Commissioner Schulberg, Ms. Higaonna indicated that she lived across the street from Poinsettia Park and would be happy to have a dog park there. Martha Baron, 331 1 La Costa Avenue, Carlsbad, mentioned that she has six beautiful dogs but had a large back yard for them. She stated that she was looking out for other dog owners and described an incident where a park ranger at Stagecoach Park told her she could not go into the park with her dogs. Ann L’Heureux, 1731 Calavo Court, Carlsbad, spoke on behalf of herself, her husband, and her dog Fletcher. She thanked staff for recommending the dog park and mentioned that she was a member of the sub-committee. c Alanna Higaonna, 6706 Whitesail Street, Carlsbad, explained that she contacted staff because she was concerned that there was no place to take a dog in Carlsbad. She added that she was not able to take dogs to a park even with a leash and a pooper scooper. She mentioned she was glad to hear that the City was planning a dog park in Carlsbad. Hap L’Heureux, 1731 Calavo Court, Carlsbad, read Margaret Stanton’s letter. He described dog parks in other areas which were too small and emphasized that a dog park was a social area for both dogs and owners. George Moldovan, 2679 Vancouver Street, Carlsbad, explained that he lived next door to Larwin Park. He mentioned that during the past 14 years, people always waked dogs in the park, and added that he never complained. He referred to an article in the North County Times and stated that it gave credence that the neighborhood was going to have a dog park, and that he was concerned about the dogs and the safety of children on the street. He referred to a story about another dog attacking his friend’s dog in a public park and stated that people from other areas would bring their dogs to the park. Mr. Moldovan expressed additional concern about the health issues of a dog park. He also stated that during the 14 years that he lived there, maintenance of the area was not a priority and described what transpired during that time. He indicated that there was not ample parking and explained why. Carol Gorbics, 5190 El Arbol Drive, Carlsbad, stated that she was in support of a dog park but wanted to get more information about it. She said that she would like to find out the short term and long term plans, and specifically asked what was meant by a “temporary” dog park. She stated that shedid not feel there was enough information to evaluate the dog park at the Lower Lanvin location but that she was in support of a dog park in Carlsbad. Jim Palenscar, DVM, 2739 State Street, Carlsbad, stated that he was a part owner of the Carlsbad Animal Hospital. He explained the need for an owner to take a dog somewhere to exercise. He added that there was ns more disease or dog fights as a result of the dog park in Del Mar and added that it was important for dogs and people to get out. Parks and Recreation Commission -6- a J 'I - May 17,1999 - In answer to queries by the Commissioners, Mr. Palenscar stated that his preference would be for a dog park to be long rather than square and explained why. He suggested keeping the dog park away from Cannon Lake and mentioned that heartworm could be an issue. Mr. Palenscar explained that there were more issues of health when animals were closely confined than when they were running around in a dog park. He also added that aggression should not be a problem. Jacqueline Behrhorst, 2696 Waterbury Way, Carlsbad, explained that she would like information about the opening hours of the dog park, whether there would be lights, how many . visitors were expected during the day, and where they would park. She explained that Lower Larwin had no parking except in front of people's houses. She added that she loved dogs and just wanted to know what the residents could expect. Judy Mueller, 2641 Vancouver Street, Carlsbad, explained that she has two children and two dogs and lived in her house for 15 years. She stated that she was concerned about the safety of the children who play on the cul-de-sac and explained why. She mentioned that her son was pulled off his bike when a dog was running after him and expressed concern about the park being in the back. She added that some dog owners were not very responsible. Ms. Mueller stated that she was concerned about cars pulling in the street, turning around and backing up. She added that Carlsbad needed a dog park, but felt that it should be in a more visible area with more city streets. Paul Santy, 2693 Vancouver Street, Carlsbad, stated that he was in favor of a dog park. He wanted to know what was meant by "temporary" and stated that Lower Larwin was the least visible. He indicated that the City should select a more central location for the City. He referred to the earlier discussion of preserving trees and emphasized that there was wildlife in Lower Larwin park, including coyotes, bobcats, raccoons, rabbits, squirrels and road runners. Mr. Santy mentioned that his dog was bitten by a rattlesnake and had to be put to sleep the week before. He added that he did not think the neighborhood was a good place for the dog park. Suzanne Lougeay, 1047 Turnstone Road, Carlsbad, explained that she lived on the street just north of Poinsettia Park and that her house was the closest to the park. She said she would love to see a dog park at Poinsettia Park and explained that lots of people watked their dogs there. She expressed concern that there was no place to walk dogs and explained that she drove to Orpheus Park in Encinitas and Dog Beach in Del Mar on weekends. Ms. Lougeay added that dogs tended to be more aggressive to dogs walking on a leash, and questioned why the dog park was temporary, why the City was planning to spend so much money, and why other parks were discarded as options for a dog park. Colleen Foster3697 Vancouver, Street, Carlsbad, explained that she lived on Vancouver Street and loved dogs. She expressed concern that the cul-de-sac was very small and that other locations would be better with regard to safety and disturbance factors. She stated that the street would become very congested. Bob Rubin, 7404 Avenida de Palais, Carlsbad, explained that he took his dogs to other dog parks. He informed the Commission that owners brought water for their dogs to Dog Beach and pride in having dogs. He said that he did not think the water issue was that important. - even shared the water with other dogs. He added that people monitored each other and took .. 1 c f- r r Parks and Recreation Commission -7- - May 17,1999 Chairman Richards called Mr. Moldovan back to speak. Mr. Moldovan referred to the lack of information given to the residents. He stated that the way the information was passed on was through the press and that it was not fair to those impacted. He added that none of the people were anti-dogs but that the Commission should make sure that there was better publicity for future projects. He added that he would like them to do what was best for the tax dollars spent. Questions and discussion included the following issues: Importance of people making comments about the dog park at an early stage Reasons for selecting Lower Larwin included: Least expensive, fences all around it, water for the dogs, open from sunup to sundown, on-street parking, already being used as a dog park by many people Explanation of what was meant by a "temporary" park and why it was slated as such Concern about parking Separation of Lower Larwin and Upper Larwin as two separate parks Liability issues if a dog bit other dogs and/or people Requirement of the policy change if Upper Lower was selected Impact on other agencies Commissioner Baker made a motion (AB #599-4) to forward the recommendation to City Council for a dog park to be located at the Lawin Lower site and ask for $21,200 for development of the site. Commissioner Cunningham stated that he would like to look at an area where people do not have to park on a public street and animals did not have to go through that street. He stated that he could not support the motion for Lower Larwin. Commissioner Schulberg said that he was a member of the sub-committee. He added that he listened to the members of the audience and stated that he was not convinced that Lower Larwin was the best site. He suggested that Upper Larwin might be a good compromise. Commissioner Cox agreed with Commissioners Cunningham and Schulberg and stated that parking was the key issue. He indicated that he could not support Lower Larwin but could support Upper Larwin. Chairman Richards explained that he agreed with the other commissioners and stated that the Commission needed to plan for the success of the dog park, even a temporary dog park. He mentioned that he was concerned about the parking issues and that the motion should include the recommendation to the City Council to modify the ordinances in respect to dogs. Commissioner Baker withdrew her motion. - ACTION: On motion by Commissioner Baker, AB fi99-4, to accept Upper Larwin as the recommendation from the Parks and Recreation Commission to City Council for establishment of a temporary dog park, to request $35,880 for funding for the site, and to request City Council to amend the ordinance to allow for dogs to be presmt in the dog park at Upper Larwin. Cox, and Pieratt AYES: Chairman Richards, Commissioners Baker, Cunningham, Schulberg, NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Vice Chairman Davidson . Parks and Recreation Commission -8- I t - May 17,1999 ,- 5. AR #599-5 GO1 F COURSF UPDATE Mark Steyaert, Park Development Coordinator, gave the staff presentation on this item. He explained the history and status of the project. He stated that the design was 50% completed and referred to the plan on the board. He indicated that the permits were very complex and added that the EIR had to be submitted to the City Council. He referred to the schedule and explained the grading restrictions. Questions and discussion included the following issues: + Location of parking and bike trails . + Clarification of the area around bridge ACTION: On motion by Commissioner Baker, AB #599-5, to accept and file the AYES: Chairman Richards, Commissioners Baker, Cunningham, Schulberg, NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Vice Chairman Davidson staff report on the golf course. Cox, and Pieratt 6. AB #599-6 CITY/SCHOOL CXiMkKEE UPDATE Keith Beverly gave the staff presentation on this item. He referred to the agenda included in the Commissioners’ packet for the evening. ACTION: On motion by Commissioner Baker, AB #599-6, to accept and file the AYES: Chairman Richards, Commissioners Baker, Cunningham, Schulberg, NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Vice Chairman Davidson staff update on the City/School Committee. Cox, and Pieratt - None. AGENDA ITEMS FOR NEXT CO- 1. Commission responsibility/disposition of funds. ADJOURNMENT ACTION: On motion by Commissioner Baker, to adjourn the Regular Meeting at AYES:- Chairman Richards, Commissioners Baker, Cunningham, Schulberg, NOES: None ABSTAIN: None 8:20 p.m. Cox, and Pieratt , ABSENT: Vice Chairman Davidson /c Ruth Stark, Minutes Clerk