HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-07-12; City Council; 12772; Green Valley Initiative Request (2)Cr ' OF CARLSBAD — AGEr ~ A BILL ()0
AB# 1 2^7 2-
MTG. 7-;#~ *M
DEPT. CM
TITLE-GREEN VALLEY
INITIATIVE REQUEST
DEPT. HD.
CITY ATTY^@
CITY MGR. ^<
§
0)
0)4Ja
CCfl
M
O0.CO
Oa3
OO
O<
O
OO
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Receive and file report and take no action on request to place Green Valley Initiative on the
November 1994 election ballot.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
Mr. Robert Payne addressed the City Council at its June 28,1994 meeting to request that it place
the Green Valley Balanced Use and Traffic Control Initiative on the November 1994 election ballot
without first collecting the necessary voter signatures. His comments from that meeting are attached
as Exhibit 1. Staff has identified the potential consequences of Council's alternative responses to
the initiative request.
ALTERNATIVE 1. Direct the City Attorney to return with documents necessary to place
the proposed initiative on the November election ballot. Staff does not recommend this alternative
for the following reasons.
a. The comprehensive planning process required under state law and sound planning
practices would be circumvented by this approach. The City General Plan was developed through
an extensive public participation process over a number of years and represents a balanced
approach to meet the needs of the entire community. Council's placing of the initiative on the ballot
would set an undesirable precedent for future instances in which a group of residents do not want
a development approved even though it is compliance with the General Plan and Growth
Management Standards. Citizens have the right to place an initiative on the ballot, but should not
expect the City Council to place an initiative on the ballot for them if they are unable to meet
requirements regarding the collection of signatures.
b. Green Valley land use issues would be more appropriately addressed through the
development review process instead of a citywide initiative process because they are not issues
dealing with a citywide vision or policy, but with neighborhood concerns. The development review
process will allow for those most interested in the project, such as area residents, activist groups,
and property owners, to be most involved in the decision making process, instead of expecting
residents who are not as well informed on those issues to make a hurried decision in the voter' booth
on a very complex land use matter.01
•H
01
c. The initiative leaves many land use questions unanswered. For example, it does not
describe what uses will be allowed or prohibited in the areas to be set aside for passive uses. It also
does not provide an explanation for what will be allowed in the "Red Barn" area. These and other
questions would be discussed and settled as part of the standard development review process.
d. By placing the initiative on the ballot, the property owners may allege that they have been
deprived of their right to due process of review for their desired project to determine if it is consistent
with the City's General Plan and Growth Management Plan.
e. If voters approve the initiative, no public hearings would be held on the General Plan
Amendment before either the Planning Commission or the City Council.
PAGE TWO OF AGEND/ ,o_L NO.
f. A General Plan amendment through the initiative process would not receive
environmental review as submittal of proposals to a vote of the people is not a project for
purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act.
g. Once the General Plan is amended through this process, it could not be changed by
this Council or a future Council, even if the community's needs or desires change, without a
subsequent vote of the people.
h. Council's placing the initiative on the ballot may eliminate or circumvent a fiscal
analysis of the amendment and an analysis of the consistency between the initiative and other
elements of the General Plan, including the land use and housing elements.
i. Approval of the initiative may render inapplicable or unusable certain portions of the
comprehensive General Plan Update now being processed.
ALTERNATIVE 2. Take no action at this time and respond to the outcome of the initiative
attempt if an adequate amount of signatures are collected according to state law. Staff
recommends that this alternative be selected for the following reasons.
a. The developer will be allowed to continue working with staff and area residents to
address the outstanding issues still to be resolved on the project. Planning efforts now underway
with property owners and other local agencies concerning this area should continue in the
search for long range solutions to potential regional problems.
b. By proceeding through the planning process, all parties will be allowed a fair chance
to participate and have the outcome of the development decided according to established
procedures.
c. Residents may follow referendum procedures if concerns remain following City
approvals.
d. The issue of whether or not a General Plan can be amended by initiative Is pending
before the State Supreme Court and a decision is not expected until next year. If the court
determines that this vehicle is improper, an election, whether general or special, may be moot.
FISCAL IMPACT:
A special election could cost approximately $120,000. Including the initiative on the November
general election ballot would add approximately $5,000 to the cost of that election. In both
cases, additional staff time in an undetermined amount would also be expended in preparing
election related materials.
Exhibit:
1. Comments from Robert Payne during June 29, 1994 City Council Meeting.
ROBERT PAYNE 28 JUNE, 1 994
POST OFFICE BOX 3073
CARLSBAD 92009
TEL#753-°007
TO THE MAYORJAND THE CITY COUNCIL
The Carlsbad Citizens Group for Regional Planning/
is now circulating an lnitiative,yThe Green Valley
Balanced Use and Traffic Control Initiative of 1994.
This Initiajtive^iddresse^/the future development
of the last open land on Carlsbad's south border.
We will deposit our books of signatures with the
City Clerk on the 7th of July to qualify for a November
vote.
RegardLess^of our signature count, we ask that the
Council place this Initiative on the ballot.
If/or any reason our books do not contain enough
correct and verified signatures to equal the J_0%
required by city law, we mtend to continue our
signature drive until we gain the 1 5% required to
trigger a special election.
It is a certainty^that we qualify our Initiative for a
vote. The only question/is whether the people of
Carlsbad will decide this issue in jMovember/or if they
will vote later in a special election. ,
We are aware/that spec|aj_elections cost /the city
money. / """ ""~ '
We ask you /to avoid this unnecessary expense.
Put the. .Initiative on the ballot. You did this to resolve
the Legc/controversy. Now/foe ask you to extend the
same cdurtesyio our Initiative.
Wejirge the City Council to take this opportunity/
to avoid/the expense of a special election. '
Thej/ote/on the Initiative/will be an
for the peopleof Carlsbad to voice their opjnion/on
the concept/of plan nea regional development] '
Remember: the issue of Green Valley development
filled/the Council Chambers/ with Carlsbad citizens.
Many other people crowded outside/^to watch
television monitors as we presented our response^to
thje _ prnjprt propos,^/ and the deeply flawed
Environmental ImpactReport.
Hundreds /6f people attended that meeting,
three spoke/against it, and not one Carlsbad citizen
spoke for it./
We urgjet/you to make the correct and obvious
decisipn-'rta place the Green Valley Balanced Use and
Traffic Control Initiative on the November Ballot for
the citizens of Carlsbad. / / / I
Q/tTgj»lacQthis issue on thej?ailoi^gstsj^
To^ force a special election will cost
thouads of
lake the ^omecFand obvious decision. Put the
Green Valley Initiative on the NgyenibfiiLbalTot..
ROBERT PAYNE JULY, } 994
POST OFFICE BOX 3073
CARLSBAD 92009
TO THE MAYOR AND THE CITY COUNCIL
Last week, I spoke here.
I asked that the City Council place the
The Green Valley Balanced Use
and Traffic Control Initiative of 1994
on the November ballot.
I emphasized that our group would place the Green Valley
Initiative on the ballot
regardless of the 10% or the 15% required signatures.
Only the question of the date of the vote
and the expense of the vote remained.
We could not verify the number of signatures
in our books by the 7th of July deadline.
Therefore, we will continue gathering signatures
until we gain the required 15% verified signatures.
This will force a special election on the City of Carlsbad.
Unless the City Council places the initiative
on the November ballot.
In response to my request last week,
I received this document,
titled Green Valley Initiative Request,
with the code AB# 12,772.
I do not know what city office prepared this document.
The individuals responsible are named only as, STAFF.
The STAFF recommends that the City Council
refuse to put the initiative on the November ballot.
The STAFF believes the Initiative
will create a undesirable precedent.
The STAFF states
that the Hunt brothers' speculative projects
in Green Valley are in compliance with the General Plan.
The STAFF states
that the Hunt brothers speculative projects
in Green Valley are more
appropriately addressed
through the development review process.
The STAFF states
that the Hunt brothers speculative projects
are only a neighborhood concern.
The STAFF states
that the uninformed residents of Carlsbad
cannot make a decision
on a very complex land use matter.
I want to remind the Council
that the Hunt brothers cannot continue
with their speculative projects
without changes in the General Plan.
I want to remind the Council
that the Hunt brothers and the City Planning Office
failed to follow the development review process.
I want to remind the Council
that we filled these chambers
and the sidewalks outside these chambers
with hundreds of Carlsbad citizens
from all over Carlsbad.
I want to remind the Council
that the citizens of Carlsbad
spoke against the speculative projects
the Hunt brothers wanted to impose on our city.
I want to remind the Council
that the citizens of Carlsbad
forced the Hunt brothers
to withdraw their spec projects.
And perhaps here we did set a precedent:
The citizens of Carlsbad
decided what the citizens of Carlsbad wanted
in their city.
Not what the STAFF wanted.
What the citizens wanted.
In a sense, the citizens of Carlsbad voted.
That's all we want.
We want to vote on the future of our city.
STAFF cannot stop this.
The City Council can make this possible.
At the lowest possible cost.
We will vote.
The question is when and at what cost.
Again, I ask the Council
to make the obvious and correct decision.
Spare the City of Carlsbad
the expense of a special election.
Put the Green Valley Initiative on the November ballot.
Carlsbad Partners, Ltd."•• GREPN
CROSSINGS
Suite 100
Carlsbad. Cfi 32003
July 12, 1994
Mayor Claude Lewis and City Council Members
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, California 92008-1989
Re: Green Valley Ballot Petition
Agenda Item 10
Honorable Mayor Lewis and City Council Members,
From the outset of our planning efforts for Green Valley
Crossings, we have committed to following all the policies and
procedures prescribed by your Growth Management Plan. From the
outset we have proposed a project with over 70 percent open space
and an overall development intensity below that provided for in
Growth Management. Our proposed project is consistent with the
intent of your General Plan, is an appropriate use of the
property, meets Carlsbad's needs for commercial retail space,
provides that adequate public facilities be in place prior to
occupancy, and was approved by the Planning Commission.
The request before you today, to place the Green Valley Balanced
Use and Traffic Control Initiative of 1994 on the November ballot
is inappropriate at this time, and totally ignores the award
winning urban planning and growth management plan and procedures
Carlsbad has been successfully using since 1986. In addition,
the petition ignores due process, pre-empts property rights, and
penalizes the project applicant for following your rules.
On the very evening that you directed us to work with your staff
and the community to resolve issues raised during the public
hearing, we were informed by the Carlsbad Citizen Group for
Regional Planning that a ballot initiative would be filed with
the City Clerk. As we worked in good faith with your staff to
address regional traffic issues, we were denied access to CCG
meetings as they planned their strategy to block our project
through the initiative process.
Since CCG has not provided the necessary signatures, we
respectfully ask that you do not voluntarily place their
initiative on the November ballot. We should be allowed to
comply with your instructions to further analyze regional traffic
impacts and mitigations before final judgements about the project
are made. We should be afforded the opportunity to address the
concerns expressed during the public hearing before General Plan
changes are made which impact the financial viability of
providing mandated public facilities.
As elected representatives for all citizens in Carlsbad, you
should not jeopardize the City's long established and proven
Growth Management policies and procedures, which the community at
large approved, by allowing ad hoc planning though the initiative
process by special interests which do not represent the entire
Carlsbad community.
Yours truly,
Marinus W. Baak, P.E.
Owner's Representative
Green Valley Crossings