HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-07-25; City Council; 18668; Citizens Comm Flower & Strawberry Fields ReportCITY OF CARLSBAD - AGENDA BILL
AB#
MTG.
DEPT.
18,668
7/25/06
COM DEV
REPORT FROM THE CITIZENS'
COMMITTEE TO STUDY THE FLOWER
FIELDS AND STRAWBERRY FIELDS
AREA
DEPT. HEAD ^K
CITY ATTY. dS^'
CITY MGR. "]2^>
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
That the City Council ACCEPT the Report of the Citizens Committee to Study the Flower Fields and
Strawberry Fields Area of the City and PROVIDE DIRECTION regarding any action to be taken
regarding the recommendations contained in the Committee's Report.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
At its meeting of April 18, 2006, the City Council established a Citizens Committee to Study the
Flower Fields and Strawberry Fields Area of the City. The Committee consisted of 30 members (25
voting members and 5 non-voting members). The Committee met from May 16, 2006 to July 11, 2006
and held seven publicly-noticed meetings. When the City Council created the Citizens Committee, the
Council also provided a list of tasks to be accomplished by the Committee as follows:
1) Review all pertinent background information relating to the area;
2) Review the three proposed ballot measures relating to the area;
3) Receive public input on the area and on the ballot measures including presentations from the
proponents;
4) Prepare an objective comparison of the three measures; and
5) Make any other recommendations as deemed appropriate by the Committee regarding the measures
or the future of the area.
The Committee accomplished all these tasks and the result of their work is included in the Report from
the Citizens Committee attached as Exhibit 1 to this Agenda Bill.
In addition to preparing a comparative analysis of the measures, the Citizens Committee made a
number of recommendations that address principally the proposed, draft City ballot measure. A
summary of some of the key recommendations, as indicated by a substantial majority vote, include the
following:
1) The Citizens Committee recommends that a City ballot measure be placed on the November
election as an alternative to the initiative that has already qualified for the ballot and that the City
measure include the changes recommended by the Citizens Committee;
2) The City measure should allow active as well as passive open space and recreation uses in the area
in order to allow more opportunity for public accessibility to the area;
DEPARTMENT CONTACT: Sandra Holder 760-602-2710 shold@ci.carlsbad.ca.us
FOR CITY CLERKS USE ONLY.
COUNCIL ACTION: APPROVED D
DENIED D
CONTINUED D
WITHDRAWN D
AMENDED D
CONTINUED TO DATE SPECIFIC D
CONTINUED TO DATE UNKNOWN D
RETURNED TO STAFF
SEE MINUTES
Council Accepted the Report.
Page 2 ofAB "Report From the Citizens' Committee to Study the Flower Fields...'
3) The City measure should not change the Travel/Recreation designation on the 48 acre portion of
the area adjacent to the 1-5 freeway and this property should be removed from the measure; and
4) Regardless of what happens regarding this area in the November election, the City should initiate a
comprehensive public planning effort to determine what uses (i.e. open space, recreational,
agricultural-type uses) are appropriate for the area.
A Minority Report was prepared by a member of the Citizens Committee (Vice-Chair) and is included
in the Committee's Report as Attachment 3.
It is recommended that the City Council review and accept the Report from the Citizens Committee
and provide direction on the proposed City ballot measure and any other recommendations from the
Citizens Committee.
A final decision on the City ballot measure will be considered at a subsequent City Council meeting
(August 1 or August 8, 2006). Should the Council decide to place a City measure on the ballot in
November with all the changes recommended by the Citizens Committee, staff has prepared a revised,
draft of the measure for City Council early review. The revisions incorporate all the recommendations
of the Citizens Committee and other changes deemed necessary or appropriate to implement the
Committee recommendations. A clean copy of the draft, revised measure is attached as Exhibit 3 to
this Agenda Bill and a strike out (deletions) and underlined (additions) version is attached as Exhibit 4.
The Committee members should be highly commended for the time, effort and valuable input that they
provided in completing its charge from the City Council.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Acceptance of the Citizens Committee Report will have no fiscal impacts to the City. The City Council
previously allocated up to $100,000 for the expenses involved in the administrative and operational
functions of the Committee.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:
The Citizens Committee Report is an informational document and does not constitute a project as
defined in Section 15378 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and, therefore, no
environmental review is required. A citizen's initiative is specifically exempted from environmental
review by CEQA. The proposed, City ballot measure has undergone full environmental review and any
revisions proposed to the measure will be assessed in accordance with CEQA.
EXHIBITS:
1. Report of the Citizens Committee to Study the Flower Fields and Strawberry Fields Area
2. Letter from Farrah Douglas dated July 11, 2006 regarding the Citizens Committee
3. Draft of revised City ballot measure (clean copy)
4. Strike-out, underlined copy of draft of revised City ballot measure
To Study the
Flower Fields and
Strawberry Fields Area
REPORT OF THE CITIZENS’ COMMITTEE TO STUDY THE
FLOWER FIELDS AND THE STRAWBERRY FIELDS AREA
Approved by the Citizens’ Committee on
Citizens Committee Members
Munoz, Eric (Chair) Garcin, Bob Morgan, Robert
McBane, Kip (Vice-Chair) Hill, Gary* Norby, Peder
Aadland, Pete Johnson, Mark Pope, Laura*
Agosti, Jill Kurth, Pat Schulberg, Seth*
Benner, Jennifer Lewinger, Keith Swiger, Daniel
Cap, Marvin Manning, Cary Willes, Heidi
Dominguez, Bill Martyns, Len Winkler, Mark
Douglas, Farrah* McBride, Gina
Farrow, Vern Meyerhoff, Leslea*
Non-voting Members of the Citizens’ Committee
Chris Calkins (Carltas)
Claudia Carrillo (SDG&E)
Marvin Sippel (Farm Rep)
Courtney Heineman (Planning Commission)
Nancy Calverley (C.C.U.P.P.)
* Comparative Analysis Subcommittee
Citizens’ Committee Staff
Gary Barberio – Principal Planner
Karen Chen – Management Analyst
Courtney Enriquez – Management Intern
Sandra Holder – Community Development Director
Bob Johnson – Deputy City Engineer, Transportation
Cynthia Haas – Economic Development and Real Estate Manager
Jane Mobaldi– Assistant City Attorney
Barbara Nedros – Administrative Secretary
Mark Steyaert – Park Development Manager
Consultants
Michael Holzmiller, Consultant
Jim Lough, Special Counsel
Jim Simon, RSG
Facilitators
National Conflict Resolution Center
Barbara Filner
Robin Seigle
Christina Simokat, assistant
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section I. Introduction....................................................................................................1
Section II. Description of Charge and Tasks of the Citizens’ Committee ......................2
Section III. Comparative Analysis of Initiative and Proposed City Ballot Measure........3
Section IV. Additional Citizens’ Committee Recommendations .....................................4
Section V. Minority Report .............................................................................................4
Attachment 1: Comparative Analysis Matrix..................................................................5
Attachment 2: Citizens’ Committee Recommendations................................................11
Attachment 3: Minority Report .....................................................................................13
Appendices ......................................................................................................................44
A. City Council Agenda Bill No. 18,535
B. Summary Meeting Notes and Agendas
C. Copy of Initiative and Draft City Ballot Measure
D. Maps Showing the Boundaries of Initiative and City Ballot Measure
E. Maps Showing Existing General Plan and Zoning Designations, and a Summary of
the Zoning Designations
F. Voting Summary Matrix
G. Workbook (on file in the office of the City Clerk)
1
I. INTRODUCTION
On April 18, 2006, the City Council created a Citizens’ Committee to study the area east of I-5
along Cannon Road including and surrounding the existing Flower Fields and Strawberry Fields.
Two citizen initiatives relating to this area were being circulated for voter signatures with the
intent to place them on the ballot for the November, 2006 general election. The first initiative
sponsored by the Concerned Citizens of Carlsbad titled the “Save the Strawberry and Flower
Growing Fields Act of 2006” has subsequently qualified for the November election. The second
initiative sponsored by the Carlsbad Citizens for Usable Public Places titled the “Carlsbad
Gateway Parkland and Open Space Initiative of 2006” was being circulated for the November
election but subsequently could not meet the election deadlines. The City Council is also
considering sponsoring its own ballot measure for the area titled the “The Flower Fields,
Strawberry Fields, Open Space and Public Trails Protection Act of 2006”. A draft of the
proposed City ballot measure was prepared and approved for review purposes by the City
Council. Given the fact that there may be alternative measures affecting the area on the ballot in
November, the City Council determined that it would beneficial to the public to have a Citizens’
Committee study the area, review and analyze the alternative initiatives including the draft City
ballot measure and make any recommendations the Committee felt appropriate to the City
Council.
The Citizens’ Committee to Study the Flower Fields and the Strawberry Fields Area consisted of
25 resident, registered voters of Carlsbad appointed by the City Council. The Council also
appointed six (6) non-voting members to the Committee representing the initiative sponsors, the
owners of the properties affected by the initiatives, a representative from the farming community
and the Planning Commission. The Concerned Citizens of Carlsbad group declined to be
represented on the Committee and the Committee therefore consisted of a total of 30 members.
The Citizens’ Committee held seven publicly-noticed meetings starting on May 16, 2006 and
completing their work on July 11, 2006. A Subcommittee consisting of five (5) members
appointed by the Committee to work on a draft comparative analysis of the initiatives and the
City measure also met on two separate occasions.
The Final Report of the Citizens’ Committee to Study the Flower Fields and the Strawberry
Fields Area was approved by the Committee on July 11, 2006. The Report consists of (1) this
introduction; (2) a description of the tasks performed and accomplished by the Committee
(Section II of the Report); (3) a copy of the Committee’s comparative analysis of the qualifying
initiative and the city ballot measure (Section III and Attachment 1 of the Report); (4)
recommendations made by the Committee for further City Council consideration (Section IV and
Attachment 2 of the Report) and (5) a Minority Report (Section V and Attachment 3 of the
Report). Appendices are also attached at the end of the Report consisting of the following: (A)
City Council Agenda Bill #18,535 creating the Citizens’ Committee; (B) Summary Meeting
Notes prepared by the facilitators, NCRC, and Agendas from each of the Committee’s meetings;
(C) A copy of the initiative and the draft City ballot measure; (D) Maps showing the boundaries
of the initiative and the City ballot measure; (E) Maps showing existing General Plan and Zoning
Designations and a summary of the Zoning Designations; (F) A voting summary matrix showing
the vote of the Committee on all proposed recommendations; and (G) A copy of the Committee’s
Workbook (on file in the office of the City Clerk).
2
II. DESCRIPTION OF CHARGE AND TASKS OF THE CITIZENS’ COMMITTEE
When the City Council created the Citizens’ Committee, the Council also provided a general
outline of the tasks to be performed by the Committee. The outline included the following tasks:
• Review all pertinent background information regarding this area of the city including
all existing land use documents, historical information and recent land use visioning
efforts;
• Review the three proposed ballot measures relating to the area;
• Receive public input on the area and on the ballot measures including presentations
from the ballot measure proponents;
• Prepare an independent and objective comparison of the three measures including, but
not limited to, a summary and major provisions of the measures, allowable and
restricted land uses, and follow-up implementation requirements; and
• Make any other recommendations as deemed appropriate by the Committee regarding
the measures or the future of the area.
The Citizens’ Committee followed the outline of tasks provided by the City Council in sequential
order. The first meeting of the Committee held on May 16, 2006 consisted of an organizational
and introduction meeting. The Committee members were introduced, a Chairman and Vice-Chair
were elected, the Committee reviewed its charge and tasks and a meeting schedule was
developed. At its second meeting held on May 30, 2006, the Committee reviewed all the
background information regarding the area prepared by staff. This included existing General
Plan, Zoning and Local Coastal Program and other land use regulations, standards and policies
applicable to the study area as well as property data and historical information on the properties
located in the area. All of the background information provided to the Committee is contained in
a workbook provided to each of the Committee members, a copy of which is on file in the office
of the City Clerk. The Committee also heard a presentation on the status of agriculture in
Carlsbad from the Executive Director of the San Diego County Farm Bureau. The third meeting
of the Committee held on June 6, 2006 was devoted to reviewing the two proposed initiatives
and the proposed city ballot measure. This included presentations from the sponsors or
proponents of the initiatives and the city measure and providing time for input from the general
public. The Committee was asked to prepare additional questions for the sponsors/proponents in
writing to be addressed at the next meeting. The Committee also appointed a Subcommittee to
prepare a draft of an unbiased, objective comparative analysis (in a matrix format) for
subsequent review and approval of the entire Committee. The next meeting of the Committee
was held on June 15, 2006. Responses to the Committee’s written questions were provided only
by the Carlsbad Citizens for Usable Public Places and the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem for the
draft city measure. The Committee reviewed the draft comparative analysis matrix prepared by
the Subcommittee and provided feedback to the Subcommittee. At this meeting, the Committee
also heard a presentation on legal considerations made by Special Counsel retained by the City to
assist the Committee’s discussions. At its subsequent meeting held on June 20, 2006, the
Committee reviewed and again provided input on the comparative analysis as revised by the
Subcommittee. The Committee also heard a presentation on preliminary findings regarding fiscal
implications of the initiatives by a financial consultant retained by the City to assist the
Committee’s discussions and to prepare a fiscal impact report. At its next meeting held on June
27, 2006, the Committee again reviewed and then conceptually approved the comparative
analysis matrix. Consistent with the charge and tasks originally outlined by the City Council, the
3
members were then given the opportunity to propose other recommendations to be considered by
the City Council. It was decided that the recommendations proposed by the individual members
would be voted on by the entire Committee at its next, subsequent meeting. The final meeting of
the Citizens Committee was held on July 11, 2006. At this meeting, the Committee voted on its
recommendations, gave final approval to the comparative analysis and approved its Report to the
City Council. The Committee was also informed at this meeting that the “Carlsbad Gateway
Parkland and Open Space Initiative of 2006” could not meet the deadlines for the November
ballot and, therefore, the Committee voted to remove it from the comparative analysis and not to
comment on it. Summary Notes and Agendas from each of the Committee meetings are
contained in Appendix B of this report.
As a result of the Citizens’ Committee work, the charge and tasks outlined by the City Council
when the Council created the Committee have been accomplished. An objective, independent
comparative analysis of the citizen group’s initiative and the draft city ballot measure has been
prepared which is explained in the next section of this report and is contained in Attachment 1 of
the Report. Other recommendations as deemed appropriate by the Committee regarding the city
ballot measure or the future of the area have been made by the Committee for City Council
consideration. These recommendations are explained in Section IV of this report and included in
Attachment 2.
III. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF INITIATIVE AND PROPOSED CITY BALLOT
MEASURE
As requested by the City Council, the Citizens’ Committee has prepared a comparative analysis
of the citizen group’s initiative and the City-proposed ballot measure. The analysis was prepared
in a matrix format to make it as simple and user-friendly as possible. The comparative analysis is
included in this Report as Attachment 1. As mentioned in the previous section of this report the
analysis does not include the “Gateway Parkland Initiative” because it did not qualify for the
November ballot.
A Subcommittee was appointed to draft the analysis for consideration and approval of the
Committee. The Subcommittee’s draft analysis was reviewed and input was provided by the
Committee members at three of the Committee meetings and was approved in its final form at
the final Committee meeting of July 11, 2006 by a 17-4 vote. In preparing the comparative
analysis by the Subcommittee and as subsequently approved by the Citizens’ Committee, some
guiding principles were used. It was the intent of the Committee to provide a neutral, objective
and unbiased comparative analysis based upon what was included in the written text of the
initiative or measure. Assumptions or personal opinions about the intent of the proponents in
proposing the initiative or measure were not considered other than what was included verbatim
in the initiative. Speculation about how the City would formally implement or accomplish the
intent of the initiative or measure was also not considered. For example, if the initiative or
measure was silent on a permitted use or public facility allowed by the initiative or measure, it
was determined that the use or facility would not be permitted.
4
The comparative analysis includes a very technical, “nuts and bolts” component that is contained
in the second part of the analysis under “Technical Analysis”. While this is useful and necessary
in order for the City to be able to accomplish land-use implementation, the Committee felt that
this would not be as important and useful to the citizen voter as an analysis of the more issue-
oriented topics that address community vision and values. Therefore, the first part of the
comparative analysis addresses issues that are common or distinct about the initiative and the
draft City ballot measure. This part of the analysis is titled “Issues Analysis”.
The Citizens’ Committee hopes that the comparative analysis as contained in Attachment 1 to
this Report will be useful to the public and can be utilized as appropriate as a tool to provide
educational information to the voters in assisting them in making an informed decision on the
initiative or the City ballot measure if a City measure is placed on the ballot for the November
election.
IV. ADDITIONAL CITIZENS’ COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
As requested by the City Council, the Citizens’ Committee has approved additional
recommendations “as deemed appropriate by the Committee regarding the measures or future of
the area”. The recommendations fall into two categories: (A) Recommendations pertaining to
the proposed, draft City ballot measure and (B) Recommendations regarding future planning and
land use implementation in the Area. The Committee did not make recommendations pertaining
to the citizen group’s initiative because it had already qualified for the ballot and changes could
not be made or effectuated. The recommendations are included in the Report as Attachment 2
(the vote of the Committee on the recommendation is included in parenthesis ( ) following each
recommendation).
V. MINORITY REPORT
The Vice Chair of the Citizens’ Committee has prepared a Minority Report that is included in
this Report as Attachment 3. The primary concern expressed in the Minority Report is that the
Comparative Analysis approved by the Committee contains substantial errors and assumptions
which destroy its objectivity, neutrality and usefulness as educational material for the voters.
The Minority Report also includes additional information it deems important to be in the
Committee’s Report including examples of Coastal Agricultural Zones from four other
California jurisdictions.
ATTACHMENT 1
5
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
Rev 7/12/06
Issues Analysis
Topic
Does the
Initiative/Ballot
Measure:
Current
Status/General
Plan/Zoning
Ordinance
(Concerned Citizens of
Carlsbad)
Save the Strawberry
and Flower Growing
Fields Act of 2006
(Carlsbad City Council)
The Flower Fields,
Strawberry Fields,
Open Space and Public
Trails Protection Act of
2006
1.
Save “The Flower
Fields®”?
Deed Restriction with
owner requires
continued flower
growing
No, already protected No, already protected
2.
Represent a
Citizens’
Initiative?
N/A Yes No
3.
Restrict the land
use to agricultural
use only?
Allows agriculture on
all sites as one of
permissible open space
(OS) uses.
Yes No
4. Permit
agricultural use?
Allows agriculture on
all sites as one of
permissible open space
(OS) uses.
Yes Yes
5.
Require special
City programs to
maintain
agriculture?
No Yes No
6. Permit Residential
Development?
Not allowed No No
7.
Permit
Commercial
Development?
Allows
Travel/Recreation
Commercial (TR) use
on 48 acres adjacent to
I-5
No No
8.
Eliminate
Travel/Recreation
Commercial (TR)
use?
Allows TR use on 48
acres adjacent to I-5 Yes Yes
9. Permit Industrial
Development? No No No
10.
Restrict existing
Public Utility (PU)
easement?
PU easement overlays
SDG&E property Yes No
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
Rev 7/12/06
Issues Analysis
Topic
Does the
Initiative/Ballot
Measure:
Current
Status/General
Plan/Zoning
Ordinance
(Concerned Citizens of
Carlsbad)
Save the Strawberry
and Flower Growing
Fields Act of 2006
(Carlsbad City Council)
The Flower Fields,
Strawberry Fields,
Open Space and Public
Trails Protection Act of
2006
11. Allow OS/Outdoor
Recreation?
Allows both active and
passive recreation. No Yes, but only Passive
12. Permit OS/Public
Access?
Permitted in most Open
Space No Yes
13. Permit OS/Parks? Yes No Yes, if passive
14. Allow OS/Trails? Yes No Yes
15.
Authorize
Appropriation of
funds for Trails
Yes, Prop C authorized
appropriation for trails No
Yes, Appropriates an
amount that may exceed
one million dollars
16. Allow OS/Public
Facilities? Yes No No
17.
Create risk of
lawsuit potential
for taking of
private property
rights?
No Yes Yes
18.
Incorporate the
Guiding Principles
of Connecting
Community Place
& Spirit?
No No Partially
19.
Require
Environmental
Review?
Citizens initiative
exempt from CEQA
review, ballot measure
CEQA review required
No
Yes
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
Rev 7/12/06
Technical Analysis
Save the Strawberry and Flower
Growing Fields Act
of 2006
The Flower Fields, Strawberry
Fields, Open Space and Public
Trails Protection Act of 2006
Sponsor Concerned Citizens of Carlsbad Carlsbad City Council
Size of Area
Affected 430 acres 355 acres
Summary of
Stated Purposes
• To support the continuation of
agriculture in the affected area
• To create a new land use designation
of “Coastal Agriculture” and apply it
to the area
• To conserve the area from
inappropriate development and other
inconsistent land uses
• To ensure that the affected area is
preserved in open space and that
farming is allowed to continue
• To allow public use and access to occur
in the area in a manner that does not
adversely impact existing open space
resources and uses in the area
Summary of
Major
Provisions
• Amends the policies of the General
Plan to require continued agricultural
use in the affected area
• Requires the city to ensure that
agricultural use continues in the area
by “whatever means practicable”
• Changes the 48 acre parcel at I-5 and
Cannon Road from commercial use to
open space
• Amends the General Plan, the Zoning
Ordinance and the Local Coastal
Program to ensure that the affected area
is preserved for open space
• Allows for farming to continue in the
area as long as it is economically viable
• Allows for certain other open space uses
in the area including passive park and
recreation uses
• Changes the 48 acre parcel at I-5 and
Cannon Road from commercial use to
open space
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
Rev 7/12/06
Technical Analysis
Save the Strawberry and Flower
Growing Fields Act
of 2006
The Flower Fields, Strawberry
Fields, Open Space and Public
Trails Protection Act of 2006
General Plan
Changes
• Amends the Open Space and Land
Use Elements of the General Plan to
include new and amended goals,
objectives and programs to support
continued agriculture in the area
including and adjacent to the Flower
and Strawberry Fields
• Creates a new land use designation of
Coastal Agriculture and applies it to
the area
• Eliminates references characterizing
agriculture as an interim land use
• Amends the Open Space map to show
the 48 acre commercial parcel at I-5
and Cannon Road as open space
• Amends the Land Use Element of the
General Plan to designate the affected
area for Special Planning Consideration
and identifies the area as “The Cannon
Road Open Space, Farming and Public
Use Corridor”
• Creates new goals, objectives and
programs including permitted uses to
ensure that the area is protected and
preserved as an open space corridor
• Amends the General Plan Land Use and
Open Space maps to change the existing
land use designation of the 48 acre parcel
at I-5 and Cannon Road from T-R
(Travel/Recreation Commercial) to OS
(Open Space)
Zoning
Changes
None included, however, follow-up
amendments to the Zoning Ordinance
will be necessary for the city to fully
implement the initiative
• Changes the zoning to Open Space on
all portions of the area not presently
zoned Open Space
• Changes the zoning on the 48 acre
property at I-5 and Cannon Road from
Public Utility (PU) to Open Space (OS)
• Amends the Carlsbad Ranch Specific
Plan to be consistent with the measure
Local Coastal
Program
Changes
None included, however, follow-up
amendments to the Local Coastal
Program will be required for the city to
fully implement the initiative
• Amends the Local Coastal Program
(Mello II and Agua Hedionda Lagoon
Segments) to be consistent with the
measure
• Recognizes that the measure cannot be
implemented without approval from the
Coastal Commission
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
Rev 7/12/06
Technical Analysis
Save the Strawberry and Flower
Growing Fields Act of 2006
The Flower Fields, Strawberry
Fields, Open Space and Public
Trails Protection Act of 2006
Compliance
with Other City
Land Use
Documents
• Acknowledges existence of other
applicable land use documents
• Designating the area as Coastal
Agriculture may conflict with the
Habitat Management Plan
• Acknowledges existence of other
applicable land use documents
• Specifically requires compliance with
the Habitat Management Plan
Permitted Land
Uses
Agricultural Uses
• Open Space uses including:
1) Agriculture
2) Passive park and recreation facilities
3) Public trails
• Residential uses specifically prohibited
• A civic center if approved by a public
vote for such use
Designated
Expenditure of
City Funds
None specifically required
Authorizes City Council to spend in excess
of $1 million to construct public trails in the
affected area
Amendment
Procedures
• Allows amendment upon showing of
substantial evidence that there is a
taking of private property rights
• Amendment must narrowly construe
compliance requirements
• City Council determination subject to
referendum
• Allows amendment upon showing of
substantial evidence that there is a taking
of private property rights
• Determination must be based on :
1) Court order;
2) Other judicially-approved process;
3) Dispute-resolution process.
ATTACHMENT 2
11
1
Citizens’ Committee Recommendations
(The vote of the Committee is shown in parenthesis following the recommendation)
A. Proposed City Ballot Measure
1. A City sponsored ballot measure should go forward but it should be different than the one
presently proposed (15-3-3).
2. A City sponsored ballot measure should go forward with the changes contained in the
Citizens’ Committee recommendations (20-0-1).
3. The City ballot measure should affirm the existing TR designation on the 48 acre parcel
currently designated for TR. This parcel should be removed from inclusion in the City’s
ballot measure (19-0-2).
4. The City ballot measure should allow public or private recreation, not just passive
recreation (17-3-1) and should permit passive and active recreation without altering the
existing Flower Fields® (12-0).
5. For Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan: Retain agricultural use and allow flexibility and
support agricultural uses and allow active recreation uses on all Carlsbad Ranch sites
(except on The Flower Fields®) (17-0-4).
6. City ballot measure should clarify SDG&E property rights, i.e. entire property is
currently zoned Public Utility not just where the power line easements are located. Any
City ballot measure should not strip away Public Utility uses on the property as a whole
(13-1-7).
7. Remove specific reference to a “Civic Center” in the City ballot measure (16-5-0).
8. The City ballot measure should reiterate that the City has a Growth Management Plan
that applies to the surrounding areas and works well (15-4-1).
B. Other Committee Recommendations
1. The City should work to achieve General Plan/Local Coastal Program/Zoning
consistency for all the properties under consideration (18-0-3).
2. The City should conduct community outreach effort to “scope out” general plan, local
coastal program, and zoning designations that would guide the City effort in
Recommendation 1 above (19-0-2).
3. The City should allow for a public “deliberation” process irrespective of results of the
election (different than a public “meeting” where time for comments is limited) (20-0-1).
4. The City Council should initiate a comprehensive planning effort for the properties (21-0-
0).
ATTACHMENT 3
13
Page 1
MINORITY REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE TO STUDY THE FLOWER FIELDS AND THE
STRAWBERRY FIELDS AREA
This Minority Report takes exception with the Citizen’s Committee’s performance of its assigned
task to:
“Prepare an independent and objective comparison of the three measures including, but not
limited to, a summary and major provisions of the measures, allowable and restricted land uses,
and follow-up implementation requirements.”
Findings:
9 The Committee’s size made it difficult, if not impossible, to engage in thorough discussion
and to prepare an accurate, complete, independent, and objective comparison of the
measures in the time allowed.
9 Full discussion of the “Comparative Analysis”’ content was cut short because the imposed
time constraints and an inability to add additional meetings as needed.
9 The “Comparative Analysis” contains substantive errors and specific assumptions which
destroy its neutrality and objectivity and which taint its usefulness as educational material for
voters.
9 Rather than reflecting the “independent and objective” standards to which the Committee was
to be held, the sub-committee interpreted the measures by its own standards. The sub-
committee chair stated that it could not justify each box on the matrix with specific language
from the proposals and that therefore the sub-committee had to synthesize and interpret the
intent of each initiative. Staff stated that there was not time to document the basis of the
information contained in the boxes.
9 At least 33 specific instances in which the information in the data boxes is either in error,
incomplete, or inaccurately reflects the actual differences between the measures are
documented in Exhibit A attached hereto.
9 At its last meeting, the Committee voted 21-0 to recommend against the City going ahead
with its measure, “The Flower Fields, Open Space and Public Trails Protection Act of 2006”,
as presented to the Committee for its review. The Committee recommended that the City go
forward with a different measure. That different measure was not compared in the matrix.
9 Because of its lack of neutrality, and objectivity, because of its many inaccuracies, and
because it does not analyze the proposed City measure with Committee recommended
changes incorporated, it is the opinion of this Minority Report that the “Comparative
Analysis” and any conclusions derived there from should not be used for voter
education purposes
Additional Recommendations:
9 The Committee’s Report, excludes several important, specific items of information presented
to the Committee by staff and consultants.
9 It is a recommendation of this Minority Report that the City analyze the attached (Exhibit B)
Coastal Agricultural Zoning codes for the cities and/or counties of Oxnard, Ventura, Marin,
and Santa Barbara provided by Special Counsel for models from which Carlsbad’s
implementing ordinances could be derived.
9 It is recommended by this Minority Report that the City utilize its significant investment in the
Citizen’s Committee and consult further with its members as to how best to achieve the most
beneficial results for Carlsbad.
Rev 7/12/06
Page 2
EXHIBIT A
ALTERNATIVE COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
FOURTEEN SPECIFIC EXAMPLES OF BREACHES OF THE “NEUTRAL, OBJECTIVE AND
UNBIASED” STANDARD FOR THE COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS CONTAINED IN THE
COMMITTEE’S FINAL REPORT. THIS IS A SAMPLING, NOT A COMPREHENSIVE LIST:
Row #:
3. The language of the Citizen’s Initiative clearly and specifically allows “uses consistent with
agriculture.” This is an emphatic statement that uses other than agriculture are allowed if they are
consistent with agriculture. The Comparative Analysis subjectively chose to restrict allowable use
to agriculture only.
4. The City’s measure clearly and specifically limits agricultural uses only to “farming” which the
Special Council informed the Committee was a more restrictive use than “agriculture”, yet the
Comparative Analysis falsely suggests that all agricultural uses are allowed under the City’s
measure.
10. The Comparative Analysis incorrectly states that the Citizen’s Initiative restricts public utility
easement. It does not. In fact, it specifically allows use for “existing utility transmission corridors”.
Furthermore, years of farming in and about the public utility easement have proven that this is a
use “consistent with agriculture”.
11, 12, 14. The Comparative Analysis incorrectly states that the Citizen’s Initiative does not permit Open
Space Uses such as outdoor recreation, public access, and trails. The Initiative specifically allows
“open space” uses if “consistent with agriculture”. The Flower Fields® clearly demonstrate that
recreation, public access and trails can all be “consistent with agriculture”.
15. The Comparative Analysis inconsistently (and biasedly) indicates that there was an appropriation
of funds for trails under Prop C under the existing zoning which will be removed by the Citizen’s
Initiative.
17. The Comparative Analysis is both an inaccurate and speculative assertion that the Citizen’s
Initiative and the City’s measure are equivalent in this area when the Special Counsel specifically
stated otherwise. The Citizen’s initiative provides the City with specific prophylactic actions it must
take to prevent a takings action. The City’s measure does not, and therefore exposes the City to a
very real risk of lawsuit.
Stated Purposes: The Comparative Analysis incorrectly says that a stated purpose of the Citizen’s
Initiative is “To support the continuation of agriculture in the affected area”, whereas, in fact the
stated purpose is “To conserve Open Spaces and historic agriculture uses”. The Comparative
Analysis of the City’s measure states that it will “ensure that the affected area is preserved in open
space and that farming is allowed to continue”, whereas in fact it is only allowed to continue as
long as it is viable. It is not “neutral, objective, and unbiased” to use inaccurate language which
mischaracterizes the measures.
Major Provisions: The Comparative Analysis subjectively interprets the intent of the language “consistent
with and supportive of coastal agriculture” to mean “requires continued agricultural use in the
affected area”. It also insists upon quoting the term “whatever means practicable” the common
meaning of which has already been politicized by proponents of the City’s measure, when, in fact,
according to Special Counsel the term has been litigated to mean “whatever means reasonable”.
Compliance with Other City Land Use Documents: The Comparative Analysis incorrectly speculates that
in the Citizen’s Initiative, Coastal Agriculture “may conflict with the Habitat Management Plan”,
when, in fact the Initiative includes specific language requiring it to comply with any “matters...
required by State law”. The Habitat Management Plan so qualifies.
Permitted Uses: The Comparative Analysis incorrectly asserts that only “agricultural uses” are allowed in
the area, whereas the Initiative specifically allows other uses “consistent with local agriculture”,
including open space. The also Analysis conveniently overlooks the fact that golf is not allowed
under the City’s measure.
Page 3
ALTERNATIVE COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
Issues Analysis
Topic
Does the
Initiative/Ballot
Measure:
Current Status/General
Plan/Zoning Ordinance
(Concerned Citizens of
Carlsbad)
Save the Strawberry and
Flower Growing Fields Act
of 2006
(Carlsbad City Council) The
Flower Fields, Strawberry
Fields, Open Space and
Public Trails Protection Act
of 2006
1.
Save “The Flower
Fields®”?
Deed Restriction with
owner requires continued
flower growing
No, already protected No, already protected
2. Represent a Citizens’
Initiative? N/A Yes No NEWSupersedes other
ballot measures if it
receives more votes?
N/A Yes Yes
3.
Restrict the land use
to agricultural use
only? uses consistent
with agriculture?
Allows agriculture on all
sites as one of permissible
open space (OS) uses.
Yes No
4. Permit agricultural
use?
Allows agriculture on all
sites as one of permissible
open space (OS) uses.
Yes Yes, only farming
NEWChange agriculture in
this area from OS
Priority 5 to OS
Priority 1?
No Yes No
5.
Require special City
programs to maintain
agriculture?
No Yes, if necessary No
6. Permit Residential
Development?
Not allowed No*No
7. Permit Commercial
Development?
Allows Travel/Recreation
Commercial (TR) use on 48
acres adjacent to I-5
No*No
8.
Eliminate
Travel/Recreation
Commercial (TR) use?
Allows TR use on 48 acres
adjacent to I-5 Yes*Yes
9. Permit Industrial
Development? No No*No
Topic
Does the
Initiative/Ballot
Measure:
Current Status/General
Plan/Zoning Ordinance
(Concerned Citizens of
Carlsbad)
Save the Strawberry and
Flower Growing Fields Act
of 2006
(Carlsbad City Council) The
Flower Fields, Strawberry
Fields, Open Space and
Public Trails Protection Act
of 2006
10.
Restrict existing
Public Utility (PU)
easement?
PU easement overlays
SDG&E property Yes No.No
11. Allow OS/Outdoor
Recreation?
Allows both active and
passive recreation.
No Yes, if consistent with
and supportive of coastal
agriculture
Yes, but only Passive
12. Permit OS/Public
Access?
Permitted in most Open
Space
No Yes, if consistent with
and supportive of coastal
agriculture
Yes
13. Permit OS/Parks? Yes
No Yes, if consistent with
and supportive of coastal
agriculture Yes, if passive. No Golf.
14. Allow OS/Trails? Yes
No Yes, if consistent with
and supportive of coastal
agriculture
Yes
15.
Authorize
Appropriation of
funds for Trails
Yes, Prop C authorized
appropriation for trails
No Yes, Prop C authorized
appropriation for trails
Yes, Appropriates an amount
that may exceed one million
dollars
16. Allow OS/Public
Facilities? Yes No No
17.
Create risk of lawsuit
potential for taking of
private property
rights?
No Yes No
Yes, but subject to
amendment
18.
Incorporate the
Guiding Principles of
Connecting
Community Place &
Spirit?
No No Partially Partially
19.
Require
Environmental
Review?
Citizens initiative exempt
from CEQA review, ballot
measure CEQA review
required
No Not required for
initiative. Required for any
projects in area.
Yes
* Allows uses “consistent with and supportive of coastal agriculture
Rev 7/12/06
Page 4
Page 5
Technical Analysis
Save the Strawberry and Flower
Growing Fields Act
of 2006
The Flower Fields, Strawberry
Fields, Open Space and Public
Trails Protection Act of 2006
Sponsor Concerned Citizens of Carlsbad Carlsbad City Council
Size of Area
Affected 430 acres 355 acres
Summary of
Stated Purposes
• To support the continuation of agriculture in
the affected area
• To conserve Open Spaces and historic
agriculture uses
• To create a new land use designation of
“Coastal Agriculture” and apply it to the area
• To conserve the area from inappropriate
development and other inconsistent land uses
• To ensure that the affected area is preserved in
open space and that farming is allowed to
continue as long as it is viable
• To allow public use and access to occur in the
area in a manner that does not adversely impact
existing open space resources and uses in the
area
Summary of
Major
Provisions
• Amends the policies of the General Plan to
require support continued agricultural use in
the affected area
• Requires the city to ensure that agricultural
use continues in the area by “whatever means
practicable”
• Directs City to ensure that uses in the area
are consistent with and supportive of
coastal agriculture
• Changes the 48 acre parcel at I-5 and Cannon
Road from commercial use to open space
• Amends the General Plan, the Zoning Ordinance
and the Local Coastal Program to ensure that the
affected area is preserved for open space
• Allows for farming to continue in the area as
long as it is economically viable
• Allows for certain other open space uses in the
area including passive park and recreation uses
• Changes the 48 acre parcel at I-5 and Cannon
Road from commercial use to open space
General Plan
Changes
• Amends the Open Space and Land Use
Elements of the General Plan to include new
and amended goals, objectives and programs
to support continued agriculture in the area
including and adjacent to the Flower and
Strawberry Fields
• Creates a new land use designation of
Coastal Agriculture and applies it to the area
• Eliminates references characterizing
agriculture as an interim land use
• Amends the Open Space map to show the 48
acre commercial parcel at I-5 and Cannon
Road as open space
• Amends the Land Use Element of the General
Plan to designate the affected area for Special
Planning Consideration and identifies the area as
“The Cannon Road Open Space, Farming and
Public Use Corridor”
• Creates new goals, objectives and programs
including permitted uses to ensure that the area is
protected and preserved as an open space corridor
• Amends the General Plan Land Use and Open
Space maps to change the existing land use
designation of the 48 acre parcel at I-5 and
Cannon Road from T-R (Travel/Recreation
Commercial) to OS (Open Space)
Save the Strawberry and Flower
Growing Fields Act
of 2006
The Flower Fields, Strawberry
Fields, Open Space and Public
Trails Protection Act of 2006
Zoning
Changes
None included, however, follow-up amendments
to the Zoning Ordinance will be necessary for
the city to fully implement the initiative
• Changes the zoning to Open Space on all
portions of the area not presently zoned Open
Space
• Changes the zoning on the 48 acre property at I-
5 and Cannon Road from Public Utility (PU) to
Open Space (OS)
• Amends the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan to be
consistent with the measure
Local Coastal
Program
Changes
None included, however, follow-up amendments
to the Local Coastal Program will be required
for the city to fully implement the initiative
• Amends the Local Coastal Program (Mello II
and Agua Hedionda Lagoon Segments) to be
consistent with the measure
• Recognizes that the measure cannot be
implemented without approval from the Coastal
Commission
Compliance
with Other City
Land Use
Documents
• Acknowledges existence of other applicable
land use documents
• Designating the area as Coastal Agriculture
may conflict with the Habitat Management
Plan
• City Council may amend initiative if
necessary to comply with State programs,
including the Habitat Management
Program
• Acknowledges existence of other applicable
land use documents
• Specifically requires compliance with the
Habitat Management Plan
Permitted Land
Uses
Agricultural Uses consistent with and
supportive of Coastal Agriculture
• Open Space uses including:
1) Agriculture
2) Passive park and recreation facilities other
than golf
3) Public trails
• Residential uses specifically prohibited
• A civic center if approved by a public vote for
such use
Designated
Expenditure of
City Funds
None specifically required Authorizes City Council to spend in excess of $1
million to construct public trails in the affected area
Amendment
Procedures
• Allows amendment upon showing of
substantial evidence that there is a taking of
private property rights
• Amendment must narrowly construe
compliance requirements
• City Council determination subject to
referendum
• Allows amendment upon showing of substantial
evidence that there is a taking of private property
rights
• Determination must be based on :
1) Court order;
2) Other judicially-approved process;
3) Dispute-resolution process.
y City Council determination subject to
referendum
Rev 7/12/06
Page 6
REVISED COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
Issues Analysis
Annotation Notes for Proposed Changes:
3. CCofC ¶ 2.4: ”... to maintain, keep, and conserve these lands as Open Space
for land uses consistent with coastal agriculture.”
4. CCC ¶ Exhibit2 “Permit only the following uses... 1. Farming, including
strawberry and flower production.”
5. CCofC ¶ 3.12 B.2 “... through the willing compliance of affected parties or the
establishment of special City programs designed to ensure that coastal
agricultural production is maintained.
* CCofC ¶ 2.4 & 3.9 “...the will of the People of the City of Carlsbad is to maintain,
keep, and conserve these lands as Open Space for land uses consistent with
coastal agriculture.” “...definition of Coastal Agriculture...Lands located within the
coastal zone of the City that support production of agricultural products.”
10. CCofC ¶ 3.10 “Land within this ownership may be used only for existing utility
transmission corridors, coastal agricultural production and open space.”
11. CCofC ¶ 2.4 ”...to maintain, keep, and conserve these lands as Open Space for
land uses consistent with coastal agriculture.”
12. CCofC ¶ 2.4 ”...to maintain, keep, and conserve these lands as Open Space for
land uses consistent with coastal agriculture.”
13. CCofC ¶ 2.4 ”...to maintain, keep, and conserve these lands as Open Space for
land uses consistent with coastal agriculture.”
14. CCofC ¶ 2.4 ”...to maintain, keep, and conserve these lands as Open Space for
land uses consistent with coastal agriculture.”
17. CCofC ¶ 5.1 “This initiative shall be subject to amendment by the City Council...
upon showing... that implementation... will... (b.) ...deprive any person,
organization or entity of their Constitutional rights, including property rights, and
no takings shall be allowed through the construction or implementation of this
initiative.”
CCC ¶ 7.3 “This measure shall be subject to amendment by the City Council...
if any portion or provision... is determined to be any taking f private property
rights or an inverse condemnation of property by a final judgment of a court of
competent jurisdiction...”
18. CCPS: “Carlsbad’s spirit reflects: The importance of historical/cultural roots...
The diversity of neighborhood character...”
CCofC: ¶ 2.1 “The purpose of this initiative is to conserve current coastal Open
Spaces and historic coastal agricultural uses within the City of Carlsbad...”
CCPS: “Carlsbad is a community that cares about... Neighborhoods with a
strong sense of identity...”
Technical Analysis
Annotation Notes for Proposed Changes:
“Compliance”:
CCPS: ¶ 5.1 “This initiative shall be subject to amendment by the City Council...
to affect City compliance with any State mandated programs... or matters
otherwise required by State law...”
Federal Register: June 28, 2000: “The city of Carlsbad includes a Habitat
Management Plan that qualifies... as... a Natural Community Conservation Plan
pursuant to State Law.”
Page 7
EXHIBIT B:
COASTAL AGRICULTURAL ZONING ORDINANCES FOR THE CITIES
OF OXNARD, AND VENTURA; AND THE COUNTIES OF SANTA
BARBARA AND MARIN.
Rev 7/12/06
Page 8
CITY OF OXNARD
Community Reserve Zone1
DIVISION 16. C-R COMMUNITY RESERVE ZONE
SEC. 16-255. PURPOSE.
The purpose of this C-R Community Reserve Zone is to provide a district of
predominantly open land uses which in the public interest should retain this
character.
(`64 Code, Sec. 34-103) (Ord. No. 894, 1401)
SEC. 16-256. PERMITTED USES.
The following uses are permitted in this zone:
(A) Agriculture, plant husbandry, forestry, the growing of plant cover and
the sale of produce and plants raised on the premises;
(B) Grazing of livestock, provided that the principal food supply of the
livestock shall be growing forage cropped on the premises and the livestock are
not fed garbage or refuse;
(C) Corrals or similar places to gather animals located at least 100 feet
from the nearest lot line and at least 50 feet from a public right-of-way;
(D) Keeping domesticated farm animals incidental to the operation of a
permitted use, including the raising of rabbits, poultry, pigeons or other fowl
provided that pens, hutches, coops or other structures for the keeping of such
animals are located on the lot in accordance with regulations contained in this
section governing location of such structures for livestock.
(E) Recreation facilities of a primarily open nature such as parks,
playgrounds, aquatic parks, and golf courses;
(F) Accessory buildings, including other uses customarily incidental to a
permitted use;
(G) Off-street parking, as provided herein;
(H) Adult day care facility serving no more than six adults, per ownership
parcel, subject to the minimum standards for single-family residences stated
above;
1 http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/California/oxnard/oxnardcaliforniacodifiedordinances?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0 1
CITY OF OXNARD
Community Reserve Zone1
(I) Child care center serving no more than six children, per ownership
parcel, subject to the minimum standards for single-family residences stated
above;
(J) Congregate living health facilities of no more than six beds;
(K) Large family day care home that the Planning Manager finds to comply
with the standards set out in section 16-440, per ownership parcel, subject to the
minimum standards for single-family residences stated above;
(L) Residential care facility for the elderly serving no more than six persons,
subject to the minimum standards for single-family residences stated above; and
(M) Small residential health or care facility that conforms to city ordinances
restricting building heights, setbacks, lot dimensions, placement of signs and
other matters applicable to single-family dwelling of the same type in the same
zone, and that provide services to no more than six persons, or to no more than
eight children in the case of a small family day care home.
(`64 Code, Sec. 34-103.1) (Ord. No. 894, 1126, 1270, 1401, 1713, 2671)
SEC. 16-257. RELATED USES
The following uses shall be permitted only on approval of a special use permit
as provided in sections 16-530 to 16-553:
(A) Agricultural processing of a temporary or seasonal nature;
(B) Cemeteries;
(C) Congregate living health facilities of seven to 15 beds; except that such
facilities shall not be allowed in the airport hazard overlay zone;
(D) Churches;
(E) Oil drilling sites;
(F) Private or parochial schools, including asylums and other schools of a
correctional nature;
(G) Public schools-elementary, junior high, high school and colleges;
(H) Public utility structures;
(I) Quarries;
1 http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/California/oxnard/oxnardcaliforniacodifiedordinances?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0 2
CITY OF OXNARD
Community Reserve Zone1
(J) Riding academies;
(K) Rod and gun clubs;
(L) Summer camps;
(M) Swap meet, provided that the use is incidental to a primary use, such
as a school, church or similar institutional use.
(N) Similar uses of an open or temporary use;
(O) Signs, as permitted in article IX of this chapter;
(P) One single-family residence per lot;
(Q) Housing for farm workers;
(R) Mobile homes used as temporary housing for a caretaker or ranch
foreman on parcels of not less than 40 acres, where an employee is on the
property for a substantial portion of each day for vital functions, or protection from
vandalism;
(S) Sale of agricultural products grown off the premises; and
(T) Similar uses of an open or temporary use.
(`64 Code, Sec. 34-103.2) (Ord. No. 1713, 1788, 2561, 2671)
SEC. 16-258. PROHIBITED USES
Feed lots are prohibited in the C-R zone.
SEC. 16-259. INDUSTRIAL SERVICE CENTERS.
Industrial service centers may be established pursuant to the provisions of
section 16-192.
(`64 Code, Sec. 34-103.3) (Ord. No. 1922, 1941)
SEC. 16-260. HEIGHT PERMITTED.
Two stories in height shall be permitted, not to exceed 25 feet, except as
otherwise provided in this chapter.
(`64 Code, Sec. 34-104) (Ord. No. 894)
1 http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/California/oxnard/oxnardcaliforniacodifiedordinances?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0 3
CITY OF OXNARD
Community Reserve Zone1
SEC. 16-261. FRONT YARD.
There shall be a front yard of not less than 25% of the depth of the parcel;
provided that such front yard need not exceed 50 feet.
(`64 Code, Sec. 34-104.1) (Ord. No. 894)
SEC. 16-262. SIDE YARD.
(A) There shall be a side yard of not less than 10% of the width of the
parcel; provided that such side yard need not exceed 50 feet.
(B) The street side yard shall not be less than five feet on a minor street or
less than ten feet on a major thoroughfare.
(`64 Code, Sec. 34-104.2) (Ord. No. 894)
SEC. 16-263. REAR YARD.
There shall be a rear yard of not less than 25% of the depth of the lot;
provided that such rear yard need not exceed 50 feet.
(`64 Code, Sec. 34-104.3) (Ord. No. 894)
SEC. 16-264. LOT COVERAGE.
The total area of the parcel which may be covered by buildings or structures
shall not exceed 25% of the total lot area.
(`64 Code, Sec. 34-104.4) (Ord. No. 894)
1 http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/California/oxnard/oxnardcaliforniacodifiedordinances?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0 4
CITY OF VENTURA
AGRICULTURAL ZONING ORDINANCE1
Chapter 24.270 A Agricultural Zone*
*Cross references: Animals, ch. 8.050.
Sec. 24.270.010. Chapter description.
Chapter 24.270 establishes the Agricultural ("A") Zone and prescribes use types
and other regulations for this zone. Any applicable overlay zones described in
chapters 24.300 through 24.399 may impose regulations in addition to those
prescribed by this chapter for the A zone. The provisions of this chapter are
intended to:
1. Permit and encourage agricultural use and related open land uses which are
an important economic asset to the city;
2. Preserve lands best suited for agricultural activities from the encroachment of
incompatible uses;
3. Prevent the intrusion of urban development into agricultural areas in such a
manner as to make agricultural production uneconomical or impractical;
4. Preserve in agricultural use or in essentially open land uses land suited for
eventual development in other uses until such time as streets, utilities and other
community facilities may be provided or programmed, to ensure the orderly and
beneficial conversion of these lands to an urban use;
5. Provide appropriate areas for certain open uses of land which are not
injurious to agricultural uses, but which may not be harmonious with urban uses;
and
6. Establish a district for agricultural and open land uses which promotes the
public interest by encouraging, preserving, and protecting such uses.
(Code 1971, § 15.270.010)
Sec. 24.270.020. Uses--Permitted.
The following use types are permitted subject to the provisions of this chapter:
1. Residential.
Family Residential: Single Family
2. General.
Recreation Services: Public Parks and Playgrounds
Wireless Telecommunications Facilities: Mini
Wireless Telecommunications Facilities: Minor
3. Agricultural.
Animal Husbandry
Apiculture
Crop Production
Horticulture: Cultivation
Horticulture: Storage
Produce Sales
(Code 1971, § 15.270.020; Ord. No. 2000-04, § 52, 1-24-00)
1 http://www.municode.com/resources/gateway.asp?pid=10135&sid=5
1
CITY OF VENTURA
AGRICULTURAL ZONING ORDINANCE1
Sec. 24.270.030. Same--Subject to a use permit.
The following use types may be permitted subject to the provisions of this
chapter and further provided that a use permit is approved pursuant to chapter
24.520:
1. Residential.
Family Residential: Caretaker
Farm Employee Housing
2. General.
Safety Services
Utility or Equipment Substations
Wireless Telecommunications Facilities: Major
3. Agricultural.
Indoor Production
(Code 1971, § 15.270.030; Ord. No. 2000-04, § 53, 1-24-00)
Sec. 24.270.040. Same--Incidental.
Incidental uses as defined in chapter 24.110 may be permitted.
(Code 1971, § 15.270.030)
Sec. 24.270.050. Same--Special provisions.
Uses listed in section 24.270.020 through section 24.270.040 must also comply
with the following special provisions:
1. Design review. Design review approval must be obtained to the extent
required by chapter 24.545.
2. Temporary uses. Temporary uses may be conducted only to the extent
allowed by chapter 24.120;
3. Home occupations. Home occupations may be conducted only to the extent
allowed by chapter 24.125;
4. Factory-built homes. Factory-built homes may be used for residential
purposes in the same manner as conventional site-built housing subject to the
provisions of this chapter;
5. Family Residential: Caretaker. All caretakers' residences must comply with
the provisions of chapter 24.435;
6. Farm Employee Housing. All Farm Employee Housing uses must comply
with the provisions of chapter 24.435;
7. Domestic animals. Domestic animals, as defined in chapter 24.110, are
permitted, provided that, no more than six adult animals over the age of four
months are permitted per dwelling unit, and further provided that, no more than
three adult dogs shall be permitted per dwelling unit.
8. Wild animals. Wild animals may be permitted in the A zone only if all the
following provisions of this subsection 8. are complied with:
(a) The only wild animals that may be permitted are:
(1) Chipmunks or squirrels
(2) Turtles
(3) Raccoons
1 http://www.municode.com/resources/gateway.asp?pid=10135&sid=5
2
CITY OF VENTURA
AGRICULTURAL ZONING ORDINANCE1
(4) Marmoset, spider or squirrel monkeys
(5) Non-poisonous snakes
(6) Hawks, falcons or other raptors;
(b) No such wild animal may be kept or maintained unless any and all permits
required by the California Department of Fish and Game have been approved
therefor; and
(c) Such wild animals may only be kept and maintained for non-commercial
purposes.
9. Apiculture. Apiculture uses may be permitted, provided that the following
standards are met:
(a) No occupied hive shall be located or maintained within 150 feet of any lot
line, except where such lot lines common with other property occupied by an
apiculture and honey extraction use.
(b) No occupied hive shall be located or maintained within 400 feet of any
dwelling unit on any adjacent properties or within 100 feet of any dwelling unit on
the same property as that occupied by such use.
10. Animal Husbandry. Animal Husbandry uses must comply with all the
following provisions:
(a) The number of animals being raised for commercial purposes shall not
exceed two adult animals and their immature offspring per acre; and
(b) No animals shall be kept or maintained on the site for purposes other than
raising such animals for commercial use by a person residing at the site or for
subsequent sale. Boarding, training, or otherwise keeping any domestic animal
not owned by a person residing at the site is prohibited;
(c) All corrals, barns, pens, or other similar structures or areas of livestock
gathering shall be located at least 100 feet from any lot line, at least 400 feet
from any dwelling unit on any adjacent properties, and at least 100 feet from any
dwelling unit on the same property, and at least 100 feet from any public park,
school, hospital, or similar institution.
11. Livestock grazing. Grazing of livestock animals is permitted provided that,
all the following standards are met:
(a) The principal food supply of such grazing animals shall be growing forage
cropped by livestock on the premises;
(b) Feeding of garbage or refuse to the grazing animals is prohibited; and
(c) Establishment of feed lots of any kind is prohibited.
12. Wireless Telecommunications Facilities: Minor. Uses classified in the
Wireless Telecommunications Facilities: Minor use type shall require a director's
permit pursuant to chapter 24.505.
(Code 1971, § 15.270.050; Ord. No. 2000-04, § 54, 1-24-00)
Sec. 24.270.060. Standards--Density.
The following density standards shall apply in the A zone:
1. Lot area. Each lot in this zone shall have a minimum area of 40 acres.
2. Lot width. Each lot in this zone shall have a minimum average width of 200
feet.
1 http://www.municode.com/resources/gateway.asp?pid=10135&sid=5
3
CITY OF VENTURA
AGRICULTURAL ZONING ORDINANCE1
3. Lot coverage. All buildings and structures on the lot shall not occupy more
than 50 percent of the lot area.
(Code 1971, § 15.270.060)
Sec. 24.270.070. Same--Height.
A. Height determination. The height of buildings and other structures in the A
zone shall be determined in accordance with section 24.405.040.
B. Maximum height. Regardless of the number of stories comprising a building
or structure, no portion of a building or other structure in the A zone shall exceed
35 feet in height except as provided in section 24.405.030.
(Code 1971, § 15.270.070)
Sec. 24.270.080. Same--Yards.
Fences, walls, and other uses of yards in the A Zone shall comply with the yard
requirements contained in chapter 24.410.
(Code 1971, § 15.270.080)
Sec. 24.270.090. Same--Setbacks.
No building or other structure, not including fences or walls, nor vehicle parking
area, nor farm equipment storage area, on a lot in the A zone shall be located
within 50 feet of any lot line.
(Code 1971, § 15.270.090)
Sec. 24.270.100. Same--Other.
The following development regulations and standards shall also apply within the
A zone:
1. Parking. Off-street parking must be provided for all uses as required by
chapter 24.415.
2. Signs. All signs must comply with the provisions of chapter 24.420.
3. Coastal development. All development within the CP Overlay Zone shall
comply with the provisions of chapter 24.310 and chapter 24.515.
4. Flood Plain Overlay Zones. All development within a designated Flood Plain
(FP) Overlay Zone shall comply with the provisions of chapter 24.320 and
chapter 24.530.
5. Vehicle repair. Repair of vehicles may be carried out on sites occupied by
residential land uses only if all the following conditions are met:
(a) The vehicle under repair must be owned by the current resident of the
property upon which the repairs are being made.
(b) Registration or proof of current ownership of the vehicle being repaired shall
be available for inspection on the premises at all times while the vehicle is under
repair.
(c) Vehicle repairs may be conducted only between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and
10:00 p.m.
(d) Repair of a particular vehicle shall be conducted and completed in no more
than 30 days.
1 http://www.municode.com/resources/gateway.asp?pid=10135&sid=5
4
CITY OF VENTURA
AGRICULTURAL ZONING ORDINANCE1
(e) Storage of any vehicle under repair, or storage of parts of a vehicle, upon a
public street or alley or upon an unpaved yard area, other than a driveway, is
prohibited.
(f) Body work on a vehicle is prohibited.
(g) Painting of a vehicle or any portion of a vehicle is prohibited.
(Code 1971, § 15.270.100)
Sec. 24.270.110. Nonconformance.
All nonconforming uses, nonconforming structures, and nonconforming lots are
subject to the provisions of chapter 24.465.
(Code 1971, § 15.270.110)
1 http://www.municode.com/resources/gateway.asp?pid=10135&sid=5
5
COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA
Coastal Zoning Ordinance1
Sec. 35–50. Title and Purpose
The regulations contained in this Article shall be known as and referred to
as the “Coastal Zoning Ordinance of Santa Barbara County.”
On March 17, 1981, the California Coastal Commission, pursuant to PRC
Section 30512(d), certified most of County’s Land Use Plan (LCP). The next
step required in the preparation of the Local Coastal Program (LCP) is the
preparation and adoption by County of this zoning ordinance, which will
implement the certified LUP by classifying and regulating the uses of land,
buildings, and structures within the Coastal Zone.
The purposes of this ordinance are to:
1. Protect, maintain, and where feasible, enhance and restore the overall
quality of the Coastal Zone environment and its natural and manmade
resources.
2. Assure orderly, balanced utilization and conversation of Coastal Zone
resources taking into account the social and economic needs of the
people of this County and of the State.
3. Maximize public access to and along the coast and maximize public
recreational opportunities in the Coastal Zone consistent with sound
resource conservation principles and constitutionally protected rights of
private property owners.
4. Assure priority for coastal-dependent and coastal-related development
over other development on the coast.
5. Provide a definite plan for development so as to guide the future growth of
the County within the Coastal Zone.
6. Protect the character and stability (social and economic) of agricultural,
residential, commercial, and industrial areas.
Sec. 35-68. AG-I Agriculture I
Sec. 35-68.1. Purpose and Intent
The purpose of the Agriculture I district is to designate and protect lands
appropriate for long-term agricultural use within or adjacent to urbanized areas,
and to preserve prime agricultural soils.
Sec. 35-68.0. Processing
No permits for development including grading shall be issued except in
conformance with Sec. 35-169 (Coastal Development Permits).
Sec. 35-68.3 Permitted Uses
1 County of Santa Barbara, Coastal Zoning Ordinance – Chapter 35, Article II, Republished July 2004
1
COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA
Coastal Zoning Ordinance1
1. All types of agriculture and farming except a dairy, hog ranch, animal feed
yard, or animal sales yard, subject to the limitations hereinafter provided in
this Sec. 35-68.
2. Raising of animals not to exceed one horse, mule, cow, llama or ostrich;
or three goats, hogs, or other livestock not specifically enumerated herein,
shall be permitted for each 20,000 square feet of gross area of the lot
upon which the same are kept.. In no case shall more than three hogs be
kept on any such lot.
3. Private kennels, and small animals and poultry raising limited to
reasonable use on a non-commercial basis.
4. Sale of agricultural products produced on the premises provided that such
sale in conducted either within an existing agricultural building or from a
separate stand not exceeding two hundred (200) square feet and located
no closer than twenty (@)) feet to the right-of-way line of any street.
5. Greenhouses, hothouses, other plant protection structures, and related
development, i.e., packing shed, parking, driveways, etc.
6. One single family dwelling unit per legal lot. Such dwelling may be a
mobile home certified under the National Mobile Home Construction and
Safety Standards Act of 1974.
7. One guest house or artist studio per legal lot subject to the provisions of
Sec. 35-120 (General Regulations).
8. Home occupations, subject to the provisions of Sec. 35-121 (General
Regulations).
9. One Attached Residential Second Unit per legal lot in the AG-I-5, AG-I-10,
and AG-I-20 zone districts, subject to the provisions of Sec. 35-142.
10. Special Care Homes, subject to the provisions of Section 35-143.
11. Accessory uses, buildings, and structures which are customarily incidental
to the above uses.
Sec. 35-68.4. Uses Permitted with a Major Conditional Use Permit
1. Commercial raising of animals, boarding of animals, and commercial
riding stables.
2. Animal hospitals, and animal husbandry services.
3. Facilities for the sorting, cleaning, packing, freezing, loading, transporting,
and storage of horticultural and agricultural products (not including
animals) grown off the premises preparatory to wholesale or retail sale
and/or shipment in their natural form provided.
4. Farm labor camps, including trailers, for housing five or more employees
engaged fulltime in agriculture working on or off the farm or ranch upon
which the dwelling(s) is located, subject to the provisions of Sec. 35-132.
5. Within the Carpinteria Agricultural Overlay District, greenhouses and
greenhouse related development of any size on slopes between five and
10 percent. No exception to this requirement, such as that stated under
subsection (3) above, shall apply.
Sec. 35-68.5. Uses Permitted with a Minor Conditional Use Permit
1 County of Santa Barbara, Coastal Zoning Ordinance – Chapter 35, Article II, Republished July 2004
2
COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA
Coastal Zoning Ordinance1
1. Additional dwellings for not to exceed four employees of the owner or
lessee of the land engaged full time in agriculture on the farm or ranch
upon which the dwelling is located.
2. One Detached Residential Second Unit per legal lot in the AG-I-5, AG-I-
10, and AG-I-20 zone districts, subject to the development standards and
requirements set forth in Division 7, General Regulations, Sec. 35-142A.
3. Commercial kennels.
Sec. 35-69. AG-II Agriculture II
Sec. 35-69.1. Purpose and Intent
The purpose of the Agriculture II district is to establish agricultural land
use for large prime and non-prime agricultural lands in the rural areas of the
County and to preserve prime and non-prime soils for long-term agricultural use.
Sec. 35-69.2. Processing
No permits for development including grading shall be issued except in
conformance with Sec. 35-169. (Coastal Development Permit).
Sec. 35-69.3. Permitted Uses
1. All types of agriculture and farming, including commercial raising of
animals, subject to the limitations hereinafter provided in this Sec. 35-69.
2. Sale of agricultural products produced on the premises provided that such
sale is conducted either within an existing agricultural building or from a
separate stand not exceeding two hundred (200) square feet and located
no closer than twenty (20) feet to the right-of-way line of any street.
3. Commercial boarding of animals.
4. Private and/or commercial kennels.
5. One single family dwelling unit per legal lot. Such dwelling may be a
mobile home certified under the National Mobile Home Construction and
Safety Standards Act of 1974.
6. One guest house or artist studio per legal lot subject to the provisions of
Sec. 35-120 (General Regulations).
7. Greenhouses, hothouses, or other plant protection structures, and related
development, i.e., packing shed, parking, driveways; however, for any
development of 20,000 square feet or more all additions which when
added to existing development total 20,000 square feet or more, a
development plan shall be submitted, processed, and approved as
provided in Sec. 35-174. (Development Plans)
8. On-shore oil development, including exploratory and production wells,
pipelines, storage tanks, processing facilities for on-shore oil and gas, and
truck terminals subject to the requirements set forth in Division 9, Oil and
Gas Facilities.
1 County of Santa Barbara, Coastal Zoning Ordinance – Chapter 35, Article II, Republished July 2004
3
COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA
Coastal Zoning Ordinance1
9. Excavation or quarrying of building or construction materials, including
diatomaceous earth, subject to the provisions of Sec. 35-177
(Reclamation Plans).
10. Home occupations, subject to the provisions of Section 35-121.
11. Special care homes, subject to the provisions of Section 35-143.4.
12. Accessory uses, buildings, and structures which are customarily incidental
to the above uses.
Sec. 35-69.4. Uses Permitted with a Major Conditional Use Permit
1. Animal hospitals and clinics.
2. Low-intensity recreational development such as hiking trails, public riding
stables, recreation camps, campgrounds, retreats, and guest ranches,
provided that such development:
a) Is in character with the rural setting.
b) Does not interfere with agricultural production on or adjacent to the
lost on which it is located,
c) Does not include commercial facilities open to the general public
who are not using the recreational facility, and
d) Does not require an expansion of urban services which will
increase pressure for conversion of the affected agricultural lands.
3. Wineries, including processing, distribution, and sale of wine grapes and
wine grapes products grown off the premises, provided:
a) The winery is located on the premises used for vineyard purposes,
b) The winery is operated in connection with the processing of wine
grapes grown on the premises, and
c) Retail sales of wine grape products shall be limited to those
processed on the premises.
4. Facilities for the sorting, cleaning, packing, freezing, and storage of
horticultural and agricultural products (not including animals) grown off the
premises preparatory to wholesale or retail sale and/or shipment in their
natural form.
5. Piers and staging areas for oil and gas development subject to the
regulations.
6. Aquaculture, subject to the provisions of Sec. 35-136.
7. Sorting, cleaning, and further breaking and storing of abalone shells
landed live in Santa Barbara County, preparatory to shipment in their
natural form.
8. Farm labor camps, including trailers, for housing five or more persons
engaged full-time in agriculture working on or off the farm or ranch upon
the dwelling(s) is located subject to the provisions of Sec. 35-132.9
(General Regulations).
9. Exportation and production of offshore oil and gas reservoirs from onshore
locations including exploratory and production wells, pipelines, temporary
storage tanks, dehydration and separation facilities, and temporary truck
terminals located within the Gaviota or Las Flores Canyon Consolidated
Oil and Gas Planning Areas.
1 County of Santa Barbara, Coastal Zoning Ordinance – Chapter 35, Article II, Republished July 2004
4
COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA
Coastal Zoning Ordinance1
Sec. 35-69.5. Uses Permitted with a Minor Conditional Use Permit
1. Additional dwellings for not to exceed four employees of the owner or
lessee of the land engaged full time in agriculture on the farm or ranch
upon which the dwelling is located provided:
a) The applicant can document the existing and proposed agricultural
use of the land and demonstrate a need for additional dwellings to
support such use; and
b) The applicant provides proof of the full-time employment of the
employees.
1 County of Santa Barbara, Coastal Zoning Ordinance – Chapter 35, Article II, Republished July 2004
5
MARIN COUNTY
Coastal Agricultural Districts1
Title 22I ZONING (Interim)*
Chapter 22.57I SPECIFIC REGULATIONS FOR VARIOUS COASTAL
DISTRICTS
22.57.010I Application of specific regulations.
22.57.020I C-ARP -- Coastal agricultural, residential, planned districts.
22.57.030I C-APZ -- Coastal agricultural production zone districts.
22.57.040I C-R-A -- Coastal residential, agricultural districts.
22.57.010I Application of specific regulations.
The following specific regulations of this chapter, in addition to the general regulations
cited in Chapter 22.56I, shall apply to all coastal districts except as specifically
exempted herein. (Ord. 2637 § 6 (part), 1981)
22.57.020I C-ARP -- Coastal agricultural, residential, planned
districts.
22.57.021I Purpose. This zone provides flexibility in lot size and building locations
and thereby promotes the concentration of residential and accessory uses to
maintain the maximum amount of land available for agricultural use and to maintain
the visual, natural resource and wildlife habitat values of the property and
surrounding areas.
22.57.022I Principal Permitted Uses. The following uses are permitted in all C-ARP
districts subject to an approved master plan:
1. Dairying;
2. Grazing or breeding of cattle or sheep;
3. Raising or keeping of poultry, fowl (including game birds), rabbits or goats or
similar animals;
4. Fish hatcheries and rearing ponds; oyster farming; mariculture;
5. Crop, vine or tree farm, truck garden, greenhouse, horticulture;
6. Farm and ranch buildings including dwelling, stables, barns, pens, corrals, or
coops; structures for killing, dressing, packing or handling products raised on the
premises, but not including an abbatoir for cattle, sheep or hogs; dwellings shall be
incidental to the agricultural use of the land for the residence of the owner or lessee
of the land and the family of the owner or lessee, or for their employees engaged in
the agricultural use of the land; agricultural use of the land means agriculture as the
primary or principal use of the land as demonstrated by the applicant to the
1 http://municipalcodes.lexisnexis.com/codes/marincounty/_DATA/TITLE22I/Chapter_22_57I_SPECIFIC_REGULA.html#2 1
MARIN COUNTY
Coastal Agricultural Districts1
satisfaction of the planning director. The total number of dwellings shall not exceed
the density permitted in the district;
7. Single-family dwellings;
8. Grazing, breeding or training of horses; horse stables, including riding
academies and boarding facilities incidental to these uses;
9. The maintenance of land in its natural state for the purpose of preserving land for
recreation, or for plant, animal or mineral preserves;
10. Horseback riding or hiking trails;
11. Public or private hunting of wildlife or fishing;
12. Erection, construction, alteration or maintenance of gas, electric, water,
communication or flood control facilities as approved by the appropriate
governmental agencies;
13. Bed and breakfast operations as defined in Section 22.02.103I, for such
operations which offer or provide not more than three guest rooms.
22.57.023I Conditional Uses. The following uses are permitted in all coastal
agricultural districts, subject to the securing of a use permit in each case:
1. Hog ranch;
2. Aircraft landing strip;*
3. Facilities for processing or retail sale of agricultural products;
4. Commercial storage and sale of garden supply products;
5. Animal hospitals and dog kennels;
6. Mining and quarrying, and production operations and facilities related thereto;*
7. Timber harvesting in accordance with the regulations of Title 23 of this code;
8. Rifle or pistol practice range, trap or skeet field, archery range or other similar
use;
9. Rodeo arena and related facilities;*
10. Institutional uses and the facilities necessary therefor, related to educational,
scientific, recreational or religious purposes;*
11. Mobile homes not on permanent foundations, so long as they are used
exclusively for employees of the owner who are actively and directly engaged in the
agricultural use of the land;
12. Storage and sale of building materials;*
13. Dump;*
14. Junkyard;*
15. Public and private hunting fishing club facilities;*
16. Bed and breakfast operations as defined in Section 22.02.103I, which provide
four but not more than five guest rooms.
*These uses shall be subject to specific development standards to be adopted prior
to issuance of use permit.
22.57.024I Design Standards. The following requirements for project design, site
preparation, and use shall be imposed through the master plan, development plan
and/or design review process, as necessary, to implement the goals and policies of
the LCP, the Marin Countywide Plan and any applicable community plan:
1. Project Design.
a. Clustering. Buildings shall be clustered or sited in the most accessible, least
visually prominent, and most geologically stable portion or portions of the site.
Clustering or siting buildings in the least visually prominent portion or portions of
the site is especially important on open grassy hillsides. In these areas, the
prominence of construction shall be minimized by placing buildings so that they will
be screened by existing vegetation, rock outcroppings or depressions in
topography. In areas with wooded hillsides, a greater scattering of buildings may be
preferable to save trees and minimize visual impacts. In areas where usable
agricultural land exists, residential development shall be clustered or sited so as to
minimize disruption of existing or possible future agricultural uses.
1 http://municipalcodes.lexisnexis.com/codes/marincounty/_DATA/TITLE22I/Chapter_22_57I_SPECIFIC_REGULA.html#2 2
MARIN COUNTY
Coastal Agricultural Districts1
b. Ridgelines. There shall be no construction permitted on top of, within three
hundred feet horizontally, or within one hundred feet vertically of visually prominent
ridgelines, whichever is more restrictive, if other suitable locations are available on
the site. If structures must be placed within this restricted area because of site size
or similar constraints, they shall be on locations that are least visible from nearby
highways and developed areas.
c. Geologic Hazards. Development shall not be permitted on identified seismic or
geologic hazard areas, such as slides, natural springs, identified fault zones, or bay
mud, without approval from the department of public works, based on acceptable
soils and geologic reports.
d. Roads, Driveways and Utilities. The development of roads, driveways and
utilities shall conform to the applicable standards contained in Title 24 of this code,
including but not limited to Sections 24.04.020 through 24.04.320 (Roads and
Driveways), and Sections 24.04.840 through 24.04.860 (Utilities). In areas with
undeveloped agricultural land, efforts shall be made to keep road and driveway
construction, grading and utility extensions to a minimum. This shall be
accomplished through clustering and siting development so as to minimize
roadway length and maximize the amount of undivided agricultural land.
e. Fire Protection. In rural areas (areas without water systems), on-site water
storage capacity may be required for each single-family residence, subject to the
requirements of the Marin County fire department. In planned or cluster
developments provisions should be made, where feasible, for common water
storage facilities and distribution systems. Maintenance of these water storage
facilities and distribution systems should be performed according to a plan
approved by the Marin County fire department.
f. Landscaping. Landscaping shall minimally disturb natural areas. Fire protection,
solar access; the use of indigenous species and minimal water use shall be
considered in landscaping plans.
g. Building Location/Design. In addition to the above requirements, buildings to be
located on existing or proposed subdivision lots shall be sited and designed
according to the following principles:
A. Energy Conservation. Solar access shall be considered in the location, design,
height and setbacks of all buildings. Generally, buildings should be oriented in a
north/south fashion with the majority of glazing on the south wall or walls of the
buildings.
B. Building Height. No part of a residential building shall exceed twenty-five feet in
height above natural grade, and no accessory structure, including water tanks,
shall exceed fifteen feet in height above natural grade. In residential structures, the
lowest floor level shall not exceed ten feet above natural grade at any point. Where
a ridge lot is too flat to allow placement of the house down from the ridge as
required in subdivision 1b, a height limit of one story or a maximum of eighteen
feet, as measured from natural grade to the top of the roof, shall be imposed.
These requirements may be waived by the planning director upon presentation of
evidence that a deviation from these standards will not violate the intent of Section
22.47.101 and environmental quality policies of the countywide plan. Farm and
agricultural buildings located down from ridgetops may exceed these height limits
upon design review approval.
C. Access. Driveways shall be developed in accordance with the applicable
standards contained in Title 24 of this code, including but not limited to Sections
24.04.240 through 24.04.320. Consistent with the clustering policies in subdivision
la above, efforts shall be made to keep driveway length to a minimum.
D. Materials and Colors. Fire protection, energy conservation and the use of
traditional agricultural building materials and colors shall be considered in all
construction.
1 http://municipalcodes.lexisnexis.com/codes/marincounty/_DATA/TITLE22I/Chapter_22_57I_SPECIFIC_REGULA.html#2 3
MARIN COUNTY
Coastal Agricultural Districts1
h. Facilities. Where possible, facilities and design features required by the
countywide plan shall be provided through the master plan/ development plan
process. These include use of reclaimed wastewater; use of materials, siting, and
construction techniques to minimize consumption of resources such as energy and
water; use of water-conserving appliances; appropriate recreation facilities; bus
shelters; design features to accommodate the handicapped; bicycle paths and
equestrian trails linked to city-county system; and facilities for composting and
recycling.
i. Agricultural and Open Space Uses. Agricultural uses shall be encouraged in ARP
zones. As part of the development review process, usable agricultural land should
be identified and efforts made to preserve and/or promote its use. Agricultural land,
not presently in use, may be preserved as undeveloped private open space to be
made available, on a lease basis, in the future, for compatible agricultural uses.
The primary intent shall be to preserve open lands for agricultural use, not to
provide open space/recreational land uses which will interfere or be in conflict with
agricultural operations. Lands to be preserved for agriculture and/or open space
use may require the creation of a homeowner's association or other organization
for their maintenance. The nature and intensity of large scale agricultural uses
should be described in the form of an agricultural management plan.
Management plans should consider intensity of grazing, runoff protection, chemical
and fertilizer use and, in order to preserve agricultural land practices, separation
from existing or proposed residential uses. In some cases, the county may require
reasonable public access across those lands remaining in private ownership. Such
pedestrian and/or equestrian access shall be provided where consistent with
adopted county and coastal plans and where liability issues have been resolved.
Public access for pedestrian and/or equestrian purposes shall only be required as a
condition of plan approval.
j. Open Space Dedication and Maintenance. Nonagricultural land to be preserved
as open space may be dedicated by fee title to the county of Marin. The county of
Marin or other designated public jurisdiction will maintain all open space lands
accepted in fee title.
2. Site Preparation. Where appropriate, site preparation plans shall be referred to
the North Marin Water District and/or Marin Municipal Water District for review and
comment.
a. Grading. Grading shall be held to a minimum. Every reasonable effort shall be
made to retain the natural features of the land, skylines and ridgetops, rolling land
forms, knolls, native vegetation, trees, rock out-croppings, watercourses. Where
grading is required, it shall be done in such a manner as to eliminate flat planes
and sharp angles of intersection with natural terrain. Slopes shall be rounded and
contoured to blend with existing topography. All grading shall conform to the
applicable standards contained in Chapter 22.56I and Title 24 of this code.
b. Erosion Control. Grading plans shall include erosion control and revegetation
programs. Where erosion potential exists, silt traps or other engineering solutions
may be required. The timing of grading and construction shall be controlled by the
department of public works to avoid failure during construction.
c. Drainage. The areas adjacent to creeks shall be kept as much as possible in
their natural state. All construction shall assure drainage into the natural watershed
in a manner that will avoid significant erosion or damage to adjacent properties. To
reduce runoff, impervious surfaces shall be minimized. At major creek crossings,
bridges should be utilized, whenever possible, in place of culverts.
d. Trees and Vegetation. In all instances, every effort shall be made to avoid
removal, changes or construction which would cause the death of trees or rare
plant communities and wildlife habitats.
22.57.025I Density. The ordinance adopting any C-ARP district shall specify the
number of acres per dwelling unit, which will be allowed within the C-ARP district.
1 http://municipalcodes.lexisnexis.com/codes/marincounty/_DATA/TITLE22I/Chapter_22_57I_SPECIFIC_REGULA.html#2 4
MARIN COUNTY
Coastal Agricultural Districts1
22.57.026I Submission Requirements. Applicant shall submit:
1. Requirements contained in Chapters 22.45 and 22.56I except that, all or a
portion of the general submission requirements for master plan and development
plan approval (Chapter 22.45) may be waived by the planning director. If these
requirements are waived, a proposal shall be submitted which meets the
requirements of Chapter 22.82I (Design Review). (Ord. 2884 § 4 (1, 2), 1985; Ord.
2637 § 6 (part), 1981)
22.57.030I C-APZ -- Coastal agricultural production zone
districts.
22.57.031I Purpose. The purpose of the agricultural production zone is to
preserve lands within the zone for agricultural use. The principal use of lands
in the C-APZ districts shall be agricultural. Development shall be accessory,
incidental, or in support of agricultural land uses, and shall conform to the
policies and standards as set forth in this chapter.
22.57.032I Principal Permitted Uses. The following uses are permitted in all C-
APZ districts subject to an approved master plan:
1. Agricultural Uses. For the purposes of the coastal agricultural production
zone, agricultural uses are defined as uses of land to grow and/or produce
agricultural commodities for commercial purposes, including:
a. Livestock and poultry: cattle, sheep, poultry, goats, rabbits, horses unless
they are the primary animals raised;
b. Livestock and poultry products: milk, wool, eggs;
c. Field, fruit, nut and vegetable crops: hay, grain, silage, pasture, fruits, nuts
and vegetables;
d. Nursery products: nursery crops, cut plants.
2. One single-family dwelling per parcel. Parcel is defined as all contiguous
assessors’ parcels under common ownership (unless legally divided as per
Title 20, Marin County Code).
3. Accessory structures or uses appurtenant and necessary to the operation of
agricultural uses, other than dwelling units of any kind; but, including barns,
fences, stables, corrals, coops and pens, and utility facilities.
4. Bed and breakfast operations as defined in Section 22.02.103I, for such
operations which offer or provide not more than three guest rooms.
22.57.033I Conditional Uses. The following uses are permitted in all coastal
agricultural production zone districts, subject to the securing of a use permit in
each case. When it is determined by the planning director that any of the
following uses constitute a major land use change, a master plan submitted in
accordance with Chapter 22.45 may be required.
1. Farmworker housing;
2. Mobile homes which are used exclusively for employees of the owner who
are actively and directly engaged in the agricultural use of the land;
3. Hog ranch;
4. Veterinary facilities;
5. Fish hatcheries and rearing ponds;
6. Stabling of more than five horses on ranches where horses are the primary
or only animals raised;
7. Raising of other food and fiber producing animals not listed under
subsection (1) of Section 22.57.032I;
8. Planting, raising or harvesting of trees for timber, fuel or Christmas tree
production;
9. Facilities for processing or retail sale of agricultural products;
1 http://municipalcodes.lexisnexis.com/codes/marincounty/_DATA/TITLE22I/Chapter_22_57I_SPECIFIC_REGULA.html#2 5
MARIN COUNTY
Coastal Agricultural Districts1
10. Greenhouses;
11. Commercial storage and sale of garden supply products;
12. Water conservation dams and ponds;
13. Mineral resource production;
14. Game or nature preserve or refuge;
15. Public or private recreational activities, such as hunting, fishing and
camping;
16. Bed and breakfast operations as defined in Section 22.02.103I, which
provide four but not more than five guest rooms;
17. Construction or alteration of gas, electric, water, communication or flood
control facilities, unrelated to an agricultural use, as approved by the
appropriate governmental agencies;
18. Dump.
22.57.034I Density. The ordinance adopting a C-APZ district shall specify the
minimum number of acres per dwelling unit which will be required within the C-
APZ district. The C-APZ district shall have a maximum density of one unit per
sixty acres; actual density shall be determined through the master plan
process.
22.57.035I Development Standards and Requirements. All development
permits in the C-APZ district shall be subject to the following standards and
requirements:
1. All development shall be clustered to retain the maximum amount of land in
agricultural production or available for agricultural use. Development, including
all land converted from agricultural use such as roads and residential support
facilities, shall be clustered on no more than five percent of the gross acreage,
to the extent feasible, with the remaining acreage to be left in agricultural
production and/or open space. Development shall be located close to existing
roads and shall be sited to minimize impacts on scenic resources, wildlife
habitat and streams, and adjacent agricultural operations.
2. Permanent conservation easements over that portion of the property not
used for physical development or services shall be required to promote the
long-term preservation of these lands. Only agricultural uses shall be allowed
under the easements. In addition, the county shall require the execution of a
covenant not to divide the parcels created under this division so that they are
retained as a single unit and are not further subdivided.
3. The creation of a homeowner's or other organization and/or the submission
of the agricultural management plans may be required to provide for the
proper utilization of agricultural lands and their availability on a lease basis or
for the maintenance of community roads or mutual water systems.
4. Design standards as set forth in Section 22.57.024I.
22.57.036I Required Findings. Review and approval of development permits
including a determination of density shall be subject to the following findings:
1. The development will protect and enhance continued agricultural use and
contribute to agricultural viability.
2. The development is necessary because agricultural use of the property is
no longer feasible. The purpose of this standard is to permit agricultural
landowners who face economic hardship to demonstrate how development on
a portion of their land would ease this hardship and enhance agricultural
operations on the remainder of the property.
3. The land division of development will not conflict with the continuation or
initiation of agriculture, on that portion of the property which is not proposed for
development, on adjacent parcels, or those within one mile of the perimeter of
the proposed development.
4. Adequate water supply, sewage disposal, road access and capacity and
other public services are available to service the proposed development after
1 http://municipalcodes.lexisnexis.com/codes/marincounty/_DATA/TITLE22I/Chapter_22_57I_SPECIFIC_REGULA.html#2 6
MARIN COUNTY
Coastal Agricultural Districts1
provision has been made for existing and continued agricultural operations.
Water diversions or use for a proposed development shall not adversely
impact stream habitats or significantly reduce freshwater inflows to Tomales
Bay, either individually or cumulatively.
5. Appropriate public agencies are able to provide necessary services (fire
protection, police protection, schools, etc.) to serve the proposed
development.
6. The proposed land division and/or development will have no significant
adverse impacts on environmental quality or natural habitats, including stream
or riparian habitats and scenic resources. In all cases, LCP policies on
streams and natural resources shall be met.
22.56.037I Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) in C-APZ Districts.
Notwithstanding provisions of this and other sections regarding density, the
number of units permitted on one property (the donor property) may be
transferred and built on another (receiving) property (either contiguous or
noncontiguous), resulting in a higher density than that which the (receiving)
property is zoned for, under certain circumstances, as described in this
section. This process, which allows development rights from one property to
be determined and transferred to a second property, is called transfer of
development rights (TDR).
1. Purpose. The purpose of TDR is to relocate potential development from
areas where environmental or land use impacts could be severe to other areas
where those impacts can be minimized, while still granting appropriate
development rights to each property.
2. Application. The participation of a property owner in TDR shall be on a
voluntary basis and shall be subject to approval by the County through the
Master Plan Process. The property for which TDR is proposed must be located
within a community plan, countywide plan or local coastal plan area and the
adopted community plan, countywide plan or local coastal plan policy must
recommend TDR as an appropriate plan implementation. Through the master
plan approval process, the applicant(s) must demonstrate that it is necessary
to conserve the property from which density is being transferred, and that the
property which receives this additional density can accommodate it. This
demonstration shall be consistent with the criteria for evaluation of TDR
proposals described in applicable community plans or countywide Plan
policies.
3. Submission requirements. In addition to the information required for a
master plan submission under Chapter 22.45, the following additional
information shall be provided where TDR is being considered:
a. Affidavits of consent from all registered property owners of all property
subject to the master plan. This shall include the property being conserved and
the property being developed and receiving the transferred density rights;
b. A description of the property proposed for conservation outlining how the
subject property fulfills the TDR conservation criteria as set out in the
appropriate community plan or countywide plan policies;
c. A calculation of the number of units available to be transferred. The
calculation shall be made as follows: The area of the parcel to be conserved
divided by the number of acres per dwelling unit required by the zoning minus
the existing number of dwellings. Any fraction of a unit, resulting from such a
determination, of 0.90 or greater will be counted as a whole unit;
d. A description of the property proposed to receive the transferred density
outlining the availability of support services and infra-structure necessary for
development and how the subject property fulfills the TDR development
criteria as set out in the appropriate community plan;
1 http://municipalcodes.lexisnexis.com/codes/marincounty/_DATA/TITLE22I/Chapter_22_57I_SPECIFIC_REGULA.html#2 7
MARIN COUNTY
Coastal Agricultural Districts1
e. A description of the proposed conservation easement or restriction, as
described and required in subsection (5) of Section 22.57.035I.
4. Approval Process. The approval process for a master plan involving TDR
shall require the same approval process as set forth in subsection A of Section
22.45.050.
5. Conservation Easements or Restrictions. A condition of TDR between
properties is that the property proposed for restricted development or
conservation shall have conservation easements or restrictions recorded
against it which reflect the conditions of approval of the master plan and which
restrict the future development or division of the donor property in accordance
with those conditions. Such conservation easements or restrictions must be
recorded against the donor property prior to the recording of a parcel map or
final map for the receiver property.
6. Density bonuses shall be considered if the proposed TDR meets the criteria
set forth in the appropriate community plan or LCP. (Ord. 2909 § 2 (part),
1986: Ord. 2884 § 4 (3, 4), 1985; Ord. 2703 § 12, 1982)
22.57.040I C-R-A -- Coastal residential, agricultural
districts.
22.57.041I Purpose. The purpose of this district is to provide for
residential use, combined with small scale agricultural activities, subject to
specific development standards.
22.57.042I Principal Permitted Uses. The following uses are permitted in
all C-R-A districts:
1. Single-family residence;
2. Small livestock farming; provided, that not to exceed one horse, or one
cow, or one hog, or three sheep, or three goats, or other similar livestock
may be kept for each twenty thousand square feet of area of the lot, to a
maximum of three horses, or three cows, or three hogs, or six sheep, or
six goats or other similar livestock maintained on any one lot;
3. Crops, horticulture, nurseries and greenhouses;
4. Accessory buildings;
5. Home occupations; and
6. Bed and breakfast operations as defined in Section 22.02.103I, for
such operations which offer or provide not more than three guest rooms.
22.57.043I Conditional Uses. The following uses are permitted in all C-R-
A districts, subject to securing a use permit in each case:
1. Public and private stables and riding academies;
2. Sale of agricultural products produced on the premises;
3. Public parks and playgrounds;
4. Buildings for the sale of agricultural and nursery products;
5. Schools, libraries, museums, churches, retreats, noncommercial tennis
courts, and day child-care centers for seven or more children;
6. Dog kennels;
7. Livestock farming exceeding three cows or three horses or three hogs
or six sheep;
8. Bed and breakfast operations as defined in Section 22.02.103I, which
provide four but not more than five guest rooms.
22.57.044I Design Standards. Building site area and width; building
setbacks, height and floor area ratio shall comply with the standards listed
in Section 22.57.200I, "Design standards table."
1 http://municipalcodes.lexisnexis.com/codes/marincounty/_DATA/TITLE22I/Chapter_22_57I_SPECIFIC_REGULA.html#2 8
MARIN COUNTY
Coastal Agricultural Districts1
22.57.045I Exceptions. Any parcel of land with an area of less than seven
thousand five hundred square feet, and/or with an average width of less
than sixty feet, which was under one ownership on September 2, 1938,
which owner thereof owned or has owned no adjoining land and provided
that no succeeding owner has owned adjoining land, or which parcel is
shown as a lot on any subdivision map or land division or parcel map or
record of survey which was recorded after approval of the map in the
manner provided by law, may be used as a building site for one-family
dwelling by the owner of such parcel of land or by his successor in
interest, provided that all other regulations for the district, as prescribed in
this title, shall be complied with; provided further, that in lieu of the
foregoing building site area regulations in any C-R-A district, in which
there are also applied the regulations of any B district under the
provisions of this title, each one-family dwelling with its accessory
buildings, hereafter erected, shall be located on a building site, in one
ownership, having an area not less than specified for such B district. In no
case, however, shall there be more than one dwelling on any one lot.
(Ord. 2884 § 4 (5, 6), 1985; Ord. 2637 § 6 (part), 1981)
1 http://municipalcodes.lexisnexis.com/codes/marincounty/_DATA/TITLE22I/Chapter_22_57I_SPECIFIC_REGULA.html#2 9
APPENDICES
44
A. City Council
Agenda Bill No. 18535
B. Summary Meeting Notes
and Agendas
1
City of Carlsbad
Citizens’ Committee to Study the Flower Fields and Strawberry Fields Area
Summary Notes of Meeting #1
May 16, 2006, 9 a.m. to 12 p.m., City of Carlsbad, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Room 173B
Present:
Committee members: (*non-voting members)
Pete Aadland Vern Farrow Kip McBane
Jill Agosti Bob Garcin Gina McBride
Jennifer Benner Courtney Heineman* Robert Morgan
Chris Calkins* Gary Hill Eric Munoz
Nancy Calverley* Mark Johnson Peder Norby
Marvin Cap Pat Kurth Seth Schulberg
Claudia Carrillo* Keith Lewinger Daniel Swiger
Bill Dominguez Cary Manning Mark Winkler
Farrah Douglas Len Martyns
Present but not officially appointed to the committee until City Council meeting of 5/16/06:
Leslie Meyerhoff
Laura Means Pope
Absent:
Marvin Sippel*
Heidi Willes
City of Carlsbad Staff:
Gary Barberio – Principal Planner
Karen Chen – Management Analyst
Courtney Enriquez – Management Intern
Cynthia Haas – Economic and Real Estate Manager
Sandra Holder – Community Development Director
Bob Johnson – Deputy City Engineer, Transportation
Barbara Nedros – Administrative Secretary
Mark Steyaert – Park Development Manager
Jane Mobaldi – Assistant City Attorney
Michael Holzmiller – Former City Planning Director, Consultant to City
9 public/other
Facilitators from National Conflict Resolution Center:
Robin Seigle
Lisa Maxwell
Notetaker: Christina Simokat
2
he community
pertise
ance of open space and property rights
hance access
excellent city planning
ity of Car o say their job and their role with the Committee (see above).
lopment Director
I. Overview of Purpose: Mayor Pro Tem Matt Hall
¾ Purpose of this committee is to study the ballot initiatives
¾ There has been a history of citizen input committees to study growth, open space, trees,
sidewalks, and preservation issues.
Goals:
• Review the properties, background and history
• Review ballot measures
• Receive public input with detailed presentations
• Make an objective comparison
• At the end, make recommendations
II. Introductions of Committee Members and Staff: Lisa Maxwell and Robin Seigle (NCRC)
Committee members asked to say their name, their occupation and one sentence about their interest
in serving on the committee.
List of committee members’ interests in participating in this process:
• History of community
• Objectivity and neutrality of process
• Future of Carlsbad
• Care about city
Protect and reali• stic view point
•To voice opinions
• To have a voice in the process and results
• To add to the process
• To serve/give back to t
• To contribute knowledge, technical ex
• Strong belief in citizen participation
• Orderly development of city with bal
• Quality of life
• Preserve and en
• Balance
• Continue
• Opportunity
C lsbad staff asked t
I. Purpose and Scope of Committee: II
Sandra Holder, Community Deve
1. Review background of the properties
2. Review proposed ballot measures
3. Receive public input – including detailed presentations from ballot measure proponents
4. Prepare an independent and objective comparison
5. Other potential recommendations
ix week meeting timeframe S
Report out by not later than July 18, 2006
Environmental review (CEQA)
Financial Analysis (9212 report)
3
IV. Process and Procedures: Robin Seigle and Lisa Maxwell (NCRC)
t meeting to replace two
of and agreement on NCRC ground rules
entioned by Holder), which would be
ll
estion to have voting record to determine how much consensus there is. Record
o and minority
o ere be more than one minority report?
factual report, not opinion
¾ Que o ey Mobaldi
st: several members of this committee are ex officio members who will not
stion: How will this committee’s information be used, especially when there are already
formation from these public meetings will be available on the City of Carlsbad website
¾ There will be two new committee members (noted above) at the nex
who resigned.
¾ Overview
¾ Question: Regarding the potential minority report (m
produced in the event that consensus is not reached. If someone dissents within the group, they wi
be asked to explain their view. Need to define what will constitute a majority.
¾ Comments:
o Sugg
to include number of committee members for and against, not names?
Try to achieve complete consensus on the report, inclusive of majority
views.
Could th
o The first product of this committee should be a
sti n: Is this committee subject to the Brown Act? Yes, Assistant City Attorn
answered that this is a meeting, which falls under the Brown Act, and this means that the public is
invited to attend these meetings and members of the committee are not allowed to discuss the issues
outside of the meetings.
¾ Conflicts of intere
be voting.
¾ Que
measures on the ballot? Holzmiller answered, to provide information to the City Council and the
public.
In
www.carlsbadca.gov/chall
¾ Question: Will this committee be able to affect the wording of the City ballot initiatives?
lzm
e now setting up to have a minority report when we should be aiming to produce
o too much polarization, and some think that the discussion
o xplanation: with complete consensus, one person can block it. It is
g, not
o for
o l.
os and cons for each of the
Ho iller answered that it is possible to still affect the wording of the City’s potential initiative.
¾ Comments:
o We ar
an objective comparison.
Some feel there is already
of consensus is premature and setting them up as pro and con and is too much
pressure.
Facilitator e
generally helpful to determine the standards for decision making at the beginnin
at the time the decision is being made. Possibilities are: complete consensus, general
consensus – those that don’t go along with the consensus can do a minority report,
voting requiring a majority or some percentage, eg. 60/40, 70/30, 75/25, or other
Members of this committee should set aside their personal opinions about the issue
these meetings and analyze the initiatives objectively
The committee was convened to advise the city counci
o The committee was convened to provide a neutral list of pr
initiatives, and that if additional recommendations surface, then those can also be
presented to the city council.
4
uture meeting schedule
F :
er cannot attend a meeting, Barbara Nedros, City of Carlsbad, (760) 602
0,
¾ If a committee memb
271 bnedr@ci.carlsbad.ca.us, can arrange for them to listen to the audio tape. A room will be
made available at the City offices
As determined by the Committee, meetings will be as follows:
9 a.m. to 12 p.m. at the City of Carlsbad, 1635 Faraday, Room 173B
Tuesday, May 30, 2006
Tuesday, June 6, 2006
Thursday, June 15, 2006
Tuesday, June 20, 2006
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
July 11 tentatively held as backup meeting
e report
lection of Chair and Vice Chair
July 18 tentatively held for final work on th
E :
ember be the Chair/Vice-Chair? Group can decide according
embers include: Chris Calkins, Nancy Calverley, Claudia Carrillo, Courtney Heineman
re the ex-officio members actually members of the committee? Yes, they are
mb
he Committee elected:
¾ Question: Can a non-voting m
to Assistant City Attorney Mobaldi. Group voted no, a non-voting member cannot be a Chair or
Vice-Chair.
Non-voting m
and Marvin Sippel.
¾ Question: A
me ers, but they are non-voting, according to the Assistant City Attorney Mobaldi.
T
Chair: Eric Munoz
Vice-Chair: Kip McBane
V. Notebook Review – Michael Holzmiller
he notebook is available to the public at the Carlsbad libraries, at the Public Counter at the Faraday
tatus of the existing ballot initiatives
en Space Initiative of 2006 -- signatures are being gathered
d
berry Fields, Open Space and Public Trails Protection Act of 2006 --
City Council will be looking at that this evening (May 16, 2006).
T
Center, 1635 Faraday Avenue, the City Manager’s Office and each committee member has one.
S
1. Carlsbad Gateway Parkland and Op
2. Save the Strawberry and Flower Growing Fields Act of 2006 -- signatures collected and submitte
and currently under review
3. The Flower Fields, Straw
5
plant be involved in this property
? Holzmiller answered that this will have to be reviewed, but that he believes the pipeline is
authority on site 4 so any plan would have to be reviewed by
e Coastal Commission.
authority on the Mello II sites. (Sites I, II & III)
anged, so if any of the
allot initiatives are voted for by the voters, the Coastal Commission will have to review them, and
initiatives do not have to go through environmental review, but city
itiatives do. Citizen initiatives require signatures, whereas city initiatives do not.
roup decides that public comment will be restricted to 3 minutes, except for presentations.
UPP
ffers to hold one-on-one study sessions for committee members, requests guidelines for
le to
hange the city government center from the Faraday area to the strawberry/flower fields area? Is
ensity caps are being changed and will affect current property owners’ use of their land. He
eeting rather than at the end of the meetings.
except for the meeting that focuses on presentations from the proponents of the initiatives and
o ntative requests that their property be referred to as “SDG&E” rather than the
“strawberry fields” as that name is misleading and creates an emotional reaction.
otes prepared by NCRC staff.
¾ Question: Will the pipeline for the potential desalinization
on site 4
located in the Cannon Road ROW.
The city does not have coastal permit
th
The city does have permit
All the measures involved will require that the Local Coastal Program be ch
b
will have the final authority.
Holzmiller noted that citizens’
in
VI. Public Comments
G
1. Ramona Finnila, coordinator for Carlsbad Citizens for Usable Public Places (CCUPP): CC
o
presentations, requests a copy of the notebook, and requests review of state regulation 9212.
2. Dan Conway, no group affiliation. Glad to see this process happening. What is the rationa
c
there a conflict of interest in the city structuring a review process of this site when it will benefit?
3. Mike Bovenzi: A previous citizens’ committee recommended preserving these areas already.
D
requests that all committee members watch city council proceedings this evening.
VI. Committee Member Comments:
o Request that public be able to speak earlier in the m
o Another requested that the public comment period be restricted to a maximum of 20 minutes,
public input.
SDGE represe
N
City of Carlsbad
Citizens’ Committee to Study the Flower Fields and Strawberry Fields Area
Summary Notes of Meeting #2
May 30, 2006, 9 a.m. to 12 p.m.,
City of Carlsbad, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Room 173B
Present:
Committee members: (*non-voting members)
Pete Aadland Courtney Heineman* Robert Morgan
Jill Agosti Gary Hill Eric Munoz (chair)
Chris Calkins* Mark Johnson Peder Norby
Nancy Calverley* Pat Kurth Laura Means Pope
Claudia Carrillo* Keith Lewinger Marvin Sippel*
Bill Dominguez Cary Manning Seth Schulberg
Farrah Douglas Kip McBane (vice-chair) Daniel Swiger
Bob Garcin Gina McBride Heidi Willes
Absent:
Jennifer Benner
Marvin Cap
Vern Farrow
Len Martyns
Leslea Meyerhoff
Mark Winkler
City of Carlsbad Staff:
Gary Barberio – Principal Planner
Karen Chen – Management Analyst.
Cynthia Haas – Economic and Real Estate Manager
Sandra Holder – Community Development Director
Michael Holzmiller – Former City Planning Director, Consultant to City
Bob Johnson – Deputy City Engineer, Transportation
Jane Mobaldi – Assistant City Attorney
Mark Steyaert – Park Development Manager
11 public and 3 press
Facilitators from National Conflict Resolution Center:
Robin Seigle
Barbara Filner
Christina Simokat, assistant
1
I. Welcome -- new members introduced (name, occupation, one sentence re: their
interest in being on this committee.
Heidi Willes
Laura Pope
Marvin Sippel
Their interests in participating in this process:
• Loves Carlsbad and wants to be involved
• Loves Carlsbad
• Interested in this issue
Chair, Eric Munoz noted that the roles of the committee chair and vice chair are outlined
in the handout provided today for the workbook. Nos. 4, 5 & 6, (Ensuring that every
member of the committee has an opportunity to ask questions and express opinions
without any one person dominating; keeping the meeting focused; and enforcing
reasonable rules relating to debate, order and decorum within the Committee) will be
handled by the facilitators.
Facilitator Robin Seigle reviewed the Meeting Ground Rules discussed at the first
meeting. Everyone agreed to them.
II. Public Comments
¾ none
III. Background – Michael Holzmiller and Gary Barberio (Powerpoint presentation
notes and a handout of exhibits prepared for this background presentation made available
to meeting participants.)
o Site 1 – The Flower Fields, Barberio (53.4 acres)
Question: Could you explain the difference between the different plans that affect this
area?
Answer: There is a glossary of terms in the workbook.
General Plan: land use “bible” for the City of Carlsbad
Local Coastal Program: covers lands within the coastal zone, jurisdiction of California
Coastal Commission, primarily concerned with continuation of agriculture, public access,
protection of environmental resources
Specific Plan: a zoning document for specific development projects that fine tunes and
implements the General Plan and Local Coastal Program
Q: Has the landowner of the Flower Fields asked for any changes to or modifications of
the property’s current land use?
A: No. The City has the first right of refusal to purchase this property.
2
Q: Is the Flower Fields land for sale?
A: (Calkins) No.
Q: Where has there been development for which mitigation monies have been paid?
A: Looking at the development summary of the area surrounding the Flower Fields, the
whole area is almost built out. Only a few areas left that have not been or are not in the
process of being developed.
Q: “Where is development still possible?”
A: Development potential exists for #3 and #5
Q: Are landowners involved in the process when there are plan changes, that is, have
they participated in the designations of their property?
A: Yes.
Q: Are all the current owners content with current zoning designations?
A: There are no current requests for changes to designations.
Q: What is the Williamson Act?
A: It’s a law that allows a landowner to enroll property and receive a tax benefit for
keeping the property in agriculture. The landowner can take the property out of the Act
at any point and pay a penalty. The only land this could apply to is the Flower Fields, but
this doesn’t apply any longer. The Williamson Act is not relevant to the issues this
Committee is considering as none of the lands are currently under Williamson Act
contract.
o Site 2 and 3 – Carlsbad Ranch Planning Area 8A (45.3 acres) and 8B (26.45 acres),
Barberio
Q: Golf is allowed on these sites. Can it be used for other sports, such as a ball field?
A: There are some permitted secondary uses, mostly agricultural and public recreation
related, but then amendments to the Plan would be necessary.
Q: Could a golf “clubhouse” or “golf school” be built here also? It’s not just for a golf
course, is it?
A: It says “golf- related uses” and it allows as secondary use: agriculture, public parks,
trails, public restrooms, public playground, public parking area (refer to workbook).
A: Zoning document 3 D will give all the uses for this area.
Q: Was it zoned for golf based on one group’s intent to build a hotel? How did one
property owner get their specific plan into the land use document?.
A: The whole specific plan went through a public process based on the best information
at the time. Since adoption the golf developer has backed out. Golf is considered a type
of “open space” according to the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Open space can
be active, such as for sports, or passive, such as preserved habitat.
3
Q: Does the City have first rights refusal on this property as well as the Flower Fields?
A: No, just the Flower Fields.
Q: Did The Pointe Resorts ever own these properties?
A: No, Carltas did. The specific plan was shaped during a recession. It is currently
owned by Carlsbad Ranch.
Q: Is there a City of Carlsbad policy covering eminent domain?
A: No.
Q: Were the cart paths installed under Cannon Road based on the City’s commitment to
this golf project?
A: Yes. Two under Cannon Road and one under Legoland Drive.
Q: Was the golf course usage looked at when the development changed from its original
plan?
A: The hotel/timeshare project was allowed to move forward without the golf course.
At the time of the current hotel being approved, there was a change to the specific plan
text but no change to 8A and 8B.
Q: Since we seem to have decided that a golf course wouldn’t be the best use of that
land, will a new specific plan open up that land to any development? Would there be
any restrictions?
A: The City has not stated that a golf course is not the highest and best use for this land.
It is doubtful that a golf course will be built there. If there are any land use changes they
would require amendments to the plan to eliminate the specific requirements for golf and
along with General Plan and Local Coastal Program changes. Agriculture is allowed in
an Open Space designated area.
o Site 4 – SDG&E Property (256 acres), Holzmiller
The City of Carlsbad included the 48 acre area which is not Open Space in its
redevelopment area so that the new property taxes generated by development on
previously vacant land would go back to the City rather than the state.
Hub Park area (91 acres) is leased out to the City of Carlsbad for future
recreational/community park use.
There are some areas of overlap of development constraints.
Note that in some places there is reference to “45 acres” but that is not accurate. It is a
48 acre parcel which is zoned for “Travel Service” in the Local Coastal Program.
4
As part of the Agua Hedionda Segment Land Use Plan approval, an agreement with the
property owner was negotiated to allow development on the 48 acres in exchange for
open space designation for the rest of the land.
There are 2 phases to the Local Coastal Plan – the Land Use Plan and the
Implementation Plan. The implementation phase of the Agua Hedionda Local Coastal
Plan has not yet happened, which means that the City of Carlsbad doesn’t yet have
permit authority. The City of Carlsbad hasn’t yet realigned its General Plan and
Zoning with the agreed upon Local Coastal Plan Land Use Plan. Until that occurs, the
Coastal Commission retains permit authority.
Exhibit 9 of the handout, limitations 2,3 a & b explain why the zoning has not changed
yet.
SDG&E can apply to get out of agricultural use and its restrictions under the
Agriculture Mitigation Fee program.
Q: How much of this site was the subject of the Lennar option (refer to workbook)?
A: The entire site including the 48 acres and Hub Park. All of sites 2, 3 and 4.
Q: What is the cost of the Hub Park lease?
A: One half of the property taxes paid by the property owner, not to exceed $14,000
annually.
Q: Is that land now leased out to someone who’s growing?
A: The lease was given to the City for Hub Park as part of the trade off for the Encina
Power Plant under condition that tenant farmer could stay. SDG&E has been leasing
the property to a farmer since the 1970’s.
Q: Why does SDG&E want to develop it when SDG&E works in public utilities, not
development?
A: SDG&E will not be developing the property but had entered into a sale option with
a developer.
Q: SDG&E will have to pay agricultural mitigation fees?
A: SDG&E will have to pay an agricultural mitigation fee if the property is developed
beyond the 48 acres, which can be developed.
Q: What was the background of some of the other big developments that included
Open Space in Carlsbad over the last 20 to 30 years, such as Kelly Ranch?
A: The percentage of Open Space that the City required was designated as specific
plans came in for review. The City’s growth management plan requires 15% of each
LFMP area to be more open space. All of the sites we are discussing are designated
Open Space in the General Plan, Coastal Plan and Zoning.
5
Q: Clarification about the lease for Hub Park?
A: The City doesn’t have to pay anything on the lease until plans for the park are
completed and permits to build are secured. The lease began in 1975 and expires in
2074. Farming can continue on the property until the park is proposed for
development. The City must give a 1 year notice to the grower.
Q: What is the status of the small, square parcel in the middle of the SDG&E
property?
A: Historically there was a reservoir there, which belonged to the Ecke Family and is
still owned by a family member.
Q: There are 256 acres. How many acres are left after you take away the 48 acres of
allowed development, and 91 acres for Hub Park?
A: Probably about 110 acres, including the park and development land. Under Open
Space requirements, agriculture, public recreation, park, trails, private recreational use
such as ball fields are all possible. If there is an alternate use, Hub Park would be a
part of it. If it went for residential use, less than 110 acres could be used because of the
power lines, habitat protection and Hub Park.
Q: Will the City be discussing the density requirements for this area?
A: No. But there is an exhibit in the workbook outlining the current Proposition E
residential caps for each quadrant.
Q: Please review the inconsistencies and unusual circumstances of these particular
properties.
A: All the plans (General Plan, Local Coastal Plan, zoning ordinances, Specific and
Master Plans) are supposed to be consistent. This is an interim situation because of the
2 phased Coastal plan. First, the Land Use Plan is adopted and then the
Implementation Plan. When the City began to start the implementation, SDG&E asked
to be excluded from the implementation phase as it intended to sell the power plant.
The City agreed to the request so all the other Implementation Plans for all other LCP
segments were completed, but not this one. It still needs to be done.
Q: What structures are allowed under an Open Space designation?
A: Open Space can be used for structures that relate to recreational use, such as a
gymnasium, or public facilities like a sewer or water distribution station. But such
public facilities require a conditional use permit and require a public hearing.
Q: Is a city hall or civic center an example of that?
A: Yes, with a conditional use permit.
Q: What would SDG&E like to do with the property?
A: (Carrillo) SDG&E would like to sell it and have the flexibility to work with various
developers. We don’t have any specific plans. We just want to work with the City and
retain our rights.
6
Q: Does the Public Utilities Commission restrict how much land a utility can own?
A: (Carrillo) I don’t know the answer to that.
o Changes to Open Space, Holzmiller
About 40% of the City of Carlsbad is supposed to remain in Open Space. Changes can
be made to the location of Open Space, so long as there is no “net loss.” Changes must
be for an equal or greater area, of equal or greater quality, contiguous or close
proximity, AND if impact to sensitive resource area: 2:1 mitigation ratio. It is difficult
to take land out of the Open Space designation.
o Existing City Policies Regarding Agriculture, Holzmiller (see Exhibits 4(D) and
(E) in Citizens Committee Workbook)
• To permit, promote and support agriculture in the City for as long as it
remains economically viable.
• Allow the conversion of agriculture to another land use consistent with the
General Plan when it is no longer economically feasible to continue farming
a property
• For designated agricultural properties in the Coastal Zone, allow the
conversion upon payment of a mitigation fee
The Flower Fields are a special situation and the City has taken further measures to
retain that area.
o Agricultural Mitigation Fee, Holzmiller
An example: when Legoland and the GIA were developed from agricultural land, the
fees paid were used to help promote the Flower Fields.
Q: Does the City prohibit the conversion of agricultural land while agricultural is still
feasible? Who decides if the property is “no longer economically feasible to continue
farming”?
A: For areas in the coastal zone, there are 3 options: an agricultural property owner
can choose to preserve land elsewhere in California, but that has never happened in the
City. A property owner must prove infeasibility, and that has never happened in the
City, and the City believes this would be difficult to prove. So the property owners
that have converted have chosen to pay the agricultural mitigation fee, such as with
Legoland.
Q: If they pay the fee, it doesn’t change the zoning from open space, correct?
A: That’s correct. The City of Carlsbad doesn’t have a permanent agricultural land
use zone, it is considered temporary. The City can’t force a property owner to
continue farming.
7
Q: How much of the $6 million collected for agricultural mitigation fees has been
spent, and what was the largest expenditure?
A: Previously, all mitigation money was going to the state, and the state spent some.
Finally the City requested the City program money be returned about 5 years ago.
None has been allocated yet. There is a technical advisory committee determining
how the money should be spent. Promotion of agriculture isn’t listed as a use in the
State program. The State has used approximately 50% of the money it collected for
environmental projects such as Batiquitos Lagoon and beach access stairways.
IV. Presentation by Eric Larson, Executive Director, San Diego County Farm
Bureau
There is a long history of agriculture in Carlsbad. Originally there were a number of
crops including potatoes, celery, avocadoes, roses, geraniums and also poultry. Much of
the original agricultural land is no longer being used for agriculture.
All of the current coastal agriculture land farmers, except in Encinitas, do not own the
land. They are tenant farmers.
The Flower Fields collect money from selling cut flowers, bulbs, and fees to visitors of
the property.
The “Strawberry Fields” in Carlsbad have a longer and earlier season than other areas
that grow strawberries and grow a larger premium berry.
Some issues that might affect the continuation of these agricultural businesses:
1. Immigration reform -- Without a guest worker program, we expect to lose 40% of
agriculture here and that would probably be similar throughout the US.
2. Farmworker housing – This issue is not solved. Housing costs are too high.
Carlsbad has failed to provide adequate affordable housing.
3. Maintaining the niche markets for strawberries and flowers.
4. Methyl bromide is a chemical which is applied to the flower and strawberry fields
once a year to kill insects, weeds, and otherwise prepare the land for planting. It
depletes ozone and has been banned. The ranunculus probably could not be
grown without it. They have to apply for a “critical need exception” every year in
order to continue using it, and there is not a replacement on the horizon. The
Strawberry Fields will attempt to grow using organic fertilizer if they are not
allowed to use methyl bromide.
5. Family generational changes –These are family farms and as the generations
change it is uncertain if the farms will continue within the family.
Q: Does this mean that there is no longer “economic viability” to agriculture?
A: If it wasn’t viable, it wouldn’t be there.
If farmers own the land, it creates greater stability for the farms. Farms are difficult to
sell and tend to be family owned businesses.
8
Q: Why is agriculture different in Encinitas, why does it work better there?
A: Encinitas has farmer owned greenhouses, rather than field agriculture, which has
suffered from competition with Mexico.
Q: So the agriculture here in Carlsbad is very specialized?
A: Yes.
Q: Could the property owners give us a ballpark idea of the rent charged to the farmers?
A: (no answer)
Wrap up
o The Chair requested more information from staff on certain topics: open space uses,
and the coastal agricultural overlay zone.
o The newspapers had previously claimed some committee members were not voting
residents of Carlsbad. The members explained that they were indeed voting
residents of Carlsbad.
o Resume from attorney, James Lough, was distributed He was hired as outside
counsel to the City. He will be available to discuss the legal impacts of the
initiatives at a future meeting.
o Request to increase the amount of time for presenters to 1 hour plus questions.
Chair agreed to discuss this with staff. It was discussed briefly by the committee
and the general sentiment seemed to be against increasing the time allotted.
o Request for notification for future agendas for presentations.
o Q: Who was invited to make the presentation for each of the initiatives at the next
meeting?
A: Ron Alvarez, Nancy Calverley, and Mayor Lewis.
o Q: Will the issue of the impact of the freeway widening ever be discussed?
A: (Bob Johnson) We could present on that topic.
The presentation was requested by the Chair.
Next Meeting: Tuesday, June 6th 9 a.m.
Notes prepared by NCRC staff
9
City of Carlsbad
Citizens’ Committee to Study the Flower Fields and Strawberry Fields Area
Notes of Meeting #3
June 6, 2006, 9 a.m. to 12 p.m., City of Carlsbad, 1635 Faraday, Room 173B
Present:
Committee members: (*non-voting members)
Pete Aadland Gary Hill Seth Schulberg
Jill Agosti
Jennifer Benner
Mark Johnson
Pat Kurth
Marvin Sippel*
Heidi Willes
Chris Calkins* Keith Lewinger Mark Winkler
Nancy Calverley*
Marvin Cap
Len Martyns
Kip McBane
Claudia Carrillo* Gina McBride
Bill Dominguez Leslea Meyerhoff
Farrah Douglas
Vern Farrow
Robert Morgan
Eric Munoz (chair)
Bob Garcin
Absent:
Courtney Heineman
Cary Manning
Peder Norby
Laura Means Pope
Daniel Swiger
City of Carlsbad Staff:
Gary Barberio – Principal Planner
Karen Chen – Management Analyst.
Cynthia Haas – Economic and Real Estate Manager
Sandra Holder – Community Development Director
Michael Holzmiller – Former City Planning Director, Consultant to City
Bob Johnson – Deputy City Engineer, Transportation
Jane Mobaldi – Assistant City Attorney
Mark Steyaert – Park Development Manager
Courtney Enriquez – Intern
9 public and 3 press
Facilitators from National Conflict Resolution Center:
Barbara Filner
Christina Simokat
Lisa Cole, assistant
1
I. Roll call
Previous meeting notes approved.
II. Consideration of Subcommittee Formation to create draft initiative comparison Matrix
Draft Matrix distributed to all in attendance. To be used as a neutral tool and any committee
member can request revisions from subcommittee members.
Subcommittee members selected:
Farrah Douglas
Gary Hill
Leslea Meyerhoff
Seth Schulberg
Committee members to stay briefly after the meeting to determine
schedule.
Public comment allowed at this time?
No comments yet: will be held at the end of the meeting, as scheduled.
All presentations held to 30 minutes
All questions please hold to end of all presentations.
Handout of timeline from staff: part of packet.
III. Presentation “Carlsbad Gateway Parkland and Open Space Initiative of 2006"
(PowerPoint presentation notes and a handout of exhibits prepared for this background
presentation made available to meeting participants.)
Presented by Ramona Finnila, Carlsbad Citizens for Usable Public Places
Previous CCPS process series drafted the idea of a civic village. In November 2005, the idea was
revealed to the community through local presentations.
CCUPP group wants to take the same approach to the 320 acre “gateway” area. This initiative
requires one comprehensive plan for all areas, rather then different plans for each area. The main
goal of the plan is increase public access to open space. Supporting human scale development.
Proposing a trail around the lagoon.
Master planning is how Carlsbad was started, and this proposal allows the continuation of this
idea. Aviara is an example.
2
Recreation Opportunities
• Initiative would provide for a “central park” where citizens can all
gather and meet. Millennium Park in Chicago is a good example of
this idea.
• Trails are the number one priority of citizens, and this initiative
would address the connectivity of these trails.
Commercial Opportunities
• Cultural events
• Museums, etc.
• Amphitheatre
Housing Opportunities
• This initiative provides for “smart growth” housing while both of
the other initiatives do not.
• Does not include single family, large housing units, but rather
smaller, mixed use housing.
Need buy in from City and State
Agricultural Opportunities
• Agriculture is moving out of Carlsbad
• Supports idea of “Urban Agriculture” which includes the use of
hydroponic growing.
The Cannon/Gateway area is on the City Council’s priority list for 2006.
IV. Presentation “Save the Strawberry and Flower Growing Fields Act of 2006”
Presented by Ron Alvarez & Michael Bovenzi.
History:
• Citizens signed in support of this initiative.
City of Carlsbad was having “private” meeti• ngs with Lennar regarding
developing the areas in question.
Concerned that city of Carlsbad do• esn’t know how many housing units it
currently has and if it is reaching “build out” in the NW Quadrant.
Proposition E places a dwelling unit cap in Carlsbad •
o Requires City Manager to submit an annual report that tracks “build out”
•900 to
rdable housing
es for development
• stat
o
therefore it is difficult to accurately track development in Carlsbad
City should have outside analysis done to determine the current leve
These reports had not been completed and were not available for review,
o l of
residential development, how close to build out?
1,000 housing units are proposed for this area
o density bonus to developers for putting in affo
o Village Redevelopment Area
o Plaza Camino Real
o adds 2,000 new hom
e law has requirements for new development
3
• 2005 Public Opinion report states that 90% of citizens are tired of traffic and
development
• meetings with the Coastal Commission revealed that the Commission does not
want to develop anything in the lagoon area.
• Growth Management plan states that 40% of city must be maintained as open
space. This land was originally an agricultural preserve, but it is currently
disappearing.
• The existing parks are being under utilized, so why add new parks?
• Cities with pure open space have higher resale values as it provides a rural
feeling.
• City was in discussion with developers who were buying Lots 3 and 5, so 3,000
signatures were gathered to present to the city of the community’s discontent with
the discussion.
Current Initiative:
• Based on input from the community.
• Create new zoning designation: Coastal Agricultural
• Specifies what is already in the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan.
• 1985 Citizen’s study showed:
the community feels that the city should take a more active role in
preserving agricultural use
• Carlsbad Ranch Agricultural Study shows:
Many crops can be grown in San Diego, and there are opportunities for
organic farming without Methyl bromide
V. Presentation “The Flower Fields, Strawberry Fields, Open Space and Public Trails
Protection Act of 2006”
(PowerPoint presentation notes and a handout of exhibits prepared for this background
presentation made available to meeting participants.)
Presented by Mayor Bud Lewis
Initiative is made to be similar to the “Save the Strawberry and Flower Growing Fields Act of
2006”.
Designates the area as open space.
Calls for farming, trails, passive park, public recreation areas, and potentially a civic center, if
the public votes for it.
Prohibits residential.
Distributed article by Logan Jenkins of the San Diego Union Tribune
States Mr. Alvarez’s position (Save the Strawberry and Flower Fields Act of 2006”) as
paraphrased by reporter.
4
VI. Questions from Committee
Public Question submitted:
Q: In the city’s initiative, what is included in the civic center? Commercial? Restaurants?
A: If we put it before the public, there will be total public input. There is no plan of what the
civic center would contain at this time. This would be subject to future planning and
development.
Committee Members Questions:
First Initiative: Gateway
Questions addressed to Ramona Finnila
Q: Could you expand on the process of public input in the Civic Center development?
A: Ideas developed in the CCPS meetings would be turned into a conceptual plan which would
then be taken to the appropriate departments for review. Public input occurred in the CCPS
meetings. A “park & ride” type of public transportation could help traffic.
Q: How do you anticipate dealing with traffic caused by this initiative?
A: Public transportation is in the works to provide better access to coordinate transportation
services so that it accommodates the most amount of people.
Q: How will resident concerns about types of housing, commercial use, etc. be addressed by this
initiative?
A: Different types of issues can be addressed through discussion with staff during the master
planning process. This initiative doesn’t limit the type of use/development.
Q: So this is the same as the city of Carlsbad’s process and the only difference is the creation of a
comprehensive plan, so no part can be planned separately from the whole?
A: That is correct.
Q: What about the “center mass servicing” concept and the purchase of the insurance building?
What is your concept of size of a civic center?
A: Space needs of the city employees would be considered, and which departments would be
best where. The civic center would not be a monolith, but would be similar to the Scottsdale,
Arizona civic center. The center could be open and allow joint use with the public and other
organizations.
Q: 60% of land is going to be open space: Does that include the lagoon? Can you provide any
information on the Montreal Act? Are you going to address the taking of private properties?
5
A: The Montreal Act, stated that the methyl bromide use must be stopped in 2005, more
information is available online through Google.
Regarding 60% open space, 60% of the planning area (320 acres) would remain open space, not
including the lagoon itself.
Regarding taking private property: the two land owners who own the 320 acres have not been
consulted on the use of their land at this time. The land owners would have to be agreeable for
the city to buy the land from the owners. If it is in the greater public good, the city would be able
to utilize eminent domain, which has been used only once in the past.
Q. The heart of this initiative seems to be the comprehensiveness? Why do you make the
statement that this cannot be done on a parcel by parcel basis.
A: The different properties are not owned by the same individuals. All the owners would need to
sit down together and discuss the master plan.
Q: Housing seems to be the controversial issue of the time, can you describe the concept of
housing that your group is thinking of?
A: Yes, we are thinking of mixed use housing. For example, you could have lofts above
commercial areas. It was never in the plan to have large, single family homes in the area.
Although it is hard to think about housing in this area, you all have your homes, and it is very
admirable to think of our kids, and their needs.
Q: The civic center will be the center of government or for the people?
A: The trend that one sees in cities that have the capacities to have civic villages, is to have both
civic and public areas. For example, CSU San Marcos has rented space from the City of San
Marcos. It would be a place for children and seniors as well. It would also provide meeting
places for the public as well.
Q: Aviara didn’t need an initiative, so why does this?
A: With the introduction of the Save the Flower Fields Initiative came the necessity of this
initiative.
Q: If that is you position, why didn’t you just oppose the Save the Flower Fields Initiative?
A. The reason we did that, is that we saw the response that the Save the Flower Fields initiative
was getting. Because many of the ideas in the Save the Flower Fields Initiatives are based on
erroneous information, we decided to do it as an initiative as it takes an educational process to
turn around citizens.
Q: Who acquires the land for trails, and constructs, and maintains them?
6
A: If the city were working with the land owners, the city would have carte blanche to do what
they want with the trails. Maintained by the city or by Gary Hill’s volunteer group.
Q: If you take open space, you have to replace it somewhere else. Where would you put the
replacement for the 40% of development area? Also, is the city in a position to be able to
purchase the land?
A: There are different uses for open space (Golf course, habitat management, parks, etc.). In our
plan, we would use 40% of the land in development.
Regarding payment, if you have a developer working with you, then the developer would pay the
cost. In the past, the city has paid a portion of the cost. This is all negotiated. In addition, state
funding could possibly be used.
Q: Carlsbad has operated as a government where the doors are open. Between CCPS and this
committee, what happened to the open doors?
A: When you take any type of a planning process, the city sends its best staff, (our experts) to
meet the developers. That is the process in any city. We have an open process here, and it is one
of the very best processes. This process has always been open, which is clear to anyone who
understands planning.
Second Initiative: Save the Fields
Questions addressed to Ron Alvarez & Michael Bovenzi.
Q: (addressed to city staff) Additional housing units going on these properties had an effect on
the future property development. Can city planning clarify that fact?
A: Michael Holzmiller: All of the residential properties in any of the quadrants have a certain
allocation of the number of units for each property. If there are excess units, the use of these
excess units would not affect the development of any existing properties.
Q: Why should public uses be banned on these properties?
A: We are just re looking at one of the uses that is already on the books, which is farming. We
are not taking any rights away from anyone, but simply narrowing the scope of what is already
on the books.
Q: (addressed to city staff) (1) Do the unit allocations for each quadrant include time share and
hotel development; and (2) Once housing allocations caps are reached, does that mean that
additional properties could not be developed on the same land?
A: (Sandra Holder) (1) Time share and hotel units are not included in the allocations. There
could not be an instance where a quadrant cap could be exceeded. However, excess dwelling
units can be transferred to other properties within the city.
7
(2) Chair requested that City Staff will prepare a written response to these questions.
Q: What is your relationship with Mr. Goldstein, and can you provide us a list of your members?
A: I can provide that list: Ron Alvarez (Treasurer) & Mr. Dustin Johnson (Asst. Treasurer) in
addition to community members and new members.
I met Mr. Goldstein through his nanny. Mr. Goldstein has been a friend of mine for many years. I
have helped him with his gardening. All that time I have known them and their family through
ministering to his family. He has asked me to do design work, however I have stated to him that I
cannot do commercial design as I am not licensed to do that. I have never been hired by Mr
Goldstein for other services and he is not behind this initiative. The newspaper articles provided
are not true.
Q: The reason I ask is that it seemed like you didn’t even know his name. You were not aware
that he was going to put a vineyard on this property.
A: I slipped when I said his name with the vineyard comment earlier.
Q: Should your petition pass, could the land still be withdrawn from agriculture through the
agricultural mitigation fees process? Will that still be in effect so that the land can still be
changed?
A: The land can be changed by another initiative.
Q: (1) You said that members of the city met with Lennar on 11 occasions, however I was at
those meetings, and I don’t remember seeing any of the city council members at the meetings.
(2) Your process seems to go beyond city planning . . .
A: As I stated before, of course we have strawberries and flowers growing on the land, but other
things can be grown there. That would be up to those who own the land, and there would have to
be some sort of agreement with those who would like to own the land. We are talking about
continuing farming there, but that there are other opportunities for farming on those lands.
Q: What does it mean to keep the land in farming area? Does that mean that the city should fund
agriculture or provide labor?
A: That part of the initiative came out of the 1985 study by the city which wanted to encourage
agriculture. Whatever means they see fit to is part of the initiative.
Q: Taking something that was once a suggestion to become a law or an ordinance has certain
ramifications. Has that been addressed?
A: All I want to do is bring us back to what Carlsbad stood for and was marketed as, and that is
these lands stay as agriculture.
Further supplemental information to be provided by Mr. Alvarez.
8
Third Initiative: Fields Protection Act
Questions addressed to Mayor Bud Lewis and Councilmember Matt Hall
Q: What do Ron Alvarez & Michael Bovenzi think of initiative three?
A: (Ron Alvarez) The third initiative involves open space, but open space involves development
of some kind. This involves the build out issue as stated before.
This initiative has gained support because it mirrors our initiative, but it involves the civic center
project.
Q: The city is in the process of building a golf course, and the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan
called for adding 9 extra holes onto the course (27 total) to provide greater public viability. There
has been extensive planning on this course. Why have you decided that this should be eliminated
at this time?
A: Mayor: The golf course was planned in 1988. The cost factor is a driving force (it went from
$7 million to $57 million). Public support has changed. With all of these things considered, the
city council decided to go a different direction.
Regarding secret meetings, I had one private meeting with Mr. Goldstein, Mr. Alvarez and their
attorneys. This is standard practice. The “secret meetings” with Lennar are something that has
been fabricated. I had two meetings with the Lennar people and told them that there should be no
residential development.
A: Council Member Hall: What does “secret meeting” mean? I had met with the Lennar people
to find out what their intentions are for this land. I also met with Mr. Alvarez and his attorney on
his intentions as well. Because of the actions that we were having, no report (build out) was
prepared. It has never been our attempt to try and side step, or do anything not in the interest of
the Citizen’s of Carlsbad.
We have today perhaps an initiative that the public would support. Mr. Goldstein and Mr.
Alvarez did not want to collaborate on this issue, which unfortunately creates controversy, and
not a focus on the goal.
Q: Why, over 33 years, was nothing ever done with Hub Park?
A: That is included within the parks program. Veterans Park (as it is now called) will be
addressed by a future council. Right now there is a money problem.
Q: Are we going to have a fiscal impact report on your initiative as well as the other two?
A: (Chair) Yes, staff will prepare that and it will be distributed.
9
Comment by Council Member Hall: Regarding excess dwelling units, these do not infringe on
your rights to possess, develop and build on your own land, consistent with the General Plan.
Michael Bovenzi: In response to Jennifer Benner’s question: The Lennar developers are
proposing to double the capacity. Many of the developers in the Village area will not be able to
develop their properties as the excess dwelling units will be gone.
Q: (Addressed to Claudia Carillo): The leases for the strawberry fields: Are they short or long
term?
A: I believe they are fairly short term, but I can get back to you on that.
VII. Public Comment
John Strayer:
I am one of the founders of the of the CCUPP’s Committee. Not one of us believes in ballot box
planning. I believe that the planning in Carlsbad is excellent. I would like to commend the city. I
have been involved in athletics planning. We meet every week to socialize. When this land in the
planning area is closed, people will not be able to meet other people. As to restrictions of
property development in our initiative, it provides options. It keeps all options open. We need a
parade for Carlsbad.
Additional Business:
Committee requested a presentation on the report that was prepared for City Council on the
Gateway area?
Comment: It is frustrating that there is not enough time in this meeting to get all the committee
questions answered. Can we have an additional meeting with Ron Alvarez and Michael Bovenzi?
Move to invite all three initiative groups to come back for maximum of 15 minutes of Q&A.
Move seconded.
Next Meeting: Thursday, June 15, 2006 at 9:00 A.M.
10
1
City of Carlsbad
Citizens’ Committee to Study the Flower Fields and Strawberry Fields Area
Summary Notes of Meeting #4
June 15, 2006, 9 a.m. to 12 p.m.,
City of Carlsbad, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Room 173B
Present:
Committee members: (*non-voting members)
Pete Aadland Bob Garcin Leslea Meyerhoff
Jill Agosti Courtney Heineman* Robert Morgan
Jennifer Benner Gary Hill Eric Munoz (chair)
Chris Calkins* Mark Johnson Peder Norby
Nancy Calverley* Pat Kurth Laura Means Pope
Marvin Cap Keith Lewinger Marvin Sippel*
Claudia Carrillo* Cary Manning Seth Schulberg
Bill Dominguez Len Martyns Mark Winkler
Farrah Douglas Kip McBane (vice-chair) Heidi Willes
Vern Farrow Gina McBride
Absent:
Daniel Swiger
City of Carlsbad Staff:
Gary Barberio – Principal Planner
Paul Edmonson – Assistant City Attorney
Cynthia Haas – Economic and Real Estate Manager
Sandra Holder – Community Development Director
Bob Johnson – Deputy City Engineer, Transportation
Barbara Nedros - Administrative Secretary
Mark Steyaert – Park Development Manager
Courtney Enriquez – Management Intern
Michael Holzmiller – Consultant to City
Special Counsel:
Jim Lough of McDougal, Love, Eckis, Smith, Boehmer & Foley, a law firm that represents
many cities.
Facilitators from National Conflict Resolution Center:
Barbara Filner
Robin Seigle
Christina Simokat, assistant
8 public and 2 press
2
I. Roll Call
Summary Notes approved
Amendment to Agenda was to allow more time for questions of each initiative sponsor.
(20 minutes).
II. Public Comment
None
III. Additional Initiative Question and Answer Sessions
Chair Munoz requested that today’s focus would be on questions, rather than statements from the
Committee. Responses to the Committee’s previously submitted questions will be addressed
first, and, if time allows, any follow-up questions.
Chair suggested that the initiative representatives respond to the questions only, not statements
from the questions previously submitted.
Chair read a letter from Ron Alvarez, delivered by Michael Bovenzi. Mr. Alvarez stated that
there was not enough time in the agenda to respond adequately. Chair will ask him to respond in
writing by noon on Monday, June 19. Mr. Bovenzi said he had not been given enough time to
adequately prepare and he will submit his responses in writing by the same deadline. He wants
to respond to the questions that were directed at him specifically.
20 minutes was allowed for responses to questions from each initiative.
Questions have been regrouped into topics by the facilitators to help organize the meeting in a
more time efficient manner.
Legal questions submitted by the Committee and San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E)
will be answered by Mr. Lough later in the agenda.
Chair emphasized that issues should be discussed in a respectful manner.
a. C.C.U.PP. represented by Ramona Finnila (using Initiative questions in the
original order)
1. The yellow area is the planning area. The 48.26 acre area is designated for tourism.
Cramming the area against the freeway might not be the best alignment. We suggest that
maybe it could be slightly reoriented so there could be a little flexibility depending on the
use.
2. The residential area was supposed to be north of Cannon.
3. The previous process involved 600 people but was interrupted by the Save the Fields
initiative.
4. We were not thinking of single family homes but smaller mixed use housing. But we have no
plan yet.
3
5. There are many cities that have 9 to 5 civic centers surrounded by residential areas.
Examples, Frank Lloyd Wright Civic Center in Marin County has a lot of infill development;
Scottsdale….
6. A master plan would take years and there would be time for the agriculture leases to expire.
We support urban agriculture, example, Santa Barbara.
(1.) Businesses are very concerned about who will be around their businesses day and night.
We think the businesses would be enhanced.
(3.) An agriculture feasibility study is possible, but who pays for it?
(4.) If either Initiative A or C wins, that will have to be addressed.
(5.) I don’t know.
Additional:
Q: The other tourist businesses along the freeway (hotels and other) make it okay. Why
wouldn’t the proposed tourist commercial area work in its present configuration?
A: It could, but we thought there should be some flexibility.
Q: Is the proposal to reorient to escape the power line easement?
A: It could do that.
Q: Who will take care of the farm workers?
A: It is usually government who takes care of housing for the poor. We also have to take care of
the poor workers in the hotel and restaurant industries. Some of the growers have provided
housing, which is not so in the other industries. The City of Carlsbad, against objections in
1992, has an affordable housing inclusionary policy. The farm workers don’t always live in
Carlsbad year round and may have transportation and go wherever they want to go.
c. City, represented by Mayor Bud Lewis and Councilman Matt Hall (using
Initiative questions in the original order)
Mayor Lewis emphasized that the reason he proposed this initiative was because people who
were signing the “Save the Fields” initiative did not understand what it would do. People are
“ticked off” about growth and traffic. They don’t understand how to protect open space. We
want to protect the city the best way we can and would have liked to use the “normal” process in
which a proposal is made to the City, wherein citizens can make comments, then it goes through
the Planning Commission to the City Council for review. It also goes out for an environmental
impact review.
4
We want to protect the city and make it easier for the public to know what is being voted on. We
are also concerned about not “taking” from private landowners, and being fair. The alternate
uses for the open space area are listed in our initiative.
Historically, we wanted to have all open space, but the City Attorney advised that it would be
costly to the City because there would be too much “taking” from private landowners.
A civic center must be voted on if it is in the open space area.
If you go with the agricultural zoning you are not sure what you are getting. People don’t want
more residential development
We assumed Carltas was going to sell the golf course parcels to Lennar.
Hall
1. Land use does not work well by the ballot box. Once the initiative is adopted, it can’t be
changed. He suggested that an advisory vote from a committee works better.
2. 5 or 6
3. The City prides itself on giving information to the community. People are looking for certain
details, but they express their requests broadly. It may take thousands of hours of city staff
time, so we asked them for detailed descriptions of what they wanted.
4. It was understood that Carltas was selling the land. The citizens are more interested in passive
Open Space.
5. City measure allows a number of open space usages and allows modification if there is a
taking of property rights.
6. City doesn’t require agriculture, it only promotes it. No subsidies for agriculture included.
7. (Lewis) It is $1.29 for recycled water for you isn’t it? (Calkins) Really the city’s policies are
set for urban use of water, not to promote agriculture. The city’s initiative doesn’t address
this.
8. The city’s measure allows a vote for a Civic Center or not.
9. No. It allows for farming and other uses.
10. It will explore grant programs. It doesn’t include more financial support from the city.
11. All the other sites are designated open space and the last thing the people want is more
housing. It only allows a vote on a Civic Center. It could be a chance to create a great
community gathering space.
5
Chair asked if the committee wanted to extend the city’s time by 5 minutes. The vote was yes.
13. and 14. People do not want this development on the lagoon.
Additional Questions for C.C.U.P.P.
Q. Will your initiative keep this area in agriculture?
A: As long as the current leases are maintained with SDG&E and as long as it’s economically
viable. SDG&E decides what happens when the lease is up.
Q: Who determines if it is viable?
A: That depends on which initiative wins.
Q: Is a community garden a possibility?
A: Carlsbad currently has one. It’s a good concept, but it isn’t economically feasible for that
section of the city, we haven’t ruled it out. We know people want more of it.
Q: Is your group still collecting signatures? Will you get it on the ballot?
A: We still have time. We did not use paid signature gatherers. It’s a slow process.
Chair proposes an agenda change to expand the legal presentation to 30 minutes. Also there is
one member of public who requests a comment period. The matrix subcommittee will have a
slightly shortened period. No objections voiced.
IV. James Lough, special counsel
His roles are to:
1) advise the Carlsbad City Council, and
2) advise this Committee.
Takings Law: overview
There are 2 types:
1) Physical invasions where a city takes over and doesn’t allow development. Not the situation
here.
2) Regulatory taking
• Facial attack: violating a constitutional amendment. None of these initiatives fall
here.
• As applied: is relevant here. SDG&E sees this as an “as applied” taking.
3 part test:
o economic impact
o owners’ reasonable investment-backed expectations of
value (might be raised here)
o character of the governmental action – raises issues of
motives
6
In the Supreme Court, regulatory takings are determined on a case-by-case basis. The results of
litigation to challenge a city’s taking of property run the gamut. I haven’t seen appraisals yet so I
can’t say, but typically this is a fight by the experts.
The League of California Cities has a “takings project”. Their view is if more than 60% of the
value is taken, it needs to be looked at carefully.
Land Use Issues
• All 3 initiatives propose General Plan amendments. You must have vertical and
internal consistencies. There are not a lot of serious problems with any of these
initiatives. Zoning becomes the issue.
• Public initiatives are the drafting of legislation. They must be the same as if the City
Council passed it, except that they are not subject to CEQA and public hearings, but
they will be inspected closely. But everything requires Coastal Commission approval
and they will not look at anything ahead of being filed. They may have a hard time
with taking out the visitor service, or they may not.
• You can’t supersede the Public Utilities Commission either.
• Another thought is pesticide use on or near public trails. Regulations will only get
stricter.
• An initiative cannot direct future legislative acts of the City Council in a way that will
tie their hands. 3.12 of the Save the Fields might be a problem but I can’t give a
definitive answer.
Referring to the Legal Questions handout:
Save the Fields
1. The question is will these initiatives result in a diminution in land value and no
reasonable economic use. But you can’t tell that right now. If agriculture becomes
untenable in the future, then it may be a “taking.” Gateway does not require housing
but it allows it. It is a “policy,” not a project.
2. I don’t think the council would be required to do anything. It is allowed to, but not
required.
3. “Practicable” generally means reasonableness. It is generally defined and reviewed on
a case-by-case basis.
4. Yes, it’s legally significant. The Coastal Commission will have decision-making
power.
5. It’s a common standard; maybe 25% of the evidence.
6. Same.
7
7. No. Developers can vest their rights by filing an application. The City can enter into
an agreement to freeze development. Two of the initiatives have “out” clauses. The
general standard: if there is a building permit or if they have expended substantial
money to implement it, then there can be a “vested right” issue. There is certainty in
the process once a complete application is on file.
General
1. The law moves in this area, but it will be moving toward the property owner. Again
the standard is “investment backed expectations.” The court will look at the
circumstances and what would a “reasonable person” expect. Law in this area
changes.
2. The City has to pay and it will affect taxpayers
3. If all three pass, the one with the highest number of votes will win.
4. I can’t guess until we know the value of expenditures. For vested property rights, you
need to establish the “diminution of value.”
8. That was a rather unique case.
11. The initiatives only affect the properties in question. They do not set precedent.
12. I don’t think you can make the regulation retroactive. That usually doesn’t happen.
But I don’t think that affects the whole initiative.
14. Don’t know.
15. Cities can refuse to put something on the ballot. They can refuse to accept the
results. But they are difficult challenges. Property owners probably can’t keep
these off the ballot. They usually challenge afterwards: on procedural grounds or
“as applied”. The actual legal process would be about 2 ½ years.
8
His perspective: Citizen’s groups allow a council to “punt” a difficult, long-term issue, but the
downside is there are usually defects in the drafting. City Councils are not equipped to make
decisions about “takings” cases, which affect the “Save the Fields” and the City’s initiatives.
Requires expert opinions. Having a mini trial might be a way around that.
Q: Who is liable in a “takings” case? The taxpayer?
A: Yes. Though most “takings” cases result in a defense verdict.
Chair asked for Mr Lough’s responses in writing by Tuesday, June 20, if possible, and please
include a list of all agencies that have pre-emptive jurisdiction.
A: Yes, for example, RWQCB, PUC, CCC, Dept. of Toxic Control. I will include that.
Q: Are the courts more liberal in the interpretation of public initiatives?
A: A little.
Q: There was reference to a “fatal flaw”?
A: There may be a problem if the petition wasn’t circulated in Spanish and English. The law
may change that way soon, or it may not. But there’s nothing we can do about that right now.
V. Public Comment
Dan Conway: A procedural suggestion for the committee. Public comment was on the agenda
at the beginning of the meeting. This is not a very user-friendly public comment period. It would
be more useful if the public can make a comment at the end of each section, after we’ve heard
the information presented, before you move on to another subject.
Chair notes the future agenda may not accommodate that but we will accept written comments.
VI. Matrix presentation, presented by Seth Schulberg
The Subcommittee agreed fairly easily on everything and represented the opinions of a biologist,
a planner, a property owner and a concerned citizen.
The end is technical analysis. The issues analysis can be added to. They tried to reduce the
wording so the voter can understand more easily.
Refer to the matrix handout. Refer to handout on excess dwelling units.
Q: In the Gateway initiative, for excess dwelling units, can we change from yes to maybe?
A: That’s a good point.
9
Q: What is allowed under agriculture for the “Save the Fields” initiative? Will there not be
trails? I don’t see anything that precludes it.
A: The subcommittee didn’t see anything in the “Save the Fields” initiative that would allow
general public access. Since we didn’t see anything that allows it specifically, we assumed it
wasn’t there.
Holzmiller adds that the property owner does not have to allow access, unless there is an
easement. The property owner can put up a fence and not allow it at any time, or they could
allow an easement.
Q: So the City could negotiate those easements later?
A: (Holzmiller) Yes, but if it isn’t included in the initiative it could be difficult. It’s not
guaranteed.
A: We can’t examine the motivations of the initiative creators.
Q: Since the public wants to know about housing and development, can we put in a column
about what is allowed in each initiative?
Chair asked the Committee to restrict questions to developing this as a tool.
Q: I’d like to see HMP added.
Q: We owe it to the public to let them know that the Flower (ranunculus) Fields were never in
danger. I’d like to see the name of that row changed and moved to the top to reflect that.
Q: We need a row for recreation vs trails.
Q: We need it spelled out how much open space, how many acres, in each initiative.
(Holzmiller) This is in the technical section.
Q: We may want to change the sequence of the items.
Q: Commercial use in each isn’t addressed. It should be made obvious.
Q: We need a column for a “no initiative” option. There are 4 choices not 3.
Q: “Public benefits” is a problem because one person’s benefits are not the same to all. We
need something that says “Uses”.
Q: The matrix should be unbiased.
Q: How will this information be disseminated to the public?
10
Written comments will be coming to the committee from the “Save the Fields” group and from
Mr. Lough and we should read the open space section of the notebook, and the information on
the I-5 widening.
Q: Are we going to hear from Mr. Alvarez and Mr. Bovenzi in person?
A: (Chair) Everyone was given an equal opportunity and they responded in the way they did.
Q: Can we receive written responses from all the initiatives?
Q: We’ve never heard from the actual farmers.
A: (Chair) We can hear from Mr. Larson if we need to. He said he would be available.
Q: Can we get examples from other places in the state about what the allowable uses might be in
an Agricultural Zone?
A: Ventura, Santa Barbara and Marin Counties will be your best bets.
Q: Can we get Mr. Lough to respond in writing to the questions from SDG&E?
Q: Can we get an assessment of the impact of changes to the Palomar Airport?
City of Carlsbad
Citizens’ Committee to Study the Flower Fields and Strawberry Fields Area
Summary Notes of Meeting #5
June 20, 2006, 9 a.m. to 12 p.m.,
City of Carlsbad, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Room 173B
Present:
Committee members: (*non-voting members)
Jill Agosti Bob Garcin Gina McBride
Jennifer Benner Courtney Heineman* Leslea Meyerhoff
Chris Calkins* Gary Hill Eric Munoz (chair)
Nancy Calverley* Mark Johnson Peder Norby
Marvin Cap Pat Kurth Laura Means Pope
Claudia Carrillo* Keith Lewinger Marvin Sippel*
Bill Dominguez Len Martyns Seth Schulberg
Farrah Douglas Cary Manning Heidi Willes
Vern Farrow Kip McBane (vice-chair) Mark Winkler
Absent:
Pete Aadland
Robert Morgan
Daniel Swiger
City of Carlsbad Staff:
Gary Barberio – Principal Planner
Karen Chen – Management Analyst
Courtney Enriquez -- Management Intern
Cynthia Haas – Economic and Real Estate Manager
Sandra Holder – Community Development Director
Bob Johnson – Deputy City Engineer, Transportation
Jane Mobaldi– Assistant City Attorney
Mark Steyaert – Park Development Manager
Barbara Nedros – Administrative Secretary
Michael Holzmiller - Consultant to City
Jim Simon, RSG
10 public and 2 press
1
I. Roll Call and Notes.
The June 15th Summary Meeting Notes will be provided within this week, and will be subject to
approval at the next meeting
All written comments that have been submitted will be distributed. The deadline for written
comments was Monday, June 19th at noon.
Nancy Calverley notes that though Lennar has dropped out, that her group (Carlsbad Citizens for
Usable Public Places) C.C. U. P.P. has not.
II. Public Comment
None
III. Fiscal Impact, presented by Jim Simon, RSG
Please refer to PowerPoint handout. A complete report will be submitted to theCity Council in
July. This is a preliminary report, addressing primarily the economic impact of turning the
Tourist/Recreation (TR) parcel into open space.
Loss of the TR site would have a significant economic impact to the city.
The City’s proposal and the “Save the Fields” initiatives withdraw development rights.
There would be opportunity costs to city:
• $3 million in lost operating revenue annually
• $6.6 million in lost one-time development/facility fees
• $9.7 million in one-time acquisition costs
• Possible additional implementation costs
There are existing development restrictions due to:
• SDG&E transmission lines
• Coastal Commission Conservation Area
• Habitat Management Plan
Of the TR parcel (50 acres), approximately 30% (15 acres) has restrictions for development.
Two alternatives examined for TR parcel at maximum build out currently permitted:
• Regional serving center, $88 million for development
• Destination center, $91 million for development, including a 120 room 3-star hotel,
on this site
• Average taxable sales for retail on site estimated at $425/sf
They estimate approximately 600 jobs potentially created in the development of the TR parcel.
(Lough) The cost of acquisition of the open space area presents a difficulty in estimating the
price of the land.
Q: What is the impact of having the executive golf course (9 holes)? Is the loss of the golf
course an economic impact on the city? Both the city’s initiative and the “Save the Fields”
delete that use.
A: We can take a look at that.
2
Q: (Lough) That can be a viable use for open space.
Q: What is the impact of agriculture on the surrounding area? The current use of chicken
manure on the Flower Fields impacts the surrounding businesses.
A: I do not know if we are in the position to assess that.
Q: Can you give us an idea of the price of the open space land? A range?
A: We can look at that.
Q: As open space you can value it as habitat. Or if it just sits there, it has some intrinsic value.
A: (Lough) It can be valued as habitat. Habitat banks are charging around $25,000 to $45,000
an acre.
Q: Do these figures need to be reduced by the cost of City services?
A: Yes, however, the actual servicing costs would be small. This site, as open space, would not
generate the need for significant extra services.
Q: Was the door closed on the golf course when the last golf course plan was withdrawn?
A: (Holzmiller) When the new timeshare/hotel project was approved, the applicant requested an
amendment to remove the resort site’s direct tie to the 9-hole golf course. The city’s ballot
measure removes golf as a use, but the council could reconsider that part of the measure.
Q: Carltas spent $1.5 million on the cart paths under Cannon Road anticipating the golf course.
I think we need to look at the impact of that.
Q: How is the city going to net $6.6 million? If you do not have the impact then you cannot
collect the fee.
A: It does not just pay for the site’s improvements but for the region. The developer’s “fair
share” may go beyond the site’s impact. The net will be between $0 and $6.6 million.
Q: My understanding is that the mall in Carlsbad requires a large increase in police service. So
in our experience there is a significant increase in the need for city services.
Q: What is the cost of providing affordable housing for low wage workers for this proposed
retail development?
A: The city can use the incoming revenue to fund this.
3
(Sandy Holder) We do not have a specific policy, but we have Section 8 housing. Our
inclusionary housing is 15% and applies to residential development only. (Lough) 20% of tax
increment must go for affordable housing because the TR parcel is in the Redevelopment Area.
Q: Why is there no value attributed to agricultural uses, or alternative agricultural uses such as
the winery or greenhouses or equestrian uses?
A: We will look at that.
Q: If there is loss of income to the surrounding businesses because of agricultural use, could
they come back to the city to ask for reimbursement and would that come back to the
taxpayer?
A: (Lough) No, it would not be the city’s obligation, it would be the landowner’s. This would
impact whether agriculture is indeed viable, though.
Q: Is there a provision for money to go for agricultural housing?
A: The policies target general low-income housing not specifically for agricultural workers.
Q: There used to be a plan for an 18-hole golf course also. Should we look at the value of the
SDG&E land being used as a golf course and wouldn’t that upgrade the potential hotel
value?
A: It is conceivable that putting more amenities on a site would increase the value but I don’t
know if that would be the case here. We can look at that.
Q: Does the city now have an easement for the trails they are talking about or were they going to
use the $1 million proposed in the City’s measure?
A: The city has no easements except for Hub Park so a portion of the money may have to be
used for acquisition.
Q: Is there loss experienced by businesses that expected development per the general plan and
can they ask the city to make up that loss?
A: (Lough) No.
Q: Weren’t there also 20 acres in the SDG&E set aside for golf?
A: (Holzmiller) There was at least discussion to lease a part of that for 2 holes of golf?
Q: Can we look at that economic impact in the final report also?
4
A: (Holzmiller) There are uses including golf allowed in open space. I think there is a concern
that there will be a restriction to only passive recreation in open space. The current Carlsbad
Ranch plan does currently allow golf.
Q: Why are we only considering 10% of the land?
A: (Simon) That is what we were directed to do.
Q: There was a visioning process for this land. It is on the city’s website.
A: (Holder) There is no vision or plan developed, there was just idea generation with no
consensus.
Q: What did the landowners think a few years ago about what they would do with their land?
There was a vote in favor of asking the property owners to present what they would like to do
with the land.
(Calkins) I am not sure a presentation would be useful. We already agreed to let the city
consider the use of our land in its larger vision. We are very conscious of the limitations of
agriculture. We were dumbfounded that the city had taken away the active recreational uses in
one of the few areas of the city where that would have little impact. If the “Save the Fields”
initiative prohibits us from having a nursery or visitors, it will hinder the viability of the existing
Flower Fields. We want to allow the city to continue its process. But to change this for a
process that no one knows how it would work…
(Ruth Love for real estate department of SDG&E) We entered into a contract with Lennar and
that was our vision. The contract is now gone and we have no vision. We want to work in
conjunction with the city. Our typical process is to assess the value of the land and offer it for
sale, but we didn’t do this because we entered into this visioning process with the city.
There was agreement that a presentation is not necessary.
Q: So this fiscal impact really only is about changing the TR parcel into open space, so it
doesn’t analyze the impact of the Gateway initiative, only the other two?
A: Correct.
Q: So we can still influence the city’s initiative?
A: Yes.
5
Q: I don’t think this fiscal analysis is useful or viable as it is so narrow. I’m suggesting we stop
discussing this and move on.
A: (Holzmiller) When an initiative qualifies for the ballot, the City Council can request this
fiscal analysis, but as the Gateway initiative has not yet qualified, it cannot be analyzed yet.
The council will have the opportunity tonight to ask for the 9212 report which asks for a
fiscal analysis for the “Save the Fields” initiative, now that it has qualified for the ballot.
Q: Can you address the economic impact of the transfer of development rights suggested in the
Marin County ordinance also?
A: Yes.
Request was made for city staff to supply the previous economic feasibility study, which was
completed for the City’s golf course and the additional nine holes.
IV. Discussion of Comparison Matrix
Laura Pope worked on the matrix with staff and produced this second draft. Laura suggested
some further language changes. Please refer to third matrix draft when it is issued.
Q: Could we add a column on the matrix for financial impact?
Q: Under Residential, could we change the Gateway answer to “allowed”?
Chair suggested that if members have detailed changes to suggest they submit them in writing to
Barbara Nedros.
(Holzmiller) The technical analysis has not been changed, and it includes a column on fiscal
impacts, and it will be attached as it is.
Q: Agricultural housing is allowed, so are the residential column answers correct?
Q: Do these have implementing ordinances?
A: (Lough) In looking at the other ordinances from other counties, they do not include a
definition of agriculture. There are some good examples about buffer zones and transfer of
development rights. I can see some ancillary uses, but this is a little problematic.
Chair asked if Mr. Lough can review the matrix when finished to see if wording is neutral. The
comparative analysis is required but the recommendation of the committee is not.
Q: Can we say that no trails are allowed in the “Save the Fields” ordinances? We do not know
that for sure.
6
Lough suggests that the committee moves forward with the general agreed upon understanding
of each of the initiatives.
Q: A definition of the properties could be useful.
Q: The “Save the Fields” presenters made a lot of reference to the 1986 growth management
plan. Could we add a field about growth management?
A: It is already in there.
Q: Is the city’s only non-public use for farming?
A: Yes.
Q: Should we have a column asking, “Is there an existing implementing ordinance?”
A: (Holzmiller) This is addressed in the technical analysis. The subcommittee had difficulty
addressing this in some parts and assumptions had to be made.
A: (Meyerhoff) Speaking as a member of the subcommittee, we tried to restrict ourselves to the
text of the initiatives and not to speculate.
Chair suggested that if the committee finds it is making too many assumptions that it say that it
cannot make a comparison in that area.
Q: Who would be the property owner if the “Save the Fields” initiative wins?
A: (Holzmiller) We understood that ownership would be the same as now.
Q: The term “concern” could be confused with the “Concerned Citizens”. Change to “topic”?
General consensus for “topic”.
Q: There is also a low-wage worker housing issue, not just farm-workers. Can we expand that?
A: Call it “affordable housing” or “employee housing”?
No decision made in committee. Given to staff.
Q: “Civic Center” or “Village” have a lot of possible definitions. Can we clarify that?
No decision made in committee. Given to staff.
Q: On item 13, I’d like to see “use of eminent domain” in there.
A: (Lough) The words you are looking for is “inverse condemnation.”
7
Q: But will the public understand that?
A: Could we say “taking of property rights”?
Q: “Lawsuit potential for taking of property rights”?
General consensus.
Q: Could we have a legend for voters that explains all these terms?
Q: Could we move #9 –Topic - Tourist-Commercial to #4 - Topic outdoor recreation?
Q: Could we standardize the language “not allowed” or “allowed” as opposed to things like
“specifically prohibits” or other language that implies a bias on the part of the committee?
General consensus.
Q: Could we make the questions into sentences so that each column could be “yes” or “no”?
Chair suggested that we let the subcommittee and staff work on this first, then distribute to the
general committee.
A suggestion was made that Laura Pope be added to the subcommittee. Agreed.
A suggestion was made that we not make too much reference to other documents because the
public will not have more than the initiatives to work with.
Vote suggested that the subcommittee review the matrix draft and resubmit to the general
committee. Seconded.
Subcommittee agrees.
Committee votes “yes”, with the latest draft matrix being distributed before the next meeting.
Q: Doesn’t the fact that the “Save the Fields” initiative doesn’t have an implementing ordinance
leave a big hole in the analysis and comparison of these?
A suggestion was made to put aside the ordinances from other cities.
(Mobaldi) The “Save the Fields” and the City’s initiative have a provision for the situation where
there may be a taking.
(Holzmiller) The principle used was that if the initiative is silent on an issue then it does not
allow that use.
Request that staff remind both initiative groups that they may submit written comments.
8
City of Carlsbad
Citizens’ Committee to Study the Flower Fields and Strawberry Fields Area
Summary Notes of Meeting 6
June 27, 2006, 9 a.m. to 12 p.m.,
City of Carlsbad, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Room 173B
Present:
Committee members: (*non-voting members)
Jennifer Benner Courtney Heineman* Eric Munoz (chair)
Chris Calkins* Gary Hill Peder Norby
Nancy Calverley* Mark Johnson Laura Means Pope
Marvin Cap Len Martyns Marvin Sippel*
Claudia Carrillo* Cary Manning Seth Schulberg
Bill Dominguez Kip McBane (vice-chair) Daniel Swiger
Farrah Douglas Leslea Meyerhoff Mark Winkler
Bob Garcin
Absent:
Pete Aadland Vern Farrow Gina McBride
Jill Agosti Pat Kurth Heidi Willes
Robert Morgan Keith Lewinger
City of Carlsbad Staff:
Gary Barberio – Principal Planner
Karen Chen – Management Analyst
Courtney Enriquez – Management Intern
Sandra Holder – Community Development Director
Bob Johnson – Deputy City Engineer, Transportation
Jane Mobaldi– Assistant City Attorney
Barbara Nedros – Administrative Secretary
Mark Steyaert – Park Development Manager
Michael Holzmiller – Consultant to City
Facilitators from National Conflict Resolution Center
Barbara Filner
Robin Seigle
Christina Simokat, assistant
10 public and 1 press
1
I. Roll Call and Notes.
Quorum requirement was discussed and satisfied.
Summary Notes of meeting on June 15, 2006 were approved.
II. Public Comment
None
III. Discussion of Comparison Matrix
Subcommittee members reported on their approach to completing the matrix . Their mission was
to provide a neutral, understandable comparison of the three ballot measures for the voters. They
used ONLY the text of the ballot measures, with no interpretation or speculation about the
initiatives’ authors’ motivations. Therefore, future implementing ordinances were considered
speculative and not included.
(Laura Pope) Two questions were not included in the subcommittee discussion and were left
out:
2. Create a “Study Area” of 1,185 acres subject to comprehensive planning?
Current – No / CC of C – No / CCUPP – Yes / CCC – No (refer to matrix rows)
3. Require a Master Plan for a 320-acre “Planning Area” within the Study Area?
Current – No / CC of C – No / CCUPP – Yes / CCC – No (refer to matrix rows)
(Kip McBane) I think those questions were addressed in the Technical Analysis. I have prepared
and e-mailed to the committee a list of proposed changes to the matrix. (refer to McBane’s
matrix handout)
(Schulberg) First, we are asking the committee if they want to vote on the matrix as it is, or if
they want to open it up to questions.
Discussion regarding adoption of the Subcommittee matrix resulted in a Motion and second to
adopt the Subcommittee’s work as presented, not including the two questions added.
Further discussion led to a retraction of the Motion and a decision (12 yes, 2 no) to take ten
minutes to read McBane’s proposed matrix
Break.
Q: Has the Subcommittee matrix been reviewed by the City’s legal department?
A: (Sandy Holder) Yes.
Q: Is the Subcommittee in favor of McBane’s matrix?
A: (Schulberg) No.
2
A vote on whether to discuss the McBane matrix failed (7 yes / 9 no).
McBane indicated a desire to submit his matrix as a minority report.
(Holder) It is unclear if there will be a minority report, but any committee member can submit
comments to the council. Consultation of past summaries reveals that no decision was made by
the committee on the format of a possible recommendation report or minority report.
Suggestion that the format of the Subcommittee matrix include footnote references to the
initiative texts, as was provided in the McBane matrix.
Chair emphasized that the Committee needs to support the Subcommittee’s work, as all members
had a chance to be on the Subcommittee. But this discussion is important so we should go
through the process.
(Jane Mobaldi) One correction in the Technical analysis of the comparison matrix in the last box
on “Takings”: Add “Allows amendment…..upon showing of substantial evidence” It is not up to
the City Council. (She will submit her changes in writing to staff).
A motion was made to adopt the matrix for purposes of moving forward to the Committee
recommendations.
Comment that rows from McBane’s matrix are important, specifically: “New 1.a” that if all
measures are on the ballot, the one with the greatest number of votes supersedes the others, and
“New 4.a” and “New 4.b” regarding the office/retail breakdown.
McBane asked to be on record that he would vote against the Subcommittee matrix because he
thinks some of the information included is incorrect.
Another concern was raised that “commercial” wasn’t specifically mentioned.
(Schulberg) “Commercial” is discussed in row #9.
Q. What about “commercial” in the proposed Civic Center complex.
(Farrah Douglas) The CCUPP initiative would require a vote for a Civic Center so it is not clear
if commercial would be included or not.
A vote was passed to adopt the subcommittee matrix.
IV. Discussion of Committee Recommendations and Report
Q: If this matrix is accepted, then why do we need to make more recommendations? When do
we vote on which initiative we recommend?
A. (Schulberg) Each Committee member may vote on any initiative in November. It’s not the
Committee’s job to choose one over another.
3
A: (Holzmiller) The committee can make recommendations to the City Council or not, but it is
not a mandate.
Q: Are we making recommendations on the draft City initiative or on the other initiatives?
A: (Schulberg) We can only make recommendations to the City for things they can change, i.e.
the City’s initiative.
Q: Could the City draft a coastal agricultural zone ordinance so the people would know what
would be allowed
A: (Holder) It would be up to the City Council if they want staff to spend time on that. It would
be speculative. Ordinances require environmental review, public input, Coastal Commission
review and would require approximately a year and a half.
Q: Is the Committee inclined to support the City’s initiative? Because if they are not, we don’t
have to spend time on how to recommend changes to it.
Q: (Pope) I have put together questions that might help organize this. (refer to “opinion poll”
handout)
Chair said we will take a break and the facilitators will lead the ensuing discussion.
Facilitator: We are going to have a brainstorming session to generate recommendations with no
evaluation. We will then group them together and distribute the recommendations for the
committee to vote on at the next meeting.
Q: My understanding is that the City could still adopt the “Save the Strawberry Fields…”
Concerned Citizens of Carlsbad initiative, correct?
A: (Mobaldi) Yes.
Recommendations generated through brainstorming:
1. Format of the report should include citations to specific places in the initiatives/ballot
measure that support the information in the Comparative Analysis.
2. City Council to draft Coastal Agricultural Zone ordinance that would define what would
be allowed in such a zone.
3 a). City should work to achieve General Plan/Local Coastal Program/Zoning consistency for
all the properties under consideration.
b). City should conduct community outreach effort to “scope out” general plan, local coastal
program, and zoning designations that would guide the City effort (a) above.
c). City should utilize the Planned Community (PC) zone to implement General Plan, Local
Coastal Program and land use designations in the area.
4
4. City ballot measure should clarify SDG&E property rights, i.e. entire property is
currently zoned Public Utility not just where the power line easements are located.. Any
City ballot measure should not strip that away Public Utility uses on the property as a
whole.
5. For Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan: Retain agricultural use and allow flexibility and
support agricultural uses and allow active recreation uses on all Carlsbad Ranch sites
(except on The Flower Fields®).
6. Allow public or private active recreation not just passive recreation
7. Add a row that shows that the initiatives are “citizens’ initiatives”
8. City ballot measure should affirm TR zoning or 48 acres that is currently zoned TR.
Remove it from inclusion in the ballot measure.
9. Remove trail funding amount from the City ballot measure.
10. Remove specific reference to “Civic Center” in the City ballot measure.
11. Add a row that says: Permits commercial/industrial/residential use.
12. City ballot measure should allow for affordable housing if required by the state.
13. Add a row that says: Create a study area of 1,185 acres subject to comprehensive
planning, to be answered: No, No, Yes, No.
14. Add a row that says: Requires Master Plan for 320 acre planning area within the study
area, to be answered: No, No, Yes, No.
15. City should go forward with its own ballot measure.
16. City should allow for public “deliberation” irrespective of results of election (if different
than a public “meeting” where time for comments is limited).
17. First page of Comparative Analysis to have issues most important to the public (allow or
disallow residential, commercial, agriculture, etc.)
18. Remove Rows 6, 7, and 8 regarding housing.
19. City ballot measure should reiterate that the City has a Growth Management Plan that
applies to the surrounding areas and works well.
20. Keep housing issues (Rows 6, 7, and 8) on the Comparative Analysis.
21. Remove Rows 6 and 7, but keep Row 8 regarding housing.
5
22. Row 10 – Change language to say: Restrict existing Public Utility (PU) “easement” to
“Activity”; Change language under Current Status from “PU easement overlays SDG&E
property” to “All of SDG&E owned property is zoned Public Utility”; Change answer
under City ballot measure to “maybe”.
23. Remove under Technical Analysis row called “Other Fiscal Impacts” as they will be a
subject of a full report of the City’s consultant.
24. City ballot measure should require that all of the property under consideration be “Master
Planned”.
25. City should not go forward with its own ballot measure and should implement the
recommendations of the Citizens’ Committee without a proposed measure.
26. Permit passive and active recreation without altering existing Flower Fields® (Motion
to adopt this accepted, (12 yes/ 0 no).
27. Clarify which properties are affected by the two initiatives and the ballot measure.
28. Report should have maps and a definition of terms.
Next meeting we need to discuss what the report should contain, and decide if it will need
map(s).
We need to decide how we are going to make decisions in the next meeting.
(Chairman) The Committee should pre-read everything for next time and be ready to vote in the
next meeting. Staff will create a matrix of recommendations for next time similar to Laura
Pope’s “opinion poll” (refer to handout).
Vote to have final matrix and recommendations created and distributed before the next meeting
and vote will happen at the next meeting – all in favor/none opposed.
6
1
City of Carlsbad
Citizens’ Committee to Study the Flower Fields and Strawberry Fields Area
Summary Notes of Meeting 7
July 11, 2006, 9 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.,
City of Carlsbad, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Room 173B
Present:
Committee members: (*non-voting members)
Pete Aadland Courtney Heineman* Leslea Meyerhoff
Chris Calkins* Gary Hill Robert Morgan
Nancy Calverley* Mark Johnson Eric Munoz (chair)
Marvin Cap Pat Kurth Peder Norby
Claudia Carrillo* Keith Lewinger Laura Means Pope
Bill Dominguez Cary Manning Marvin Sippel*
Farrah Douglas Len Martyns Heidi Willes
Vern Farrow Kip McBane (vice-chair) Mark Winkler
Bob Garcin Gina McBride
Absent:
Jill Agosti Seth Schulberg
Jennifer Benner Daniel Swiger
City of Carlsbad Staff:
Gary Barberio – Principal Planner
Courtney Enriquez – Management Intern
Cynthia Haas – Economic Development and Real Estate Manager
Sandra Holder – Community Development Director
Bob Johnson – Deputy City Engineer, Transportation
Jane Mobaldi– Assistant City Attorney
Barbara Nedros – Administrative Secretary
Mark Steyaert – Park Development Manager
Michael Holzmiller –Consultant to City
Facilitators from National Conflict Resolution Center
Barbara Filner
Robin Seigle
Christina Simokat, assistant
8 public and 1 press
2
I. Roll Call and Notes.
Summary Notes of meeting on June 27, 2006 were approved (19 yes/ 0 no) with a correction
requested to state that a minority report would be included in the Committee’s Report.
Voting procedures: this will be done by raising hands only. Twenty-one (21) voting members
were present. Because this Committee is covered under the Brown Act, a simple majority of the
voting members present (11 votes) will prevail. Two members submitted votes by email. Jane
Mobaldi, Assistant City Attorney, stated that consistent with the Brown Act members must be
present to vote, so those votes though noted, will not be counted.
There will be a minority report headed up by Kip McBane and based on the report he submitted
for this meeting. Everyone on the Committee will have to “sign off” on either the majority or
minority report.
Every Committee member can write comments for the council if they want, but the final format
of how this will be submitted is still being considered.
Q: What happens if you want to vote for no report?
A: You can also sign off on that.
Q: Is it true that the CCUPPS initiative has been withdrawn?
A: Yes.
II. Public Comment.
Ramona Finnila for CCUPP: We could not gather the signatures to get our initiative
(“Carlsbad Gateway Parkland and Open Space Initiative of 2006”) on the ballot. This was due to
our not having the financial resources to hire signature gatherers and discovering that each
signature took an education process. We needed to have an appropriate amount of time to
explain planning and growth management. We did not criticize the city. We did not lie to get
signatures as the “Save the Flower Fields” signature gatherers did.
We want to make the following points to the Citizen’s Committee:
1. The fiscal and legal impacts of taking another’s land have grave consequences.
2. The importance of connectivity of people and places within a community cannot be
underestimated.
3. The value of housing in order to create vitality within a neighborhood has significance to
smart growth planning. Example: adding housing units within the Village.
4. There is a need for active and passive venues for our family oriented community.
5. The improbability of long term traditional agriculture in a coastal incorporated city
cannot be overlooked.
6. The possibility of increased accessibility on the heretofore inaccessible 340 acres should
be highlighted.
3
7. Museums, restaurants, amphitheaters and public spaces are positive amenities to a
community’s commercial culture. We never at any time advocated for industrial uses.
8. Master planning is the preferential path to developing large scale acreage.
9. Choice enhances Carlsbad’s future and is a major attraction to business and its citizenry.
In summary, if your Committee’s recommendation is to go forward with a revision to the city’s
initiative, we ask that you incorporate or cherry pick from our components. Your
recommendation could be the catalyst for wonderful things in Carlsbad.
Motion and second was made that since the Carlsbad Gateway initiative is withdrawn, it should
not be discussed at all, and should be struck from the matrix.
Discussion:
• We may want the City Council to adopt some of the features from the Carlsbad
Gateway Initiative for their ballot measure.
• There is also no guarantee that the City’s ballot measure will be put on the ballot.
• We can include all three ballot measures in the appendix.
Vote 20 yes/ 0 opposed /1 undecided
• Note that the minority report will reflect the same change.
III. Finalize Committee Recommendations Relating to the Comparative Analysis (Matrix)
The Committee went through the June 27th recommendation sheet and took a straw vote.
Anything other than a unanimous decision can be discussed.
Suggestion that the minority on each point make their comments and the Committee will re-vote
after the discussion.
Section III of June 27th recommendation sheet
Row J: Both initiatives treat the issue the same, so whether it is yes or no, it should be the same.
(Holzmiller) With either initiative, there will be rezoning to open space. It was not the intent
of the city’s ballot measure to restrict the public utility easement and the city has to abide by
state and PUC regulations.
Motion to vote on J, eliminating the last line ‘Change answer under City ballot measure to
“maybe”.’ Vote 6 yes/ 11 no/ 4 undecided
Motion to accept J ‘as it was originally written.’ (without the change of deleting the last line)
Vote 8 yes/ 11 no /1 undecided
Motion to eliminate row 10 of the matrix. Vote 9 yes/11 no /1 undecided
4
Suggestion that the Committee recommend that the Council not support either initiative and
instead educate the public on the current planning process.
Suggestion that the Committee accept only those items that are unanimous and move on to
putting together the recommendations for the council.
Motion that we delete rows B and C, and F and G, and re-vote and move forward. 19 yes/ 0 no/
2 undecided
Vote to accept the comparison matrix: 17 yes/ 4 no/ 0 undecided
IV. Recommendations Regarding City Proposed Ballot Measure
The Committee voted on the items in Section I of the June 27th recommendation sheet.
Motion to delete row A. Not seconded.
Suggestion to start with C through L then go back to A and B.
Rows C, E, F, I, J, K, L were accepted as recommendations by majority to the City Council.
Q: What’s the difference between G and L?
A: (Holzmiller) We weren’t sure if this was only applying to the Carlsbad Ranch area and we
needed clarification of the definition of public vs. private.
A: (Norby) We are talking about the whole property, and public and private recreation.
Q: Are we asking the city to go through the zoning, coastal plan, all the other planning, and then
to Master Plan? It seems like an irrelevant burden. (Discussion relates to Item K.)
A: Perhaps it needs to be called a specific plan?
Q: So Master Plan means nothing can be done until the Master Plan is finished?
A: Yes.
Q: Can the existing uses in an area that is being Master Planned continue?
A: (Holzmiller) If it is an existing use, it could continue. If the city implements the Master Plan
recommendation, then a property owner could not propose a new use until all the Master Plan
requirements were fulfilled.
Q: Could the city initiate the Master Plan if there was a PC zone on it?
A: (Holzmiller) The Committee could recommend that “There should be a Master Plan initiated
by the city”
Q: Can the Committee recommend a Master Recreation Plan.
5
Q: Are we creating a difficulty in asking for a Master Plan for this entire area that is not
necessarily even adjacent and contiguous?
Q: Could we recommend a somewhat different process that would not unduly burden the
landowners but allow for public input?
Motion to re-vote on K. Vote 18 yes/3 no/0 undecided.
Re-vote on K: 1 yes/19 no/1 undecided.
Rows C, E, F, G, I, J, L are accepted as recommendations by a majority of the Committee to go
forward to the City Council.
Vote proceeded for A and B.
Discussion about how to vote on A with the current wording.
• Mayor Lewis feels that one of the initiatives will pass, so if the City doesn’t have an
initiative on the ballot, the ‘Save the Fields’ initiative might win, and the City is not
allowed to spend money supporting or not supporting a citizens’ initiative, but it can
support its own initiative.
• (Mobaldi) The proposed money for trails has to be voted on by the people.
• It makes sense for the city to have an initiative but the Committee’s analysis has
shown that the current initiative is flawed.
Motion to vote on A as written. 13 yes/ 6 no/ 2 undecided.
Motion to add A2, “That the city should go forward with an initiative incorporating all of the
Committee’s recommendations.” 20 yes/ 0 no/ 1 undecided.
Discussion on whether the vote on A means the vote on the City’s proposal as written, or
whether the city should have an initiative at all.
• Mobaldi proposed that the Committee vote on the following three points:
o The city should go forward with the ballot measure as it is proposed. 0 yes/ 21 no/
0 undecided.
o A ballot measure different than the proposed should go forward. 15 yes/ 3 no/ 3
undecided.
o A ballot measure with Citizens’ Committee Recommendations should go forward.
20 yes/ 0 no/ 1 undecided.
V. Other Committee Recommendations to the City Council
Discussion on A: Is the intent for this draft (of Coastal Agricultural Zone) to be done before the
election or is it a general recommendation?
Discussion on C: what does a “deliberation” process cover?
6
• In a normal public hearing process, people only have a few minutes to say their
opinion. This would allow for more dialogue, whether it is a workshop or another
process.
• And the council could decide to have a workshop about a Coastal Agricultural Zone.
• If an initiative goes through, it can still be decided that there was a mistake and there
needs to be another public vote.
Motion to vote on the following (II. D.): “Initiate a comprehensive planning process for the
property.” 21 yes/ 0 no/ 0 undecided.
Discussion on B iii: what is a Planned Community zone?
A: (Munoz) That was my proposal. It does require a Master Plan process. I would move to
eliminate Biii and use D in its place. 20 yes/ 0 no/ 0 undecided.
Bi, Bii, C and D will be recommended to the city.
VI. Recommendations Regarding the Committee’s Report to City Council
Discussion on A (re: adding to the report citations to specifics in ballot measures)
(Holder) The staff may not be able to do this in time for the report to the Council. Move for re-
vote on A. 20 yes/ 0 no/ 1 undecided.
Re-vote on A: 2 yes/18 no/0 undecided
Discussion on B: (Holzmiller) We need clarity on this.
• In one of the initiatives, the text talks about different properties than are identified on
the maps included with the initiative.
• I think it would be ok to simply note the inconsistencies.
Motion to insert an Appendix with the General Plan Land Use map, Zoning map and a summary
of the current zoning designations. 14 yes/ 1 no/ 2 undecided.
Motion to add the agendas and a minority report to the report. 14 yes/ 0 no/ 3 undecided. Those
who want to be part of the minority report should contact Kip McBane before the end of the day
Wednesday of this week.
The City Council will review this Committee’s report on July 25th.
CITY OF CARLSBAD
CITIZENS’ COMMITTEE TO STUDY THE FLOWER
FIELDS AND STRAWBERRY FIELDS AREA
MEETING AGENDA
MEETING OF TUESDAY, MAY 16, 2006, 9:00 A.M.
CONFERENCE ROOM 173B
CARLSBAD FARADAY CENTER, 1635 FARADAY AVE,
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
1. Check-in 9:00 – 9:15
2. Welcome and Overview of Purpose 9:15 – 9:25
Mayor Pro Tem Matt Hall
3. Introductions 9:25 – 9:55
• Robin Seigle, NCRC
• Committee Members
• Staff
4. Purpose and Scope of Committee (Sandra Holder) 9:55 – 10:05
BREAK 10:05- 10:15
5. Process and Procedures (Robin Seigle) 10:15 – 11:15
• Committee Ground Rules
• Decision Making Process
• Approve Meeting Schedule
• Election of Chair and Vice Chair
6. Overview Content of Notebook (Michael Holzmiller) 11:15 – 11:30
7. Set Next Agenda 11:30 – 11:40
8. Public Comment 11:40 – 11:55
9. Adjourn 11:55 – 12:00
CITY OF CARLSBAD
CITIZENS’ COMMITTEE TO STUDY THE FLOWER
FIELDS AND STRAWBERRY FIELDS AREA
MEETING AGENDA
TUESDAY, MAY 30, 2006, 9:00 A.M.
CONFERENCE ROOM 173B
CARLSBAD FARADAY CENTER, 1635 FARADAY AVE,
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
1. Call to Order 9:00 – 9:05
2. Roll Call – Chair 9:05 – 9:10
3. Approval of Meeting Summary 9:10 – 9:20
4. Public Comments 9:20 – 9:35
5. Discussion of Background Materials 9:35 – 10:30
• Site I – Existing Flower Fields
• Site II and III – Carlsbad Ranch PA 8A and 8B
BREAK 10:30 - 10:45
5. Discussion of Background Materials Continued 10:45 – 11:45
• Site IV – SDG&E Property
• SD County Farm Bureau Presentation
Eric Larson, Executive Director
6. Next Meeting – June 6, 2006 11:45 – 11:55
7. Adjourn 11:55 – 12:00
CITY OF CARLSBAD
CITIZENS’ COMMITTEE TO STUDY THE FLOWER
FIELDS AND STRAWBERRY FIELDS AREA
MEETING AGENDA
MEETING OF TUESDAY, June 6, 2006, 9:00 A.M.
CONFERENCE ROOM 173B
CARLSBAD FARADAY CENTER, 1635 FARADAY AVENUE,
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
1. Call to Order - Chair 9:00 – 9:05
Roll Call – Sign-in Sheet
Approval of Meeting Summary Notes
2. Consideration of Sub-committee Formation 9:05 – 9:15
to create draft initiative comparison matrix
3. “Carlsbad Gateway Parkland and Open Space Initiative of 2006” 9:15 – 9:45
Presentation
4. “Save the Strawberry and Flower Growing Fields Act of 2006” 9:45 – 10:15
Presentation
BREAK 10:15 – 10:30
5. “The Flower Fields, Strawberry Fields, Open Space and Public 10:30 - 11:00
Trails Protection Act of 2006”
Presentation
6. Clarifying Questions from the Committee 11:00 – 11:45
7. Public Comment 11:45 – 12:00
8. Adjourn
Next Meeting: Thursday, June 15, 2006 at 9:00 A.M. – 1635 Faraday Avenue, Room 173B
Next Meeting Topic: Begin Comparative Analysis of Initiatives
CITY OF CARLSBAD
CITIZENS’ COMMITTEE TO STUDY THE FLOWER
FIELDS AND STRAWBERRY FIELDS AREA
MEETING AGENDA
THURSDAY, JUNE 15, 2006, 9:00 A.M.
CONFERENCE ROOM 173B
CARLSBAD FARADAY CENTER, 1635 FARADAY AVENUE,
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
1. Call to Order - Chair 9:00 – 9:05
Roll Call – Sign-in Sheet
Approval of Meeting Summary Notes
2. Public Comment 9:05 – 9:20
3. Additional Initiative Question and Answer Sessions
a. “Carlsbad Gateway Parkland and Open Space Initiative of 2006” 9:20 – 9:35
b. “Save the Strawberry and Flower Growing Fields Act of 2006” 9:35 – 9:50
c. “The Flower Fields, Strawberry Fields, Open Space and Public 9:50 - 10:05
Trails Protection Act of 2006”
BREAK 10:05 – 10:15
4. Discuss Legal Considerations (James P. Lough, Special Counsel) 10:15 – 10:35
5. Subcomittee Report and Discussion of Draft Initiative 10:35 – 12:00
Comparison Matrix
6. Adjourn
Next Meeting: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 at 9:00 A.M. – 1635 Faraday Avenue, Room 173B
Next Meeting Topic: Fiscal Considerations and Begin Committee
Recommendations and Report
CITY OF CARLSBAD
CITIZENS’ COMMITTEE TO STUDY THE FLOWER
FIELDS AND STRAWBERRY FIELDS AREA
MEETING AGENDA
TUESDAY, JUNE 20, 2006, 9:00 A.M.
CONFERENCE ROOM 173B
CARLSBAD FARADAY CENTER, 1635 FARADAY AVENUE,
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
1. Call to Order - Chair 9:00 – 9:05
Roll Call – Sign-in Sheet
Approval of Meeting Summary Notes
2. Public Comment 9:05 – 9:20
3. Fiscal Impact Discussion (Jim Simon, RSG ) 9:20 – 9:40
4. Continued Discussion of Subcommittee Report and 9:40 – 10:00
Draft Initiative Comparison Matrix
BREAK 10:00– 10:10
5. Continued Discussion of Subcommittee Report and 10:10 – 11:00
Draft Initiative Comparison Matrix
6. Discussion of Committee Recommendations and Report 11:00 – 12:00
7. Adjourn
Next Meeting: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 at 9:00 A.M. – 1635 Faraday Avenue, Room 173B
Next Meeting Topic: Approve final recommendations and report
CITY OF CARLSBAD
CITIZENS’ COMMITTEE TO STUDY THE FLOWER
FIELDS AND STRAWBERRY FIELDS AREA
MEETING AGENDA
TUESDAY, JUNE 27, 2006, 9:00 A.M.
CONFERENCE ROOM 173B
CARLSBAD FARADAY CENTER, 1635 FARADAY AVENUE,
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
1. Call to Order - Chair 9:00 – 9:05
Roll Call – Sign-in Sheet
Approval of Meeting Summary Notes
2. Public Comment 9:05 – 9:20
3. Continued Discussion of Subcommittee Report and 9:20 – 10:30
Draft Initiative Comparison Matrix
BREAK 10:30– 10:45
4. Discussion of Committee Recommendations and Report 10:45 – 12:00
5. Adjourn
Final Meeting: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 at 9:00 A.M. 1635 Faraday Avenue, Room 173B
Final Meeting Topic: Review and Approve Final Citizens Committee Report to be considered by
the City Council at its meeting of July 18, 2006
CITY OF CARLSBAD
CITIZENS’ COMMITTEE TO STUDY THE FLOWER
FIELDS AND STRAWBERRY FIELDS AREA
MEETING AGENDA
TUESDAY, JULY 11, 2006, 9:00 A.M.
CONFERENCE ROOM 173B
CARLSBAD FARADAY CENTER, 1635 FARADAY AVENUE,
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
1. Call to Order - Chair 9:00 – 9:05
Roll Call – Sign-in Sheet
Approval of Meeting Summary Notes
2. Public Comment 9:05 – 9:20
3. Finalize Committee Recommendations 9:20 – 10:30
BREAK 10:30 – 10:45
4. Finalize the Draft Comparative Analysis 10:45 – 11:00
5. Review and Approve Citizens Committee Report to be 11:00 – 12:00
considered by the City Council at its meeting of July 25, 2006
6. Adjourn
C. Copy of Initiative and
Draft City Ballot Measure
D. Maps Showing the Boundaries
of Initiative and City Ballot
Measure
General Plan Data Last Updated December 2005
City of Carlsbad
SAVE THE STRAWBERRY & FLOWER GROWING FIELDS ACT OF 2006 AVI
ARA PYEL CAMINO REAL
C O L L E G E B L
T AM AR AC K A V
CARLSBAD BLC AN NO N R DPA L O M A R A I R P O R T R D
AGUAHEDIONDALAGOON
PACIFICOCEAN
N1952INCO RPO RATED
RLM
Exhibit 1
0 1,000 Feet
General Plan Data Last Updated December 2005
City of CarlsbadCITY BALLOT MEASURE COLLEGE BLC
A
R
L
S
BA
D BLC A N N O N R D
PALOMAR AIRPORT RD AVIARA PY
AGUAHEDIONDALAGOON
PACIFICOCEAN
N1952INCO RPO RATED
RLM
Exhibit 4
0 2,0001,000 Feet
A
B
D
C
E
E. Maps Showing Existing
General Plan and Zoning
Designations and a Summary
of the Zoning Designations
PALOMAR AIRPORT RD
CANNON RD
LEGOL
A
N
D DR
P
A
S
EO
D
E
L
NOR
T
ECAR COUN
TRY
DR
A
V
E
N
I
D
A
E
N
C
I
N
A
S
C
A
R
L
S
B
A
D
B
L
COLLEGE BLHIDDEN
VALLEY
RD
Pacific Ocean
PI
OS
RM
OS
RLM RMRMRLM
PI
T-R
PI
PI
OS
G
RLM
RMH
RLM
OS
RLM
RL
OS
TC
U
TC
OS
OS
U
O/PI
T-R/C
OS
OST-RTC
T-R
TC
PI PI
TCT-R
RMH
T-R
OS
T-R
PI
TC
RLMRLM PI
R
R
T-R
T-R
RH RMH
RLMR
RMT-R/O
GT-R
OS OSO/PI OS
UA
PI
PI
PI
OS
RLM RH RLOS
UAUA OS
OS
Legend
[H] HIGH SCHOOL
[E] ELEMENTARY SCHOOL; E/J
[HC] CONTINUATIONAL SCHOOL
[J] JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL
[P] PRIVATE SCHOOL
[PI] PLANNED INDUSTRIAL
[G] GOVERNMENTAL FACILITIES
[OS] OPEN SPACE
C/O/RMH
T-R/O/OS
[UA] UNPLANNED AREAS; T-R/L; R/O/RMH
[TC] TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR
[U] PUBLIC UTILITIES
[CF] COMMUNITY FACILITIES
R
[L] LOCAL SHOPPING CENTER
T-R
[O] OFFICE & RELATED COMMERCIAL
[V] VILLAGE
[RL] LOW DENSITY (0-1.5 du/ac)
[RLM] LOW-MEDIUM DENSITY (0-4 du/ac)
[RM] MEDIUM DENSITY (4-8 du/ac)
[RMH] MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY (8-15 du/ac)
[RH] HIGH DENSITIY (15-23 du/ac0
0 1,000 2,000500
Feet
N1952INCORPORATED
Printed 1 March 2006 Image Date: April 2004/cargis2/products/planning/r333.04/StatusMap_ownership4.mxd
Land Use Designations
PALOMAR AIRPORT RD
CANNON RD
LEGOL
A
ND DR
PA
S
EO
D
E
L
NOR
T
ECAR CO
UN
TR
Y
DR
A
V
E
N
I
D
A
E
N
C
I
N
A
S
C
A
R
L
S
B
A
D
B
L
COLLEGE BLHIDDEN
VALLEY
RD
FA
R
A
D
A
Y
A
V
Pacific Ocean
141
142
143
T-C
C-T-Q
OS
R-A-10000
T-C
OS
E-A
P-M-Q
OS
R-1-Q
OS
OS
R-3-Q
L-C
R-1-30000
OS R-1-10000
OS
P-M
OS
P-C RD-M-Q R-1R-P R-1-10000-Q
R-A-10000
OS
RD-M-QC-2-QM OS
C-1
C-T-Q
OS
P-M-Q
C-T-Q C-T-Q/C-2-Q
E-A
M
R-2
OS
R-1
P-M
O-Q/P-M-Q
C-T-QC-2-Q
C-2
OS
C-T-Q
L-C P-M
P-U
C-M
P-U
RMHP
RD-M-Q
P-U
R-T RD-M-Q RD-M-Q
R-1-Q
R-1-15000
R-1
OS
P-CR-W OSR-1-8000
RMHP
Legend
Exclusive Agricultural
Residential Agricultural
Rural Residential Estate
One - Family Residential
Two - Family Residential
Multiple - Family Residential
Residential Mobile Home Park
Residential Density - Multiple
Residential Professional
Residential Tourist
Residential Waterway
Transportation Corridor
General & Neighborhood Commercial
Office
Heavy & Tourist Commercial
Industrial
Planned Industrial
Public Utility
Village Redevelopment
Planned Community
Limited Control
Open Space
Multiple Designations 0 1,000 2,000500
Feet
N1952INCORPORATED
Printed 1 March 2006 Image Date: April 2004/cargis2/products/planning/r333.04/StatusMap_ownership4.mxd
Zoning Designations
F. Voting Summary Matrix
Recommendations from Citizens’ Committee
Meeting of July 11, 2006
(21 Voting Members Present)
I. Recommendations Regarding City Proposed Ballot Measure
YES NO UNDECIDED
A. City should go forward with the ballot measure as proposed. 0 21 0
B. A ballot measure different than proposed should go forward. 15 3 3
C A ballot measure with Citizens’ Committee Recommendations should
go forward.
20 0 1
D. City should not go forward with its own ballot measure and should
implement the recommendations of the Citizens Committee without a
proposed measure. (Removed from consideration by Committee).
E. For Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan: Retain agricultural use and allow
flexibility and support agricultural uses and allow active recreation
uses on all Carlsbad Ranch sites (except on The Flower Fields®).
17 0 4
F. City ballot measure should allow for affordable housing if required
by the state.
2 14 5
G. City ballot measure should affirm TR zoning of 48 acres that is
currently zoned TR. Remove it from inclusion in the ballot measure.
19 0 2
H. City ballot measure should clarify SDG&E property rights, i.e. entire
property is currently zoned Public Utility not just where the power
line easements are located. Any City ballot measure should not strip
away Public Utility uses on the property as a whole.
13 1 7
I. Permit passive and active recreation without altering existing Flower
Fields® (Motion to adopt this approved on June 27, 2006 – 17
voting members present).
12 0
J. Remove trail funding amount from City ballot measure.
9 11 1
K. Remove specific reference to a “Civic Center” in the City ballot
measure.
16 5 0
L. City ballot measure should reiterate that the City has a Growth
Management Plan that applies to the surrounding areas and works
well.
15 4 1
M. City ballot measure should require that all of the property under
consideration be “Master Planned”.
1 19 1
N. Allow public or private active recreation not just passive recreation. 17 3 1
July 11, 2006 1
II. Other Committee Recommendations to the City Council
YES NO UNDECIDED
A. City Council to draft Coastal Agricultural Zone ordinance that
would define what would be allowed in such a zone.
7 13 1
B. i. City should work to achieve General Plan/Local Coastal
Program/Zoning consistency for all the properties under
consideration.
18 0 3
ii. City should conduct community outreach effort to “scope out”
general plan, local coastal program, and zoning designations that
would guide the City effort in (i) above.
19 0 2
iii. City should utilize the Planned Community (PC) zone to implement
the General Plan, Local Coastal Program and land use designations
in the area. (Removed from consideration by Committee).
C. City should allow for a public “deliberation” process irrespective of
results of election (different than a public “meeting” where time for
comments is limited).
20 0 1
D. City Council to initiate a comprehensive planning effort for the
properties.
21 0 0
July 11, 2006 2
G. Workbook
(on file in the office of the
City Clerk)
EXHIBIT "2"
July 11, 2006
Honorable Mayor Lewis and City Council Members
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Ref: Citizens' Committee to Study Flower Fields area
Dear Mayor Lewis and City Council Members,
Our job is done! Today, Tuesday July 11, 2006, was the last meeting of the
Citizens' Committee. During the past six weeks at times it seemed
impossible for our diverse opinions and ideas to bear any fruit. But we
worked hard, argued with each other, made jokes about our differences,
studied the background information, reviewed the initiatives, asked for
explanations from the experts, read countless documents provided to us by
the City Staff week after week and meeting after meeting and finally the
impossible happened. We reached consensus and the job was completed.
I want to thank you for appointing me to this Committee. I am the owner of
a small business and it was a bit of sacrifice to devote time to all the reading
we had to do and all the meetings we had to attend. But it was a delightful
experience, a worthy cause to be involved in. I learned a great deal about
the city of Carlsbad, Growth Management Plan, the Flower Field/
Strawberry growing areas, and countless other issues. My sincere thanks to
you and Ms. Kulchin for giving me this opportunity.
We were told at the conclusion of our work that we can submit individual
recommendations and comments to you. I have a few recommendations that
I would like to bring to your attention:
1) I think the price tag of more than $ 1,000,000.00 for the development
of the Trails should be eliminated from your initiative. My
understanding is that to spend an amount in the excess of
$1,000,000.00 the people's vote is necessary. So even if your
initiative is approved, a separate measure will have to deal with the
cost of its implementation. In its current form this price tag will put
your initiative in a negative light, since the other initiative does not
mention any cost associated with its implementation.
EXHIBIT "2"
2) The concept of a Civic Center needs to be eliminated, since it requires
a separate vote of the people of Carlsbad. There has been a great deal
of negative publicity about having an ocean view office for the city
staff. I understand from reading your initiative that the idea is to have
a center for the people of Carlsbad to gather and enjoy the beauty of
the lagoon. Unfortunately it is misinterpreted and needs to be clarified
in a separate ballot and in a different election.
3) The title of the rival initiative is very attractive, "Save the Strawberry
Fields...". To convey your message more clearly to the people of
Carlsbad, the title of your initiative needs to be more specific and
relate to what is in danger of being hijacked by ballot-box planning.
This title should reflect your desire to protect the future of Carlsbad,
its natural beauty and resources. A title that will expresses your
intention to "Protect the future of the Flower Fields, the Strawberry
Growing area, and Carlsbad Tax payers," as well as protecting the
tried and tested existing planning process. The words "Save" and
"Protect," or other similar words, carry the same emotional pull and
will create a level playing field for both initiatives.
4) The Citizens' Committee members are your best resources for any
future workshops, round table discussions or forums you may hold to
educate the citizens of Carlsbad regarding the two initiatives. These
members now, thanks to the past six weeks, have a vast knowledge of
the initiatives and the affected areas and a great appreciation for what
is at stake. Many people will vote only on emotions and based on the
eye-catching and emotionally-charged title of the "Save..." initiative.
The Committee members may be able to reduce and neutralize these
emotions.
Again, thank you for the opportunity. I greatly enjoyed it and learned from
it.
Respectfully,
Farrah Douglas
2914Carrillo Way
Carlsbad, CA 92009
EXHIBIT "3"
Permanently Protect the Flower Fields, Strawberry Fields, and Open Space Act of 2006
The People of the City of Carlsbad do hereby enact and ordain:
1. Section 1. TITLE
1.1 This measure shall be known and may be cited as the "Permanently Protect the Flower
Fields, Strawberry Fields, and Open Space Act of 2006".
2. Section 2. PURPOSE, LOCATION AND FINDINGS
2.1 Purpose. The purpose of this measure is to ensure that the Flower Fields and Strawberry
Fields area located along the Cannon Road corridor east of the Interstate 5 freeway is
preserved in open space and that fanning is allowed to continue as long as it is viable. The
purpose is also to allow public use, access and community gathering places to occur in the
area in a manner that will not adversely impact the unique open space and environmental
resources located in the area. This measure is intended to create a sustainable area that
balances social, economic and environmental values important to the community. This
measure amends the General Plan which contains the vision for the future of the City and
the Zoning Ordinance to designate the area for special planning consideration to ensure that
the area is retained in open space, that farming is allowed to continue and that public uses
and access are allowed in the area.
2.2 Location and Description of the Area Affected by Measure. The area affected by this
measure is shown on Exhibit A provided herein. It contains approximately 307 acres of
land located in the central portion of the City along Cannon Road east of the Interstate 5
freeway. The area presently consists primarily of open space and farming operations
including the existing Flower Fields located south of Cannon Road and the area generally
known as the Strawberry Fields located on the north side of Cannon Road adjacent to
Interstate 5 and the south shore of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon. The area on the north side
of Cannon Road also contains regionally-significant public utility uses including existing
SDG&E electrical transmission lines. The City presently leases a portion of the Strawberry
Fields area (approximately 91 acres and generally known as Hub Park) which was leased
for potential future, public park uses. The most easterly end of the area on the north side of
Cannon Road contains environmentally-sensitive, natural vegetation that is identified in the
City's Habitat Management Plan as part of a proposed habitat preserve system. For
purposes of this measure, the area shall herein be identified as "The Cannon Road Open
Space, Farming and Public Use Corridor."
2.3 Findings. The People of the City of Carlsbad find and declare that the subject area
affected by this measure is currently regulated by City policy and established land use
documents including the City of Carlsbad General Plan, the City Zoning Ordinance, the.
Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan, the Agua Hedionda Land Use Plan, the Mello II Local
Coastal Plan and the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan. The City also has a comprehensive
Growth Management Plan that sets limits on the amount of residential development and
that requires public facilities to be provided concurrent with growth. The People of the City
EXHIBIT "3"
of Carlsbad desire the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance be amended to (1) prohibit
residential uses in the area; (2) ensure that this area is permanently protected and preserved
for open space uses; (3) allow the farming operations in the area such as the Strawberry
Fields and flower growing areas to continue; (4) enhance the existing protections of the
Flower Fields; (5) provide for the protection of environmental resources in the area
including compliance with the City's Habitat Management Plan; and (6)incorporate public
trails, pedestrian accessibility, park uses, and other complementary and compatible public
uses into the area.
3. Section 3. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS
The Carlsbad General Plan is hereby amended as set forth in this Section.
3.1 The Land Use Element at page 27, Section II (D) is hereby amended to add a new Land Use
Element Section II (D) (8) to read as follows:
8. The Cannon Road Open Space, Farming and Public Use Corridor
The area along the Cannon Road corridor east of the Interstate 5 freeway presently
consist primarily of open space and existing farming operations including the Flower
Fields located to the south of Cannon Road and the existing Strawberry Fields located to
the north of Cannon Road. The open space areas on the north side of Cannon Road
provide spectacular views of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon and contain environmentally-
sensitive natural habitat areas that need to be permanently protected.
The existing Flower Fields and the Strawberry Fields as open space uses provide
for productive use of portions of the area that enhance the cultural heritage and history of
the City. Although the Flower Fields are already protected and restricted to agricultural
use, the City shall utilize all existing programs and land use protections and explore other
possible new mechanisms to keep the Flower Fields in production. The City shall also
ensure that other farming uses such as the existing Strawberry Fields are allowed to
continue as long as it is economically viable for the landowner to do so.
The area is recognized for its significant open space opportunities, however, the area
lacks adequate public access and public use areas so that the community can enjoy the
open space opportunities provided in this area to their fullest potential. An
interconnecting public trail through the area preferably linking the south shore of Agua
Hedionda Lagoon with the existing Flower Fields could greatly enhance public access in
the area. In addition, park and recreation uses that allow public gathering spaces and are
compatible with other open space uses could offer opportunities for more community use
and enjoyment of the area.
Residential use is not appropriate for the area. Commercial and industrial-type
uses other than those normally associated with farming operations are also not
appropriate.
EXHIBIT "3"
The Cannon Road Open Space, Farming and Public Use Corridor presents a
unique opportunity for the City to create a sustainable, community-oriented open space
area that balances social, economic and environmental values important to the
community.
3.2 The Land Use Element at pages 37 and 38, Agriculture-C. Implementing Policies and Action
Programs is hereby amended by deleting existing C.3 and replacing it with a new C.3 to read
as follows:
C.3 The City shall utilize all existing programs and land use protections and explore possible
new grant programs and other outside financial assistance to keep the existing Flower Fields
in permanent farming and flower production.
3.3 The Land Use Element at page 40, Section III; Goals, Objectives and Implementing Policies
and Action Programs, is hereby amended to add a new section entitled Special Planning
Considerations-The Cannon Road Open Space, Farming and Public Use Corridor to provide
as follows:
SPECIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS-THE CANNON ROAD OPEN SPACE,
FARMING AND PUBLIC USE CORRIDOR
A. Goal
Create a unique, community-oriented open space area along the Cannon Road corridor
located immediately to the east of the Interstate 5 freeway including the existing Flower
Fields and Strawberry Fields.
B. Objectives
B.I To ensure that this area is permanently protected and preserved for open space uses.
B.2 To enhance the protection of the existing Flower Fields.
B.3 To allow the farming operations in the area such as the existing Strawberry Fields and
flower growing areas to continue.
B.4 To provide for the protection and preservation of environmental resources in the area.
B.5 To increase public access and use to the area primarily through the incorporation of
public trails and active and passive recreation.
C. Implementing Policies and Action Programs
C.I Protect and preserve this area as an open space corridor. Permit only open space, farming
and compatible public uses in the area. Permitted uses shall be as follows:
(1) Open Space
(2) Farming and other related agricultural support uses including flower and strawberry
Production
(3) Public trails
(4) Active and Passive park, recreation and similar public and private use facilities
(except on the existing Flower Fields)
(5) Electrical Transmission Facilities
C.2 Prohibit residential development in the area.
EXHIBIT "3"
C.3 Prohibit commercial and industrial-type uses in the area other than those normally
associated with farming operations and open space uses.
C.4 Enhance public access and public use in the area by allowing compatible public trails,
community gathering spaces and public and private, active and passive park and recreation
uses.
C.5 Allow farming to continue in the area for as long as economically viable for the
landowner.
C.6 Utilize all existing programs and land use protections and explore possible new
mechanisms to keep the existing Flower Fields in production.
C.I If determined to be necessary, the City shall amend the Zoning Ordinance and adopt a
Cannon Road Open Space, Farming and Public Use Corridor Overlay Zone to apply to the
area that would provide more detail on permitted uses and land use regulations applicable to
the area.
C.8 The City shall initiate a public planning process with broad public participation to fully
accomplish implementation of the goals, objectives and action programs listed above.
4. Section 4. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
The Carlsbad Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended as set forth in this Section.
4.1 The official Zoning Map is amended to rezone the area as shown on Exhibit A provided
herein and not presently zoned Open Space to the OS (Open Space) zone.
5. Section 5. AUTHORIZATION TO EXPEND CITY FUNDS FOR PUBLIC TRAILS
5.1 The City Council is hereby authorized to spend city funds from various sources including the
General Fund in the amount that may exceed $1 million to develop public trails in the area
identified in this measure as "The Cannon Road Open Space, Farming and Public Use
Corridor". To the maximum extent feasible, the trails shall be interconnected throughout the
area and shall provide a pedestrian link along the south shore of Agua Hedionda Lagoon and
a connection between the south shore of the lagoon and the existing Flower Fields.
6. Section 6. IMPLEMENTATION
6.1 Effective Date. This measure shall become effective upon passage by the voters in
accordance with Elections Code 9217. With respect to the General Plan Amendments contained
in Section 3 of this measure, if the number of General Plan Amendments in the calendar year as
permitted by California Government Code Section 65358 have already been utilized, the
Amendments to the General Plan enacted by this measure shall be the first amendment and shall
become effective on January 1 of the next year following passage.
Upon the effective date of this measure, all entitlements (whether discretionary or
ministerial) not yet issued or project approvals not yet approved, shall not be issued or
approved unless they are consistent with all provisions of this measure.
EXHIBIT "3"
6.2 Interpretation And Authority To Amend Other City Ordinances, Codes And Policies.
This measure shall be interpreted so as to be consistent with all federal and state laws. It shall
also be broadly interpreted and construed in order to achieve the purposes and findings stated in
the measure. The City is hereby authorized to make any other amendments to the General Plan,
the Zoning Ordinance or any other plans, policies or ordinances necessary to fully implement the
provisions of this measure and to ensure consistency between the provisions of this measure and
all other elements of the General Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, and any other plans, policies or
ordinances. If deemed necessary, the City is authorized to amend the Zoning Ordinance to create
and adopt a Cannon Road Open Space, Farming and Public Use Corridor Overlay Zone which
would then be applied to the area affected by this measure. The Overlay Zone could provide
more detail on permitted uses and regulations applicable to the area.
6.3 Public Process To Comprehensively Implement Measure. Upon the passage of this
measure, the City shall initiate a comprehensive planning process with broad public participation
and input to accomplish full implementation of the measure. The process shall include
determining the most appropriate open space, recreational and public uses for the area, should
farming become no longer economically-viable in the area. The process shall result in achieving
complete General Plan, Zoning and Local Coastal Program consistency so that the full intent of
this measure can be implemented by the City.
6.4 Severability. If any section, sub-section, sentence, clause, phrase, part, or other portion of
this measure, or application thereof, is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a final judgment
of a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the remaining portions or
provisions of this measure. It is hereby declared by the people voting for this measure that this
measure, and each section, sub-section, sentence, clause, phrase, part, or portion thereof would
have been adopted or passed even if one or more sections, sub-sections, sentences, clauses,
phrases, part, or portions, or the application thereof, are declared invalid or unconstitutional.
6.5 Conflicting Ballot Measures. This measure is inconsistent with and intended as an
alternative to any other initiative(s) or measure(s) placed on the same ballot that addresses the
same subject matter as this measure. In the event that this measure and another initiative(s) or
measure(s) addressing the same subject matter as this measure, or any part thereof, is approved
by a majority of voters at the same election, and this measure receives a greater number of
affirmative votes than any other such initiative(s) or measure(s), then this measure shall prevail
and control in its entirety and said other initiative(s) or measure(s) shall be rendered void and
without any legal effect.
Exhibit List
Exhibit A - Aerial Photo Map showing boundaries of Area affected by this measure
EXHIBIT "4"
Permanently Protect T-the Flower Fields, Strawberry Fields, and Open Space «nd-P«Mie
Trails Protection Act of 2006
The People of the City of Carlsbad do hereby enact and ordain:
1. Section 1. TITLE
1.1 This measure shall be known and may be cited as the "Permanently Protect T-the Flower
Fields, Strawberry Fields, and Open Space and Public Trails Protection Act of 2006".
2. Section 2. PURPOSE, LOCATION AND FINDINGS
2.1 Purpose. The purpose of this measure is to ensure that the Flower Fields and Strawberry
Fields area located along the Cannon Road corridor east of the Interstate 5 freeway is
preserved in open space and that farming is allowed to continue as long as it is viable. The
purpose is also to allow public use, access and community gathering places to occur in the
area in a manner that will not adversely impact fanning and the unique open space and
environmental resources located in the area. This measure is intended to create a
sustainable area that balances social, economic and environmental values important to the
community. This measure amends the General Plan which contains the vision for the future
of the City?_and the Zoning Ordinance and the City's Local Coastal Program to designate
the area for special planning consideration and to establish the regulatory mechanisms to
ensure that the area is retained in open space, that farming is allowed to continue and that
public uses and access is provided to theare allowed in the area.
2.2 Location and Description of the Area Affected by Measure. The area affected by this
measure is shown on Exhibit A provided herein. It contains approximately 355307 acres of
land located in the central portion of the City along Cannon Road east of the Interstate 5
freeway. The area presently consists primarily of open space and farming operations and
containsincluding the existing Flower Fields located south of Cannon Road and the area
generally known as the Strawberry Fields located on the north side of Cannon Road
adjacent to Interstate 5 and the south shore of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon. The area on the
north side of Cannon Road also contains regionally-significant public utility uses including
existing SDG&E electrical transmission lines. The City presently leases a portion of the
Strawberry Fields area (approximately 91 acres) on the north side of Cannon Road (and
generally known as Hub Park) which was leased for potential future, public park uses. The
most easterly end of the area on the north side of Cannon Road contains environmentally-
sensitive, natural vegetation that is identified in the City's Habitat Management Plan as part
of a proposed habitat preserve system. For purposes of this measure, the area shall herein
be identified as "The Cannon Road Open Space, Farming and Public Use Corridon"-an4
has been divided into five sub-areas as shown on Exhibit A. Sub area A is located at the
northeast corner of Cannon Road and the Interstate 5 freeway. It is presently farmed but is
also presently designated in the General Plan—for T R (Travel/Recreation Commercial)
uses and zoned P U (Public Utility) uses. Sub area B is the remainder of the area located on
the north side of Cannon Road adjacent to Agua Hedionda Lagoon. This sub area contains
existing fanning operations, tho portion of the area leased by the City, powerlino casements
EXHIBIT "4"
and some environmentally sensitive habitat restricted by an open space casement. This
sub area is presently designated for Open Space in the General Plan, however except for a
small portion, it is presently zoned P U (Public Utility) that allows uses such as energy
production facilities. Sub-area C is the existing Flower Fields that are presently protected
as Open Space as part of the previous approval of the Carlsbad Ranch/Legoland project.
Sub -areas D and E are existing open space lots located on the south side of Cannon Road
that were originally planned to be part of a larger golf course that was never developed.
2.3 Findings. The People of the City of Carlsbad find and declare that the subject area
affected by this measure is currently regulated by City policy and established land use
documents including the City of Carlsbad General Plan, the City Zoning Ordinance, the
Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan (Sub areas A and B), the Agua Hedionda Land Use
Plan (Sub areas A and B), the Mello II Local Coastal Plan and(Sub-oreas C, D and E), the
South Carlsbad Coastal Redevelopment Plan (Sub area A), the Carlsbad Ranch Specific
Plan. The City also has a comprehensive Growth Management Plan that sets limits on the
amount of residential development and that requires public facilities to be provided
concurrent with growth. (Sub-areas C, D and E) and the City's Growth Management Plan.
The People of the City of Carlsbad desire these land use documents and City policies to the
General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance be amended to (1) prohibit residential uses in the
area; (4-2) ensure that this area is permanently protected and preserved for open space uses;
(23) allow the fanning operations in the area such as the Strawberry Fields and flower
growing areas to continue; (34) enhance the existing protections of the Flower Fields; (45)
provide for the protection of environmental resources in the area including compliance with
the City's Habitat Management Plan; and (56)incorporate public trails, pedestrian
accessibility, park uses, and other complementary and compatible public uses into the area^
and (6) prohibit residential, industrial and commercial land uses.
3. Section 3. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS
The Carlsbad General Plan is hereby amended as set forth in this Section.
3.1 The Land Use Element at page 27, Section II (D) is hereby amended to add a new Land Use
Element Section II (D) (8) to read as follows:
8. The Cannon Road Open Space, Farming and Public Use Corridor
The area along the Cannon Road corridor east of the Interstate 5 freeway
presently consist primarily of open space and existing farming operations including the
Flower Fields located to the south of Cannon Road and the existing Strawberry Fields
located to the north of Cannon Road. The open space areas on the north side of Cannon
Road provide spectacular views of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon and contain
environmentally-sensitive natural habitat areas that need to be permanently protected.
The existing Flower Fields and the Strawberry Fields as open space uses provide
for productive use of portions of the area that enhance the cultural heritage and history of
the City. Although the Flower Fields are already protected and restricted to agricultural
use by the conditions of approval of the Carlsbad Ranch/Legoland project, the City
shall utilize all existing programs and land use protections and explore other
EXHIBIT "4"
possible new mechanisms to keep the Flower Fields in production. The City shall also
ensure that other farming uses such as the existing Strawberry Fields are allowed to
continue as long as it is economically viable for the landowner for the farmer to do so.
The area is recognized for its significant open space opportunities, however, the
area lacks adequate public access and public use areas so that the community can enjoy
the open space opportunities provided in this area to their fullest potential. An
interconnecting public trail through the area preferably linking the south shore of Agua
Hedionda Lagoon with the existing Flower Fields could greatly enhance public access in
the area. In addition, passive park and recreation uses that allow public gathering spaces
and are compatible with other open space uses could offer opportunities for more
community use and enjoyment of the area.
Residential use is not appropriate for the area. Commercial and industrial-type
uses other than those normally associated with farming operations are also not
appropriate.
The Cannon Road Open Space, Farming and Public Use Corridor presents a
unique opportunity for the City to create a sustainable, community-oriented open space
area that balances social, economic and environmental values important to the
community.
3.2 The Land Use Element at pages 37 and 38, Agriculture-C. Implementing Policies and Action
Programs is hereby amended by deleting existing C.3 and replacing it with a new C.3 to read
as follows:
C.3 The City shall utilize all existing programs and land use protections and explore possible
new grant programs and other outside financial assistance to keep the existing Flower Fields
in permanent farming and flower production.
3.3 The Land Use Element at page 40, Section III; Goals, Objectives and Implementing Policies
and Action Programs, is hereby amended to add a new section entitled Special Planning
Considerations-The Cannon Road Open Space, Farming and Public Use Corridor to provide
as follows:
SPECIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS-THE CANNON ROAD OPEN SPACE,
FARMING AND PUBLIC USE CORRIDOR
A. Goal
Create a unique, community-oriented open space area along the Cannon Road corridor
located immediately to the east of the Interstate 5 freeway including the existing Flower
Fields and Strawberry Fields.
B. Objectives
B.I To ensure that this area is permanently protected and preserved for open space uses.
B.2 To enhance the protection of the existing Flower Fields.
B.3 To allow the farming operations in the area such as the existing Strawberry Fields and
flower growing areas to continue.
EXHIBIT "4"
B.4 To provide for the protection and preservation of environmental resources in the area.
B.5 To increase public access and use to the area primarily through the incorporation of
public trails and active and passive recreation.
C. Implementing Policies and Action Programs
C.I Protect and preserve this area as an open space corridor. Permit only open space, farming
and compatible public uses in the area. Permitted uses shall be as follows:
(1) Open Space
(2) Farming and other related agricultural support uses including flower and strawberry
Production
(3) Public trails
(4) Active and Passive park^ and public recreation and similar public and private use
facilities (except on the existing Flower Fields)
(5) Electrical Transmission Facilities
(5) A civic center if specifically approved by a majority vote at an election for
such purpose (except on the existing Flower Fields).
C.2 Prohibit residential development in the area.
C.3 Prohibit commercial and industrial-type uses in the area other than those normally
associated with farming operations and open space uses.
C.4 Enhance public access and public use in the area by allowing compatible public trails,
community gathering spaces and public and private, active and passive park and recreation
uses.
C.5 Allow farming to continue in the area for as long as economically viable for the
landowner.
C.6 Utilize all existing programs and land use protections and explore possible new
mechanisms to keep the existing Flower Fields in production.
C.7 If determined to be necessary, the City shall amend the Zoning Ordinance and adopt a
Cannon Road Open Space, Farming and Public Use Corridor Overlay Zone to apply to the
area that would provide more detail on permitted uses and land use regulations applicable to
the area.
C. 8 The City shall initiate a public planning process with broad public participation to fully
accomplish implementation of the goals, objectives and action programs listed above.
3.4 The General Plan Land Use Map contained in the Land Use Element at page 7 shall be
amended to change the land use designation of Sub-area A as shown on Exhibit A provided
herein from T R (Travel/Recreation Commercial) to OS (Open Space).
3.5 The Open and Conservation Maps contained in the Open Space and Conservation Element at
pages 35 and 36 shall be amended to show Sub area A as shown on Exhibit A provided
herein as Existing/Approved Open Space.
4. Section 4. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
The Carlsbad Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended as set forth in this Section.
4.1 The official Zoning Map is amended to rezone Sub area A the area as shown on Exhibit A
provided herein from the P U (Public Utility) zone to the OS (Open Space) zone and to
V
EXHIBIT "4"
rezono all of Sub area B and not presently zoned Open Space from tho P U (Public Utility)
zone to the OS (Open Space) zone.
4.2 The Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan (SP 207) that regulates uses and development in Sub areas
D and E as shown on Exhibit A provided herein and also as identified as Planning Area 8a
and 8b in Specific Plan 207 shall be amended to delete all references to golf course use- and
to make all other applicable modifications so that only the following uses will be permitted in
the sub areas: (1) Farming and other related agricultural uses including flower and strawberry
production; (2) Public trails; (3) Passive park and public recreation facilities and (4) Civic
center if specifically approved by a majority vote at an oloction for such purpose.
S.Scction 5. LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM LAND USE PLAN
AMENDMENTS
The Carlsbad Local Coastal Program is hereby amended as set forth in this Section and the City
Council shall submit those amendments to the California Coastal Commission for approval.
5.1 The Land Use Map of the Local Coastal Program Agua Hedionda Segment Land Use Plan is
hereby amended to change the land use designation of Sub area A as shown on Exhibit A
provided herein from TS (Travel Services Commercial) to OS (Open Space).
5.2 The Agua Hedionda Land Use Plan is hereby amended to delete all references, policies and
other provisions rotating to Sub area A and B as shown on Exhibit A provided herein that
conflict with the provisions of Section 3.1 and 3.3 of this measure. The conflicting provisions
shall be replaced with the applicable provisions of Section 3.1 and 3.3 of this measure.
5.3 The Local Coastal Program Mello II Segment Land Use Plan is hereby amended to delete all
references, policies and other provisions relating to the Carlsbad Ranch, Planning Area 8a
and 8b shown as Sub areas D and E on Exhibit A provided herein that conflict with tho
provisions of Section 4.2 of this measure. The conflicting provisions shall be replaced with
the applicable provisions of Section 4.2 of this measure.
65. Section-6 5. AUTHORIZATION TO EXPEND CITY FUNDS FOR PUBLIC TRAILS
65.1 The City Council is hereby authorized to spend city funds from various sources including
the General Fund in the amount that may exceed $1 million to develop public trails in the
area identified in this measure as "The Cannon Road Open Space, Farming and Public Use
Corridor". To the maximum extent feasible, the trails shall be interconnected throughout the
area and shall provide a pedestrian link along the south shore of Agua Hedionda Lagoon and
a connection between the south shore of the lagoon and the existing Flower Fields.
EXHIBIT "4"
76. Section-76. IMPLEMENTATION
7rl:6.1 Effective Date. This measure shall become effective upon passage by the voters in
accordance with Elections Code 9217. With respect to the General Plan Amendments contained
in Section 3 of this measure, if the number of General Plan Amendments in the calendar year as
permitted by California Government Code Section 65358 have already been utilized, the
Amendments to the General Plan enacted by this measure shall be the first amendment and shall
become effective on January 1 of the next year following passage. With respect to the Local
Coastal Program Amendments contained in Section 5 of this measure, the City shall submit the
amendments to the California State Coastal Commission upon passage of this measure and they
shall not become effective until approved by the Coastal Commission.
Upon the effective date of this measure, all entitlements (whether discretionary or
ministerial) not yet issued or project approvals not yet approved, shall not be issued or
approved unless they are consistent with all provisions of this measure.
The Carlsbad General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program presently in
effect and as amended by this measure comprise an integrated, internally consistent and
compatible statement of policies and land use regulations for the City. In order to ensure
that these documents remain an integrated, internally consistent and compatible statement of
policies and regulations for the City as required by State law and to ensure that tho actions
of the voters in enacting this measure are given full effect, any amendment to the Carlsbad
General Plan, the Zoning Ordinance or the Local Coastal Program that is adopted prior to
the effective date- of this measure and that is inconsistent with any provision of this measure
is hereby repealed.
7^26.2 Interpretation And Authority To Amend Other City Ordinances, Codes And
Policies. This measure shall be interpreted so as to be consistent with all federal and state laws. It
shall also be broadly interpreted and construed in order to achieve the purposes and findings
stated in the measure. The City is hereby authorized to make any other amendments to the
General Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, the Local Coastal Program or any other plans, policies or
ordinances necessary to fully implement the provisions of this measure and to ensure consistency
between the provisions of this measure and all other elements of the General Plan, the Zoning
Ordinance, the Local Coastal Program and any other plans, policies or ordinances. If deemed
necessary, the City is authorized to amend the Zoning Ordinance to create and adopt a Cannon
Road Open Space, Farming and Public Use Corridor Overlay Zone which would then be applied
to the area affected by this measure. The Overlay Zone could provide more detail on permitted
uses and regulations applicable to the area.
7.3City Council Authority To Amend Measure If Taking Of Private Property Rights
Occurs. This measure shall be subject to amendment by the City Council without a subsequent
vote of the People of Carlsbad if any portion or provision of this measure is determined to be any
taking of private property rights or an inverse condemnation of property by a final judgment of a
court of competent jurisdiction, other judicially approved process, or other alternative dispute
resolution process Such determination shall not affect the uncontostcd, remaining portions or
EXHIBIT "4"
provisions of this measure and the measure shall be amended in a manner that most narrowly
construes the City's compliance obligations while at the samo time retaining the broadest
possible construction and implementation of this measure.
6.3 Public Process To Comprehensively Implement Measure. Upon the passage of this
measure, the City shall initiate a comprehensive planning process with broad public participation
and input to accomplish full implementation of the measure. The process shall include
determining the most appropriate open space, recreational and public uses for the area, should
when-farming isbecome no longer economically-viable in the area. The process shall result in
achieving complete General Plan, Zoning and Local Coastal Program consistency so that the full
intent of this measure can be implemented by the City.
7j46.4Severability. If any section, sub-section, sentence, clause, phrase, part, or other portion of
this measure, or application thereof, is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a final judgment
of a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the remaining portions or
provisions of this measure. It is hereby declared by the people voting for this measure that this
measure, and each section, sub-section, sentence, clause, phrase, part, or portion thereof would
have been adopted or passed even if one or more sections, sub-sections, sentences, clauses,
phrases, part, or portions, or the application thereof, are declared invalid or unconstitutional.
2j56.5Conflicting Ballot Measures. This measure is inconsistent with and intended as an
alternative to any other initiative(s) or measure(s) placed on the same ballot that addresses the
same subject matter as this measure. In the event that this measure and another initiative(s) or
measure(s) addressing the same subject matter as this measure, or any part thereof, is approved
by a majority of voters at the same election, and this measure receives a greater number of
affirmative votes than any other such initiative(s) or measure(s), then this measure shall prevail
and control in its entirety and said other initiative(s) or measure(s) shall be rendered void and
without any legal effect.
Exhibit List
Exhibit A-Aerial Photo Map showing boundaries of Area and Sub areas affected by this
measure
1
Report of theReport of the
CitizensCitizens’’CommitteeCommittee
to Study the Flower Fields to Study the Flower Fields
and Strawberry Fields Areaand Strawberry Fields Area
CitizensCitizens’’Committee to Study the Flower Committee to Study the Flower
Fields and Strawberry Fields AreaFields and Strawberry Fields Area
Committee established April 18, 2006Committee established April 18, 2006
31 member Committee31 member Committee
25 Citizen voting members25 Citizen voting members
6 non6 non--voting membersvoting members
2
CitizensCitizens’’Committee to Study the Flower Committee to Study the Flower
Fields and Strawberry Fields AreaFields and Strawberry Fields Area
Committee Members were:
Pete Aadland Cary Manning Non-voting Members
Jill Agosti Kip McBane Chris Calkins
Jennifer Benner Gina McBride Claudia Carrillo
Marvin Cap Laura Means Pope Marvin Sippel
Bill Dominguez Leslea Meyerhoff Courtney Heineman
Farrah Douglas Robert Morgan Nancy Calverley
Vern Farrow Eric Muñoz
Bob Garcin Peder Norby
Gary Hill Seth Schulberg
Mark Johnson Daniel Swiger
Pat Kurth Heidi Willes
Keith Lewinger Mark Winkler
CitizensCitizens’’Committee to Study the Flower Committee to Study the Flower
Fields and Strawberry Fields AreaFields and Strawberry Fields Area
Charge of CommitteeCharge of Committee
Review background information Review background information
Review two initiatives and City ballot measureReview two initiatives and City ballot measure
Receive public input and presentations Receive public input and presentations
Prepare an independent and objective comparison Prepare an independent and objective comparison
Make any other recommendationsMake any other recommendations
3
Work Program/Tasks of the Work Program/Tasks of the
CitizensCitizens’’CommitteeCommittee
Committee met May 16, 2006 to July 11, 2006Committee met May 16, 2006 to July 11, 2006
Committee held 7 publiclyCommittee held 7 publicly--noticed meetingsnoticed meetings
All Committee information posted on City website All Committee information posted on City website
Committee elected a Chair and Vice ChairCommittee elected a Chair and Vice Chair
Eric Eric MuMuññozoz, Chair, Chair
Kip Kip McBaneMcBane, Vice Chair, Vice Chair
Committee meetings facilitated by NCRCCommittee meetings facilitated by NCRC
Work Program/Tasks of the Work Program/Tasks of the
CitizensCitizens’’CommitteeCommittee
Committee completed all assigned tasks including:Committee completed all assigned tasks including:
Reviewed all background informationReviewed all background information
Reviewed the proposed initiatives and the City measureReviewed the proposed initiatives and the City measure
Prepared a Comparative Analysis matrix of the measuresPrepared a Comparative Analysis matrix of the measures
Made recommendations primarily to the CityMade recommendations primarily to the City’’s measures measure
The result of the CitizensThe result of the Citizens’’Committee effort is the Committee effort is the
Report before the Council this eveningReport before the Council this evening
4
CitizensCitizens’’Committee ReportCommittee Report
The Report contains the following:The Report contains the following:
Comparative Analysis matrix of the Measures Comparative Analysis matrix of the Measures
Recommendations of Committee majorityRecommendations of Committee majority
A minority report prepared by the ViceA minority report prepared by the Vice--Chair of the Chair of the
Committee is also includedCommittee is also included
Comparative Analysis MatrixComparative Analysis Matrix
Committee approved Comparative Analysis matrix (17Committee approved Comparative Analysis matrix (17--44--0)0)
Gateway Parkland initiative excluded from matrixGateway Parkland initiative excluded from matrix
Draft matrix prepared by 5 member SubcommitteeDraft matrix prepared by 5 member Subcommittee
Seth Seth SchulbergSchulberg, Subcommittee Chair, Subcommittee Chair
5
Matrix consists of two partsMatrix consists of two parts
Issues Analysis (most important)Issues Analysis (most important)
Technical AnalysisTechnical Analysis
Guiding Principles used in preparing matrixGuiding Principles used in preparing matrix
Provide a neutral, objective unbiased analysisProvide a neutral, objective unbiased analysis
No assumptions or personal opinionsNo assumptions or personal opinions
No speculation about how initiatives would be implementedNo speculation about how initiatives would be implemented
If the initiative was silent on a use, the use was considered If the initiative was silent on a use, the use was considered
not permittednot permitted
Comparative Analysis MatrixComparative Analysis Matrix
CitizensCitizens’’Committee RecommendationsCommittee Recommendations
Two categories of recommendationsTwo categories of recommendations
Proposed City ballot measure recommendationsProposed City ballot measure recommendations
Other Committee RecommendationsOther Committee Recommendations
6
City Ballot Measure City Ballot Measure
RecommendationsRecommendations
A City sponsored ballot measure should go A City sponsored ballot measure should go
forward but it should be different than the forward but it should be different than the
one presently proposed (15one presently proposed (15--33--3).3).
A City sponsored ballot measure should go A City sponsored ballot measure should go
forward with the changes contained in the forward with the changes contained in the
CitizensCitizens’’Committee recommendations Committee recommendations
(20(20--00--1).1).
The City ballot measure should affirm the The City ballot measure should affirm the
existing TR designation on the 48 acre existing TR designation on the 48 acre
parcel currently designated for TR. This parcel currently designated for TR. This
parcel should be removed from inclusion parcel should be removed from inclusion
in the Cityin the City’’s ballot measure (19s ballot measure (19--00--2).2).
City Ballot Measure City Ballot Measure
RecommendationsRecommendations
7
The City ballot measure should allow The City ballot measure should allow
public or private recreation, not just public or private recreation, not just
passive recreation (17passive recreation (17--33--1), and should 1), and should
permit passive and active recreation permit passive and active recreation
without altering the existing Flower without altering the existing Flower
FieldsFields®®(12(12--0).0).
City Ballot Measure City Ballot Measure
RecommendationsRecommendations
City Ballot Measure City Ballot Measure
RecommendationsRecommendations
For Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan: Retain For Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan: Retain
agricultural use and allow flexibility and agricultural use and allow flexibility and
support agricultural uses and allow active support agricultural uses and allow active
recreation uses on all Carlsbad Ranch sites recreation uses on all Carlsbad Ranch sites
(except on The Flower Fields(except on The Flower Fields®®)(17)(17--00--4).4).
8
City ballot measure should clarify SDG&E City ballot measure should clarify SDG&E
property rights, i.e. entire property is property rights, i.e. entire property is
currently zoned Public Utility not just currently zoned Public Utility not just
where the power line easements are where the power line easements are
located. Any City ballot measure should located. Any City ballot measure should
not strip away Public Utility uses on the not strip away Public Utility uses on the
property as a whole (13property as a whole (13--11--7).7).
City Ballot Measure City Ballot Measure
RecommendationsRecommendations
Remove specific reference to a Remove specific reference to a ““Civic Civic
CenterCenter””in the City ballot measure (16in the City ballot measure (16--55--0).0).
City Ballot Measure City Ballot Measure
RecommendationsRecommendations
9
The City ballot measure should reiterate The City ballot measure should reiterate
that the City has a Growth Management that the City has a Growth Management
Plan that applies to the surrounding areas Plan that applies to the surrounding areas
and works well (15and works well (15--44--1).1).
City Ballot Measure City Ballot Measure
RecommendationsRecommendations
The City should work to achieve General The City should work to achieve General
Plan/Local Coastal Program/Zoning Plan/Local Coastal Program/Zoning
consistency for all the properties under consistency for all the properties under
consideration (18consideration (18--00--3).3).
The City should conduct community outreach The City should conduct community outreach
effort to effort to ““scope outscope out””General Plan, Local General Plan, Local
Coastal Program, and Zoning designations that Coastal Program, and Zoning designations that
would guide the City effort in the would guide the City effort in the
recommendation above(19recommendation above(19--00--2).2).
Other Committee RecommendationsOther Committee Recommendations
10
The City should allow for a public The City should allow for a public
““deliberationdeliberation””process irrespective of results of process irrespective of results of
election (different than a public election (different than a public ““meetingmeeting””
where time for comments is limited) (20where time for comments is limited) (20--00--1).1).
The City Council should initiate a The City Council should initiate a
comprehensive planning effort for the comprehensive planning effort for the
properties (21properties (21--00--0).0).
Other Committee RecommendationsOther Committee Recommendations
CitizensCitizens’’Committee ReportCommittee Report
Staff RecommendationStaff Recommendation
Commend Committee Members for the Commend Committee Members for the
time, effort and valuable input they time, effort and valuable input they
providedprovided
Accept Committee ReportAccept Committee Report
Provide direction to staff on CitizensProvide direction to staff on Citizens’’
Committee RecommendationsCommittee Recommendations
11COLLEGE BLCARL
S
B
AD
B
L CANNON RDPALOMAR AIRPORT RD AVIARA PY21102313
21101028
21102221
2 1 1 0 1 0 0 521101024
2110231121101031
AGUA
HEDIONDALAGOON
PACIFICOCEAN
RLMRLM
Suggested Titles forSuggested Titles for
City Ballot MeasureCity Ballot Measure
The Flower Fields, the Strawberry Fields and the The Flower Fields, the Strawberry Fields and the
Carlsbad Taxpayers Protection Act of 2006Carlsbad Taxpayers Protection Act of 2006
Preserve the Flower Fields and the Right of the Preserve the Flower Fields and the Right of the
Property Owner to Continue to Farm the Strawberry Property Owner to Continue to Farm the Strawberry
FieldsFields
Permanently Protect the Flower Fields, the Strawberry Permanently Protect the Flower Fields, the Strawberry
Fields and Open Space Act of 2006Fields and Open Space Act of 2006
Protect the Future of the Flower Fields and Strawberry Protect the Future of the Flower Fields and Strawberry
Fields Area of the CityFields Area of the City