HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-06-06; Citizens Committee to Study Flower Fields and Strawberry Fields Area Ad Hoc; MinutesCity 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