Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-06-27; Citizens Committee to Study Flower Fields and Strawberry Fields Area Ad Hoc; Minutes 1 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 2 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. 3 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. 4 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. 5 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. 6 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.