Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-02-15; Prop D Citizens Liaison Committee Ad Hoc; MinutesProp D Citizens Liaison Committee Action Minutes February 15, 2008 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad Room 173B Committee Present Jim Comstock Mark Winkler (Alternate) Farrah Douglas Diane Lantz Gary Hill Pat Kurth Absent: Bill Dominguez, Dan Livingston City of Carlsbad Staff: Sandra Holder – Community Development Director Jane Mobaldi – Assistant City Attorney Gary Barberio – Assistant Planning Director Sheryl Keller – Administrative Secretary Michael Holzmiller – Consultant Lewis Michaelson – Katz & Associates 10 public/other attendees Meeting started at 9:10 a.m. Lewis Michaelson welcomed everyone and introductions were made. Diane Lantz stated she found the presentation from the property owners at the last meeting very helpful. Gary Hill commented that all of the open space sites being considered are, in his opinion, part of mitigation for development rights. Part of the remaining land was to be left as open space. He thinks the public is looking at these properties as totally undeveloped and with no strings attached. The public needs to look at the bigger picture. He referenced the SDG&E 48 acres and if they would allow the space to be developed for tourist/commercial use in exchange for a certain amount of land to be left as open space. Mr. Hill also referenced the maximum number of daily automobile trips that must be taken into account when determining the maximum amount of development allowed. Lewis Michaelson responded that this committee should determine what information is important to share and continue the conversation with the public. We need to determine what it is that would be most helpful to let citizens know as they plan for the implementation of Proposition D. Presentation on Sites 2 and 3 Property Constraints Michael Holzmiller referred to the handout that was distributed regarding the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan. He highlighted several important points. ♦ The Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan applies to Sites 2 and 3. It identifies permitted uses and development standards for the two sites. ♦ The sites were originally designed to be a 9-hole golf course. ♦ If open space uses other than golf are determined to be desirable, an amendment to the Specific Plan is required along with approval of the California Coastal Commission. ♦ Proposition D allows the City to amend existing land use documents without a subsequent vote of the citizens. Anything other than open space would require a vote of the citizens. ♦ Vehicular access rights to Cannon Road were waived as part of the Specific Plan approval. ♦ There are existing, buried undercrossings to both Sites 2 and 3 under Cannon Road. These undercrossings could be used for pedestrian access/trails to link Sites 2 and 3 to Site 4. Mr. Hill added that one of the undercrossings now crosses onto private property and is not currently available to the public. ♦ The Specific Plan established a maximum traffic generation limitation (69,376 ADT’s) for all existing and future uses in Local Facilities Management Zone 13 in which Sites 2 and 3 are located. Mr. Holzmiller added that if the use exceeds the ADT, the Specific Plan could be amended. The number is based on the capacity of the roads and improvements that exist right now. In the future, the City Engineering Department may conduct a design study to determine the traffic use. ♦ There are private CC&R’s that apply to Sites 2 and 3. Uses on the sites must be consistent with the existing Specific Plan. The CC&R’s are comprised of property owners within the Carlsbad Ranch development. Mr. Holzmiller referenced page 18 of the CC&R’s, Article 5.1-Permitted Uses, which states “Unless otherwise specifically prohibited herein, permitted uses shall include those uses permitted by the Amended Specific Plan, as amended by the City (“Permitted Uses”).” Also referenced was page 6 of the CC&R’s, Item 1.5-Approvals, which states “The Design Review Committee shall base its approval or disapproval of any Submittal on, among other things, the adequacy of site dimensions … operations and uses.” Discussion ensued regarding approvals of submittals. Jane Mobaldi stated that whatever the City allows the CC&R’s allows. They can review design but not uses. There have been additional agreements with Legoland and the Sheraton Carlsbad. The City is not subject to the CC&R’S and does not require permission. As long as everyone agrees with the proposal, there are no problems. The intention is to rely on the City Specific Plan. The CC&R’s intention is to allow uses of the Specific Plan and to control design. If anything is violated, any additional property owner can take legal action. CC&R’s are written to preserve quality and development in the area. Diane Lantz summarized the conversation and highlighted the major issues and/or constraints, which are: 1) Specific Plan amendment and California Coastal Commission approval; 2) traffic count; 3) owner CC&R’s; and 4) vehicle access. Presentation on Site 4 Property Constraints Gary Barberio referred to the Site 4-SDG&E handout that was distributed. He highlighted the following points: ♦ Site 4 (172 acres) is owned by SDG&E. It has a General Plan and Zoning designation of Open Space. ♦ SDG&E also owns the 48-acre property immediately east of I-5 and adjacent to Site 4. This 48-acre site is designated for visitor-serving commercial uses and is not zoned Open Space and is not a part of Proposition D. ♦ The City currently leases approximately 91 acres of Site 4 (Hub Park Lease). ♦ Specific Plan 144 (adopted in 1971) also applies to all of the land originally owned by SDG&E, including Site A. The Specific Plan primarily provides design and development guidelines for the lands occupied by the Encina Power Station and provides no real land use regulations for Site A. Mr. Barberio showed the designated areas on the screen and provided a very detailed view and maps of the entire project area. He highlighted the open space easement, power line and Hub Park areas. He described the total acreage is 172 acres; however, 71 acres is designated for California Coastal Commission Open Space and 41 acres is designated for the Powerline Corridor. This leaves a balance of 60 acres net, noting that a large piece of property becomes very small. There are several issues and constraints. Design and Schedule of Continued Conversations (Focus Groups) Upon viewing the schedule of the continued conversations, several committee members expressed their dissatisfaction with the schedule, i.e. the dates of March 3, 4, 5, and 10. The main concern is that three of the sessions are held consecutively and the committee members felt this is a huge time commitment for citizens with families and other obligations, and it would limit their attendance. Sandra Holder explained the reason for scheduling them in this manner. She also distributed the mailer post card that will be mailed to over 4,000 citizens. After lengthy discussion it was decided to hold the meetings as scheduled, but to schedule a follow-up meeting to recap the four meetings and to allow greater participation. A request was made to hang the posters in City facilities as soon as possible to allow interested citizens time to plan their schedules accordingly. Public Comment Several members of the public spoke at the meeting. The meeting adjourned at 11:25 a.m.