HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-03-23; Growth Management Citizens Committee; Minutes
Minutes
March 23, 2023
CALL TO ORDER: 5 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Present:
Primary – Jeff Segall, Scott White, Eric Larson, Stephen L’Heureux, Mike Howes, Mary Ryan, Frank Caraglio,
Frances Schnall, Harry Peacock, Annika Jimenez, Gita Nassiri, Fred Briggs, Amy Allemann, Joe Stine, Steve
Linke
Alternate – Ron Withall, Jan Neff-Sinclair, Casey Carstairs, Lisa Stark, Jamie Latiano Jacobs, Allen Manzano,
Art Larson
Absent:
Primary – Chad Majer, John Nguyen-Cleary, William Scheffler
Alternate – Patrick Goyarts, Don Christiansen, Terence Green, Thierry Ibri, Matthew Reese, Erin Nell,
Angela O’Hara, Nora Jimenez George, Marissa Steketee, Kevin Sabellico, William Fowler
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Motion by Jeff Segall, seconded by Scott White, to approve the Feb. 23, 2023 minutes as amended.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
There were no public comments.
WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS:
The meeting opened with a welcome to attendees from Committee Chair Eric Larson. Facilitator Susan
Harden reviewed the meeting agenda, the committee’s purpose, process, charter, and next steps. Chair
Eric Larson noted that final decisions will be taking place on the report at the meeting. He noted many
committee comments had been received up to and including the date of the meeting. He asked the
committee to address their submitted recommendations for discussion during the page-by-page review
of the report, at the appropriate time. Chair Larson discussed the process for reconsidering any action
previously voted on by the committee, noting that a “motion to reconsider” must be made by a member
of the majority vote.
COMMITTEE BUSINESS
• Review Draft Committee Report. The committee report was reviewed page by page, with the
following discussion and comments:
o During the Page 6 discussion, a suggestion was presented for leading the report with an
executive summary that should highlight actions taken by the committee.
o By consensus, the committee agreed with including an executive summary.
Carlsbad -v-~
TOMORR W
Growth Management Citizens Committee
Carlsbad Tomorrow Growth Management Citizens Committee March 23, 2023 Page 2
o Further comment that the Executive Summary should be at the beginning of the document.
o Proposed text regarding the financial aspects of the Growth Management Program that had
been submitted by a committee member for inclusion in the Executive Summary is read to
the committee.
o Suggestion to reference the future necessary nexus studies for the Growth Management
Program recommendations – suggested language: We understand that there are
implications to having these fees and we trust City Council will study this fully before
implementing.
Comment that some language exists later in the report, under Next Steps, regarding
nexus studies, and perhaps the comments on the financial impacts of the
committee’s recommendations can be incorporated into existing sections of the
report, i.e. “Planning for the Future” and “Next Steps”.
The committee had no objection to the concept of including text regarding the
financial implications of the committee’s recommendations being included in the
report.
Comment that the nexus study language in the Next Steps section should be
brought up somewhere in the front of the report.
o Comment that “New development cannot be required to pay for existing deficiencies” (on
page 40) needs to be included and bold in the Executive Summary text.
o Page 6 (History):
Request that a graph or table of the population be included in the “History” section
to provide a frame of reference for the reader of the population at the time of the
original Growth Management Program.
Should include what the population was, how it has changed over the years, and
projections for future growth.
o Comment that it should be noted in the report that the committee removed standards and,
therefore, the fees associated with those standards. (Fees, Next Steps section). Eric Lardy
noted that applicable fees will still be collected by city.
o Comment that the housing projection of 3,900 units is fluid and it needs to be emphasized
that the committee’s recommendations are based on a number that could change in the
future.
o Page 5 (Introduction):
Request that the full mission of the committee be stated in the Introduction of the
report.
• It was noted that text is included on page 17.
There was no objection to having the full mission and purpose in the Introduction.
o Page 6 (History):
Request made to change “mostly built” to “95% built” or some numeric percentage
in the first sentence of the fourth paragraph to show the committee is only
addressing 5% growth.
o Further discussion on the unknown number of future housing units and the need for the
report to be clear the committee is working off of a 3,900-unit assumption for this most
recent period. Suggestion to address with new population chart.
o Page 7:
Typo in first paragraph - Growth Manager Program
Ampersand needs to be added to second bullet: A citywide facilities &
improvements plan
o Page 8 (Local Facilities Improvements Plan):
Title should include ampersand: Local Facilities & Improvements Plan
Request made that the map on page 8 be included as a full page.
Comment that the title should be Local Facilities Management Plans
Carlsbad Tomorrow Growth Management Citizens Committee March 23, 2023 Page 3
o Page 11:
Recommendation that the last paragraph on the page be removed regarding success
of the Growth Management Program as it’s self-serving.
By consensus, committee did not agree with removal of the paragraph.
o Page 15:
Third asterisk needed after Eric Larson’s name.
o Page 16:
Comment that the paragraph on the Senior Commission members is not accurate,
and the consensus was to respectfully include the reason the seat was vacated – i.e.
due to the passing of Patricia Mehan.
o Page 19:
A committee member read suggested text for inclusion in the “Work Product”
paragraph regarding topics that were considered and ultimately not included in the
Growth Management Program.
There was discussion regarding whether it belonged in the Work Product paragraph
or later in the report under recommendations.
Further discussion suggested such text made the report confusing and the report
does not need to include everything the committee considered over the course of
the year.
Comment that everything the committee discussed is included in the appendices
documents; it does not need to be restated in the report and would makes it
cumbersome.
Discussion in support of including the topics discussed that didn’t make it in the
report:
• Concern that leaving out mention of all topics considered would make it
seem like the committee overlooked topics that should have been
considered.
• Comment that the topics should be included in the work product paragraph
and referenced in the executive summary so the report is holistic and
complete.
• Comment to include “existing or new” after key elements in the work
product paragraph.
o Table of contents should include the appendices or quality of life memo. It should be
inclusive.
Comment that the topics the committee discussed that didn’t rise to the level of a
performance standard should be included in text and/or appendices.
Suggestion that the place to include the topics discussed that didn’t become
standards is page 26, under performance standard recommendations.
Comment that the quality of life memo needs to be mentioned in the work product
paragraph, as the report is not the only work product of the committee.
Comment that the report does not need to explain the committee’s decisions to the
extent being requested.
Further discussion that without explaining in the report the topics that were
considered outside of the existing 11 standards, to the reader it looks like the
committee only considered the 11 existing standards. The concern expressed being
the City Council would not be reviewing the appendices or watching the recordings
of the meetings to find out what other topics were considered.
Comment that the actual topics considered could be in the recommendation
section, but the three elements considered by the committee – the 11 existing
Carlsbad Tomorrow Growth Management Citizens Committee March 23, 2023 Page 4
standards, topics outside of the 11 existing standards, and the quality of life memo
should all be mentioned in the work product section.
• The actual topics outside of the 11 existing standards could be mentioned in
the performance standard recommendations section.
A simple table was requested on the topics considered and the decisions made, for
inclusion after the topics that did rise to the level of a performance standard. This
way, someone looking at the list of meeting dates and topics can see that it was
discussed but didn’t rise to the performance standard level.
Comment that on Page 26 the “Other quality of life considerations” paragraph could
be changed to “Other considerations” and both the topics considered and the topics
included in the quality of life memo could be referenced.
Request that references be included in the report to tell the reader where to look
for the item being referenced – i.e. quality of life memo (see page XX)
By consensus, the committee agrees to adding text to the “Work Product”
paragraph regarding the quality of life topics and the topics considered outside of
the existing performance standards.
o Page 20:
Last bullet on Page 20 should read: Committee chooses the name Carlsbad
Tomorrow Growth Management Committee.
o Page 25:
Remove last bullet in March 23, 2023 box. “Committee work concludes.”
o Page 26:
Comment that everything leading up to Page 26 is preamble. Except for the
executive summary, consider moving everything else to the end of the report.
Suggestion to have staff review pieces that could be moved to the end of the report,
such as the meeting list.
Recommendation made to include the committee’s recommendations on the
existing standards, using the existing format in the draft report (the four sections),
followed by “Additional Recommendations” and include the topics the committee
voted to include in the quality of life memo.
• This makes the committee’s work product a clean, single report.
• It was noted this approach would be consistent with the committee’s
charter to deliver a report with key elements of a new plan.
Comment made that if the quality of life topics are included in the committee
report, they may not be looked at by the City Council for 1 to 3 years.
Comment that the quality of life topics are not growth related and that’s why they
were moved to a separate document.
Comment that the quality of life topics should be pushed forward ahead of the
Growth Management Program as some of them are timely and need to be looked at
now.
Comment that it doesn’t make sense to include the topics in two places – i.e.
mobility, open space and parks being performance standards in the committee
report and included with a separate set of recommendations in the quality of life
memo.
Comment that having the quality of life recommendations in the main report makes
them more important than being in a separate document/memorandum.
Request to hear additional feedback on whether the quality of life topics would be
more visible and drive more actionability if they were separate from the committee
report.
Comment in agreement with the quality of life topics getting lost if they’re included
in the committee report.
Carlsbad Tomorrow Growth Management Citizens Committee March 23, 2023 Page 5
Opinion presented that the committee report and quality of life topics should
remain separate but be presented at the same time to the City Council.
Comment in support of including everything in one document and let City Council
decide how they want to prioritize.
Comment that the year-long process of the committee to determine topics for
inclusion in the quality of life report or as a performance standard is being
undermined by now considering combining all topics and decisions into one
document.
Suggestion to put everything into the report and separately submit a memo to the
City Council.
Comment that the committee was convened to address the Growth Management
Program. The quality of life topics are outside of growth management and therefore
should not be included in the Growth Management Program.
Discussion on referencing the quality of life topics that are growth related and/or
are performance standard recommendations in the committee report so that the
topic appears in both places, rather than having every quality of life topic
referenced or included in the committee report.
Comment in favor of including the quality of life topics in the committee report as
the committee’s charge included considering the quality of life in Carlsbad and also
submitting a quality of life memo to City Council.
• There should be a reference in the report that the committee believes the
quality of life topics can be addressed sooner than the Growth Management
Program and that the topics rise to the occasion to give them to the City
Council outside of the committee report for more timely action.
Comment that both the Growth Management report and the quality of life
document are the committee’s work product. They should be one document that
the City Council and public can review to see what the committee produced after a
year.
Discussion regarding including the quality of life topics in the committee report,
clearly distinguishing the difference between the recommendations for
performance standards and the quality of life topics, and also having a separate
quality of life document to send to the City Council.
Suggestion to add existing or 1986 to the first sentence under the Performance
standards heading.
o Page 27:
Suggestion to add sub-heading indicating pages 27-28 are summaries of the
recommendations.
o Page 29 (Libraries):
Comment to revise “Existing standard” header to make it clear that it’s both the
existing standard and the recommended standard.
• Suggestion to use “Keep existing standard” or “Modify existing standard”
• Suggestion to note in parentheses either existing or modified
Comment that using the year (1986) should be avoided and use “existing” or
“current” standard.
Requested the reference to the Dove Library square footage note that it includes
the Schulman Auditorium and the Cannon Art Gallery.
o Page 30 (Parks):
By consensus, the committee agreed to include the following alternate text,
submitted by a committee member via email, to the “Other considerations” section:
• Some committee members preferred a citywide standard of 4 acres per
1,000 population, excluding acreage inaccessible to humans, and/or
Carlsbad Tomorrow Growth Management Citizens Committee March 23, 2023 Page 6
restricting the acreage of Veterans Memorial Park to the northwest
quadrant given its reduced scope. In the end, the majority voted to retain
the existing standard. To address the access to parks, a majority of the
committee also voted to request that City Council direct staff to evaluate
the feasibility of a standard based upon a distance measure to any publicly
accessible park.
Comment that the “Other considerations” text needs to be clear that the committee
did not vote to adopt the “other considerations”.
Further comment that the “considerations” heading should be changed to reflect
the wording in the committee’s charter. Additional comment the heading should be
changed throughout the document for consistency. Staff provided documentation
that the charter called for “Alternative perspectives.”
• Specific to the Parks Standard, the additional recommendation is to
evaluate the entire city for the feasibility of implementing a distance-based
standard (fee) on new development.
Recommendation reiterated that the current discussion is why it’s important to
have both the quality of life recommendations and the Growth Management
performance standard recommendations in one document, as it is confusing to have
recommendations on the same topic in two separate documents.
Repeat recommendation to include in either, or both, the cover letter and executive
summary, that both documents/all topics being recommended by the committee
were deemed important to the quality of life in Carlsbad, but not all rose to a
performance standard level.
Comment that the discussion points in the direction that “the struggle” the
committee had regarding performance standards and quality of life topics will be
documented in multiple places in the report(s).
o Page 29 (Library Standard):
Question posed if additional text should be considered under the “Alternative
perspective” section of the Library Standard to note the committee considered
carving our Arts & Culture as a separate standard but ultimately decided against
doing so.
Comment that the alternative perspective section is for the minority opinion, which
was not the case on Arts & Culture. The committee was close to unanimous that the
topic rose to the level of inclusion in the quality of life memo.
o Page 31 (Parks Standard):
Requested clarifying language be included on the chart – specifying that the 399.7
number assumes ultimate build out population of XXX or some language noting that
the number is subject to change. “Park acreage required by standard at expected
city buildout.”
Requested clarifying language (asterisk or footnote) on the chart, noting that per
City Council, although Veterans Memorial Park resides in the northwest quadrant,
90 acres is allocated to each of the four quadrants.
o Page 30 (Parks Standard):
Further discussion on including language that the “additional recommendation”
language includes “for new development/construction”
It was noted that the text represents what the committee voted on and approved.
o Page 32 (Open Space):
Suggested alternate text, submitted by a committee member via email, was read to
the committee for the “Other considerations” (Alternative perspectives) section:
• When growth management was first implemented, several Zones were
exempted from the open space standard based on their 1986 planning and
Carlsbad Tomorrow Growth Management Citizens Committee March 23, 2023 Page 7
development status. Because planning changes and re-development have
and likely will continue to alter the status in the exempt zones over time,
some committee members preferred to look at ways to reverse the
exemptions, apply a citywide standard, and/or look into linkage fees. The
majority of the members preferred to keep the original standard in place.
Request that text be added to the second bullet under “Proposed new standard”
that says “… are exempted from this 15% open space requirement based on their
1986 planning and development status, pursuant to …”
Request to not strike the last part of the last sentence in the “Other considerations”
(Alternative perspectives) section proposed earlier because the committee did
recommend augmenting the current standard with a statement regarding open
space policies that apply to all zones.
• That part of the sentence was struck because the additional language does
not augment the performance standard it restates city policy on
development standards.
• Further comment that removing that part of the sentence does not
accurately capture the intent of the committee’s decision.
• Suggestion to modify the last sentence to read: The majority of the
members preferred to keep the spirit of the original standard in place
because they felt that existing development standards were sufficient.
• Another suggestion to modify the last sentence to read: The majority of the
members preferred to keep the spirit of the original standard in place with
additional language regarding open space policies.
• Comment that the language about keeping the original standard in place is
contradictory to the first bullet and the vote of the committee.
o Staff will provide language to call out the concept without using the
word “augment” or saying the standard is being left in place.
o Page 33:
Requested the Local Facility Management Zones map be included here again.
Question asked if a reference back to the page with map would suffice.
Comment that the references to 15% are misleading
• Suggestion to strike the reference to 15% in the rationale
• If a table is being included in the Status section showing the zones meeting
the 15% open space standard, the 15% should be included, not the 40%
• The 15% is taken after the non-developable land is subtracted out and that
is not reflected in the table.
• In the absence of data being presented to the committee by staff that
shows the actual open space percentages of environmentally constrained
non-developable land, all references in the committee report should be
struck.
• Recommendation to strike the second bullet in the Rationale section and
the entire Status section. Or the Status section should read: According to
staff, the city is meeting the standard in the non-exempt zones.
• Noted that the first sentence can be left in the second bullet but strike the
second sentence that quantifies the first sentence.
• Opposition presented to removing the table. Comment to leave the table
but include additional text clarifying what the table represents.
• Suggestion to strike the second sentence in the second bullet under
Rationale and have staff come back with text for the chart that defines what
the chart represents.
Carlsbad Tomorrow Growth Management Citizens Committee March 23, 2023 Page 8
• Text needs to be included that the table is not stating that every zone meets
the 15% Growth Management standard, with a clarification around
“environmentally constrained non-developable land.”
• Comment that the table should include a column showing the amount of
constrained open space.
• Requested to add a column to the table showing the 15% in each zone.
• Staff indicated such a column is not possible because the data lives within
each of the non-exempt Local Facility Management Zones, staff does not
have the ability to electronically recreate that information and put it in a
table.
• Recommendation to keep the table and retitle it for transparency to show
what the table is representing.
o Page 34 (Mobility Standard):
Question on traffic impacts being mentioned in the Mobility Standard. Comment
that new housing (development) gets blamed for traffic impacts when most of the
issues is from visitors or passthrough traffic.
Recommendation to change “could” to “should” in the last sentence of the fourth
bullet under Rationale section.
• Suggestion made to say, “can be” rather than “could”.
Under status, suggested adding: “The committee was not able to view Multimodal
Level of Service analysis to inform non-vehicle based performance standard
possibilities” after “The Multimodal Level of Service analysis continues to be
developed with the Traffic & Mobility Commission.”
Request to weave the quality of life recommendations the committee voted on into
the Mobility Standard page, making it clear the difference between the standard
being recommended and the quality of life recommendations.
Further discussion took place regarding bringing the Mobility quality of life
recommendations into the committee report. The recommendation was made to
have that discussion when the committee reviews the quality of life memo.
Another comment was made to add a reference to the Mobility quality of life
recommendations on the Mobility page of the committee report.
o Page 39:
There was discussion surrounding the removal of the Fire Standard and the need to
expand upon the reasoning behind its removal without quoting the Carlsbad Fire
Chief.
Comment that “Other considerations/alternative perspectives” heading under the
Fire Standard needs to be retitled as the text is not an alternative perspective or
minority perspective. Possibly change to, “Related considerations.”
Comment that the rationale should include that both Fire and Police have their own,
ever evolving, standards that they use to measure performance.
Suggested language: “The committee found, given input from the Fire Department,
and discussion that the standard did not keep pace with Fire Standard metrics.”
State that the city will meet its safety standards but a performance standard in the
Growth Management Program is not the methodology being used.
Comment that it should be noted that the committee considered a Public Safety
standard also, but after input from the Fire and Police Chiefs, understood that the
departments used advanced tools not pertaining to growth to meet their safety
standards.
Requested a stronger rationale for removing the Schools Standard.
Strengthen second bullet under rationale to make it clear the city has no jurisdiction
on schools.
Carlsbad Tomorrow Growth Management Citizens Committee March 23, 2023 Page 9
Comment that it’s important to have solid and robust rationale behind all of the
standards being removed as the public doesn’t have the context that the committee
had when making the decisions.
Requested the rationale state that schools do need provide a compliance form to
the city and that there are fees paid on a per unit basis set by the school district.
o Page 40:
Last sentence on page should be bold.
Request for committee name to be used consistently throughout all documents =
Carlsbad Tomorrow Growth Management Citizens Committee.
o Page 40:
Request to strike the Funding Models section and put it in the appendix as it was
informational material provided to the committee at their request and not part of
the committee’s recommendations.
Suggestion to add clarifying language under Funding Models that the first sentence
was regarding the original Growth Management Plan and that the committee
discussed other funding mechanisms beyond impact fees to address the shifts being
seen in development.
Suggestion to: Add preamble verbiage repeating that the impacts to the costs and
financing mechanisms associated with the standards recommended beginning on
page 26 the committee felt were not the purview of the committee, and that if the
City Council wanted such data, that they would have to instruct the staff to evaluate
such costs and impacts.
o Comment that developer fees are not only charged to residential development and it should
be clear that commercial developers pay their share too.
Staff noted the mention of “commercial, industrial, recreational” on Page 7.
Staff will look for opportunities to add to the document that hotels, office buildings
and commercial developments do pay impact fees.
• Review Draft Quality of Life Recommendations. The quality of life recommendations were
reviewed with the following discussion and comments:
o The process for submitting both documents to the City Council was discussed.
Recommendation that the two documents are separate agenda items when
presented to the City Council.
o Further discussion on the decision to both include the quality of life recommendations in the
committee report and submit the memo separately to the City Council.
o The committee discussed the following regarding the name of the quality of life
recommendations:
Comment that the title should indicate the immediacy of the quality of life
recommendations
Discussion on the quality of life recommendation document’s name was halted and
it was decided that the document contents would be reviewed and the name
revisited after the review.
o Comment that the first two pages of text in the quality of life recommendations is
unnecessary. Key statement is, “This memorandum identifies the committee’s
recommendations to the City Council on important topics that affect Carlsbad’s quality of
life but are not recommended to be included as standards in a growth management
program (Attachment A).”
o Request to accentuate that the topics were the focus of significant discussion and that the
committee either voted to not raise them to the level of performance standards or couldn’t
connect them to growth.
o Discussion on adopting the language in the draft quality of life recommendations for Arts &
Culture.
Carlsbad Tomorrow Growth Management Citizens Committee March 23, 2023 Page 10
o Discussion on including Performing Arts with Arts & Culture.
By consensus, the committee agreed to add the following text as a third bullet
under Arts & Culture: “The committee requests the City Council prioritize future
discussions and dialogue about a new community gathering place and 750 seat
cultural arts center for the Carlsbad community. Carlsbad is a diverse community
and as such we need to celebrate the diversity through performing arts.”
o Carlsbad Energy Advisory Group:
Requested the last sub-bullet be changed from “Battery storage” to “Energy
storage”
Requested a bullet be added for “Energy cost and sources”
o Fees:
A request was made to define how often impact fees will be evaluated instead of
the ambiguous “regular basis”
By consensus, the committee agreed on changing language to, “no more than five
years.”
o Open Space:
By consensus, the committee agreed to revise the second bullet to read:
“Additionally, the committee recommends that the City Council add the topic of
open space to the purview of the Parks & Recreation Commission or a separate
citizen committee to address open space needs throughout the city, updating the
list of candidate properties for proactive open space acquisition and by developing a
plan that prioritizes zones with less unconstrained open space or that are subject to
loss due to sea level rise.”
The committee wanted to eliminate the reference to “or a separate citizen
committee” statement as the consensus was the committee wanted City Council to
put the open space topic under the purview of the Parks & Recreation Commission.
By consensus, the committee agreed on using the revised text without reference to
a separate citizens committee.
By consensus, the committee agreed to add a bullet that reads: “Adopt a policy that
discourages exceptions to development standards that would decrease open
space.”
o Proposition H:
By consensus the committee agrees to include the $1 million dollar threshold in the
language.
o Seniors/Aging Community:
Comment that this topic, as well as the Homelessness topic, does not add any value
to the document.
o Transportation and Mobility:
There was a request to add the following language: “Adopt a policy that discourages
land use changes that allow developers to convert planned commercial/mixed use
to residential uses that increase vehicle miles traveled.”
Staff indicates there are policies in place that address zoning.
By consensus, the committee declined to include the suggested text in the
Transportation and Mobility recommendation.
By consensus, the committee agreed to add the following language: “Complete the
city’s typology-based street network, as described in the General Plan Mobility
Element.”
o Linear Park: The committee discussed the following regarding a request submitted by a
committee member to include a recommendation to City Council regarding the concept of a
linear park in the Ponto area.
Carlsbad Tomorrow Growth Management Citizens Committee March 23, 2023 Page 11
Comment on the safety of a linear park in that area given recent lane reductions on
Pacific Coast Highway.
Comment that if the committee makes a recommendation on a specific park project
it could be viewed negatively by the significant number of community members
who have commented in support of a park at Ponto.
Comment that the linear park would serve more than one neighborhood in the city
and provide walking trails, bike paths and open space.
Comment supporting including some type of statement in response to the volume
of public comments regarding a park in the southwest quadrant without being
prescriptive of a specific project, i.e. recommending “a solution” instead of “a linear
park” or “a Ponto park”.
Comment that it had been discussed multiple times that it is not within the
committee’s purview to recommend specific projects.
Concern expressed that it is contradictory to include recommendations for
additional/specific park projects when the committee recommended no change to
the Parks Standard.
Comment that it would make the committee look bad to include a statement in
support of a linear park when all along the committee has said it can’t talk about
individual parks, but at the end of the process, when no members of the public are
present, the committee endorses a park that would effectively replace Ponto park.
Comment that recommending specific park projects is not the committee’s
mandate.
Suggestion to include a generic statement about the beaches and beach access
being important to the Carlsbad community.
Through discussion, the decision was made for committee members to suggest
wording that is not specific to individual projects, but conveys the importance of
some type of coastal park in the southwest quadrant.
o Recommendation to carry the one remaining new quality of life recommendation regarding
public beaches and public facilities, and the decision on the title of the quality of life
recommendation document, to the April 20 meeting.
DISCUSSION ITEMS:
• None.
COMMITTEE MEMBER REQUESTS FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS:
• No future agenda items were brought forth by the committee.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
• None.
ADJOURNMENT:
Chair Eric Larson adjourned the duly noticed meeting at 9:08 p.m.
Eric Lardy - Minutes Clerk