Loading...
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