Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-07-11; 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 7 July 11, 2006, 9 a.m. to 12:30 p.m., City of Carlsbad, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Room 173B Present: Committee members: (*non-voting members) Pete Aadland Courtney Heineman* Leslea Meyerhoff Chris Calkins* Gary Hill Robert Morgan Nancy Calverley* Mark Johnson Eric Munoz (chair) Marvin Cap Pat Kurth Peder Norby Claudia Carrillo* Keith Lewinger Laura Means Pope Bill Dominguez Cary Manning Marvin Sippel* Farrah Douglas Len Martyns Heidi Willes Vern Farrow Kip McBane (vice-chair) Mark Winkler Bob Garcin Gina McBride Absent: Jill Agosti Seth Schulberg Jennifer Benner Daniel Swiger City of Carlsbad Staff: Gary Barberio – Principal Planner Courtney Enriquez – Management Intern Cynthia Haas – Economic Development and Real Estate Manager 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 8 public and 1 press 2 I. Roll Call and Notes. Summary Notes of meeting on June 27, 2006 were approved (19 yes/ 0 no) with a correction requested to state that a minority report would be included in the Committee’s Report. Voting procedures: this will be done by raising hands only. Twenty-one (21) voting members were present. Because this Committee is covered under the Brown Act, a simple majority of the voting members present (11 votes) will prevail. Two members submitted votes by email. Jane Mobaldi, Assistant City Attorney, stated that consistent with the Brown Act members must be present to vote, so those votes though noted, will not be counted. There will be a minority report headed up by Kip McBane and based on the report he submitted for this meeting. Everyone on the Committee will have to “sign off” on either the majority or minority report. Every Committee member can write comments for the council if they want, but the final format of how this will be submitted is still being considered. Q: What happens if you want to vote for no report? A: You can also sign off on that. Q: Is it true that the CCUPPS initiative has been withdrawn? A: Yes. II. Public Comment. Ramona Finnila for CCUPP: We could not gather the signatures to get our initiative (“Carlsbad Gateway Parkland and Open Space Initiative of 2006”) on the ballot. This was due to our not having the financial resources to hire signature gatherers and discovering that each signature took an education process. We needed to have an appropriate amount of time to explain planning and growth management. We did not criticize the city. We did not lie to get signatures as the “Save the Flower Fields” signature gatherers did. We want to make the following points to the Citizen’s Committee: 1. The fiscal and legal impacts of taking another’s land have grave consequences. 2. The importance of connectivity of people and places within a community cannot be underestimated. 3. The value of housing in order to create vitality within a neighborhood has significance to smart growth planning. Example: adding housing units within the Village. 4. There is a need for active and passive venues for our family oriented community. 5. The improbability of long term traditional agriculture in a coastal incorporated city cannot be overlooked. 6. The possibility of increased accessibility on the heretofore inaccessible 340 acres should be highlighted. 3 7. Museums, restaurants, amphitheaters and public spaces are positive amenities to a community’s commercial culture. We never at any time advocated for industrial uses. 8. Master planning is the preferential path to developing large scale acreage. 9. Choice enhances Carlsbad’s future and is a major attraction to business and its citizenry. In summary, if your Committee’s recommendation is to go forward with a revision to the city’s initiative, we ask that you incorporate or cherry pick from our components. Your recommendation could be the catalyst for wonderful things in Carlsbad. Motion and second was made that since the Carlsbad Gateway initiative is withdrawn, it should not be discussed at all, and should be struck from the matrix. Discussion: • We may want the City Council to adopt some of the features from the Carlsbad Gateway Initiative for their ballot measure. • There is also no guarantee that the City’s ballot measure will be put on the ballot. • We can include all three ballot measures in the appendix. Vote 20 yes/ 0 opposed /1 undecided • Note that the minority report will reflect the same change. III. Finalize Committee Recommendations Relating to the Comparative Analysis (Matrix) The Committee went through the June 27th recommendation sheet and took a straw vote. Anything other than a unanimous decision can be discussed. Suggestion that the minority on each point make their comments and the Committee will re-vote after the discussion. Section III of June 27th recommendation sheet Row J: Both initiatives treat the issue the same, so whether it is yes or no, it should be the same. (Holzmiller) With either initiative, there will be rezoning to open space. It was not the intent of the city’s ballot measure to restrict the public utility easement and the city has to abide by state and PUC regulations. Motion to vote on J, eliminating the last line ‘Change answer under City ballot measure to “maybe”.’ Vote 6 yes/ 11 no/ 4 undecided Motion to accept J ‘as it was originally written.’ (without the change of deleting the last line) Vote 8 yes/ 11 no /1 undecided Motion to eliminate row 10 of the matrix. Vote 9 yes/11 no /1 undecided 4 Suggestion that the Committee recommend that the Council not support either initiative and instead educate the public on the current planning process. Suggestion that the Committee accept only those items that are unanimous and move on to putting together the recommendations for the council. Motion that we delete rows B and C, and F and G, and re-vote and move forward. 19 yes/ 0 no/ 2 undecided Vote to accept the comparison matrix: 17 yes/ 4 no/ 0 undecided IV. Recommendations Regarding City Proposed Ballot Measure The Committee voted on the items in Section I of the June 27th recommendation sheet. Motion to delete row A. Not seconded. Suggestion to start with C through L then go back to A and B. Rows C, E, F, I, J, K, L were accepted as recommendations by majority to the City Council. Q: What’s the difference between G and L? A: (Holzmiller) We weren’t sure if this was only applying to the Carlsbad Ranch area and we needed clarification of the definition of public vs. private. A: (Norby) We are talking about the whole property, and public and private recreation. Q: Are we asking the city to go through the zoning, coastal plan, all the other planning, and then to Master Plan? It seems like an irrelevant burden. (Discussion relates to Item K.) A: Perhaps it needs to be called a specific plan? Q: So Master Plan means nothing can be done until the Master Plan is finished? A: Yes. Q: Can the existing uses in an area that is being Master Planned continue? A: (Holzmiller) If it is an existing use, it could continue. If the city implements the Master Plan recommendation, then a property owner could not propose a new use until all the Master Plan requirements were fulfilled. Q: Could the city initiate the Master Plan if there was a PC zone on it? A: (Holzmiller) The Committee could recommend that “There should be a Master Plan initiated by the city” Q: Can the Committee recommend a Master Recreation Plan. 5 Q: Are we creating a difficulty in asking for a Master Plan for this entire area that is not necessarily even adjacent and contiguous? Q: Could we recommend a somewhat different process that would not unduly burden the landowners but allow for public input? Motion to re-vote on K. Vote 18 yes/3 no/0 undecided. Re-vote on K: 1 yes/19 no/1 undecided. Rows C, E, F, G, I, J, L are accepted as recommendations by a majority of the Committee to go forward to the City Council. Vote proceeded for A and B. Discussion about how to vote on A with the current wording. • Mayor Lewis feels that one of the initiatives will pass, so if the City doesn’t have an initiative on the ballot, the ‘Save the Fields’ initiative might win, and the City is not allowed to spend money supporting or not supporting a citizens’ initiative, but it can support its own initiative. • (Mobaldi) The proposed money for trails has to be voted on by the people. • It makes sense for the city to have an initiative but the Committee’s analysis has shown that the current initiative is flawed. Motion to vote on A as written. 13 yes/ 6 no/ 2 undecided. Motion to add A2, “That the city should go forward with an initiative incorporating all of the Committee’s recommendations.” 20 yes/ 0 no/ 1 undecided. Discussion on whether the vote on A means the vote on the City’s proposal as written, or whether the city should have an initiative at all. • Mobaldi proposed that the Committee vote on the following three points: o The city should go forward with the ballot measure as it is proposed. 0 yes/ 21 no/ 0 undecided. o A ballot measure different than the proposed should go forward. 15 yes/ 3 no/ 3 undecided. o A ballot measure with Citizens’ Committee Recommendations should go forward. 20 yes/ 0 no/ 1 undecided. V. Other Committee Recommendations to the City Council Discussion on A: Is the intent for this draft (of Coastal Agricultural Zone) to be done before the election or is it a general recommendation? Discussion on C: what does a “deliberation” process cover? 6 • In a normal public hearing process, people only have a few minutes to say their opinion. This would allow for more dialogue, whether it is a workshop or another process. • And the council could decide to have a workshop about a Coastal Agricultural Zone. • If an initiative goes through, it can still be decided that there was a mistake and there needs to be another public vote. Motion to vote on the following (II. D.): “Initiate a comprehensive planning process for the property.” 21 yes/ 0 no/ 0 undecided. Discussion on B iii: what is a Planned Community zone? A: (Munoz) That was my proposal. It does require a Master Plan process. I would move to eliminate Biii and use D in its place. 20 yes/ 0 no/ 0 undecided. Bi, Bii, C and D will be recommended to the city. VI. Recommendations Regarding the Committee’s Report to City Council Discussion on A (re: adding to the report citations to specifics in ballot measures) (Holder) The staff may not be able to do this in time for the report to the Council. Move for re- vote on A. 20 yes/ 0 no/ 1 undecided. Re-vote on A: 2 yes/18 no/0 undecided Discussion on B: (Holzmiller) We need clarity on this. • In one of the initiatives, the text talks about different properties than are identified on the maps included with the initiative. • I think it would be ok to simply note the inconsistencies. Motion to insert an Appendix with the General Plan Land Use map, Zoning map and a summary of the current zoning designations. 14 yes/ 1 no/ 2 undecided. Motion to add the agendas and a minority report to the report. 14 yes/ 0 no/ 3 undecided. Those who want to be part of the minority report should contact Kip McBane before the end of the day Wednesday of this week. The City Council will review this Committee’s report on July 25th.