The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2025-10-02; Environmental Sustainability Commission; 02; Discussion of 2026 Environmental Sustainability Commission Work Plan This item was returned to staff to be placed on a future agenda. 2. DISCUSSION OF 2026 ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY COMMISSION WORK PLAN Participate in a facilitated discussion, provide input and finalize the Environmental Sustainability Commission Annual Work Plan for 2026. (Staff contact: James Wood, Environmental Sustainability Director) Meeting Date: To: From: Staff Contact: Subject: Districts: Recommended Action Executive Summary Explanation & Analysis ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY COMMISSION Next Steps Fiscal Analysis Environmental Evaluation Exhibits From:Lance Schulte To:Environmental;CarlsbadLCP@Coastal;Gary Barberio;Jeff Murphy;Kyle Lancaster;City Clerk;Council Internet Email;"People for Ponto" Subject:Re: typos in Citizen input to the Carlsbad Sustainability Commission Work-plan to address Open Space & Ponto Open Space needs and City Commissions and Council on the Fenton & City Local Coastal Program Amendments at Ponto Date:Wednesday, September 17, 2025 3:09:52 PM Dear City of Carlsbad & CA Coastal Commission: It appears my software did not correct or mis-corrected typos in the email below. The attachments sent on the 15th should be fine as they were created/submitted as earlier Public Input and data. Even with the typos I think you can still basically understand what is sent in the email below to you, but I hve manually gone through and fixed typos and am resending the email below that goes with the attachments (without re-sending the attachments). I apologize for the prior typos, it appears my new software makes some automated decisions on-its-own. Sincerely, Lance Schulte On 9/15/2025 12:49 PM, Lance Schulte wrote: Dear Carlsbad Sustainability Commission, Carlsbad Planning & Parks Commissions and Council, and CA Coastal Commission: Official Public input: This email and attachments are official public input to the following City & CA Coastal Commission activities: Carlsbad Sustainability Work Plan to address Usable Open Space - particularly at Local Facility Management Plan Zone 9 and Coastal South Carlsbad; Carlsbad Planning and Parks Commissions and City Council; and CA Coastal Commission on the City of Carlsbad's Citywide and Ponto area LCPA(s), and Fenton's developer proposed LCPA for Ponto Planning Area F; Carlsbad Parks Commissions and City Council on Carlsbad Parks Master Plan and new Park activities; Carlsbad communication (websites, emails, meetings, etc.) to Carlsbad Citizens on Open Space and Park issues, particularity Carlsbad's Growth Management Ordinance and Program Background: To-date over 7,500 emailed-written citizen/visitor petitions and numerous public meeting comments Carlsbad Citizens have asked the City to address the Usable Open Space Land Use (Park & developer required) needs at Ponto. These Carlsbad Citizens deeply care about Carlsbad and have well researched and documented concerns they hope their Citizen representatives honestly consider. The City Council has now charged the Sustainability Commission with addressing these Usable Open Space Land Use needs at Ponto. The Carlsbad Tomorrow Growth Management Citizens Committee (CTGMCC) Report Carlsbad Tomorrow Growth Management Citizens Committee report (April 2023) States regarding open space: "OPEN SPACE: The committee recommended the City Council elevate the topic of open space by adding to the purview of the Parks & Recreation Commission to address open space needs throughout the city, address potential open space deficits and evaluate opportunities to acquire more open space by 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. Adopt a policy that discourages exceptions to development standards that would decrease open space." On 11/19/2024 the Carlsbad City Council unanimously adopted the CTGMCC's April 2023 report and also unanimously by Minute Motion directed staff to add the topic of Open Space to the conversation of developing a new Environmental Sustainability Commission and to include adopting a policy that discourages exceptions to the policy standards that would decrease open space. On 6/25/2025 the Carlsbad City Council unanimously established the Sustainability Commission (SC). Documented facts and Citizens' requests for Sustainability Commission Usable Open Space Plan and Carlsbad City and CCC actions impacting Ponto: As documented and on file with the City over 7,500 citizen and visitor petitions have been sent to the City & CA Coastal Commission (CCC) regarding the documented need for the City to provide two forms of Unconstrained/Usable Open Space at Ponto - 1st, a true and significant City Park, and 2nd that 15% of the unconstrained/usable land in Local Facility Management Plan Zone 9 (aka Ponto) be Unconstrained/Usable Open Space as per Carlsbad's Growth Management Standard. These 7,500+ citizen petitions are based on well documented City facts from over 80 Official Carlsbad Public Records Requests (PRR). Some of these City facts were not disclosed by the City to citizens (and City Commissions and City Council) in the past when past City decisions were made. Citizens only found these facts when we started PRRs in 2017. The attached "2-page Ponto Park- OS data and Ask" summarizes these facts and Citizen asks. City staff has on file and can provide the SC with the over 7,500 petitions that provide more detail and personal messages. The SC should read some of these personal messages as they speak to the heart of Citizens needs and desires. A sample of one of those earlier petitions that summarizes the data and Citizens' needs is: "Protect Ponto Petition: Dear Carlsbad Growth Management Committee, City Council, and California Coastal Commission: Since 2017 the City received over 5,000 petitions, written and verbal testimony regarding the need for Ponto Park and the Park and Usable Open Space unfairness at Ponto and Coastal South Carlsbad. The City staff should provide the Growth Management Committee all that citizen input since 2017. – The City’s 2017 & 2020 Sea Level Rise Report shows Ponto will lose over 32-acres of “High- priority Coastal Land Use” due to coastal erosion and flooding. (14+ acres of Coastal Recreation and 18+ acres of Campground will be lost) in Carlsbad’s General Plan. – Carlsbad’s Growth Management Program and 2015 General Plan did not consider this critical 2017 & 2020 Sea Level Rise data and new actions and a new Plan are needed to address the 32+ acre loss AND increased population/visitor demand for “High-priority Coastal Land Uses”. – Carlsbad’s Growth Management Program and General Plan also did not incorporate requirements for unlimited population growth that will need even more City and Coastal Recreation land – “High-priority Coastal Land Uses”. – There is a current Growth Management Program 6.6-acre City park deficit in Coastal Southwest Carlsbad, and a 30-acre Unconstrained/Usable Coastal open-space deficit in Zone 9 (Ponto area – west of I-5 and south of Poinsettia) that only gets worse as we lose 32+ acres of Coastal Open Space lands from Sea Level Rise. Accordingly, I am making my position known and requesting that I want the Growth Management Committee, City Council and CA Coastal Commission to: 1) Address the true neighborhood Park needs for Ponto (minimal 6-7 acre Park to serve minimal neighborhood needs based on Ponto buildout and City’s current minimal Park Standard). Ponto Park should be an appropriately wide, viable, flat and fully usable multi-use grassed field – allow kids space to play informal sports. No thin strip of non- park land. 2) Address the loss of 32+ acres of Coastal Open Space Land from sea level rise by providing for Non-neighborhood City and State buildout- population and visitor demands for both Coastal Recreation land use and the loss of the Campground. Provide sufficient Coastal Recreation and Low-cost Visitor Accommodation land use to address the CA Coastal Act and City/State ‘unlimited buildout population/visitor demand’, and planned loss of current supply due to planned sea level rise. 3) Disclose and address 2017 CA Coastal Commission direction to City on Ponto Vision Plan and Planning Area F Existing LCP in the PCH Project. 4) Fully address Sea Level Rise impacts consistent with CA Coastal Act & Commission relative to the State’s recent requirement for unlimited City and State population growth. Document, plot the Seal Level Rise inundation and coastal erosion/bluff hazard areas in Carlsbad’s General Plan including the Land Use Map, PCH Relocation Project maps, and in the PCH Project replace all 32+ acres of high-priority Coastal land use that will be lost to sea level rise and coastal erosion, and increase the supply of these high-priority Coastal land uses to address State required unlimited increases in City/State population and visitor demands. 5) Fully disclose and consider the 2022-June General Comparative tax-payer Costs/Benefits Analysis of Ponto Park-PCH completion-proposed PCH Relocation, to assure tax-payers (City and/or State) are getting the best and most sustainable value for their tax-payer dollars. The City should use tax-payer money wisely. 6) Incorporate the 5,000+ written/emailed petitions to the Council & CA Coastal Commission, and the Letters from Carlsbad visitor industry, Surfrider Foundation, and Batiquitos Lagoon Foundation. 7) Within the Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 9 portion fully provide the 30-acres of documented missing Unconstrained Growth Management Open Space that developers were supposed to provide. Also fully disclose and incorporate the Ponto Open Space recommendations from North County Advocates per City’s lawsuit settlement. Fully preserve or mitigate sensitive habitat areas within and adjacent to the PCH Project area. 8) Fully provide required storm water quality purification and dentition basins in the PCH Project before project waters and waters passing through the project area are discharged into the ocean and Batiquitos Lagoon. 9) I am concerned about the PCH Modification Project more than doubling traffic congestion along Coast Highway for an extremely costly walkway, when the same walkway and other needed Coastal land uses can be provided for a fraction of the cost along existing Coast Highway. It is not appropriate to try to pass off a walkway as “linear park”. 10) Lastly as requested since 2017, directly engage and specifically involve the San Pacifico Community Association and Ponto Community in that portion of the City’s PCH Project of planning and design of land use in that community. 11) We request the above 11 citizen issues be fully addressed by the Growth Management Committee, City Council, and CA Coastal Commission regarding Park-Usable Open Space and Coastal Land Use issues and City Capital Improvement Projects at Ponto and Coastal South Carlsbad. Additional Comments: The entrance to our City from the south on the 101 at Ponto could be a real statement entrance with a City owned Park, shared by all. Our Village deserves to be shown in its best possible light as the jewel that it is! Name: Tom Maddox Email: maddox.tom@yahoo.com City: Carlsbad State: CA" The 7,500+ Carlsbad Citizens' petitions to their representatives are based on common sense, fairness and decency; and are also supported by City documents from over 80 PRRs. Many of these facts were not publicly disclosed or publicly considered by the City in earlier City actions. Many facts are still being hidden from Citizens, Commissions and the City Council - such as data on the 'false exemption' of the Usable Open Space Standard Ponto developers were given (see attached 'History of Open Space at Ponto' file), Ponto City Park needs (see 'Coastal Recreation data file' submitted by Carlsbad Citizens in 2019), and the City's hidden feasibility plans to urbanize and lease/sell the City's South Carlsbad Blvd/PCH "surplus" land areas to developers for development (see City's '2001 ERA Financial Analysis of Carlsbad Blvd Realignment'). The time to honestly and openly disclose these facts, and collaboratively work with Carlsbad Citizens is needed now; and before the City and CCC make irreversible Land Use decisions that will forever impact future generations. We hope the Sustainability Commission (SC) reviews the 7,500+ petitions and works with Carlsbad Citizens in fulfilling the SC's Unconstrained/Usable Open Space responsibilities within your Work Plan. Sustainability Commission Work Plan Components and Carlsbad City and CCC actions impacting Ponto: · 1. Please read/review the 7,500+ People for Ponto Carlsbad Citizens' and visitors' petitions to understand the extent of Citizen and Public Input on the Usable Open Space (Park and developer required Growth Management Standard) needs at Ponto. There are many very personal messages that highlight how important the requested Ponto City Park and 15% minimum Unconstrained/Usable Open Space is. The 11/19/2024 Staff Report to the City Council on the CTGMCC's recommendations did not highlight but worked to hide the 1,248 pages and 21 MB of Citizen Public Input to the CTGMCC by using only a link at a bottom of a report, and did not even not even attempt to summarize the magnitude and main points of this massive amount of Carlsbad Citizen Input on Growth Management. The failure to fully convey the significant extent of those 1,248 pages of Citizen input is disservice to you and Carlsbad Citizens. The vast majority of Carlsbad Citizens want an honest addressing of needed Park Accessibility, correcting the 'false exemptions’ to the Open Space Standard given developers, and because these issues significantly compound and intersect in a critical location specifically provide a much needed True and Significant Ponto City Park. This was the vast majority of Citizen input, but was and still is being ‘downplayed, dismissed, or 'swept under the rug’ by some City staff members. o Please do the Right Thing – require an honest and full public accounting of the Carlsbad Citizen Input on Usable Ponto Open Space (True City Park and developers providing their required 30 acres of missing Unconstrained/Usable Open Space to meet the 15% minimum Standard of Local Facility Management Plan Zone 9). o Please do the Right Thing – read and publicly disclose/discuss and direct staff to work WITH (not against) Citizens on the practical and data based suggestions in the attached “CTGMC key issues and suggestions 2022-12-6” file.   2. People for Ponto (P4P) Carlsbad Citizens found that Carlsbad provides/requires 40% less City Park land than Oceanside and Encinitas. P4P Carlsbad Citizens also found that Carlsbad is the worst City of the 29 Coastal Cities from Santa Barbara south to Imperial Beach (over 250 miles of Coastline and for over 5 million people) in providing Park access (Parks within a 10-minute walk to Citizens). Carlsbad Citizens would hope the SC is concerned about this and make recommendations to the City Coucnil to be better than Oceanside and Encinitas in providing park acres and distribution, and better than the last-place City in Coastal So Cal in providing Park access. The City's relative substandard provision of City Parks (amount and location) impacts all Carlsbad. If Carlsbad is relatively substandard, our collective future desirably, sustainability, economy and Quality of Life will relatively degrade. This is what happened in LA and some areas of OC, and Carlsbad seems to be following this 'LA model'. See the attached “Coastal Recreation” data file for data showing the need for a true-significant-usable Ponto City Park for the Coastal Park needs of South Carlsbad, all Carlsbad, and the 8-miles of Coastline without a true Coastal Park. o Please do the Right Thing – plan and recommend funding Park accessibility for all Carlsbad residents to be the best (or at least average) but not the worst in 250 miles of So Cal Coastline. o Please do the Right Thing – plan and recommend funding a well-documented and much needed City Ponto Park that is adequate in size/shape to be a True Park. A ‘fancy sidewalk’ called a 'Liner Park" is not a Park. o Please do the Right Thing – READ, publicly discuss, and take personal ownership in your recommendations to City staff and your recommendations to City Council to address the Ponto City Park needs documented in the "Coastal Recreation" data file. o Please do the Right Thing – READ, publicly discuss, take ownership of the Park input from the nationally recognized Trust for Public Land in the attached “TPL Support for Ponto Park” file. o Please do the Right Thing – fix the unfair distribution of City Parks (gaps in 10-minute walk access) and fix the clear need for a True Ponto City Park as outlined in the attached “CTGMC key issues and suggestions 2022-12-6” file. o Please do the Right Thing and work with P4P Carlsbad Citizens. Carlsbad can be great if you let P4P Carlsbad Citizens in and work with them. P4P Carlsbad Citizens have offered to help with donations and have secured significant funding support but have been turned away by the City.   3. It is well documented in the attached “History of Open Space at Ponto” data file that past City staff and Councils falsely “exempted” only certain developers (like at Ponto) from providing 15% of their Local Facility Management Plan Zone (LFMP) as Unconstrained/Usable Open Space as required by the Growth Management (GM) Open Space Standard. Ponto (LFMP Zone 9) developers were falsely ‘exempted’ because City data clearly documents that 1) Ponto was not substantially developed in 1986 and 2) Ponto developers did not in 1986 already dedicate 15% of the developable land as Usable Open Space; as citizens were told by Ponto develoeprs and City. In fact Ponto Developers and the City actually removed originally (1980's) City and CA Coastal Commission planned GM Open Space out of Ponto with the Ponto developer's proposed 1996 land use changes. This developer giveaway converted planned GM Open Space areas into more Residential land use areas. For instance a 12.8 acre Recreation Commercial (Usable Open Space) land use was removed and converted to more Residential land use area. Because of this as the “History of Open Space at Ponto” shows Ponto, even with its currently about 28 acres of vacant land, Ponto is already developed at a over 40% higher residential density than the rest of the Carlsbad. The Ponto Census Track has more than 40% more residential density then the rest of Carlsbad, Ponto also has NO Park, and Ponto is missing (due to prior false ‘exemption’) about 30 acres of developer required Unconstrained/Usable GM Open Space that Ponto developers should have been required to provide. If the SC in its recommendations to the City Council perpetuates this 'false exemption’ and falsehood to citizens all Carlsbad and future generations will loose a valuable Usable Coastal Open Space opportunity forever.  o Please do the Right Thing – READ and publicly and honestly discuss the facts/maps in the 'History of Open Space at Ponto' data file, and take ownership in your direction to City staff and recommendations to the City Council with disclosure and understanding of the facts in the attached “History of Open Space at Ponto” file. o Please do the Right Thing – and don’t perpetuate a lie to Carlsbad Citizens about 'False Exemptions' of the Growth Management Open Space StandardStnadard. Please be honest and brave, and think about current and future Citizens. Once vacant land is developed it is lost forever to cost effectively provide a City Park and/or Usable Open Space. o Please do the Right Thing – collaboratively fix the False Open Space Exemptions by working with Citizens, considering suggestions outlined in the attached “CTGMC key issues and suggestions 2022-12-6” file.  4. Since 2107 Carlsbad has known it will loose 32 acres of Ponto's Usable Open Space land use and land area at Ponto/South Coastal Carlsabd, but is not accountably planning for that loss. Two (2) years after its 2015 General Plan Update the City of Carlsbad first found out in 2017 it will lose about 32-acres of existing Open Space land use in Ponto/ Coastal South Carlsbad due to sea level rise and increased Coastal/bluff erosion. The 32-acres are the State Campground that is the entire City’s ONLY Lower-Cost Visitor Accommodation Land Use. Ponto's 32-acre loss of Open Space land use (1st disclosed in 2017) was not factored into the earlier Carlsbad's 2015 General Plan as required by the CA Coastal Commission. CCC requires cities to address land use changes due to Sea Level Rise in a City's existing Local Coastal Program (LCP) and proposed LCP Amendments. This could not have been done in 2015 (since sea level rise data 1st came to light in 2017). Yet Carlsbad City staff is saying the 2015 General Plan is Carlsbad's Land Use Plan and staff is asking the CCC to "Certify" the 2015 General Plan Land Use Plan as the City's New LCP even though the loss of 32-acres of Coastal Open Space land use at Ponto was not accounted for in that 2015 General Plan and spectifcally on Ponto Planning Area F's still proposed land use changes. These 32-acres of Open Space land use loss at Ponto will be 'High-Priority' Coastal Land Uses - Low-Cost Visitor Accommodations and Coastal Recreation - according to the State law, the CA Coastal Act. The attached “sea level rise & DLUP-LUPA planned loss of OS at Ponto” data file documents the Coastal Open Space loss (discovered in 2017) that was not factored into the City's 2015 General Plan, current LCP, and proposed LCP Amendments. The SC should read the City's 2017 Sea Level Rise Study and provide City Council recommendations to honestly and responsibly amend the 2015 General Plan, Citywide Growth Management Plan, Parks Master Plan, and Local Coastal Program to account for AND replace this loss of 32-acres of 'High-Priority' Coastal Open Space land use at Ponto. o Please do the Right Thing – READ and publicly and honestly discuss Sea Level Rise/Coastal Erosion impacts that remove 32-acres of High- Priority Coastal Open Space Land Use at Ponto. This 32-acre loss of Open Space was not considered in the Citywide Growth Management Plan, 2015 General Plan Update, and City/Developer proposed LCPAs based on the 2015 General Plan. The Sea Level Rise/Coastal Erosion issues are in the attached “Sea Level Rise & Carlsbad DLCP-LUPA planned loss of OS at Ponto” file. o Please do the Right Thing – address this Coastal Open Space loss now with a full public disclosure to Citizens, and providing recommendations to amend City plans and fully fund City actions to replace these to be lost 32-acres of Coastal Open Space at Ponto in any proposed General Plan/Master Plan Amendment, Growth Management Plan Amendment, and/or Local Coastal Program Amendments Ponto and Citywide. o Please do the Right Thing – use the data/suggestions in the attached “CTGMC key issues and suggestions 2022-12-6” file to comprehensively support addressing the loss of Coastal Open Space and critical 'High-Priority' Coastal Open Space Land Use in Coastal South Carlsbad.   5. Carlsbad's City Council approved the General Plan Update in 2015. Per State law and the CA Coastal Act that 2015 General Plan is not fully valid within the Coastal Zone until the CA Coastal Commission (CCC) “certifies” the 2015 General Plan Update as consistent with the CA Coastal Act. A General Plan (WHEN CCC has Certified it as a Certified Local Coastal Program) will then be the primary planning document for the City, and then all other City plans/ordinacnes/programs must then comply with the CCC Certified General Plan/Local Coastal Program. Carlsbad’s Non-Certified 2015 General Plan acknowledges this on Land Use Element page 2-26: “Coastal Zone Planning The California Coastal Act regulates all development within the state-designated Coastal Zone. The zone extends through the length of the city, and covers approximately one-third of the city’s land area, as shown in Figure 2-2. The Coastal Act requires that individual jurisdictions adopt local coastal programs (LCP) to implement the Coastal Act. Carlsbad’s LCP consists of a separate land use plan document containing separate land use policies and an implementation plan … The city’s LCP Land Use Plan will be updated consistent with this [2015] General Plan. However, to take effect, the LCP must be certified by the Coastal Commission as well as adopted by the city. Until such time that this occurs, the existing (as of 2013) LCP must be adhered to. … In the event of conflict between the provisions of the General Plan and LCP Land Use Plan, the terms of the LCP Land Use Plan [as of 2013] shall prevail.” In 2010 the CA Coastal Commission deined Carlsbad's proposed developer-focused Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan. CCC deiened this develoer-driven Vision Plan because for 11.1 acre unplanned Planning Area F the City did not consider and address the need for "Coastal Recreation (i.e. Public Park) and Low-Cost Visitor Accommodations" as required for Planning Area F. See the attached 'CCC staff report - rejecting Ponto Vision Plan 0 F21a-8-2010). In deniying the Ponto Vision Plan and its land uses the CCC noted that: "Additionally, the Master Plan (City GP/Zoning) further states that some component of the development at this location [11.1 acre Ponto Planning Area F] must consider the need for the provision of lower cost accommodations or recreational facilities."; along with citing Core Sections 30221 & 30222 of the CA Coastal Act (Public Resources Code in State Law) that were CA voter endorsed 50-yers ago: "Oceanfront land suitable for recreational use shall be protected for recreational use and development unless present and foreseeable future demand for public or commercial recreational activities that could be accommodated on the property is already adequately provided for in the area." "The use of private lands suitable for visitor- serving commercial recreational facilities designed to enhance public opportunities for coastal recreation shall have priority over private residential, general industrial, or general commercial development, but not over agriculture or coastal-dependent industry." and noting that; “Area F” of the [Carlsbad] Master Plan is currently designated as an “unplanned, area” ["Non-Residential Reserve"] and there is no [CCC] certified land use established. In addition, the previously certified Master Plan included language to protect and provide some kind of lower-cost accommodations at this site." Yet Carlsbad's 2015 General Plan still proposes the Ponto Vision Plan's Planning Area F land use changes the CCC spcifically denied in 2010; and Carlsbad's proposed Citywide LCPA to the CCC still includes the same ponto Vision Plan land use change at Ponto Planning Area F spcifically denied by the CCC in 2010. Currently the City has withdrawn the City’s Citywide LCP Amendment application to the CCC asking for CCC “certification” of Carlsbad's 2015 General Plan Update. In the past and again now a speculative develper of Ponto Plannig Area F - this time Fenton - is again driving and is now taking responcibility for their proposed Ponto land use changes by applying to the City and CCC for an LCP Amendment. Fenton cannot speak for or commit the CIty or City resources on the LCPA. Fenton is now 'responsible' for the LCP Amendment. Along with general CA Coastal Act Policies, there are some very specific exiting LCP Land Use Policies that directly relate to Ponto Open Space – and Ponto Planning Area F that Fenton will have to address in Fenton's Master Plan Amendment and LCPA applications to both the City and CCC. As documented in the 'History of Open Space at Ponto data file' Ponto Planning Area F is the ’11.1 acre Non-Residential Reserve’ area created as the replacement for when 12.8 acres of Coastal Recreation (Usable Open Space) land use was removed and converted to Residential land use by prior developers, the City and CCC. 11.1 acre Planning Area F is the last remaining/remnet developer property required to adress the prior develoer led removal/conversion of the orginal 12.8 acres of Coastal Recreation Usable Open Space land use planned at Ponto's Orginal General Plan and Certified BLEP Master Plan and LCP. As future high-density Residenatil growth is being required in Carlsbad and CA; having adequate "Coastal Recreation (i.e. Public Park) and Low-Cost Visitor Accommodations are even more critical. It is more critical both beacuse there are more people but also because most of those people will live in high-density apartments/condos. These high-density residential nits require MORE City Parks. By definition 'high- density residential development' requires a proportionally higher-density of City Park acreage that is distributed within walking distance (a 10-minute walk). This is a centuries old time-tested fundamental City Planning Principle. This fundamental planning principle is not being followed in Carlsbad, and particularly at Ponto (read the attached "Coastal Recreation data file'). Ponto Planning Area F's LCP requires the consideration of the need for "Coastal Recreation (i.e. Public Park)" in any proposed land use of Planning Area F. In 2017 the CCC provided the City and P4P Carlsbad Citizens with written direction on how the ultimate/final land use for 11.1 acre Ponto Planning Area F should be determined - see attached "Planning Area F existing LCP-LUP & CCC direction" data file. The 'Coastal Recreation (i.e. Public Park and Low-Cost Visitor Accommodation Land Use requirements are spelled out in CCC's 2017 communications to the City and P4P Carlsbad Citizens, but have yet to be addressed. The current (now 3rd) speculative developer - Fenton- is now working to convert 11.1 acre Ponto Planning Area F to high- density Residential & General Commercial land uses. This 3rd speculative developer now has both LCP (Coastal land use) & Master Plan (Coastal zoning) Amendments and development applications filed with the City. If the City Council approves Fenton's proposed Master Plan and LCP Amendment proposals they will forwarded to the CCC for CCC's evaluation for conformance with the CA Coastal Act. Ultimately the CCC will decide weather to “Certify’ Fenton's and/or the City's proposed LCP & Master Plan Amendments as consistant with the CA Coastal Act. Please do the Right Thing – READ and publicly, honestly, comprehensively and inclusively discuss the "Planning Area F existing LCP-LUP & CCC direction" and provide a recomendation to the Planning and Parks Commisions and City Coucnil on Fenton's proposed Planning Area F land use LCP Amendment. In the SC's recomendation please consider that the SC will be making a Critical Final & Forever land use recomendaiton on the last remaining 'unplanned' Coastal land at Ponto/Coastal South Carlsbad. Sea Level Rise and Coastal Erosion will continue to reduce 'High-Priority" Coastal Open Space land use acres while at the same time more higher- density housing and populatiion and visitor growth will greatly increase demands for those "High-Priority" Coastal Open Space Land Uses. Please do the Right Thing – address both the Fenton developer's proposed Planning Area F LCPA and the City's propsed LCPA with two recomendations to assure a 100% accountable Land Use plan and 100% funded Implementaion Plan to address the documented need for Ponto City Park and to replace lost 32-acres of Coastal Open Space in any proposed General Plan, Growth Management Plan, and/or Local Coastal Program updates at Ponto. · 6. Sadly Carlsbad City staff are not posting on the City's websites and honestly disclosing to Carlsbad Citizens the already almost $4 million in tax-payer funded City staff studies and past Council’s deferals over 40-years on proposed Historic Coast Highway 101/South Carlsbad (South Carlsbad Blvd/PCH) Median Relocation ideas. The orginal South Carlsbad Blvd/PCH Relocation Proposal came from the 1980's CA State Parks Master Plan and when Carlsbad Blvd/PCH was a CA State Highway owned by Caltrans. The orginal PCH Relocation plan was a 'Managed Retreat' project that moved the State Campground inland (Managed Retreat) onto CA State/Caltrans property. In the late 1980's Caltrans gave Carlsbad Blvd/PCH to the City of Carlsbad, and since the the late 1980s Carlsbad Blvd/PCH has been, and still is, a City Street and City Responcibility. After the State gave PCH to the City the City then did not want a 100% Managed Retreat project, but wanted State Parks to give the City 14-acres of State Park land between Palomar Airport Road and Manazano Drive (Surplus Area #1 the 20.8 -acre aka Manzano Parcel) in exchange for narrow slivers of the now City's South Carlsbad Blvd/PCH. Surplus Area #1 is indentified/discussed in the City's attached '2001 CARLSBAD BOULEVARD REALIGNMENT STUDY PHASE II: PRELIMINARY FINANCIAL ANALYSIS' study. This 2001 City staff studied 4 PCH Relocation Alternatives and determined South Carlsbad Blvd/PCH Relocation could be used as a development tool for the City. City staff studied development of 7 possibly usable "Surplus Areas #1-6B". The City's plan to use PCH Relocation as a 'development tool' has been (and is still being) hidden from Citizens. Of the 7 possibly usable "Surplus Areas", Surplus Area # 1 was the critical one, as noted in the 2001 City staff study: "4.1.3 Surplus Area 1: Due to the large size of Surplus Area 1, it is a critical aspect for the project's [PCH Relocation] success. The other parcels are relatively small and could not support many revenue- generating uses. Surplus Area 1 has the potential to bring much revenue and tax increment into the City, which is likely to be the driving force for approval of the project [PCH Reloation]. Several potential project [PCH Relocation] limitations are discussed in Section 4.4. Among the most critical is the City's ability to gain control of the State- owned portion of Surplus Area 1." The attached attached '2001 CARLSBAD BOULEVARD REALIGNMENT STUDY PHASE II: PRELIMINARY FINANCIAL ANALYSIS' determined that only the more intence of four Alternative development senarios of the 7 "Surplus Areas" would provide the City funds to make money off of PCH Relocation. 6 of the 7 PCH "Surplus Areas" (#2-6B) are very small, narrow, and constrained. City staff should disclose and post that City "2001 PHASE II Study" on the City's website dealing with the South Carlsbad Coastline including (https://www.carlsbadca.gov/departments/public- works/projects/our-coastline/south-carlsbad-coastline) the attatached '2001 CARLSBAD BOULEVARD REALIGNMENT STUDY PHASE II: PRELIMINARY FINANCIAL ANALYSIS', beacause City staff and Council are saying that "An initial feasibility and realignment study was completed in 2000." This sudy is justification for the CIP Project. It is odd however that even though the City states "An initial feasibility and realignment study was completed in 2000." City staff now requesting $10 million tax-payer dollars to do an initial "Investigative Study" of this same "project" that 25- years ago already completed "Phase II Realignment and Feaisibility Studies". Why is the City staff (justifying) proposing to "Investigate" something that the City has already "completed" a "Phase II Realignment and feasibility" study on? Why is the City spending (and apparently wasting) tax-payer dollars on an apparrent endless redo loop of study and restudy of past studies? from City CIP project list: "South Carlsbad Coastline District: 2,3,4 Location: Carlsbad Boulevard between Island Way to the southern border Description:The project will conduct an investigative study of future roadway realignment alternatives, infrastructure needs, land uses, public park and coastal access opportunities, and related long term coastal planning issues, constraints, and processes. The second phase study of a multi-year project such as this would not require permits or environmental review at this time. Rationale: An initial feasibility and realignment study was completed in 2000. The next phase of this project will prepare a study to analyze more detailed alternatives and create options and cost estimates for the realignment of Carlsbad Boulevard from Island Way to the southern border. Project targeted to start in FY30 due to staff capacity and capacity to address more urgent section between Manzano Drive and Island Way. Project Number: 6031 Project Type: Transportation Asset Mgmt Dept: Transportation Project Phase: Not Started Budget Category: Classification: Planning 15 Year Forecasted Cost: $10,189,776" In reading the above South Carlsbad Coastline CIP Project Description, a Citizen would be fooled to think that the South Carlsbad Coastline CIP is both feasible (Phase II Realighnment and Feasibility Studies with 4 land development alternatives were completed in 2000) and that the Soutth Carlsbad Coastline CIP Project is not really a land development project. Citizens would also be fooled into thinking the city is only now proposing to maybe start a 15-year "Investigative Study". Hiding the 2001 Phase II City PCH Realighnment and Feasibility Study from Citizens appears to be hiding or delaying exposure of the City motives, and critical City Study facts regardig realighment and feasibility of the South Carlsbad Coastline Relocation) Project. In the City's CIP Project decription above staff forecasts an additional $10 million in "Investigative" re-study costs be added to the around $4 million already spent studying Historic Coast Highway 101/Carlsbad Blvd/PCH Reloation alighment and feasibility alternatives. This brings the now staff estimated "Investigative Study Costs" to around $14 million. These "Investigative Study" costs are high - at 18% to 21% of the staff estimated $65 - $80 million project cost (about $21 - $26 million per mile). The City's proposed "15- year and $10 million CIP Investigative Study" of a project that (as staff notes) already has completed both Realighment and Feasibility Alternative (Phase II) Studies in 2000 appears more like a delay, deferal, and 'kick-the-can-down-the-road' approach to what has already been studied in 2000-2001 and is known; but has been and is currently being hidden from Carlsbad Citizens. It appears another City staff re-Study to re- Defer a somewhat mythical (it is open space or is it development?) project - PHC Relocation and development. City staff and Coucnil should disclose to Carlsbad Citizens the City's 2000-2001 PCH Relocation Realighment and Feasibility Studies that they reference (as justification) in the CIP description above. City staff's proposed 15-years of additional "Investigative Re-Study" added to the prior 40- years of staff study likely will result in 55-years of PCH Relocation re-Study, and re-Deferral that will likely leads (as it has for the past 40 years) to nothing reallly being done but endless staff studies. Is this enless staff re-Study of past studies a waste of tax-payer dollars? Sadly for Carlsbad Citizens the endless four-decades long City staff "Investigative re-Study" and City re-Deferral appears a deliberate strategy to delay, defer, 'continue kicking -the-can- down-the road', and 'run-out the clock' on Carlsbad Citizens needed a true Ponto Park while allowing development to proceed. This 40-years of delay is occurring concurrently with developers and the City fast-tracking private developers' land use changes that have (see History of Open Space at Ponto data file) and will now (if allowed by the City and CCC) finally and forever eliminate better, more sustainable, and more tax-payer saving options. Options like honest, cost- effective and responsible land Use/Parks/Usable Growth Management Open Space planning, and the much less costly aqusition of some of the last remaining vacant land at Ponto - like City Park/Open Space land purchases the City Council has done in other areas of Carlsbad. The Citizen desired and responsible tax-payer saving ideas P4P Carlsbad Citizens have repetitively proposed would have saved, and will likely can still save save, tens of millions of Carlsbad tax-payer dollars. For instance a few years ago P4P Carlsbad Citizens told the City Council the City could cost-effectively purchase 11.1 acre Ponto Planning Area F for less than $15 million (less than $1.35 million per acre) and that $15 million would save Carlsbad tax-payers the $65 - $80 million the City instead wants to spend on the 3.1 mile South Carlsbad Coastline (aka PCH Relocation) project. The $65 - $80 million the City wants to spend on South Carlsbad Blvd (aka PCH Relcoation) would try to make usable up to about 15 acres of narrow/constrained City-owned Surplus PCH roadway median at Ponto, at a cost of $4.3 to $5.3 million per acre of roadway median. This high cost is for narrow roadway median land the City already owns. Sadly the City Council by 1-vote said it already knew about these tax-payer cost savings and choose not to have staff even look at P4P Citizens' data and opportuity for a better solution and tens of millions of tax- payer cost savings. After City Coucnil failed to listen to P4P Carlsbad Citizens 11.1 acre Ponto Planning Area F was instead purchased by the 3rd speculative developer - Fenton - for less than $8 million or less than $720,000 per acre. That cost is less than 17% to 14% of the per acre cost of the City's South Carlsbd Coastline project. The lower $8 million market cost established by Fenton's resent purchase of 11.1 acre Planning Area F makes the P4P Carlsbad Citizens ideas even better and saves even more tax-payer dollars. There are other cost/discount factors to account such as the fact that no new Open Space land is being aquired in the City's CIP Project - the $4.3 to $5.3 million per acre cost is just to make some narrow portions of existing City roadway median possibly usable. Also a per acre Park improvemtn cost of about $1 million per acre (based on per acre costs to build the City's newest Buena Vista Resevior Park) when added to the $720,000 land puchase price would total to $1,720,000 per acre of fully developed Park land. Yet this $1.72 million per acre (land purchase AND improvemts) to both add new fully Usable Open Space acres and improve that new land as a True Park is still only 40% to 32% of cost of 'only improve existing City owned roadway median land to try to make some narrow potions usable. P4P Carlsbad Citizens have proposed tax-payer savings of (40% -32% and $46 to $61 million) inachieves more - new Open Space acres, a True and better Park, and a Park Citizens actually want. As an example Carlsbad Citizens gathered City data and provided to the City 2 attached files: '2022 General Comparative Cost/Benifits of completing PCH-PCH modification-Ponto Park part 1 of 2', and 'City's PCH area map with numberd notes of constraints part 2 of 2'. These 2 data files use City data. We hope the SC, City Commisisons and Council, and CCC read the data/maps in these 2 files. P4P Citizens can provide the SC a history of the ideas (and Carlsbad tax-payer savings) we have provided since 2017 to create collborative win-win solutions for all to address the well documeted and much needed (and overwhelmingly Citizen requested) Ponto City Park along, with providing the 30-acres of missing unconstrained/usable Open Space that Ponto developers should have provided in LFMP Zone 9. P4P Carlsbad Citizens care about Carlsbad and future Carlsbad generations. We want Carlsbad to be as good as it can be, and also use our tax-payer dollars effecintly. South Carlsbad Blvd missing sidewalks: South Carlsbad Carlsabd has some missing gaps in pedestrain paths/sidewalks along PCH that the City needs to fill to make PCH a Complete Street. This simple and tax-payer saving solution can be done, and shoulld have already been done, over the past 40-years since Ponto was anexed into the City of Carlsbad. But the City choose, and is still choosing, to defer this basic and cost-effective solution to complete missing sidewalks/paths. Citizen Petitions and surveys show a large majority of Carsabd Citizens want a True and Significant Ponto City Park while baically keeping the open/Old California Historic Coast Highway 101 Charater of South Carlsbad Blvd (but simply fill-in the missing pedestain paths/sidewalks and maybe some other modest enahncements). Carlsbad has one of the last remaining features of Old Califonia History in its last lenght of Old (1920-60's) Highway 101 roadway and landscaping. This is a valuable Historical asset the City should not distroy/convert/compress/urbanize and 'develop over'. Please do the right things, and listen to Carlsbad Citizens. Sadly Carlsabd Citizen desires and options (both expressed by 7,500+ petitions and by City Survey) were not given honest consideration in the past to address the well documented need for Ponto City Park. A 40-year mythical PCH Relocation idea has been studied and deferred as the 'City staff's solution' to Citizen needs and are still being proposed by staff to be re-studied' and re-deferred. Then, as now, there are more tax-payer efficient and Citizen desired means to address the documented need for a True Ponto City Park and Complete South Carlsbad Blvd sidewalks, bike lane improvements, and beach parking along PCH as documented in the attached “2 Part General Comparative Cost-Benefit & PCH Constraints Map” data files. o Please do the right thing – direct staff to provide you and Carlsbad Citizens the attached 2001 ERA PCH Relocation Financial Feasibility study by the City on all relevant City Websites so Citizens can be properly informed § The current Council is now seeing a staff proposed 1-mile PCH Relocation around Palomar Airport Road fall short, be over 100% over budget, and still not able to replace current beach parking with a sustainable "Managed Retreat" location for beach parking that will be safe from loss due to sea level rise and bluff erosion. This now $150 million per mile staff proposed project still results in significant beach parking loss, while doubling congestion by cutting vehicle roadway capacity in half. § Recommend to the city Council to direct staff to require all developers adjacent to PCH to pay for PCH Frontage improvements. City staff currently are not requiring all properties (such as Planning Area F) to pay for their PCH right-of-way frontage improvements - such as putting in PCH sidewalks. Instead, staff proposed Master Plan/LCP changes call for Carlsbad tax-payers pay Planning Area F PCH right-of-way frontage costs for the developer. § Read the other better options to address Ponto Park available and documented in the attached “2 Part General Comparative Cost-Benefit & PCH Constraints” data files. These options could be explored. o Please do the Right Thing – read, disclose and make publicly available to Carlsbad Citizens on the City's websites the City's two 2001 PCH Studies and the attached “2 Part Comparative Cost- Benefits & PCH Constraints” data files. § Carlsbad tax-payers will need to vote to fund PCH Median Relocation and both you and Citizens need to know the facts and fully consider better options available to address the documented need for a true Ponto Coastal City Park, and for completing PCH (fill sidewalk gaps, possible bike lane improvements, and create/expand beach parking).  What is the Open Space legacy the Sustainability Commissioners wants to leave to future Carlsbad generations? Each member of the Sustainability Commission has a once in lifetime opportunity to correct Ponto's (LFMP Zone 9) false exemption of Growth Management's usable Open Space Standard falsely given Ponto developers. The false exemption resulted in 30 acres of missing usable Open Space developers should have provided. You have the opportunity to: acknowledge and provide the missing 30-acres of Usable Open Space in LFMP Zone 9 Ponto developers should have provided, turn Carlsbad from the very worst So Cal Coastal City in providing a 10-minute walk to adequate Parkland to at least an average So Cal Coastal City. consider a new Park Standard to locate 3+ acres of City Park for 1,000 residents that is within the 10-minute walk of all homes, At the very least lift Carlsbad up to 'an average Coastal City', but Carlsbad Citizens hope you will do better and make Carlsbad better, provide City Parkland where it is needed - particularly in Coastal South Carlsbad - not multiple large City Parks within close and overlapping locations like around Veterans Park, provide new City Parks and parkland to closer to providing 5-acres of City Park land per 1,000 population so Carlsbad can be at least as good as the 5-acres of City Park per 1,00 population Encinitas and Oceanside provide their citizens, address the 2017 documented loss of 32-acres of High- Piority Coastal Open Space Land Use at Ponto that was not addressed in Carlsabd's 2015 General Plan, honestly commuincate to Carlsbad Citiizens the Cost/Benifits of the City staff ideas to re-delay and forever (55+ years and counting) have staff re-study the undesired PCH Relocation staff idea that is problematic, wastes tax-payer dollars, and is not desired by Carlsbad Citizens (but requires Carlsbad Citizens to vote to pay for), understand and honestly discuss with P4P Carlsbad Citizens about the other better and cheaper options P4P Carlsbad Citizens have proposed and created since 2017 and options going forward, understand, acknowledge, and honestly consideer the 7,500+ P4P Carlsbad Citizen and visitor petitions to the City and CCC on the need for the City to provide a True and Significant Ponto City Park. All Carlsbad suffers if these Carlsbad Citizen issues are not openly, responcibly, and accountably addressed with Carlsbad Citizens. All of us now in Carlsbad, and all future Carlsbad Citizens and their children, are impacted. If these issues are not fully addressed and the future considered, further kicking-the-can-down-the-road more delay/deferal will lead the City down a path of relatively lower Quality of Life (and reduced relative desirablity, investment, and value) while other cities provide relatively more and better distributed Parks and Usable Open Space. Instead of an improving/sustainable Quality of Life as populations increase, Carlsbad will create an unsustainable and diminishing Quality of Life for more people. Failure to honestly provide a much needed and TRUE and significant Ponto Park (on the last vacant unplanned land and opportunity to provide a true and meaningful Coastal Park) will also push Coastal Park demand to North Carlsbad (or Encinitas), and increase VMT, traffic and parking congestion in North Carlsbad/Encinitas. Park and Coastal park demands and impacts are not isolated; they impact all Carlsbad and neighboring areas. Ponto Planning Area F is the last remaining vacant unplanned Coastal in South Coastal Carlsabd. Ponto Planning Area F's 11.1-acres of unplanned 'Non-Residential Reserve' Coastal land is South Carlsbad's only viable location for its only possible Coastal City Park and also is at the very center of a 6- mile length of coast without a Coastal Park. To each member of the SustainabilitySustainabilty individually and collectively your time is now. Your fellow Carlsbad Citizens hope you see the big picture, know the facts, listen to your fellow citizens, are visionary, and act knowing your actions will be the final/forever Open Space land Use recommendations that will be provided. Most all land once committed to development is lost as Park/Open Space use. Only on very rare and expensive situations can developed land be un-developed and then preserved as Park and Open Space use. Sincerely, and with Aloha for Carlsbad and Aloha Aina, Lance Schulte CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 1 9 8/8/22 1st submittal, 12/12/22 updated 2nd submittal Infinite proportional increases in the supply of Parklands, Open Spaces, water, transportation facility capacity, etc. or our Quality of Life will diminish Being a Coastal city Carlsbad has an added responsibility to proportionately maintain/improve providing High-Priority Coastal land uses (Coastal Recreation {i.e. Public Parks} and Low-cost Visitor Accommodations) needed at a regional and statewide level to address visitor needs for Coastal Recreation, access, and affordable accommodations Trying like Parks and Open Spaces is a path to disaster and the ultimate degradation of Carlsbad has a huge Jobs v. Housing supply imbalance far too many jobs around the airport for our amount of housing. This creates negative and costly land use and transportation planning distortions that radiate from the Airport Central Jobs through Carlsbad in all directions Rebalancing by reducing jobs land use creates added benefits for -hour job commute traffic volumes and 2 9 vehicle miles traveled (VMT), and by reducing the costs Carlsbad (and other cities and the region) have to pay to accommodate inter-city commute traffic. If Carlsbad reduces jobs land use will also reduce the amount of housing the State of California and SANDAG requires Carlsbad provide in its Housing Element thus reducing forcing incompatible high-density development into established neighborhoods and pressure to convert useable GM Open Space lands to housing land use Carlsbad can logically and cost effectively balance Jobs/housing supply by updating Growth Management Policy to reduce jobs to be in balance with housing several high-density residential mixed-use Villages Redevelopment of developed land will require creating increased supplies of Parkland, Open Spaces, transportation capacity, and other Quality of Life facilities. Completely rethink all City planning on existing vacant lands to assure that remaining vacant land is planned and being used wisely and fairly distributed to address critical Quality of Life needs in those areas, and not squandered on redundant land use Carlsbad General Plan & Growth Management Plan do not provide a fair distribution of adequately sized City Parks for all Carlsbad families. 3 9 Park Master Plan maps areas of existing known Park Inequity or Unfairness (dysfunction), to show where new City Park investments should be made (See City map image with notes below) Carlsbad is below national averages in both park acres and fair access to parks Carlsbad is also well below what our adjacent Coastal cities of Encinitas and Oceanside provide. Carlsbad only requires 3 acres of Park land per 1,000 population, while Encinitas and Oceans require 5 acres - 67% more than Carlsbad of parkland. Also, Encinitas and Oceanside require parks to be within a 10-mintue walk to their citizens and families. Carlsbad has no such requirement 4 9 Carlsbad should change its General Plan, Parks and Growth Management Standards and CMC 20.44 to: Be Above Average Nationally in both providing park acreage and in locating adequate park acreage to be within a 10-minute walk to all neighborhoods Raise its minimum park acreage standard to 5 acers per 1,000 population, versus the current low 3 acres per 1,000. Carlsbad should be at least as good as Encinitas and Oceanside in requiring 5 acres, not 40% below what our adjacent Cities require/provide iii. Raise its park location standard to require an adequately sized park be provided to serve the neighborhood population within a 10-minute walk for all neighborhoods. Prioritize City Policy and Park Budgets and investments to achieve park fairness in Park Unserved areas P apter 20.44- DEDICATION OF LAND FOR RECREATIONAL FACILITIES to require developers areas that do not have an adequately sized (5 acres per 1,000 population) park within a 10-minute walk to provide their developments required Park land acre dedication in actual Park land within a 10-minute walk to their development -in-lieu fee to assure the fee is adequate to actually buy the amount of park land a developer is to provide within a 10-miunte walk of their development Only allow developers to pay a Park-in-lieu-fee where there is an adequately sized park (provide 5 acres per 1,000 population) within a 10-minute walk of their development, and growth management planned future development in that area will not require more park land to provide 5 acres per 1,000 population) within a 10-minute walk Eliminate the counting of Protected Endangered Species Habitat land as Park land. GM Constrained/Unusable lands are undevelopable. Protected Habitat lands are by definition not useable for development by people. Habitat is dedicated for plants and animals. Parks are open spaces dedicated intended for people. Parkland calculations should exclude Unusable lands and Protected Habitat lands and only count 100% people Useable land as Park land the I-5 corridor) are grossly unfairly distributed do not fairly match the 5 9 locational needs of the population. and has 10 Coastal Parks totaling 37+ acres in size. 0 [ZERO] Coastal Parks totaling 0 [ZERO] acres a better and far less costly solution to correct Citywide Coastal Park unfairness and provide a much needed South Carlsbad Coastal Park is to simply buy currently vacant land that is for sale. Carlsbad tax-payers have used the City data to compare the tax-payer Cost/Benefits of simply purchasing vacant land v. trying to rearrange existing City owned land at PCH. Simply buying vacant land saves tax-payers saves tax-payers over $32.7 to $7.7 million. Buying and developing this 11.1 acre Ponto Park would cost less than $20 million assuming a 10% profit to the new land-owner, and $1 million per acre park construction cost like our newest Buena Vista Reservoir Park. 11.1 acre Ponto Coastal Park would cost tax-payers less than the recently approved Measure J City Monroe Street Pool Renovation. The overall and per acre costs of buying/building Ponto Park are over 2 to 3 times better value for tax-payers than PCH Relocation/rearrangement. 6 9 The City has been advised to buy Ponto Park und settlement of a Growth Management law suit. The Park and Coastal Park Inequity at Ponto and Coastal South Carlsbad is clearly a citywide issue. Park and Coastal Park Inequity at Ponto and Coastal South Carlsbad as it is unfair to the vast majority of Carlsbad citizens and their families as 62% of Carlsbad is in South Carlsbad. Park and Coastal Park Inequity at Ponto and Coastal South Carlsbad is unfair to our major Visitor serving industries (and tax generators) in South Carlsbad. Park and Coastal Park Inequity at Ponto and Coastal South Carlsbad are clearly inconsistent with the CA Coastal Act, Carlsbad Community Vision, and common sense. i. The discussion of Parks by the CTGMC is such a situation that requires the CTGMC to consider this adopted LCP Land Use Policies. Official public records requests have shown the City never followed this LCP Land Use Policy Requirement during the 2005 Ponto Vision Plan and 2015 General Plan Update, and in 2010 the CA Coastal Commission rejected the Ponto Vision Plan and told the City in 2017 that that land uses at Ponto could change based on the need for Coastal Recreation and/or Low Cost Visitor Accommodations. The CTGMC should fully evaluate the citywide/South Carlsbad and local Ponto need for Coastal Parks as required by the City s adopted LCPs and CA Coastal Act. Both the General Plan (and Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan) and GMP should be updated to account for the loss and replacement of these 32+ acres of high- priority Coastal Open Space Land Use due to SLR. The availability over the past several years of the last two sufficiently sized vacant lands suitable for a Ponto/South Carlsbad Coastal Park is a citywide issue. If these last two vacant lands are lost to development forever future generations will have lost the last opportunity for the needed South Carlsbad Coastal Park 7 9 The CTGMC should recommend GMP be updated to incorporate Parkland acquisition of these last opportunities to provide the needed Coastal Park for South Carlsbad Carlsbad law the Growth Management Ordinance and -compliance with a Performance Standards is to be handled The CTGMC should make a recommendation that an inventory of all 25 LFMP Zones be conducted and an inventory of each LFMP Zones provision of at least 15% Useable Open Space shall be compiled. No LFMP Zone shall be allowed to be 8 9 Open Space: Aviara - Zone 19, Ponto - Zone 9 and Hanover/Poinsettia Shores Zone 22 all developed around the same time and had similar vacant lands. City required Aviara - Zone 19 east of Ponto to provide the 15% Standard Open Space. Why not Ponto? Aviara includes the same lagoon. City required Hanover & Poinsettia Shores area Zone 22 just north of Ponto to provide the 15% Standard Open Space. Why not Ponto? 30 Acres minimum GMP Open Space Standard inimum 15% required Open Space Standard is missing due to over development of LFMP Zone 9 [Ponto] 9 9 Local Facilities Zone Useable Open Space Correction Plan Local Facilities Zone Useable Open Space Correction Plan Local Facilities Zone Useable Open Space Correction Plan Local Facilities Zone Useable Open Space Correction Plan. 1 32 Carlsbad 49.9% of residents [10% below National Average]. Carlsbad is the worst of 29 Southern CA Coastal cities (from Santa Barbara south to the Mexican Border on over 250 miles of coastline) in providing Parks within 10-minute walk to residents: Carlsbad 49.9% of residents [Carlsbad is lowest & most unfair] 2 32 Carlsbad is the lowest & most unfair to citizens of the 29 Southern California Coastal cities along over 250 miles of CA Coastline from Santa Barbara to the Mexican border. The population in these 29 cities is in the millions, and Carlsbad is the worst in providing (and planning to provide) Park access. Additional facts in this document, further documents the situation, and need for Ponto Park. Source of data: Trust for Public land parkscores 3 32 14 critical Coastal Recreation issues (see pages 5-30 below) Carlsbad Oceanside Encinitas note or source 4 32 total Unusable park park % of park acres acres unusable reason unusable Unusable Open Space acres in Existing & Future Parks 112.8 acres or 44% is unusable as Parks Based on City's minimum 3-acres/1,000 population Park Standard, 112.8 acres of Unusable Parkland means 37,600 Carlsbad Citizens (or 32.5% of Carlsbad's current population of 112,877) will be denied the minimum amount of Parkland that they can actually use as a Park. 5 32 and their children are currently population. The current NE, SW and SE quadrants park acreage shortfalls are in addition to the 19,967 Carlsbad citizens and their children that do not have the minimum 3 acres of parkland per 1,000 population Current FY 2018-19 MINIMUM park acreage shortfalls are listed in the table below. They are: o 4.3 acres for 1,433 people in NE quadrant, o 6.8 acres for 2,266 people in SW quadrant, and o 2.3 acres for 767 people in SE quadrant 6 32 7 32 Coastal Recreation: the public has a right to fully participate in decisions affecting coastal planning sound coastal conservation and development is dependent upon public understanding and support programs for coastal conservation and development should include the widest opportunity for public Public Participation as noted in Section 30006 above is the means to sound coastal conservation and development and is dependent upon public understanding 8 32 9 32 10 32 maximize public recreational opportunities in the coastal zone Assure priority for coastal- dependent and coastal-related development over other development on the coast 11 32 12 32 13 32 14 32 15 32 16 32 17 32 As part of any future planning effort, the City and Developer must consider and document the need for the provision of lower cost visitor accommodations or recreational facilities (i.e. public park) on the west side of 18 32 19 32 20 32 21 32 ource: SANDAG Preliminary 2050 Regional Growth Forecast 22 32 source: San Diego Tourism Authority; San Diego Travel Forecast, Dec, 2017 23 32 shall be distributed throughout an area so as to mitigate against the impacts, social and ; ncouraged, and, where feasible, provided. Developments providing public recreational opportunities are -serving commercial recreational facilities designed to enhance public opportunities for coastal recreation shall have priority over private residential, general industrial, or general commercial development, onal uses shall be reserved for , correlating the amount of development with local park acquisition 24 32 25 32 26 32 27 32 30 Acres Missing unconstrained Open Space needed in LFMP Zone 9 [Ponto area of Coastal Zone] to meet the minimum GMP Open Space Standard. 73% of the required Open Space Standard is missing. 28 32 29 32 the Draft LCP Land Use Plan is actually planning for a Reduction in Open Space Land Use in South Carlsbad and Ponto 30 32 South Carlsbad is the most Complete Street deficient portion of Carlsbad Boulevard 31 32 32 32 Re: Support creation of Ponto Park a needed park for South Carlsbad 1 20 History of the false exemption of the Growth Management Open Space Standard provided Ponto developers in Local Facility Management Plan Zone 9 (LFMP-9): Carlsbad Tomorrow Carlsbad Tomorrow 2 20 Open Space: Aviara - Zone 19, Ponto - Zone 9 and Hanover/Poinsettia Shores Zone 22 all developed around the same time and had similar vacant lands. City required Aviara - Zone 19 east of Ponto to provide the 15% Standard Open Space. Why not Ponto? Aviara had the same lagoon waters. City required Hanover & Poinsettia Shores area Zone 22 just north of Ponto to provide the 15% Standard Open Space. Why not Ponto? 30 Acres minimum GMP Open Space Standard 15% required Open Space Standard is missing due to over development of LFMP Zone 9 [Ponto] 3 20 4 20 5 20 despite previous city council actions parks, open space The city council has further determined that these shortages are detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Carlsbad. to ensure that no development occurs without providing for adequate facilities and improvements 6 20 [example]: no application for any building permit or development permit shall be accepted, processed or approved until a city-wide facilities and improvements plan has been adopted and a local facilities management plan for the applicable local facilities management zone has been submitted and approved according to this chap [Clearly indicates the exemptions in 21.90.030 are only from the temporary development moratorium created by 21.90.] [FYI, this provision of 21.90.030 has direct implications with respect of currently City/developer proposed General Plan/Zoning code/Local Coastal Program Amendments now being pursued by the City at Ponto Planning Area F and Ponto Site 18. The City did not and has not yet amended the CFMP and LFMP-9 to increase the City/developer proposed residential density or development intensity at Ponto] The classes of projects or permits listed in this subsection shall be exempt from the provisions of subsection (a). Development permits and building permits for these projects shall be subject to any fees established pursuant to the city-wide facilities and improvement plan and any applicable local facilities management plan. [Then lists various exemptions from the temporary development processing/building permit moratorium in 21.90. The BLEP exemption from the temporary moratorium is (g)] The city council may authorize the processing of and decision making on building permits and development permits for a project with a master plan approved before July 20, 1986, subject to the following restrictions [this only applies to the approved before July 20, 1986 BLEP MP, and NOT to any subsequent Master Plan Amendment]: 7 20 facilities and improvements required by the master plan are sufficient to meet the needs created by the project and that the master plan developer has agreed to install those facilities and improvements to the satisfaction of the city council. [The Ponto developer needed to provide the 12.8 acre Recreation Commercial land use and install the GM compliant Open Space required in the 1986 MP175 but did not] The master plan developer shall agree in writing that all facilities and improvement requirements, including, but not limited to, the payment of fees established by the city-wide facilities and management plan and the applicable local facilities management plan shall be applicable to development within the master plan area and that the master plan developer shall comply with those plans. [this required the LFMP-9/BLEP MP to have 1) already been fully developed or 2) have already have dedicated 15% of the LFMP-9 as Growth Management compliant Open Space (i.e. Unconstrained and developable) to qualify for the Open Space exemption later falsely noted in the city-wide facilities and management plan. As clearly documented the BLEP MP did not meet the requirements to qualify for Open Space Standard Exemption in the city-wide facilities and management plan. The section also requires facilities (including Open Space) requirements in the Citywide Growth Management Standard to apply to BLEP MP, not provide a means for a false exemption of the Open Space Standard] all uses within the park comprise an integral part of the educational facility. [all uses including the 12.8 acre Recreation Commercial land use and all the other GM compliant Open Spaces are an integral part. However the 12.8 acre open space land use was never built and the BLEP MP GM compliant Open Space never dedicated.] Building permits for the one hundred twenty-nine [129] unit residential portion of Phase I of the project may be approved provided the applicant has provided written evidence that an educational entity will occupy Phase I of the project [Clearly indicates the 21.90.030 exemption is only for building permits for Phase I of the BLEP MP. Of the 129 units only the 75 unit Rosalena development applied for and received building permits under this exemption. There are some very interesting issues related to this Rosalena Phase I development relative to GM complaint Open Space along the bluff edge that can be expanded on later if the CTGMC has questions.] [Again clearly notes the exemption o -zoned prior to the BLEP MP being incorporated into the City of Carlsbad] 8 20 [This is the Rosalena development that was part of Phase I for BLEP MP. This amendment has implications on the landscaped Open Space setback along the Batiquitos Lagoon bluff top, and the required Coastal access trail required by the Coastal 9 20 Development Permit for Rosalena. This is an interesting history that can be explained later if the CTGMC would like.] 10 20 11 20 No zone change, general plan amendment, master plan amendment unless an amendment to the citywide facilities management plan and the applicable local facilities management plan has first been approved replace educational uses with residential land us s the pre-Growth Management and pre-BLEP MP Constrained/Undevelopable lagoon waters and bluff habitat that per the 15% Growth Management Open Space Standard CAN NOT be counted as meeting the 15% GM Open Space Standard can be magically counted as meeting the 15% GM Open Space Standard. The GM Open Space Standard specifically states that only Unconstrained/Developable lands CAN BE counted as meeting the GM Open Space Standard. 12 20 The false exemption for the BLEP MP based LFMP-9 should never have occurred. However, completely eliminating BLEP MP reducing BLEP at the same time claiming the false BLEP MP Open Space Exemption is a violation of common sense, 21.90, and the very founding principles Growth Management. 13 20 As part of any future planning effort, the City and Developer must consider and document the need for the provision of lower cost visitor accommodations or recreational facilities (i.e. public park [example] Planning Area F requires the city and developer to "consider and document the need for the provision of lower cost visitor [the discussion of the need for the City to conduct a citywide analysis of the location and amount of these uses in the Coastal Zone to assure the City General Plan within the Coastal Zone is providing the adequate amounts and locations of these land uses to fulfill the long-term population/visitor needs for these uses according to the CA Coastal Act]If this analysis determines that there is a deficit of low cost visitor accommodations or recreation facilities in this area, then Planning Area F should be considered as a site where these types of uses could be developed. 14 20 [Italicized text within brackets] 15 20 14 acres 54 acres 4,791 feet of trails 14,049 feet of trails [<18 Acres] [Campground -[>18 Acres] Low-cost Visitor [loss of over 50% of Accommodations] the campground & its Low-cost Visitor Accommodations, See Figure 5.] 1,383 linear feet 11,280 linear feet 16 20 572 acres 606 acres 17 20 18 20 19 20 20 20 1 7 DLCP- Introduction: Open Space and City Park demand at Ponto 2 7 Open Space: Aviara - Zone 19, Ponto - Zone 9 and Hanover/Poinsettia Shores Zone 22 all developed around the same time and had similar vacant lands. City required Aviara - Zone 19 east of Ponto to provide the 15% Standard Open Space. Why not Ponto? Aviara had the same lagoon waters. City required Hanover & Poinsettia Shores area Zone 22 just north of Ponto to provide the 15% Standard Open Space. Why not Ponto? 30 Acres minimum GMP Open Space Standard 15% required Open Space Standard is missing due to over development of LFMP Zone 9 [Ponto] 3 7 Sea Level Rise impacts on Open Space and Open Space Land Use Planning at Ponto [Italicized text within brackets] 4 7 14 acres 54 acres 4,791 feet of trails 14,049 feet of trails [<18 Acres] [Campground -[>18 Acres] Low-cost Visitor [loss of over 50% of Accommodations] the campground & its Low-cost Visitor Accommodations, See Figure 5.] 1,383 linear feet 11,280 linear feet 572 acres 606 acres 5 7 6 7 Directions to analyze and correct current and future LOSS of Coastal Open Space Land Use at Ponto 7 7 Summary: 1 4 2022 General Comparative tax-payer Costs/Benefits of Completing PCH, PCH Modification, and Ponto Park to address planned loss of 30+ acres of Coastal Open Space Land Use at Ponto/West BL/South Carlsbad: Part 1 of 2 2 4 Comparative tax-payer Cost/Benefits: Total Cost to provide missing sidewalks per City data = $3-5 million (based on path width) Costs for desirable safety upgrade to existing bike lanes are not known Cost to add more Beach parking in abandoned PCH North and South of Poinsettia ranges from: Total cost: $ 3.8 to 6.1 million to provide missing sidewalk/path and add more parking + unknown amount for any desired upgrades to existing bike lanes Total $75 million PCH Modification cost comes to: $ 18.7 to 7.5 million per acre for narrow open space areas (from portions of city roadway) $872,093 per additional parking space Total Cost: $20 22 million to purchase and build 11-acres as Mayor Matt Hall has publicly stated $ 2 to 1.8 million per acre (per Mayor) for new and fully useable City Park area 175% to 10% m CH Modification options 3 4 $50.4 to 45.8 million in tax-payer cost savings are estimated from combining #1 & #3 compared to the estimated $75 million PCH Modification concept. Combining #1 and #3 provide all the features provided by more Benefits for a reduced 4 4 1 2 2 2 * F o r c o m p a r a t i v e v i s u a l r e f e r e n c e t h e * a r e a i s t h e 6 . 5 a c r e e a s t e r n p o r t i o n o f P l a n n i n g A r e a F . *. *. 1 5 This prior to any planning activity was newer done as documented by official Carlsbad Public Records Requests 2017-260, 2017-262, R000930-072419, R001280-021720, and R001281-02170. 2 5 [Planning Area F] any type of development in this portion of the Ponto area, an LCP amendment modifying the land use will have to be brought forward to the Commission for review and approval Commission would reject such proposed uses because there has been no evidence presented that would support the elimination of these [Planning Area F] areas for some lower cost overnight accommodations or public recreational amenities in the future. the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan specifically called for such an assessment, and none has been submitted to date. Poinsettia Shores Master Plan states, any type of development at this location would first require an LCP amendment to establish the land use and zoning, which would have to be certified by both the City and the Coastal Commission. Additionally, the Master Plan further states that some component of the development at this location must consider the need for the provision of lower cost accommodations or recreational facilities Plan, it may not be the most appropriate designation. As previously stated, the project will at least need to consider the incorporation of some kind of lower cost accommodations, Furthermore, the standard of review for any change to the current land use designation is the Coastal Act, and thus will also have to be found consistent with all its applicable policies. Recently, the Commission has become concerned with the lack of lower-cost accommodations statewide. Thus, the establishment of a residential land use at this location may not be what is ultimately determined to be certified as consistent with the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan, or the Coastal Act High-Priority Uses - The Coastal Act has numerous policies promoting public access to the beach and state recreational opportunities 3 5 shall be provided for all the people Developments providing public recreational opportunities are preferred Oceanfront land suitable for recreational use shall be protected for recreational use and development unless present and foreseeable future demand for public or commercial recreational activities that could be accommodated on the property is already adequately provided for in the area The use of private lands suitable for visitor-serving commercial recreational facilities designed to enhance public opportunities for coastal recreation shall have priority over private residential, general industrial, or general commercial development In an attempt to maintain a lower-cost visitor-serving component at this location, the Commission, through a suggested modification, required language within the Master Plan that would serve to protect this type of use.As part of any future planning effort, the City and Developer must consider and document the need for the provision of lower cost accommodations or recreational facilities (i.e. public park) on the west side of the railroad The Ponto Beachfront area is an area that could be considered as a high-priority location for lower cost overnight accommodations during peak summer months, the campground is consistently at capaci to day use sites, the market and the need for low cost overnight accommodations will be significantly amplified. Thus the Vision Plan, as proposed by the City, cannot be found consistent with the Coastal Act. area, the lack of provision of lower- these oversights could result in impacts to public access and recreation and other coastal resources and, therefore, the Vision Plan, as submitted, is therefore inconsistent with the Coastal 4 5 The existing LUP includes policies that require certain visitor-serving developments and/or studies relevant to the Ponto/Southern Waterfront area. For example, Planning Area F requires the city and developer to "consider and document the need for the provision of lower cost visitor accommodations or recreational facilities (i.e. public park) on the west side of the railroad. If this analysis determines that there is a deficit of low cost visitor accommodations or recreation facilities in this area, then Planning Area F should be considered as a site where these types of uses could be developed . The City has received direction from both the Commission (May 2016 CCC hearing) and Commission staff, that as a part of this update the City shall undertake an inventory serve to 5 5 1 2 City Council and/or CA Coastal Commission (CCC) honestly look at the facts and provide a much needed Ponto Park. Facts documented by over 65 official Carlsbad Public Records Requests: 2 2 Over 5,500 petitions from Carlsbad citizens and other People for Ponto are still asking the Carlsbad City Council and/or State of California to: STATE OF CALIFORNIA -- THE NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION SAN DIEGO AREA 7575 METROPOLITAN DRIVE, SUITE 103 SAN DIEGO, CA 92108-4421 (619) 767-2370 F21a July 22, 2010 TO: COMMISSIONERS AND INTERESTED PERSONS FROM: SHERILYN SARB, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, SAN DIEGO COAST DISTRICT DEBORAH LEE, DISTRICT MANAGER, SAN DIEGO COAST DISTRICT TONI ROSS, COASTAL PROGRAM ANALYST, SAN DIEGO COAST DISTRICT SUBJECT: REVISED FINDINGS FOR CITY OF CARLSBAD LCP AMENDMENT NO. 3- 07B (Ponto Beachfront Vision Plan) for Commission Meeting of August 11-13, 2010 SYNOPSIS On July 9, 2009, the Coastal Commission voted to deny Local Coastal Program (LCP) Amendment No. 3-07B (Ponto Beachfront Vision Plan) as submitted by the City of Carlsbad. The City proposed to update its certified Land Use Plan (LUP) to include a guidance document outlining development standards and infrastructure plans for the Ponto Beach region of the City. In its action, the Commission denied the land use plan amendment as submitted by the City of Carlsbad. However, staff was recommending approval of the LCP amendment with several suggested modifications. The Coastal Commission determined, through the public hearing process, that the amendment as proposed, or as revised by staff, could not be found consistent with the Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act. DATE OF COMMISSION ACTION: July 9, 2009. COMMISSIONERS ON PREVAILING SIDE: Commissioners Achadjian, Blank, Clark, Secord, Mirkarimi, Shallenberger, Wan, and Chairman Neely SUMMARY OF THE AMENDMENT REQUEST City of Carlsbad LCP Amendment No. 3-07 included two components. Component A (Village Master Plan and Design Manual Amendments) included revisions to the Village Master Plan and Design Manual to correct or clarify implementation policies and to amend development standards. Component A (Village Master Plan and Design Manual Amendments) was certified, with suggested modifications, at the June, 2009 meeting. Component B (subject amendment) proposed to amend two segments within the City’s Land Use Plan to include a reference to a document titled "Ponto Beachfront Village Carlsbad LCPA 3-07B/RF Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan Page 2 Vision Plan" in the certified Local Coastal Program. The City intends for the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan (Vision Plan) to provide guidance for development of the Ponto area (ref. Exhibits #1, 4). The plan presents goals and objectives for development, and provides an implementation strategy and design guidelines for the projects which will implement the vision. The Vision Plan is intended for use by prospective developers and their consultants, City of Carlsbad staff, and those performing design review on individual projects. The conceptual plan contains a level of detail necessary to visually depict the desired land uses, circulation, and major design components; however, it is recognized that actual development site plans will change. The City has expressed numerous goals in the Vision Plan, the most important of which include: Accommodate a balanced and cohesive mix of local and tourist serving commercial, medium- and high-density residential, mixed use, live/work, and open space land use opportunities that are economically viable. Establish a pattern of pedestrian and bicycle accessibility that links the planning areas internally as well as with adjacent existing and planned pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Provide expanded beach access Establish a mixed use district that encourages local and tourist-oriented retail, commercial, recreational, and residential uses The Ponto area is located in the most southwesterly portion of the city near the city's southern entrance along Carlsbad Boulevard. It presently contains older homes and businesses, most of which were developed in the county before the city incorporated. The Ponto Beach area is an approximately 130-acre narrow strip of land, approximately 1/8 mile wide and 1-1/2 miles long, located between Carlsbad Boulevard and the San Diego Northern railroad tracks. Portions of the plan area extend north to Poinsettia Lane and south to La Costa Avenue. The southern boundary includes coastal bluffs that transition to the waters of Batiquitos Lagoon. Approximately 50 of the 130 acres are considered viable for future development. In order to implement the plan, it is necessary for the City to amend its LCP, in the Mello II and West Batiquitos Lagoon/Sammis Properties segments, to incorporate references to the Vision Plan. However, it is important to note that the plan does not include amendments to the Zoning Ordinance, or modifying any existing land use or zoning within the Ponto Beach region. Individual development projects may still require a combination of changes to the certified land use plan and zoning, require the additional review and approval by the Coastal Commission of possible project specific LCP amendments, as well as individual environmental review and permitting. Carlsbad LCPA 3-07B/RF Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan Page 3 The appropriate resolution and motion to adopt the revised findings are found below. The findings for denial of the LCP amendment begins on Page 5. PART II. RESOLUTION FOR REVISED FINDINGS The staff recommends the Commission adopt the following resolution and findings. The appropriate motion to introduce the resolution and a staff recommendation are provided just prior to the resolution. I. MOTION: Staff recommends a YES vote on the motion. Passage of this motion will result in the adoption of revised findings as set forth in this staff report. The motion requires a majority vote of the members from the prevailing side present at the July 9, 2009 hearing, with at least three of the prevailing members voting. Only those Commissioners on the prevailing side of the Commission’s action are eligible to vote on the revised findings. Commissioners Eligible to Vote: Commissioners Achadjian, Blank, Clark, Secord, Mirkarimi, Shallenberger, Wan, and Chairman Neely RESOLUTION TO ADOPT REVISED FINDINGS : The Commission hereby adopts the findings set forth below for City of Carlsbad LCP Land Use Plan Amendment No. 3-07B (Ponto Beachfront Vision Plan) on the grounds that the findings support the Commission’s decision made on July 9, 2009 and accurately reflect the reasons for it. PART III. SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS STAFF NOTE: The Commission’s action on July 9, 2009, through denial of the LCP Amendment, effectively removed all of the suggested modifications as recommended by staff, and; as such, they have been removed from the staff report and attached to this revised findings document as Exhibit #3. PART IV. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL OF CERTIFICATION OF THE LCP LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT A. AMENDMENT DESCRIPTION Recognizing its potential for redevelopment and its prime coastal location across from the state campgrounds and near new single-family neighborhoods, the City of Carlsbad Carlsbad LCPA 3-07B/RF Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan Page 4 decided to create a "vision plan" for the area to direct future development in the Ponto area the full vision plan is available online at: http://www.carlsbadca.gov/services/departments/redevelopment/aouth- coastal/Pages/PontoBeachfrontVillage.aspx. With input from property owners, nearby residents, and other interested persons, the Vision Plan was prepared. The City is therefore proposing to amend its certified Land Use Plan, to include a reference to a document titled "Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan" in two segments of the certified Local Coastal Program. The City intends for the Vision Plan to provide guidance for development of the Ponto Area (ref. Exhibit #'s 1 & 4). The plan presents goals and objectives for development, and provides an implementation strategy and design guidelines for the projects which will implement the vision. The Ponto Beach area is an approximately 130-acre narrow strip of land, approximately 1/8 mile wide and 1-1/2 miles long, located between Carlsbad Boulevard and the San Diego Northern railroad tracks. Portions of the plan area extend north to Poinsettia Lane and south to La Costa Avenue. The southern boundary includes coastal bluffs that transition to the waters of Batiquitos Lagoon at the southern end. Approximately 50 of the 130 acres are considered viable for future development. The 50 acres (ref. Exhibit #1) consist of the older Ponto area which is also included in the South Carlsbad Coastal Redevelopment area, one small, vacant parcel located within the boundaries of the Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan, and several vacant properties located in the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan. Both the Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan and the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan have been previously reviewed and certified by the Coastal Commission via an amendment to the City's LCP. The intent of the Vision Plan is to create a mixed use, active pedestrian and bicycle oriented area with a strong sense of place, village atmosphere, and unique character of design. Because of its prime location at the southern gateway to the city and across from the beach and campgrounds, it could become a vibrant part of the city, providing amenities for city residents as well as visitors. The Vision Plan breaks up the Ponto area into three sections (ref. Exhibit #4). The northern-most section is comprised of two hotels and a live-work neighborhood. The central portion of the development is comprised of a townhouse neighborhood and a mixed use center with a public recreation component. This is the only portion of the Vision Plan that would have required additional review by the Commission. Currently, this area has an Unplanned Area land use designation. In order to facilitate any type of development in this portion of the Ponto area, an LCP amendment modifying the land use will have to be brought forward to the Commission for review and approval. The southernmost portion of the area is envisioned as a beachfront resort, including both hotel and timeshare units. Both of these would be considered permitted uses based on the Carlsbad LCPA 3-07B/RF Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan Page 5 existing land use and zoning, however, this portion of the Vision Plan is adjacent to wetlands, and located between the first coastal road and the sea, and therefore any Coastal Development Permit issued by the City for this location would be appealable to the Coastal Commission. C. NONCONFORMITY OF THE LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT WITH CHAPTER 3 1. General Findings for Denial The City of Carlsbad is proposing to include by reference a document that includes goals, permitted uses, design guidelines, and collaborative public improvements (utilities, realignment of Coast Highway) for the Ponto Beachfront area. The document, as included in the LCP only by reference, does not supersede or replace any previously approved components of the City's certified LCP, including both land use policies, master plan standards, specific plan standards, or zoning ordinances. The document does, however, include additional development standards and goals for the Ponto Beach area. This area is west of Interstate-5, and east of Coast Highway, located directly inland of South Carlsbad State Beach. The Vision Plan separates the Ponto Beachfront area into three regions. The northernmost region includes three major land uses: Live-work mixed use development, Hotel/Commercial, and Hotel or Residential uses, these recommended land uses are all consistent with the underlying land use designations: Medium-High Residential/Travel/Recreational Commercial, Travel/Recreational Commercial, and Medium High Residential respectively (ref. Exhibit #5). The central portion of the Vision Plan includes mixed uses and townhome developments as the recommended uses. The existing land use designation carries a Non-Residential Reserve (NRR) General Plan designation, and is considered an "Unplanned Area" (ref. Exhibit #5). The southern portion of the area includes a large scale Resort Hotel. This use has been identified at this location in the two previous Master Plans approved for this area (Batiquitos Lagoon Educational Park and Poinsettia Shores Master Plans). The general Vision Plan promotes a diverse mix of land uses, some of which are visitor serving and thus can be considered high priority. If future development follows the Vision Plan, there will be an addition of three hotels, a comprehensive trail system, and potential commercial tourist uses on this 50-acre coastal area. Again, the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan does not change any land use designations or underlying zoning, and does not supersede the previously approved Master Plans/Specific Plans; all previously approved policies remaining relevant. The new Vision Plan will be used solely as a guidance document for the City and developers to consider appropriate types of development in this area. That being said, a number of concerns remain regarding some of the recommendations included in the Vision Plan. Carlsbad LCPA 3-07B/RF Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan Page 6 There are seven six primary concerns raised for the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan: The primary concern relates to the City’s identification of preferred development types on land that currently contains no certified land use or zoning designations. Additional concerns include lLack of low cost visitor-serving uses, potential impacts to wetlands, mass transit amenities, landscaping, geological setbacks, and associated City projects. 2. Specific Findings for Denial A.Identified Development on Unplanned Lands Again, the primary concern associated with the proposed vision plan is that it identifies, and lists a specific type of development (townhomes and mixed use) for an area that is currently unplanned. The area once carried a specific land use and zoning designation; however, through a previous Commission action, those designations were removed. Thus, identifying development types should only be determined after land use and zoning designations have been re-designated and then approved by the City and the Coastal Commission. While a possible interpretation of the City's adoption of this Vision Plan might be to conclude that the City wants to designate uses in this area now, City representatives have specifically indicated this is not the case and the Vision Plan does call for a future LCP amendment to define permitted uses. To the general reader, this can be confusing. In addition, if the City had indicated that it was seeking to identify permitted uses at this time, the Commission would reject such proposed uses because there has been no evidence presented that would support the elimination of these areas for some lower cost overnight accommodations or public recreational amenities in the future. The Commission's past action of the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan specifically called for such an assessment, and none has been submitted to date. The concerns related to the lack of lower cost overnight accommodations in Area F (ref. Exhibit #7) are further discussed in the findings later. Historically, the previously certified Master Plan for this location that was included in the City’s original LCP in 1985 designated this site for Travel Service Commercial. In 1996, the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan was certified as part of the City's LCP, and replaced the land use designation as an "Unplanned Area." The language in the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan, for this location, "Area F," is listed below: Planning Area F - Planning Area F is located at the far northwest corner of the Master Plan area west of the AT&SF Railroad Right-of-way. This Planning Area has a gross area of 11 acres and a net developable area of 10.7 acres. Planning Area F carries a Non-Residential Reserve (NRR) General Plan designation. Planning Area F is an "unplanned" area, for which land uses will be determined at a later date, when more specific planning is carried out for areas west of the railroad right-of-way. A future Major Master Plan Amendment will be required prior to Carlsbad LCPA 3-07B/RF Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan Page 7 further development approvals for Planning Area F, and shall include an LCP Amendment with associated environmental review, if determined necessary. The intent of the NRR designation is not to limit the range of potential future uses entirely to non-residential, however, since the City's current general plan does not contain an "unplanned" designation, NRR was determined to be appropriate at this time. In the future, if the Local Coastal Program Amendment has not been processed, and the City develops an "unplanned" General Plan designation, then the site would likely be redesignated as "unplanned." Future uses include, but are not limited to: commercial, residential, office, and other uses, subject to future review and approval. The concern with identifying a specific type of land use for this area is by doing so the City is inadvertently sending a message to potential developers that 1) the identified development (townhouses) is the primary type of use the City will support, or 2) that development type is consistent with the current land use and zoning designations. Neither of those assumptions is correct. As the previously certified Poinsettia Shores Master Plan states, type of development at this location would first require an LCP amendment to establish the land use and zoning, which would have to be certified by both the City and the Coastal Commission. Additionally, the Master Plan further states that some component of the development at this location must consider the need for the provision of lower cost accommodations or recreational facilities. Potential developers could interpret the Vision Plan as establishing that a townhouse development at this location would be considered a “high-priority” use. As discussed, this area was first designated for Travel Service Commercial and then later as an “unplanned area”. While residential use is one of the land uses listed for this area in the Poinsettia Shores Specific Plan, it may not be the most appropriate designation. As previously stated, the project will at least need to consider the incorporation of some kind of lower cost accommodations, and any proposed zoning designation for the site will have to be found consistent with the policies contained in the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan. Furthermore, the standard of review for any change to the current land use designation is the Coastal Act, and thus will also have to be found consistent with all its applicable policies. Recently, the Commission has become concerned with the lack of lower-cost accommodations statewide. Thus, the establishment of a residential land use at this location may not be what is ultimately determined to be certified as consistent with the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan, or the Coastal Act. An additional concern of the Commission is that if the proposed Vision Plan is approved by the Commission, and thus becomes a certified component of the City’s LCP, then when the City comes forward with an LCP amendment to identify and certify land use and zoning designations at this location, the Commission might feel obligated to approve a residential land use designation, even though such a land use might not be consistent with Chapter 3. A more suitable approach would be for the City to first process an LCP amendment certifying the land use and zoning for this site, and then certify the Ponto Beachfront Carlsbad LCPA 3-07B/RF Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan Page 8 Vision Plan as part of its LCP. Therefore, as this time, the project is premature and shall be rejected. BA. High-Priority Uses - Lower Cost Visitor Accommodations in "Area F" The Coastal Act has numerous policies promoting public access to the beach and state: Section 30210 In carrying out the requirement of Section 4 of Article X of the California Constitution, maximum access, which shall be conspicuously posted, and recreational opportunities shall be provided for all the people consistent with public safety needs and the need to protect public rights, rights of private property owners, and natural resource areas from overuse. Section 30213 Lower cost visitor and recreational facilities shall be protected, encouraged, and, where feasible, provided. Developments providing public recreational opportunities are preferred. The commission shall not: (1) require that overnight room rentals be fixed at an amount certain for any privately owned and operated hotel, motel, or other similar visitor-serving facility located on either public or private lands; or (2) establish or approve any method for the identification of low or moderate income persons for the purpose of determining eligibility for overnight room rentals in any such facilities. Section 30221 Oceanfront land suitable for recreational use shall be protected for recreational use and development unless present and foreseeable future demand for public or commercial recreational activities that could be accommodated on the property is already adequately provided for in the area. Section 30222 The use of private lands suitable for visitor-serving commercial recreational facilities designed to enhance public opportunities for coastal recreation shall have priority over private residential, general industrial, or general commercial development, but not over agriculture or coastal-dependent industry. The City of Carlsbad has included a policy directly addressing the Ponto Beach area, and its future uses, and states: Mello II Policy 6-9 Carlsbad LCPA 3-07B/RF Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan Page 9 The South Carlsbad State Beach Campground should be considered for conversion to a day use beach and upland park if other adequate campground facilities can be developed nearby. Mixed use development (i.e. residential and recreational-commercial) shall be permitted by right on properties fronting Carlsbad Boulevard across from South Carlsbad State Beach (See exhibit 4.9, Page 76). This policy applies only where not in conflict with the agricultural policies of the LCP. As stated above, “Area F” of the Master Plan is currently designated as an “unplanned, area” and there is no certified land use established. In addition, the previously certified Master Plan included language to protect and provide some kind of lower-cost accommodations at this site. Thus tThe second primary concern raised is also associated with the central segment of the Vision Plan (ref. Exhibit #'s 4, 5, 7). At this location, recommended uses include townhomes and mixed-use developments. In the mixed use area, ground floor uses are required to be retail or service type uses that generate pedestrian traffic, while office or multi-family residential uses may be located on the upper floors. Some non-retail may occupy the ground floors but is limited to a community amenity such as arts/nature/activities center. In the townhouse portion of the segment, the permitted uses are limited to multiple dwelling structures, and accessory buildings. The concern raised is that this area is designated "Unplanned" in the LUP and the Vision Plan does not replace this existing designation, thus; no specific uses should be , as that would be inconsistent with the applicable LUP designation While a possible interpretation of the City's adoption of this Vision Plan might be to conclude that the City wants to designate uses in this area now, City representatives have specifically indicated this is not the case and the Vision Plan does call for a future LCP amendment to define permitted uses. To the general reader, this can be confusing. In addition, if the City had indicated that it was seeking to identify permitted uses at this time, the Commission would reject it because there has been no evidence presented that would support the elimination of these areas for some lower cost overnight accommodations or public recreational amenities in the future. The Commission's past action of the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan specifically called for such an assessment and none has been submitted to date. As further background, the Master Plan for this location that was certified during initial review of the City's LCP in 1985 designated this site for Travel Service Commercial. In 1996, the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan was certified as part of the City's LCP, and replaced the land use designation as an "Unplanned Area." In an attempt to maintain a lower-cost visitor-serving component at this location the Commission, through a suggested modification, required language within the Master Plan that would serve to protect this type of use. The language in the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan, for this location, "Area F," is listed below: Carlsbad LCPA 3-07B/RF Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan Page 10 Planning Area F - Planning Area F is located at the far northwest corner of the Master Plan area west of the AT&SF Railroad Right-of-way. This Planning Area has a gross area of 11 acres and a net developable area of 10.7 acres. Planning Area F carries a Non-Residential Reserve (NRR) General Plan designation. Planning Area F is an "unplanned" area, for which land uses will be determined at a later date, when more specific planning is carried out for areas west of the railroad right-of-way. A future Major Master Plan Amendment will be required prior to further development approvals for Planning Area F, and shall include an LCP Amendment with associated environmental review, if determined necessary. The intent of the NRR designation is not to limit the range of potential future uses entirely to non-residential, however, since the City's current general plan does not contain an "unplanned" designation, NRR was determined to be appropriate at this time. In the future, if the Local Coastal Program Amendment has not been processed, and the City develops an "unplanned" General Plan designation, then the site would likely be redesignated as "unplanned." Future uses include, but are not limited to: commercial, residential, office, and other uses, subject to future review and approval. As previously discussed, in 1996, the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan was certified as part of the City's LCP, and replaced the land use designation as an "Unplanned Area." In an attempt to maintain a lower-cost visitor-serving component at this location, the Commission, through a suggested modification, required language within the Master Plan that would serve to protect this type of use. The language in the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan, for this location, "Area F," included: As part of any future planning effort, the City and Developer must consider and document the need for the provision of lower cost accommodations or recreational facilities (i.e. public park) on the west side of the railroad. [Emphasis added] Furthermore, tThe Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan, as proposed by the City, includes some similar language in its introduction, stating: In the "Unplanned Area" of Ponto, which roughly corresponds to the vacant land area north of Avenida Encinas, specific planning efforts are required. The intent is not to limit uses to entirely non-residential. Future uses could include commercial, residential, office and others.Consider the need for lower cost visitor or recreational facilities on west side of the rail road tracks.[Emphasis Added] The two sets of language are similar; however, there is a distinct difference. The Poinsettia Shores Master Plan area includes "lower cost accommodations" in the language and the Vision Plan does not. Furthermore, the Vision Plan does not list any type, including lower cost visitor accommodations, as a permitted use in this area. The need for lower cost accommodations has been well documented by the Commission, and is promoted in Sections 30210, 30213, 30221, and 30222 of the Coastal Act. The Carlsbad LCPA 3-07B/RF Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan Page 11 removal of the above stated language, including removal of lower cost accommodations as a "permitted use," is inconsistent with the Coastal Act. Moreover, of the three areas within the Vision Plan recommended for visitor accommodations, none contain a lower cost component, or a lower cost accommodations recommendation. The Ponto Beachfront area is an area that could be considered as a high-priority location for lower cost overnight accommodations. While located across the street from a State Park (South Carlsbad State Park) containing camping facilities, during peak summer months, the campground is consistently at capacity. Developing additional lower cost accommodations such as a youth hostel would further promote budget-minded travelers to this location. Moreover, Policy 6-9 in the Mello II Segment of the City's certified land use plan, states that the South Carlsbad State Beach should be converted to day use. If at any time in the future, this State Beach campground is converted to day use sites, the market and the need for low cost overnight accommodations will be significantly amplified. Thus the Vision Plan, as proposed by the City, cannot be found consistent with the Coastal Act. CB. Potential Impacts to Wetlands The Coastal Act has numerous policies that serve to protect marine based biological resources and state: Section 30230 Marine resources shall be maintained, enhanced, and where feasible, restored. Special protection shall be given to areas and species of special biological or economic significance. Uses of the marine environment shall be carried out in a manner that will sustain the biological productivity of coastal waters and that will maintain healthy populations of all species of marine organisms adequate for long- term commercial recreational, scientific, and educational purposes. Section 30231 The biological productivity and the quality of coastal waters, streams, wetlands, estuaries, and lakes appropriate to maintain optimum populations of marine organisms and for the protection of human health shall be maintained and, where feasible, restored through, among other means, minimizing adverse effects of waste water discharges and entrainment, controlling runoff, preventing depletion of ground water supplies and substantial interference with surface water flow, encouraging waste water reclamation, maintaining natural vegetation buffer areas that protect riparian habitats, and minimizing alteration of natural streams. Section 30240 Carlsbad LCPA 3-07B/RF Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan Page 12 (a) Environmentally sensitive habitat areas shall be protected against any significant disruption of habitat values, and only uses dependent on those resources shall be allowed within those areas. (b) Development in areas adjacent to environmentally sensitive habitat areas and parks and recreation areas shall be sited and designed to prevent impacts which would significantly degrade those areas and shall be compatible with the continuance of those habitat and recreation areas. The City of Carlsbad Mello Segment Land Use Plan also contains policies pertaining to sensitive habitat that state: Mello II Policy 3-1.2 - Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHA) Pursuant to Section 30240 of the California Coastal Act, environmentally sensitive habitat areas, as defined in Section 30107.5 of the Coastal Act, shall be protected against any significant disruption of habitat values, and only uses dependent on those resources shall be allowed within those areas. Mello II Policy 3-1.7 - Wetlands Pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 30121 and Title 14, California Code of Regulations Section 13577 (b), 'wetland' means lands within the coastal zone, which may be covered periodically or permanently with shallow water and include saltwater marshes, freshwater marshes, open or closed brackish water marshes, swamps, mudflats, and fens. Wetland shall include land where the water table is at, near, or above the land surface long enough to promote the formation of hydric soils or to support the growth of hydrophytes, and shall also include those types of wetlands where vegetation is lacking and soil is poorly developed or absent as a result of frequent and drastic fluctuations of surface water levels, wave action, water flow, turbidity or high concentrations of salts or other substances in the substrate. A preponderance of hydric soils or a preponderance of wetland indicator species shall be considered presumptive evidence of wetland conditions. Wetlands shall be delineated following the definitions and boundary descriptions in Section 13577 of the California Code of Regulations. […] Mello II Policy 3-1.12 Buffers and Fuel Modification Zones Buffers shall be required between all preserved habitat area and development. Minimum buffer widths shall be provided as follows: a. 100 ft. for wetlands b. 50 ft. for riparian areas Carlsbad LCPA 3-07B/RF Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan Page 13 c. 20 ft. for all other native habitats […] West Batiquitos Lagoon/Sammis Properties Policy 3 - Environmentally Sensitive Habitats (1) Batiquitos Lagoon Special Treatment Overlay - The wetlands as defined and determined by CDFG and FWS shall be constrained from development. Pursuant to Section 30233 (c) (Public Resources Code) any alteration of the wetlands shall be limited to minor incidental public facilities, restorative measures, and nature studies. Furthermore, any alteration of the wetlands must be approved by the City of Carlsbad and the Coastal Commission. The latter because it will retain Coastal Development Permit jurisdiction. In addition, any wetland alteration will require federal approval through an Army Corps of Engineers (COE) permit. (2) Wetlands Buffer - The Lagoon Special Treatment Overlay shall include a buffer area outside the wetlands boundary as mapped by CDFG and FWS. The buffer shall be of sufficient width (minimum 100 feet unless approved by the Coastal Commission or its successor as part of the Coastal Development Permit) so as to provide a transition habitat as well as provide a protective area to reduce possible disruptive impacts to the lagoon's wildlife and habitats. No development shall occur within the wetlands buffer except for the lateral public access trail described in Policy A1C above. The third second significant concern associated with the proposed Vision Plan relates to potential impacts to wetlands. The Coastal Act as well as the City's certified Land Use Plan, contains several policies protecting wetlands. These policies prohibit impacts to wetlands associated with private development. The proposed Vision Plan does include language protecting "jurisdictional" wetland habitats and makes reference to a biological survey/report completed for the area. The biological report identified areas of jurisdictional wetlands, as defined by the US Army Corps of Engineers, and California Department of Fish and Game's "three parameter method." The three parameter method requires that all three of the common indicators of wetland habitat (hydric soils, hydrophytes, and the presence of surface water or saturated substrate at some time during each year) be present. However, the Coastal Act employs the "one parameter method," and therefore, only requires that one of these common wetland indicators be present at any given time. The discrepancy between the two methods usually results in drastically dissimilar wetland delineations. This would be further exacerbated when attempting to determine an adequate buffer area. Without surveying the potential wetland habitats using the methodology endorsed by the Commission, impacts to wetlands, both direct and indirect, may be caused in this area, inconsistent with the Coastal Act. DC. Use of Mass Transit Facilities The Coastal Act Section 30253 pertains to transit and states: Carlsbad LCPA 3-07B/RF Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan Page 14 Section 30253 New Development shall: (1) Minimize risk to life and property in areas of high geologic, flood, and fire hazard (2) Assure stability and structural integrity, and neither create nor contribute significantly to erosion, geological instability, or destruction of the site or surrounding area or in any way require the construction of protective devices that would substantially alter natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs… (4)Minimize energy consumption and vehicle miles traveled [Emphasis added] The City of Carlsbad's Mello II land segment, Policy 7-9 directly relates to mass transit facilities on Carlsbad Boulevard and states: Mello II Policy 7-9 South Carlsbad State Beach: Parking Parking facilities are entirely inadequate in the vicinity of the South Carlsbad State Beach. To remedy this problem, the 20-acre site (APN 210-09-7) located between Carlsbad Boulevard and the railroad at the junction of Palomar Airport Road shall be developed for parking facilities of approximately 1,500 spaces. When this facility becomes heavily utilized, jitney service should be initiated between the parking area and designated points along Carlsbad Boulevard. The Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan includes numerous improvements associated with maximizing pedestrian- and bicycle-oriented travel. Bikes lanes and walking paths are an integral component of the Vision Plan. Both of these potential improvements would promote people getting out of their cars, thus reducing vehicle miles driven, consistent with Section 30250 of the Coastal Act. However, the Vision Plan fails to address the potential linkage to mass transit, or the incorporation of ancillary mass transit uses. The Ponto Area is located in close proximity to Interstate-5, the Pacific Coast Highway/Carlsbad Boulevard, and the Poinsettia Rail Station, thus opportunities to link residential, commercial and recreational developments to mass transit should be promoted. Furthermore, Mello II Policy 7-9, requires the construction of a 1,500 space parking lot to be developed just a few miles north of the Ponto region. The policy further requires that when this facility becomes heavily utilized, "jitney service", a multi- passenger public transportation vehicle, should be initiated between the parking area and designated points along Carlsbad Boulevard. The Vision Plan does not incorporate shuttle drop-off points or bus stops. The Vision Plan does not recommend that visitor accommodations, or retail/commercial developments provide transit information to visitors. No signage for bus stops or travel Carlsbad LCPA 3-07B/RF Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan Page 15 linkages are proposed. The Ponto Beachfront Area is located in close proximity to visitor destinations such as Legoland, the Flower Fields, and the biannual Village Street Fair in downtown Carlsbad, resulting in a large potential for mass transit use by visitors. Thus, while the plan does promote pedestrian and bicycle travel, it fails to adequately promote the use of mass transit, inconsistent with section 30250 of the Coastal Act and Mello II Policy 7-9. ED. Landscaping Section 30230 Marine resources shall be maintained, enhanced, and where feasible, restored. Special protection shall be given to areas and species of special biological or economic significance. Uses of the marine environment shall be carried out in a manner that will sustain the biological productivity of coastal waters and that will maintain healthy populations of all species of marine organisms adequate for long- term commercial recreational, scientific, and educational purposes. Section 30231 The biological productivity and the quality of coastal waters, streams, wetlands, estuaries, and lakes appropriate to maintain optimum populations of marine organisms and for the protection of human health shall be maintained and, where feasible, restored through, among other means, minimizing adverse effects of waste water discharges and entrainment, controlling runoff, preventing depletion of ground water supplies and substantial interference with surface water flow, encouraging waste water reclamation, maintaining natural vegetation buffer areas that protect riparian habitats, and minimizing alteration of natural streams. Section 30240 (a) Environmentally sensitive habitat areas shall be protected against any significant disruption of habitat values, and only uses dependent on those resources shall be allowed within those areas. (b) Development in areas adjacent to environmentally sensitive habitat areas and parks and recreation areas shall be sited and designed to prevent impacts which would significantly degrade those areas and shall be compatible with the continuance of those habitat and recreation areas. The City of Carlsbad also has included policies for the protection of sensitive habitat that state: Mello II Policy 3-1.2 - Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHA) Carlsbad LCPA 3-07B/RF Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan Page 16 Pursuant to Section 30240 of the California Coastal Act, environmentally sensitive habitat areas, as defined in Section 30107.5 of the Coastal Act, shall be protected against any significant disruption of habitat values, and only uses dependent on those resources shall be allowed within those areas. Mello II Policy 3-1.13 Invasive Plants The use of invasive plant species in the landscaping for developments such as those identified in Table 12 of the HMP shall be prohibited. West Batiquitos Lagoon/Sammis Properties Policy 5 - Landscaping In order to guard against introduction of any species which are inherently noxious to or incompatible with adjacent lagoon habitat, drought tolerant plants and native vegetation shall be used in areas of proximity to the wetland, to the maximum extent feasible. The Vision Plan includes a list of the types of landscaping recommended for developments within the Ponto Region. Mexican Fan Palm is one of the listed types of promoted vegetation. However, the California Native Plant Society lists Mexican Fan Palms as an invasive species. Coastal Act section 30240 protects environmentally sensitive habitat areas and requires that they be protected against significant disruption. In addition, Policy 5 of the West Batiquitos Lagoon/Sammis Properties (a previously approved segment of the Land Use Plan) states: In order to guard against introduction of any species which are inherently noxious to or incompatible with adjacent lagoon habitat, drought tolerant plants and native vegetation shall be used in areas of proximity to the wetland, to the maximum extent feasible. By allowing invasive species to be included in the recommended plant palette, the City risks that these species will become established near the lagoon and other areas with sensitive habitat, causing significant disruption in the health of these native habitat areas. The Vision Plan does include language that promotes the planting of native habitat, but without prohibiting the invasive species, the potential for impacts to sensitive habitats is significant, inconsistent with Section 30240 of the Coastal Act. FE. Geological Setbacks The Coastal Act Section 30253 pertains to geological setbacks and bluff stability and states: Section 30253 New Development shall: Carlsbad LCPA 3-07B/RF Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan Page 17 (1) Minimize risk to life and property in areas of high geologic, flood, and fire hazard (2) Assure stability and structural integrity, and neither create nor contribute significantly to erosion, geological instability, or destruction of the site or surrounding area or in any way require the construction of protective devices that would substantially alter natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs… (4) Minimize energy consumption and vehicle miles traveled The southern portion of the Ponto Area is bounded by a coastal bluff transitioning to Batiquitos Lagoon. Both previously certified Master Plans for this area (Batiquitos Lagoon Educational Park, and Poinsettia Shores) included that there would be a geological setback required to separate and protect the coastal bluffs from development. A 45 foot minimum setback was certified as a part of the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan. The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) includes a number of options for setbacks and open space areas associated with these coastal bluffs. The City of Carlsbad certified the EIR with the incorporation of an increased blufftop setback. This option requires a structural setback of generally 75 feet from the bluff edge, with only trails and other low- impact developments such as signage and benches to be allowed in this setback. However, the Vision Plan fails to identify a minimum geological setback or permitted development within the setbacks for the area closest to the lagoon bluffs. In addition, the City's Master Plan only requires a 45 foot setback. Thus, the EIR considered a 75 foot setback, the Master Plan requires a 45 foot setback, and the Vision Plan is silent with respect to a numerical setback. Further, it is not possible at this time to guarantee that even the 75 foot setback will still be considered adequate when an actual project comes forward for review. The inconsistencies in the different setback requirements and the lack of language requiring a site-specific analysis of geological issues result in potential impacts to geological stability, inconsistent with Section 30253 of the Coastal Act. GF. City Projects The Coastal Act, Section 30250, addresses impacts associated with public services and states: Section 30250 New residential, commercial, or industrial development, except as otherwise provided in this division, shall be located within, contiguous with, or in close proximity to, existing developed areas able to accommodate it or, where such areas are not able to accommodate it, in other areas with adequate public services and where it will not have significant adverse effects, either individually or cumulatively, on coastal resources…. The City of Carlsbad Mello II Segment Policy 3-1.2 addressing impacts to sensitive habitat and states: Carlsbad LCPA 3-07B/RF Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan Page 18 Mello II Policy 3-1.2 - Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHA) Pursuant to Section 30240 of the California Coastal Act, environmentally sensitive habitat areas, as defined in Section 30107.5 of the Coastal Act, shall be protected against any significant disruption of habitat values, and only uses dependent on those resources shall be allowed within those areas As previously stated, because the implementation of the Vision Plan will result in a much higher density of development than currently exists, upgrades to infrastructure, utilities, and flow of traffic were also considered by the Vision Plan. As part of this process, the City reviewed the realignment of Coast Highway/Carlsbad Boulevard and the relocation of utilities. The City should, however, look at the upgraded infrastructure requirement cohesively instead of improving them on a piece-meal basis. However, the goals for upgraded infrastructure within the Vision Plan fail to protect impacts to coastal resources associated with such projects. The Vision Plan does indicate that the highway realignment will result in impacts to coastal sage scrub and the need for mitigation. It does not, however, include that the impacts should be minimized to the extent practicable, the required mitigation ratio, nor does the plan require mitigation to be located in the coastal zone. Further, while the plan includes three alternatives for alignment, and recommends one specific alternative, it does not provide the opportunity to select a different alternative, or modify the realignment to a location not included in the listed alternatives. Again, it is unclear what the time scale will be for these projects to be completed, and, as such, circumstances may change between the certification of the Vision Plan, and the projects' completion. Further, the proposed utility upgrades, including sewer, gas fuel lines, storm drains, and dry utilities do not include language that would protect any coastal resources that presently exist or that may exist in the future, from potential impacts. While the City may legitimately feel that the other policies in the City's certified land use plans would be applicable and would address possible impacts, the adoption of the Vision Plan without clarifying language would be misleading. HG. Conclusions In conclusion, the Commission finds that the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan will result in significant and widely varying improvements to coastal access. Such improvements include public pedestrian and bicycle trails, three proposed hotel developments, shops, restaurants, a potential nature center, artist studios, and mixed uses resulting in high-density developments promoting alternative transit. However, some concerns regarding the determination of preferred land uses in an “unplanned” area, the lack of provision of lower-cost accommodations and recreational uses, impacts to wetlands, lack of linkage to mass transit opportunities, landscaping, geological setbacks, and City projects remain. All of these oversights could result in impacts to public access and recreation and other coastal resources and, therefore, the Vision Plan, as submitted, is therefore inconsistent with the Coastal Act, and therefore, shall be denied as submitted. Carlsbad LCPA 3-07B/RF Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan Page 19 PART V.FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT, IF MODIFIED As previously stated, the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan, as proposed by the City raises six primary concerns. These concerns include: lack of lower cost visitor serving uses, impacts to wetlands, mass transit amenities, landscaping, geological setbacks, and proposed City projects. The Commission has included several suggested modifications. Only with these modifications, the Vision Plan can be found consistent with the Coastal Act. A.High-Priority Uses - Lower Cost Accommodations in "Area F" The primary concern raised by the City's Vision Plan is associated with the central portion of the Ponto Beachfront area proposed for townhome and mixed-use developments. The area is currently designated and zoned as an "Unplanned Area". However, the Vision Plan recommends two distinct uses on the site, and lists the associated permitted developments. The history at this location is that it was previously designated for visitor serving uses (Batiquitos Lagoon Educational Park Master Plan). Subsequently, the Poinsettia Shore Master Plan then redesignated the area as an "unplanned area" with the stipulation that the City and Developer must consider and document the need for the provision of lower cost accommodations or recreational facilities (i.e. public park) on the west side of the railroad. The Vision Plan includes that development must be consistent with the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan; however, it includes no discussion of lower cost accommodations. The Commission has therefore included nine modifications to address this concern. Suggested Modification #5 adds lower cost accommodations, such as a youth hostel, to the list of visitor-serving uses that are included as a general use recommended in the Ponto Beachfront area. Currently, the language simply states that hotel/motel and restaurant uses should be established. As modified, a mix of low-, moderate-, and higher cost accommodations are included and lower cost accommodations are encouraged. The second related Suggested Modification #6, modifies a visual rendering of the Mixed Use Center to include a note that the land use has not been designated at this site; and, as such, a Local Coastal Program amendment will be required with any proposed development. The note goes on to state that as part of this planning effort, the provision of lower cost accommodations or recreational uses shall be considered. Suggested Modification #7 mirrors the language of Suggested Modification #6 and is included as a note to the visual rendering for the townhouse development area. Both of these suggested modifications were included to make it clear that while the rendering indicates townhome and mixed-use developments at this location, those use recommendations are not final and further planning work is necessary. In the Vision Plan, various permitted uses associated with the townhome and mixed-use developments are listed. Suggested Modifications #8 and #9 modify the lists of uses from "permitted" to "recommended," given that uses cannot be defined if no land use Carlsbad LCPA 3-07B/RF Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan Page 20 designation has been established. Again, these modifications will make it clear that while the Vision Plan includes the types of developments the City is most likely to support, there has been no final land use determination at this point. An additional benefit to these modifications is that higher priority uses (such as a youth hostel, low cost accommodations) must now be considered for potential development, as directed by the Commission previously. Suggested Modifications #14, 16, 19, and 20 add that any proposed development will include the processing of a Local Coastal Program Amendment to the administrative process for proposed development within the "Unplanned Area." Suggested Modifications #14 and #16 further state that any LCP amendment to facilitate development on these sites, will be required to be found consistent with the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan, including the consideration of lower cost accommodation or recreational uses. All of these suggested modifications are intended to make clear to any interested party that the central portion of the Ponto Beachfront Village area does not have a designated land use at this time. The suggested modifications further provide that the policies and standards previously approved within the certified LCP and the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan are still prevailing, and as such the need for low cost accommodations and/or recreational uses at this location must be considered. Therefore, the LCP amendment as modified promotes the opportunity to support broader public access to the coastline, consistent with the Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act. B.Impacts to Wetlands Ponto Beach is located immediately north of Batiquitos Lagoon, and contains a previously constructed drainage ditch that may now support wetland indicator species, such that the potential for onsite wetland habitat is high. The proposed Vision Plan includes, by reference, a biological report delineating any potential wetland habitat. The report utilized the three parameter method, consistent with US Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) and California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) requirements for determining jurisdictional waters and the presence of wetlands. However, wetlands are determined using a one parameter method in the coastal zone, consistent with the Coastal Act. Therefore, while the report accurately identified wetland habitats for the ACOE and CDFG, it failed to delineate wetlands using standards required by the Coastal Act and its associated regulations. As such, Suggested Modification #'s1, 18, and 21 have been included to address these concerns. Suggested Modification #1 expands on the plan's provisions for the ACOE/CDFG delineations and adds section, "Wetlands as Defined by the California Coastal Act", and includes language describing how wetlands are delineated consistent with the Coastal Act. The modification also requires that additional biological surveys/reports be completed for any proposed development that may include wetland habitats on site, consistent with the Coastal Commission methodology discussed. Suggested Modification #1 also prohibits impacts to wetlands and requires adequate buffering consistent with the City's certified LCP policies for the Mello II and West Batiquitos Lagoon/Sammis Properties segments. Carlsbad LCPA 3-07B/RF Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan Page 21 Suggested Modification #18 requires that areas of private development that contain wetlands within the Coastal Commission's original jurisdiction obtain a Coastal Development Permit from the Coastal Commission. Suggested Modification #20 includes that the development located adjacent to the lagoon and south of Avenida Encinas, is in the Coastal Commission's appeals jurisdiction. All three of the modifications will serve to adequately identify, buffer, and therefore protect all wetland habitats located within the Ponto Beachfront area, consistent with the Coastal Act. C.Mass Transit Opportunities The Vision Plan highly promotes and facilitates non-vehicular travel through recommendations for public pedestrian and bike trails throughout the Ponto Beachfront area, connections to the Coastal Rail Trail, and connections to other portions of public trails around Batiquitos Lagoon. However, the Vision Plan fails to incorporate mass transit opportunities into the plan itself. The Ponto Beachfront area is located near Interstate-5, Coast Highway/Carlsbad Boulevard, and the Poinsettia Rail Station. Connections and ancillary facilities should be promoted, given the project's location and it's proximity to already established mass transit services. As such, Suggested Modification #11 adds a new Section to Section 2.3 Circulation System. The new section, 2.3.3, titled "Connection with Mass Transit" provides language that encourages measures to support alternative transit opportunities. Recommendations for bus stops, availability of bus schedules, and shuttle connections to the Poinsettia Train Station are all identified as potential methods to further promote the reduction of vehicular miles traveled, and the increase in use of alternative transportation, consistent with section 30250 of the Coastal Act. D.Prohibition of Invasive Species As previously discussed, the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan includes invasive species as recommended landscaping plants. The Ponto Beachfront area is located adjacent to Batiquitos Lagoon. The Vision Plan includes invasive plants in the recommended plant palette, such as the Mexican Fan Palm. Vegetation such as the Mexican Fan Palm often out-competes native lagoon vegetation. As such, three modifications are recommended to be included in the Vision Plan. Suggested Modification #12 includes language that limits permitted landscaping to native or non- invasive plants. Further, the language specifies that the use of native, drought-tolerant species are highly encouraged. Suggested Modification #13 requires that the list of acceptable landscaping plants provided in the Vision Plan update, removing any recommended trees, plants, shrubs, or flowers that are considered invasive by the California Native Plant Society. Suggested Modification #15 mirrors that of Suggested Modification #13, but is located in another section of the Vision Plan where landscaping requirements are also discussed. All of these three suggested modifications will promote the viability of the sensitive habitat located surrounding Batiquitos Lagoon, consistent with Section 30240 of the Coastal Act and promote water conservation. E.Geotechnical Setbacks Carlsbad LCPA 3-07B/RF Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan Page 22 Coastal lagoon bluffs are located on the southern extent of the area included in the Ponto Beachfront Vision Plan. The Vision Plan includes a large scale resort development in the area closest to the existing lagoon bluffs. Standards approved previously through the certification of the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan include a geological setback of 45' for any development. The City Council, through certification of the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan EIR, approved a design that included a 75' geological setback, and permitted only public trails, benches, signage, and other low impact development within this setback area. The Vision Plan itself is silent on the required setback for the resort development. It is therefore unclear, when reviewing the Vision Plan, whether the standard of review is the Poinsettia Shore Master Plan, (45'), or the certified EIR (75'). Suggested Modification #3 resolved this ambiguity by requiring that all development proposals include a geological setback of at least 75'. The suggested modification further requires that only public trails, benches, signage and other low impact development be permitted within the 75' setback area. The intent of the modification is to make clear that the required setback associated with any future development proposal must be at least 75'. Given that the time line associated with development at this site is unknown, circumstances may change, and along with possible impacts related to sea level rise, the more conservative setback is most consistent with Section 30253 of the Coastal Act. F.City Projects During the Vision Plan process, the City also reviewed the realignment of Coast Highway/Carlsbad Boulevard, and the upgrading of existing utilities including sewer, gas, storm drain, and dry utilities. The Vision Plan includes language requiring the City to review these projects cohesively and not on a piece-meal basis. The section addressing these projects includes language and figures identifying the location of the upgraded facilities. The section, titled "Infrastructure," however, fails to include any language that requires impacts to sensitive resources be minimized. As such, Suggested Modification #10 requires that when these projects are ultimately reviewed, the plans ensure the minimization of potential impacts to coastal resources, and the suggested modifications also requires the projects are consistent with the certified Local Coastal Program. By requiring that the projects' be consistent with the certified LCP, not only are impacts required to be minimized, but mitigation values and standards that have already been certified by the Commission as part of this LCP, will be applied to these project. As modified,the Vision Plan can therefore, be found consistent with the Coastal Act. G.Conclusion In conclusion, the City has made a noteworthy effort to create a plan that will promote an increase in public access and amenities, and create a uniform character in the development of one of the last large vacant coastal areas left in the southern California coastal zone. However, six areas of concerns were raised with respect to the Vision Plan's consistency with the Coastal Act. These six concerns have been discussed above, and several suggested modifications have been recommended to address these concerns. Carlsbad LCPA 3-07B/RF Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan Page 23 Only with the modifications can coastal resources remain protected to a level consistent with the applicable policies of the Coastal Act. PART VI.CONSISTENCY WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) Section 21080.5 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) exempts local government from the requirement of preparing an environmental impact report (EIR) in connection with its local coastal program. Nevertheless, the Commission is required, in a LCP submittal or, as in this case, a LCP amendment submittal, to find that the approval of the proposed LCP, or LCP, as amended, conforms to CEQA provisions, including the requirement in CEQA section 21080.5(d)(2)(A) that the amended LCP will not be approved or adopted as proposed if there are feasible alternative or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen any significant adverse impact which the activity may have on the environment. 14 C.C.R. §§ 13542(a), 13540(f), and 13555(b). The Commission finds that approval of the proposed LCP amendment, as submitted, would result in significant impacts under the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act. However, with the inclusion of the suggested modifications and implementation of the revised land use plan provisions, the adoption would not result in significant impacts to the environment within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act. Therefore, the Commission finds that approval of the LCP amendment, as modified, will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts.Specifically, the vision plan identifies specific types of development for an area that is currently designated and zoned “unplanned”. Additional concerns included lack of low cost visitor-serving uses, potential impacts to wetlands, mass transit amenities, the inclusion of potentially invasive landscaping, inadequate geological setbacks, and concerns associated with specified City projects. Many of these impacts are avoidable, however, the City failed to identify alternatives that would eliminate or minimize the above stated impacts to the maximum extent practicable. The City also failed to identify the mitigation required for such impacts. Therefore, the Commission finds that the proposed vision plan document identified future development plans that cannot be considered the least environmentally damaging feasible alternative and must be denied. From:Lance Schulte To:Environmental; Council Internet Email; CarlsbadLCP@Coastal; "People for Ponto"; dvcowan54@gmail.com Subject:Fwd: Ponto Park public input for Carlsbad Sustainbility Commission, Planning Commisiosn, and City Council; and CA Coastal Commission Date:Friday, September 26, 2025 1:48:36 PM Attachments:encinitas community park (2).webp Dear Carlsbad Sustainability and Planning Commissions and City Council; and CA Coastal Commission: Please receive and consider this citizen input in the City's Coastal Open Space Work Plan, and LCP Amendments by the Fenton developer and City of Carlsbad. We and all future generations will loose if you fail to provide a True and Significant Ponto Coastal Park (not a fancy PCH Relocation sidewalk) for the "Coastal Recreation (i.e. Public Park) and Low-Cost Visitor Accommodation Land use needs. This is required to be address by Planning Area F at Ponto. We all loose if a True and Significant Ponto Coastal City Park is provided all Carlsbad Citizens/Visitors loose, all inland North County Citizens/visitors loose, and CA looses if we loose this last opportunity. 11.1 acre Planning Area F was a replacement for Developer's removing Ponto's 12.8 acre Coastal Recreation and other Visitor Serving Coastal land use land use and replacing it with developer proposed Residential use in 1990's. Planning Area F is the last remaining unplanned Coastal land at Ponto and should be preserved for "Coastal Recreation (i.e. Public Park)" and other low/no-cost public land uses that allow inland families and visitors Coastal Recreation opportunities. Lance Schulte -------- Forwarded Message --------Subject:Ponto ParkDate:Fri, 26 Sep 2025 13:21:22 -0700From:Valerie and Dennis Cowan <dvcowan54@gmail.com>To:erin.prahler@coastal.ca.gov, kyle.lancaster@carlsbadca.gov<kyle.lancaster@carlsbadca.gov>, Eric.Lardy@carlsbadca.gov, manager@carlsbadca.gov, james.wood@carlsbadca.govCC:People from Ponto Committee <info@peopleforponto.com>, Jodi Jones <jodimariejones@hotmail.com>, Lance Schulte <meyers-schulte@sbcglobal.net> Good day to all, I am writing in regards to the Ponto area in South Carlsbad. I am curious if any of you have seen the Tower 24 Development on Ponto Drive/Ponto Way? This high density development is going to have long lasting repercussions on the community. I know that Carlsbad is trying to provide affordable housing to the community but these units are going for $6000-$11,000 per month with only a small percentage slated for affordable housing. How is that really tackling the housing crisis? Did Fenton get approval because it has a few affordable units to offer qualified renters? This Fenton development is a done deal. However, the other Fenton property on Ponto Road is slated for the same monstrosity of high density unaffordable apartments? Please look at what is happening and protect this openspace. Open space is critical to our quality of life and the critters we share it with. My husband and I were born and raised in San Diego. Needless to say, we have seen many changes over the years. We have lived in South Carlsbad for 25 years. Aseach year goes by, the continued push for coastal development, at the cost of losing open space, has been appalling. The lack of open space and parks in the Southern part of Carlsbad is very disturbing. We have two grandkids and have been taking them to parks and open space in Encinitas and Solana Beach. Recently, we hiked the beautiful trails of the San Elijo Nature Center and Preserve. It dawned on me that the City of Carlsbad, along with help from the State, County of San Diego, non profits, and citizens, should be doingthe same thing. The area of Ponto along with the other vacant parcels to the south should be preserved and linked to the existing Batiquitos Lagoon on the East side of I-5. Carlsbad has the opportunity to preserve this fragile coastal land and create a legacy for future generations. This is the last remaining coastal open space inCarlsbad. With looming Global Warming, the City of Carlsbad should be focusing on making a difference by approving any project that promotes long lasting benefits for the community. Ponto Park is a small part of a commitment to improve our environment and community. Please make a difference and support our efforts to save Ponto. Imagine a beautiful park and trails for everyone to enjoy. Let's work together to save all the open space in coastal South Carlsbad from development. Thank you in advance for your time andefforts. Please see the attached pictures of what is happening now and examples of what could happen in the future with your support. Kindly, Val and Dennis Cowan First 3 pictures of what is happening now. The last picture is Encinitas Community Park and San Elijo Preserve which should serve as models for what can happen in the future. CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From:Lance Schulte To:Environmental Cc:CarlsbadLCP@Coastal; Gary Barberio; Jeff Murphy; Kyle Lancaster; City Clerk; Council Internet Email; "People for Ponto" Subject:2025-9-28 Citizen input to the Carlsbad Sustainability Commission Work-plan to address Open Space & PontoOpen Space needs and City Commissions and Council on the Fenton & City Local Coastal Program Amendmentsat Ponto Date:Sunday, September 28, 2025 12:18:33 PM Attachments:2017 Aug - SPCA South Carlsbad Ponto Beach Park Letter of Request (3).pdf Thank you Environmental Sustainability. I would also like to send to the Environmental Sustainability Commission the attached 2017 letter from the initial People for Ponto Carlsbad Citizens to the Carlsbad City Council and CCC. This letter was written when Carlsbad Citizen were just becoming aware (due to our initial official Public Records Requests to find the facts) of what developers/City working together to do at Ponto. The letter outlines Citizen concern about developer/City proposals for Ponto that has grown (to over 7,500 petitions to the City/CCC) beyond the initial 450 homes at San Pacifico Community Association that first noticed what was going on. The concerns outlined in this initial letter now includes Citizens from all over Carlsbad and also San Diego County, and visitors that drive our visitor economy. What happens at Ponto impacts All of Carlsbad. What happens at Ponto impacts our North County and CA Quality of Life - particularity for inland families and visitors. We hope you read this 2017 letter to try to understand the genesis of Carlsbad's People for Ponto movement, and why it is so important to work in partnership with Carlsbad Citizens on solutions that Citizens want. Can you please confirm this letter (along with other prior P4P submitted Citizen input) will be read and considered? As always, I and other People for Ponto are happy to meet with you to present, discuss, answer questions, or provide more detail documentation of the facts we have found. Our goal is to inform and to help you in your important work to address the serious Usable Open Space needs and deficits at Ponto that you are charged with addressing. With sincerity and a deep love for Carlsbad, the Coast and future generations, Lance Schulte On 9/16/2025 9:23 AM, Environmental wrote: Good morning, Your email has been received. It will be included and distributed ascorrespondence for the next Environmental Sustainability Commission meeting,which is currently scheduled for Oct. 2, 2025, at 3 p.m. in Council Chambers. Thank you. Environmental Sustainability City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Ave Carlsbad, CA 92008 www.carlsbadca.gov 442-339-2729 | environmental@carlsbadca.gov Confidentiality Notice: Please note that email correspondence with the City ofCarlsbad, along with any attachments, may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and therefore may be subject to disclosure unless otherwise exempt. From: Lance Schulte <meyers-schulte@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Monday, September 15, 2025 12:49 PM To: Environmental <environmental@carlsbadca.gov>; CarlsbadLCP@Coastal<CarlsbadLCPA@coastal.ca.gov>; Gary Barberio <gary.barberio@carlsbadca.gov>; Jeff Murphy <jeff.murphy@carlsbadca.gov>;Kyle Lancaster <kyle.lancaster@carlsbadca.gov>; City Clerk <clerk@carlsbadca.gov>; Council Internet Email <council@carlsbadca.gov>;'People for Ponto' <info@peopleforponto.com>Subject: Citizen input to the Carlsbad Sustainability Commission Work-plan toaddress Open Space & Ponto Open Space needs and City Commissions and Council on the Fenton & City Local Coastal Program Amendments at Ponto Dear Carlsbad Sustainability Commission, Carlsbad Planning & ParksCommissions and Council, and CA Coastal Commission: Official Public input: This email and attachments are official public input to the following City & CA Coastal Commission activities: Carlsbad Sustainability Work Plan to address Usable Open Space - particularly Local Facility Management Plan Zone 9 and Coastal SouthCarlsbad; Carlsbad Planning and Parks Commissions and City Council; and CACoastal Commission on the City of Carlsbad's Citywide and Ponto area LCPA(s) and Denton's proposed LCPA for Ponto Planning Area F; Carlsbad Parks Commissions and City Council on Carlsbad Parks Master Plan and new Park activities;Carlsbad communication (websites, emails, meetings, etc.) to Carlsbad Citizens on Open Space and Park issues, particularity Carlsbad's GrowthManagement Ordinance and Program Background: To-date over 7,500 emailed-written citizen/visitor petitions and numerous publicmeeting comments Carlsbad Citizens have asked the City to address the Usable Open Space Land Use (Park & developer required) needs at Ponto. TheseCarlsbad Citizens deeply care about Carlsbad and have well researched concerns they hope their Citizen representatives honestly consider. The City Council hasnow charged the Sustainability Commission with addressing these Usable Open Space needs at Ponto. The Carlsbad Tomorrow Growth Management Citizens Committee (CTGMCC) Report Carlsbad Tomorrow Growth Management Citizens Committee report(April 2023) States regarding open space: "OPEN SPACE: The committee recommended the City Council elevate the topic of open space by adding to thepurview of the Parks & Recreation Commission to address open space needsthroughout the city, address potential open space deficits and evaluateopportunities to acquire more open space by updating the list of candidate properties for proactive open space acquisition and by developing a plan thatprioritizes zones with less unconstrained open space or that are subject toloss due to sea level rise. Adopt a policy that discourages exceptions todevelopment standards that would decrease open space." On 11/19/2024 the Carlsbad City Council unanimously adopted the CTGMCC'sApril 2023 report and also unanimously by Minute Motion directed staff to add the topic of open space to the conversation of developing a new EnvironmentalSustainability Commission and to include adopting a policy that discourages exceptions to the policy standards that would decrease open space. On 6/25/2025 the Carlsbad City Council unanimously established the Sustainability Commission (SC). Documented facts and Citizens' requests for Sustainability Commission UsableOpen Space Plan and Carlsbad City and CCC actions impacting Ponto: As documented and on file with the City over 7,500 citizen and visitor petitionshave been sent to the City & CA Coastal Commission (CCC) regarding the documented need for the City to provide two forms of Unconstrained/UsableOpen Space at Ponto - 1st, a true and significant City Park, and 2nd that 15% of the unconstrained/usable land in Local Facility Management Plan Zone 9 (akaPonto) be Unconstrained/Usable Open Space as per Carlsbad's Growth Management Standard. These 7,500+ citizen petition based on well documentedCity facts from over 80 Official Carlsbad Public Records Requests (PRR). Some of these City facts were not disclosed by the City to citizens (and CityCommissions and City Council) in the past when past City decisions were made. Citizens only found these facts when we started PRR in 2017. The attached "2-page Ponto Park-OS data and Ask" summarizes these facts and Citizen asks. City staff has on file and can provide the SC will the over 7,500 petitions thatprovide more detail and personal messages. The SC should read some of these personal messages as they speak to the heart of Citizens needs and desires. Asample of one of those earlier petitions that summarizes the data and Citizens' needs is: "Protect Ponto Petition: Dear Carlsbad Growth Management Committee, City Council, and California Coastal Commission: Since 2017 the City received over 5,000 petitions, written and verbaltestimony regarding the need for Ponto Park and the Park and Usable Open Space unfairness at Ponto and Coastal South Carlsbad.The City staff should provide the Growth Management Committee all that citizen input since 2017. – The City’s 2017 & 2020 Sea Level Rise Report shows Ponto willlose over 32-acres of “High-priority Coastal Land Use” due to coastal erosion and flooding. (14+ acres of Coastal Recreation and18+ acres of Campground will be lost) in Carlsbad’s General Plan. – Carlsbad’s Growth Management Program and 2015 General Plan did not consider this critical 2017 & 2020 Sea Level Rise data andnew actions and a new Plan are needed to address the 32+ acre loss AND increased population/visitor demand for “High-priority CoastalLand Uses”. – Carlsbad’s Growth Management Program and General Plan also did not incorporate requirements for unlimited population growththat will need even more City and Coastal Recreation land – “High- priority Coastal Land Uses”. – There is a current Growth Management Program 6.6-acre Citypark deficit in Coastal Southwest Carlsbad, and a 30-acre Unconstrained/Usable Coastal open-space deficit in Zone 9 (Pontoarea – west of I-5 and south of Poinsettia) that only gets worse as we lose 32+ acres of Coastal Open Space lands from Sea Level Rise. Accordingly, I am making my position known and requesting that I want the Growth Management Committee, City Council and CACoastal Commission to: 1) Address the true neighborhood Park needs for Ponto (minimal 6-7 acre Park to serve minimal neighborhood needs based on Pontobuildout and City’s current minimal Park Standard). Ponto Park should be an appropriately wide, viable, flat and fully usable multi-use grassed field – allow kids space to play informal sports. No thin strip of non-park land. 2) Address the loss of 32+ acres of Coastal Open Space Land fromsea level rise by providing for Non-neighborhood City and State buildout-population and visitor demands for both Coastal Recreationland use and the loss of the Campground. Provide sufficient Coastal Recreation and Low-cost Visitor Accommodation land use to addressthe CA Coastal Act and City/State ‘unlimited buildout population/visitor demand’, and planned loss of current supply due toplanned sea level rise. 3) Disclose and address 2017 CA Coastal Commission direction to City on Ponto Vision Plan and Planning Area F Existing LCP in thePCH Project. 4) Fully address Sea Level Rise impacts consistent with CA Coastal Act & Commission relative to the State’s recent requirement forunlimited City and State population growth. Document, plot the Seal Level Rise inundation and coastal erosion/bluff hazard areas inCarlsbad’s General Plan including the Land Use Map, PCH Relocation Project maps, and in the PCH Project replace all 32+acres of high-priority Coastal land use that will be lost to sea level rise and coastal erosion, and increase the supply of these high-priority Coastal land uses to address State required unlimited increases in City/State population and visitor demands. 5) Fully disclose and consider the 2022-June General Comparativetax-payer Costs/Benefits Analysis of Ponto Park-PCH completion- proposed PCH Relocation, to assure tax-payers (City and/or State)are getting the best and most sustainable value for their tax-payer dollars. The City should use tax-payer money wisely. 6) Incorporate the 5,000+ written/emailed petitions to the Council &CA Coastal Commission, and the Letters from Carlsbad visitor industry, Surfrider Foundation, and Batiquitos Lagoon Foundation. 7) Within the Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 9 portion fullyprovide the 30-acres of documented missing Unconstrained Growth Management Open Space that developers were supposed to provide.Also fully disclose and incorporate the Ponto Open Space recommendations from North County Advocates per City’s lawsuitsettlement. Fully preserve or mitigate sensitive habitat areas within and adjacent to the PCH Project area. 8) Fully provide required storm water quality purification anddentition basins in the PCH Project before project waters and waters passing through the project area are discharged into the ocean andBatiquitos Lagoon. 9) I am concerned about the PCH Modification Project more than doubling traffic congestion along Coast Highway for an extremelycostly walkway, when the same walkway and other needed Coastal land uses can be provided for a fraction of the cost along existingCoast Highway. It is not appropriate to try to pass off a walkway as “linear park”. 10) Lastly as requested since 2017, directly engage and specificallyinvolve the San Pacifico Community Association and Ponto Community in that portion of the City’s PCH Project of planning anddesign of land use in that community. 11) We request the above 11 citizen issues be fully addressed by the Growth Management Committee, City Council, and CA CoastalCommission regarding Park-Usable Open Space and Coastal Land Use issues and City CapitalImprovement Projects at Ponto and Coastal South Carlsbad. Additional Comments: The entrance to our City from the south on the101 at Ponto could be a real statement entrance with a City owned Park, shared by all. Our Village deserves to be shown in its best possible light as the jewel that it is! Name: Tom Maddox Email: maddox.tom@yahoo.comCity: Carlsbad State: CA" The 7,500+ Carlsbad Citizens' petitions to their representatives are based on common Sense, fairness and decency; and also supported by City documents fromover 80 PRRs. Many of these facts were not publicly disclosed or publicly considered by the City in earlier City actions. Many are still being hidden fromCitizens, Commissions and the City Council - such as data on the 'false exemption' of the Usable Open Space Standard Ponto developers were given (seeattached 'History of Open Space at Ponto' file), Ponto City Park needs (see 'Coastal Recreation data file' submitted by Carlsbad Citizens in 2019), and theCity's hidden feasibility plans to urbanize and lease/sell City's South Carlsbad Blvd/PCH "surplus" land areas to developers for development (see City's '2001ERA Financial Analysis of Carlsbad Blvd Realignment'). The time to honestly and openly disclose these facts, and collaboratively work with Carlsbad Citizensis needed now; and before the City and CCC make irreversible Land Use decisions that will forever impact future generations. We hope the SustainabilityCommission (SC) reviews the petitions and works with Carlsbad Citizens in fulfilling the SC's Unconstrained/Usable Open Space responsibilities within yourWork Plan. Sustainability Commission Work Plan Components and Carlsbad City and CCC actions impacting Ponto: · 1. Please read/review the 7,500+ People for Ponto Carlsbad Citizens' and visitors' petitions to the extent of Citizen and Public Input on the Usable OpenSpace (Park and developer required Growth Management Standard) needs at Ponto. There are many very personal messages that highlight how important therequested Ponto City Park and 15% minimum Unconstrained/Usable Open Space is. The 11/19/2024 Staff Report to the City Council onthe CTGMCC's recommendations did not highlight but worked to hide the 1,248 pages and 21 MB of Citizen Public Input to the CTGMCC by using only a link ata bottom of a report and did not even not even attempt to summarize the magnitude and main points of this massive amount of Carlsbad Citizen Input onGrowth Management. The failure to fully convey the significant extent of those 1,248 pages of Citizen input is disservice to you and Carlsbad Citizens. The vastmajority of Carlsbad Citizens want an honest addressing of needed Park Accessibility, correcting the 'false exemptions’ to the Open Space Standard givendevelopers, and because these issues significantly intersect in a critical location specifically provide a much needed True and significant Ponto City Park. Thiswas the vast majority of Citizen input, but was and still is being ‘downplayed, dismissed, or 'swept under the rug’ by some City staff members. o Please do the Right Thing – require an honest and full public accounting of the Carlsbad Citizen Input on Usable Ponto Open Space (True City Park and developers providing 30 acres of missingUnconstrained/Usable Open Space to meet the 15% minimum Standard of Local Facility Management Plan Zone 9). o Please do the Right Thing – read and publicly disclose/discuss anddirect staff to work WITH (not against) Citizens on the practical and data based suggestions in the attached “CTGMC key issues andsuggestions 2022-12-6” file. 2. People for Ponto (P4P) Carlsbad Citizens found that Carlsbadprovides/requires 40% less City Park land than Oceanside and Encinitas. P4P Carlsbad Citizens also found that Carlsbad is the worst City in the 29 CoastalCities from Santa Barbara south to the Imperial Beach (over 250 miles of Coastline and for over 5 million people) in providing Park access (Parks within a10-minute walk to Citizens). Carlsbad Citizens would hope the SC would be concerned about this and make recommendations to be better than Oceansideand Encinitas in providing park acres and distribution, and better than the last- place City in Coastal So Cal in Park access. The City's relative substandardprovision of City Parks impacts all Carlsbad. If Carlsbad is relatively substandard, our collective future desirably, sustainability, economy and Qualityof Life will relatively degrade. This is what happen in LA and some areas of OC, and Carlsbad seems to be following this 'LA model'. See the attached “CoastalRecreation” data file for data showing the need for a true-significant-usable Ponto Park for the Coastal Park needs of South Carlsbad, all Carlsbad, and 8-miles ofCoastline without a true Coastal Park. o Please do the Right Thing – plan and recommend funding Parkaccessibility for all Carlsbad residents to be the best, or at least average, but not the worst in 250 miles of So Cal Coastline. o Please do the Right Thing – plan and recommend funding a well-documented and much needed City Ponto Park that is adequate in size/shape to be a True Park. A ‘fancy sidewalk’ balled a 'Liner Park"is not a Park. o Please do the Right Thing – READ, publicly discuss, and take personal ownership in your recommendations to City staff andrecommendations to City Council to address Ponto City Park needs documented in the "Coastal Recreation" data file. o Please do the Right Thing – READ, publicly discuss, takeownership of the Park input from the nationally recognized Trust for Public Land in the attached “TPL Support for Ponto Park” file. o Please do the Right Thing – fix the unfair distribution of CityParks (gaps in 10-minute walk access) and fix the clear need for a True Ponto City Park as outlined in the attached “CTGMC key issuesand suggestions 2022-12-6” file. o Please do the Right Thing and work with P4P Carlsbad Citizens. Carlsbad can be great if you let P4P Carlsbad Citizens in and workwith them. P4P Carlsbad Citizens have offered to help with donations and secured funding support but have been turned away by the City. 3. It is well documented in the attached “History of Open Space at Ponto” datafile that past City staff and Council’s falsely “exempted” only certain developers (like at Ponto) from providing 15% of their Local Facility Management Plan Zone(LFMP) as Unconstrained/Usable Open Space as required by the Growth Management (GM) Open Space Standard. Ponto (LFMP Zone 9) developerswere falsely ‘exempted’ because City data clearly documents that 1) Ponto was not substantially developed in 1986 and 2) Ponto developers did not in 1986already dedicate 15% of the developable land as Usable Open Space. In fact Ponto Developers and the City actually removed originally City and CACoastal Commission planned GM Open Space out of Ponto in the Ponto developer's proposed 1996 land use changes. These developer giveawaysconverted planned GM Open Space areas into more Residential land use areas. For instance a 12.8 acre Recreation Commercial (Usable Open Space) land usewas removed and converted to more Residential land use area. Because of this the data in the “History of Open Space at Ponto” shows why Ponto, even with itscurrently about 28 acres of vacant land, Ponto is already developed at a over 40% higher residential density than the rest of the Carlsbad. The Ponto Census Trackhas more than 40% more residential density then the rest of Carlsbad, has NO Park, and is missing (due to a past false ‘exemption’) about 30 acres requiredUnconstrained/Usable GM Open Space that Ponto developers should have been required to provide. If the SC in its recommendations to the City Councilperpetuates this 'false exemption’ and falsehood to citizens all Carlsbad and future generations will loose valuable Usable Coastal Open Space forever. o Please do the Right Thing – READ and publicly and honestly discuss the facts in the 'History of Open Space at Ponto' data file, andtake ownership in your direction to City staff and recommendationsrecomendationsil with full disclosure andunderstanding of the facts in the attached “History of Open Space at Ponto” file. o Please do the Right Thing – and don’t perpetuate a lie to CarlsbadCitizens about 'False Exemptions' of the Growth Management Open Space StandardStnadard. Pleanest and brave, and think about currentand future Citizens. Once vacant land is developed it is lost forever to cost effectively provide a City Park and/or Usable Open Space. o Please do the Right Thing – collaboratively fix the False OpenSpace Exemptions by working with Citizens, considering suggestions outlined in the attached “CTGMC key issues and suggestions 2022-12-6” file. 4. Since 2107 Carlsbad has known it will loose 32 acres of Ponto's Usable Open Space land use and land area, but is not accountably planning for that loss. Two(2) years after its 2015 General Plan Update the City of Carlsbad first found out in 2017 it will lose about 32-acres of existing Open Space land use in Ponto/ CoastalSouth Carlsbad due to sea level rise and increased Coastal/bluff erosion. The 32- acres are the State Campground that is the entire City’s ONLY Lower-cost VisitorAccommodation Land Use. Ponto's 32-acre loss of Open Space land use (1st disclosed in 2017) was not factored into the earlier Carlsbad's 2015 General Planas required by the CA Coastal Commission (CCC requires cities to address land use changes due to Sea Level Rise in a City's existing Local Coastal Program(LCP) and proposed LCP Amendments. This could not have been done in 2015 (since sea level rise data 1st came to light in 2017). Yet Carlsbad City staff issaying the 2015 General Plan is Carlsbad's Plan and staff is asking the CCC to "Certify" the 2015 General Plan Land Use Plan as the City's New LCP eventhough the loss of 32-acres of Coastal Open Space land use at Ponto was not accounted for in the 2015 General Plan and on Ponto Planning Area F proposedland use changes. These 32-acres of Open Space land use at Ponto that will be lost are 'High-Priority' Coastal Land Uses - Low-Cost Visitor Accommodationsand Coastal Recreation - according to the State law - the CA Coastal Act. The attached “sea level rise & DLUP-LUPA planned loss of OS at Ponto” data filedocuments the Coastal Open Space loss (discovered in 2017) that was not factored into the City's 2015 General Plan, current LCP, and proposed LCPAmendment. The SC should read the City's 2017 Sea Level Rise Study and provide City Council recommendations to honestly and responsibly amend the2015 General Plan, Citywide Growth Management Plan, Parks Master Plan, and Local Coastal Program to account for AND replace this loss of 32-acres of 'High-Priority' Coastal Open Space land use at Ponto. o Please do the Right Thing – READ and publicly and honestlydiscuss Sea Level Rise/Coastal Erosion impacts that remove 32-acres of High-Priority Coastal Open Space Land Use at Ponto. This 32-acre loss of Open Space was not considered in the Citywide Growth Management Plan, 2015 General Plan Update, and City/Developerproposed LCPAs based on the 2015 General Plan. The Sea Level Rise/Coastal Erosion issues are in the attached “Sea Level Rise &Carlsbad DLCP-LUPA planned loss of OS at Ponto” file. o Please do the Right Thing – address this Coastal Open Space loss now with full public disclosure to Citizens, and providingrecommendationsrecomendationse plans and fully funded actions to replace these to be lost 32-acres of Coastal Open Space at Ponto inany proposed General Plan/Master Plan Amendment, Growth Management Plan Amendment, and/or Local Coastal ProgramAmendments Ponto and Citywide. o Please do the Right Thing – use the data/suggestions in the attached “CTGMC key issues and suggestions 2022-12-6” file tocomprehensively support addressing the loss of Coastal Open Space and critical 'High-Priority' Coastal Open Space Land Use in CoastalSouth Carlsbad. 5. Carlsbad's City Council approved the General Plan Update in 2015. Per Statelaw and the CA Coastal Act that 2015 General Plan is not fully valid within the Coastal Zone until the CA Coastal Commission (CCC) “certifies” the 2015General Plan as consistent with the CA Coastal Act. A General Plan (WHEN CCC has Certified it as a Certified Local Coastal Program) is the primaryplanning document for a City, and all other City plans/ordinacnes/programs must comply with the CCC Certified General Plan/Local Coastal Program. Carlsbad’snon-Certified 2015 General Plan acknowledges this on Land Use Element page 2- 26: “Coastal Zone Planning The California Coastal Act regulates all development within the state-designated Coastal Zone. The zone extends through the length of the city, and covers approximately one-third of the city’s land area, as shown in Figure 2-2.The Coastal Act requires that individual jurisdictions adopt local coastal programs (LCP) to implement the Coastal Act. Carlsbad’s LCP consists of aseparate land use plan document containing separate land use policies and an implementation plan … The city’s LCP Land Use Plan will be updatedconsistent with this [2015] General Plan. However, to take effect, the LCP must be certified by the Coastal Commission as well as adopted by the city. Until suchtime that this occurs, the existing (as of 2013) LCP must be adhered to. … In the event of conflict between the provisions of the General Plan and LCP LandUse Plan, the terms of the LCP Land Use Plan [as of 2013] shall prevail.” In 2010 the CA Coastal Commission deined Carlsbad's proposed developer-focused Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan. CCC deiened this develoer-driven Vision Plan because for 11.1 acre unplanned Planning Area F the City did notconsider and address the need for "Coastal Recreation (i.e. Public Park) and Low- Cost Visitor AccommodationsAccmodations" nning Area F. See the attached'CCC staff report - rejecting Ponto Vision Plan 0 F21a-8-2010). In deniying the Ponto Vision Plan and its land uses the CCC noted that: "Additionally, the Master Plan (City GP/Zoning) further states that some component of the development at this location [11.1 acre Ponto PlanningArea F] must consider the need for the provision of lower cost accommodations or recreational facilities."; along with citing Core Sections 30221 & 30222 of the CA Coastal Act (Public Resources Code in State Law) that were CA voter endorsed 50-yers ago: "Oceanfront land suitable for recreational use shall be protected for recreational use and development unless present and foreseeablefuture demand for public or commercial recreational activities that could be accommodated on theproperty is already adequately provided for in the area." "The use of private lands suitable for visitor-serving commercialrecreational facilities designed to enhance public opportunities for coastal recreation shall have priorityover private residential, general industrial, or general commercial development, but not over agriculture or coastal-dependent industry."and noting that; “Area F” of the [Carlsbad] Master Plan is currently designated as an“unplanned, area” [aka Non-Residential Reserve] and there is no [CCC] certified land use established. In addition, the previously certified MasterPlan included language to protect and provide some kind of lower- cost accommodations at this site." Yet Carlsbad's 2015 General Plan still proposes the Ponto Vision Plan's Planning Area F land use changes the CCC spcifically denied in 2010; and Carlsbad'sproposed Citywide LCPA to the CCC still includes the same land use change at Ponto Planning Area F spcifically denied by the CCC in 2010. Currently the Cityhas withdrawn the City’s Citywide LCP Amendment application to the CCC asking for CCC “certification” of Carlsbad's 2015 General Plan Update. In the past and again now a speculative develper of Ponto Plannig Area F - this time Fenton - is again driving and taking responcibility for proposed Ponto landuse changes by applying to the City and CCC for an LCP Amendment. Fenton cannot speak for or commit the CIty or City resources on the LCPA. Fenton isnow 'responsible' for the LCP Amendment. Along with general CA Coastal Act Policies, there are some very specific exiting LCP Land Use Policies that directlyrelate to Ponto Open Space – and Ponto Planning Area F that Fenton will have to address in it's applications to both the City and CCC. As documented in the'History of Open Space at Ponto data file' Ponto Planning Area F is the ’11.1 acre Non-Residential Reserve’ area created as replacement for when 12.8 acres ofCoastal Recreation (Usable Open Space) land use was removed and converted to Residential land use by prior developers, the City and CCC. 11.1 acre PlanningArea F is the remaining/remnet developer property required to adress prior develoer led removal/conversion of the orginal 12.8 acres of Coastal RecreationUsable Open Space land use planned at Ponto's Orginal General Plan and Certified LCP. As future high-density Residenatil growth is being required in Carlsbad and CA; having adequate "Coastal Recreation (i.e. Public Park) and Low-Cost VisitorAccommodations are even more critical. It more critical both due to more peoplepoeple but also e most of these people will live in high-densityapartments/condos. These high-density residentialresidentail deveuire MORE City Parks. By definition 'high-density residential development' requires aproportionally higher-density of City Park acreage distributeddistribtued withdistance (10-minute walk). This is a time-tested fundamental City PlanningPrinciple. This fundamental planning principle is not being followed in Carlsbad, and particularly at Ponto (read the attached "Coastal Recreation data file'). PontoPlanning Area F's LCP requires the consideration of the need for "Coastal Recreation (i.e. Public Park)" in any proposed land use of Planning Area F. In 2017 the CCC provided the City and P4P Carlsbad Citizens with written direction on how the ultimate/final land use for 11.1 acre Ponto Planning Area Fshould be determined - see attached "Planning Area F existing LCP-LUP & CCC direction" data file. The 'Coastal Recreation (i.e. Public Park and Low-CostVisitor Accommodation Land Use requirementsrequiremnts outl CCC's communications to the City and P4P Carlsbad Citizens have yet to be addressed. The current (3rd) speculative developer - Fenton- is now working to convert 11.1 acre Ponto Planning Area F to high-density Residential & General Commercialland uses. This 3rd speculative developer now has a LCP (Coastal land use) & Master Plan (Coastal zoning) Amendments and development applications filedwith the City. If the City Council approves the Fenton developer's Master Plan and LCP Amendment proposals they will forwarded to the CCC for CCC'sevaluation for conformance with the CA Coastal Act. Ultimately the CCC will decide weather to “Certify’ Denton's and the City's proposed LCP & Master PlanAmendments as consistant with the CA Coastal Act. Please do the Right Thing – READ and publicly and honestlycomprehensively and inclusively discuss "Planning Area F existing LCP- LUP & CCC direction" and provide a recomendation to the Planning andParks Commisions and City Coucnil on Denton's proposed Planning Area F land use LCP Amendment. In the SC's recomendation please consider thatthe SC will be making a Critical Final & Forever land use recomendaiton on the last remaining 'unplanned' Coastal land at Ponto/Coastal SouthCarlsbad. Sea level Rise and Coastal Erosion will continue to reduce land use acres and higher-density housing and populatioin and visitor growthwill greatly increase demands for those Coastal Open Space Land Uses. Please do the Right Thing – address both the developer's proposed PlanningArea F LCPA and the City's propsed LCPA with two recomendations to assure a 100% accountable Land Use plan and 100% funded ImplementaionPlan to address the documented need for Ponto City Park and to replace lost 32-acres of Coastal Open Space in any proposed General Plan, GrowthManagement Plan, and/or Local Coastal Program updates at Ponto. · 6. Sadly Carlsbad City staff are not posting on the City's websites and honestly disclosing to Carlsbad Citizens the already almost $4 million in tax-payer funded City staff studies and past Council’s deferals over 40-years on proposed Historic Coast Highway 101/South Carlsbad (South CarlsbadBlvd/PCH) Median Relocation ideas. The orginal South Carlsbad Blvd/PCH Relocation Proposal came from the 1980's CA State Parks Master Plan and whenCarlsbad Blvd/PCH was a CA State Highway owned by Caltrans. The orginal PCH Relocation plan was a 'Managed Retreat' project that moved the StateCampground inland (Managed Retreat) onto CA State/Caltrans property. In the late 1980's Caltrans gave Carlsbad Blvd/PCH to the City of Carlsbad, and sincethe the late 1980s Carlsbad Blvd/PCH has been, and still is, a City Street and City Responcibility. After the State gave PCH to the City the City then did not want a 100% Managed Retreat project, but wanted State Parks to give the City 14-acres of State Park land between Palomar Airport Road and Manazano Drive (Surplus Area #1 the20.8 -acre aka Manzano Parcel) in exchange for narrow slivers of the now City's South Carlsbad Blvd/PCH. Surplus area #1 is indentified/discussed in the City'sattached '2001 CARLSBAD BOULEVARD REALIGNMENT STUDY PHASE II: PRELIMINARY FINANCIAL ANALYSIS' study. This 2001 City staffstudied 4 PCH Relocation Alternatives and determined South Carlsbad Blvd/PCH Relocation could be used as a development tool for the City. City staff studieddevelopment of 7 possibly usable "Surplus Areas #1-6B". The City's plan to use PCH Relocation as a 'development tool' has been (and is still being) hidden fromCitizens. Of the 7 possibly usable "Surplus Areas", Surplus Area # 1 was the critical one, as noted in the 2001 City staff study: "4.1.3 Surplus Area 1: Due tothe large size of Surplus Area 1, it is a critical aspect for the project's success. The other parcels are relatively small and could not support many revenue-generating uses. Surplus Area 1 has the potential to bring much revenue and tax increment into the City, which is likely to be the driving force for approvalof the project. Several potential project limitations are discussed in Section 4.4. Among the most critical is the City's ability to gain control of the State-owned portion of Surplus Area 1." The attached attached '2001 CARLSBAD BOULEVARD REALIGNMENTSTUDY PHASE II: PRELIMINARY FINANCIAL ANALYSIS' determined that only the most intence of four Alternative development senarios of the 7"Surplus Areas" would provide the City funds to make money off of PCH Relocation. 6 of the 7 PCH "Surplus Areas" (#2-6B) are very small, narrow, andconstrained. City staff should disclose and post that "2001 PHASE II Study" on the City's website dealing with the South Carlsbad Coastline (akakPCH RelocationRelcationwencluding (https://www.carlsbadca.gov/departments/public-works/projects/our- coastline/south-carlsbad-coastline) the attatached '2001 CARLSBADBOULEVARD REALIGNMENT STUDY PHASE II: PRELIMINARY FINANCIAL ANALYSIS', beacause City staff and Council are saying this "Aninitial feasibility and realignment study was completed in 2000." is this is justification for the CIP Project. It is odd however that even though The Citystates "An initial feasibility and realignment study was completed in 2000." City staff now requesting $10 million tax-payer dollars to do an initial"Investigative Study" of a "project" that 25-years ago already completed a "Realignment and Feaisibility Studies". Why is the City staff (justifying)proposing to "Investigate" something that the City has already "completed" a "Realignment and feasibility" study on? Why is the City spending (andapparently wasting) tax-payer dollars on an apparrent endless redo loop of study and restudy of past studies? from City CIP project list: "South Carlsbad Coastline District: 2,3,4 Location: Carlsbad Boulevard between Island Way to the southern border Description: The project will conduct an investigative study of future roadway realignment alternatives, infrastructure needs, landuses, public park and coastal access opportunities, and related long term coastal planning issues, constraints, and processes. The secondphase study of a multi-year project such as this would not require permits or environmental review at this time. Rationale: An initial feasibility and realignment study wascompleted in 2000. The next phase of this project will prepare astudy to analyze more detailed alternatives and create options and cost estimates for the realignment of Carlsbad Boulevard from IslandWay to the southern border. Project targeted to start in FY30 due to staff capacity and capacity to address more urgent section betweenManzano Drive and Island Way. Project Number: 6031 Project Type: Transportation Asset Mgmt Dept: Transportation Project Phase: Not Started Budget Category: Classification: Planning 15 Year Forecasted Cost: $10,189,776" In reading the above South Carlsbad Coastline CIP Project Description, a Citizenwould be fooled to think that the South Carlsbad Coastline CIP is both feasible (Realighnment and Feasibility Studies with 4 alternatives were completed in2000) and that the Soutth Carlsbad Coastline CIP Project is not really a land development project. Citizens would also be fooled into thinking the city is onlynow proposing to maybe start a 15-year "Investigative Study". Hiding the 2001 City Realighnment and Feasibility Study from Citizens and appears to be hidingor delaying exposure of the City motives, and the facts regardig realighment and feasibility of the South Carlsbad CoastlineCoastalineRelocation) Project. In the City's CIP Project decription staff forecasts an additional $10 million in"Investigative" re-study costs added to the around $4 million already spent Studying Historic Coast Highway 101/Carlsbad Blvd/PCH Reloation alighmentand feasibility alternatives. This brings the now staff estimated "Investigative Study Costs" to around $14 million. These "Investigative Study" costs are high -at 18% to 21% of the staff estimated $65 - $80 million project cost (about $21 - $26 million per mile). The City's proposed "15-year and $10 million CIPInvestigative Study" of a project that (as staff notes) already has completed both Realighment and Feasibility Alternative (Phase II) Studies in 2000 appears morelike a delay, defer, and 'kick-the-can-down-the-road' apprach to what has already been studied and is known; but has been and is currently being hidden fromCarlsbad Citizens. It appears another City re-Study to re-Defer a somewhat mythical (it is open space or is it development?) project - PHC Relocation anddevelopment. City staff and Coucnil should disclose to Carlsbad Citizens the City's 2000-2001 PCH Relocation Realighment and Feasibility Studies that theyreference (as justification) in the CIP description. City staff's proposed 15-years of additional "Investigative Re-Study" added to the prior 40-years of 'staff work'and likely will still result in 55-years of PCH Relocation re-Study, and re-Deferral that will likely lead (as it has for the past 40 years) to nothing reallly being donebut endless staff studies. Is this enless staff re-Study of studies a waste of tax- payer dollarsdollors? Sadly for Carlsbad Citizens the endless four-decades long City staff "Investigativere-Study" and City re-Deferral appears a deliberate strategy to delay, defer, 'continue kicking -the-can-down-the road', and 'run-out the clock' on CarlsbadCitizens to allow development to proceed. This 40-years of delay is occurring concurrently with developers and the City fast-tracking private developers' landuse changes that have (see History of Open Space at Ponto data file) and will now (if allowed by the City and CCC) finally and forever eliminate better, moresustainable, and more tax-payer saving options. Options like honest, cost- effective and responsibleresponcibland Use/Parks/Usable Growth ManagementOpen Space planning, and the much less costly aqusition of some of the last remaining vacant land at Ponto - like City Park/Open Space land purchases theCity Coucnil has done in other areas of Carlsbad. The Citizen desired and responsible tax-payer saving ideas P4P Carlsbad Citizens have repetitivelyproposed would have saved, and will likely can still save save, tens of millions of Carlsbad tax-payer dollars. For instance a few years ago P4P Carlsbad Citizens told the City Council the Citycould cost-effectively purchase 11.1 acre Ponto Planning Area F for less than $15 million (less than $1.35 million per acre) and that $15 million would saveCarlsbad tax-payers the $65 - $80 million City instead wants to spend on the 3.1 mile South Carlsbad Coastline (aka PCH Relocation) project. The $65 - $80million the City wants to spend on South Carlsbad Blvd (aka PCH Relcoation) would try to make usable up to about 15 acres of narrow/constrained City-ownedSurplus PCH roadway median at Ponto, at a cost of $4.3 to $5.3 million per acre of roadway median. This high cost is for roadway median land the City alreadyowns. Sadly the City Council by 1-vote said it already knew about these tax- payer cost savings and choose not to have staff even look at P4P Citizens' dataand opportuity for a better solution and tens of millions of tax-payer cost savings. After City Coucnil failed to listen to P4P Carlsbad Citizens 11.1 acre PontoPlanning Area F was instead purchased by a 3rd speculative developer - Fenton - for less than $8 million or less than $720,000 per acre. That cost is less than 17%to 14% of the per acre cost of the South Carlsbd Coastline project. The lower $8 million market cost established by Denton's resent purchase of 11.1 acre Planning Area F makes the P4P Carlsbad Citizens ideas even better and saves even moretax-payer dollars. There are other cost/discount factors to account such as the fact that no new Open Space land is being aquired in the City's CIP Project - the $4.3 to $5.3 million peracre cost is just to make some portions of existing City roadway median usable; and that a per acre Park improvemtn cost of about $1 million per acre (based onper acre costs to build the newest Buena Vista Resevior Park) when added to the $720,000 land puchase price would total to $1,720,000 per acre of fullydeveloped Park land. Yet this $1.72 million per acre (land purchase and improvemts) to both add new fully Usable Open Space acres and improveimprove that new land as a True Park is still only 40% to 32% of cost of 'only improve' existing City owned roadway median land to try to make some narrowpotions usable. P4P Carlsbad Citizens have proposed these (40% -32% or $46 to $61 million of) tax-payer savings that also achieve new Open Space acres, a Trueand better Park, and a Park Citizens actually want. As an example of the Carlsbad Citizens gathers City data and provided to the City 2 attached files: '2022 GeneralComparative Cost/Benifits of completing PCH-PCH modification-Ponto Park part 1 of 2', and 'City's PCH area map with numberd nortes of constraints part 2 of 2'. Both these data files use City data. We hoe the SC, City Commisisons and Coucnil and CCC read the data in these 2 files. P4P Citizens can provide the SC a history of the ideas (and Carlsbad tax-payersavings) we have provided since 2017 to create win-win solutions for all to address the well documeted and much needed (and overwhelmingly Citizenrequested) Ponto Park along, with providing the missing unconstrained/usable Open Space that Ponto developers should have provided in LFMP Zone 9. P4PCarlsbad Citizens care about Carlsbad and future Carlsbad generations. We want Carlsbad to be as good as it can be, and also use our tax-payer dollars effecintly. South Carlsbad Blvd missing sidewalks: South Carlsbad Carlsabd has some missing gaps in pedestrain paths/sidewalks along PCH that the City needs to fill to make a Complete Street. This simple andtax-payer saving solution can be done and shouldl have been done over the past 40-years since Ponto was anexed into the City of Carlsbad. But the City choose,and is still choosing, to this basic and cost-effective solution to complete missing sidewalks/paths. Citizen Petiitions and surveys show a large majority of CarsabdCitizens want a True and Significant Ponto City Park while baically keeping the open/Old California Historic Coast Highway 101 Charater of South CarlsbadBlvd (but fill-in the missing pedestain paths/sidewalks and maybe some other modest enahncements). Carlsbad has one of the last remaining features of OldCalifonia History in its last reamining lenght of Old (1920-60's) Highway 101 roadway and landscaping. This is a valuable Historical asset the City shouldconvert/compress/urbanize and 'develop over'. Please do the right things, and listen to Carlsbad Citizens. Sadly these Citizen desires and options (both expressed by petition and by City Survey) were notgiven honest consideration in the past to address the well documented need for Ponto City Park. A 40-year mythical PCH Relocation idea has been studied anddeferred as the 'City staff's solution' to these needs and are still being proposed by staff to be re-studied' and re-deferred. Then, as now, there are more tax-payerefficient and Citizen desired means to address the documented need for a Ponto Park and Complete South Carlsbad Blvd sidewalks, bike lane improvements, andbeach parking along PCH as documented in the attached “2 Part General Comparative Cost-Benefit & PCH Constraints Map” data files. o Do the right thing – direct staff to provide you and Carlsbad Citizens the attached 2001 ERA PCH Relocation FinancialFeasibility study on all relevant City Websites so Citizens can be properly informed § The current Council is now seeing a staff proposed 1- mile PCH Relocation around Palomar Airport Road fallshort, be over 100% over initial budget, and still not able to replace current beach parking with a sustainable"Managed Retreat" location for beach parking that is safe from loss due to sea level rise and bluff erosion. Thisnow $150 million per mile staff proposed project will still results in significant beach parking loss, whiledoubling congestion by cutting vehicle roadway capacity in half. § Recommend to the city Council to direct staff to require all developers adjacent to PCH to pay for PCHFrontage improvements. City staff currently are not requiring all properties (such as Planning Area F) to payfor their PCH right-of-way frontage improvements - such as putting in PCH sidewalks. Instead, staff proposedMaster Plan/LCP changes call for Carlsbad tax-payers pay for PCH right-of-way frontage costs for PlanningArea F. § Read the other better options to address Ponto Parkavailable and documented in the attached “2 Part General Comparative Cost-Benefit & PCH Constraints” datafiles. These options could be explored. o Do the Right Thing – read, disclose and make publicly availableto Carlsbad Citizens on the City's websites the two 2001 PCH Studies and the attached “2 Part Comparative Cost-Benefits & PCHConstraints” data files. § Carlsbad tax-payers will need to vote to fund PCHMedian Relocation and both you and Citizens need to know the facts and fully consider better options availableto address the documented need for a true Ponto Coastal City Park, and for completing PCH (fill sidewalk gaps,possible bike lane improvements, and create/expand beach parking). What is the Open Space legacy the Sustainability Commissioners wants to leaveto future Carlsbad generations? Each member of the Sustainability Commission has a once in lifetime opportunityto correct Ponto's (LFMP Zone 9) false exemption of Growth Management's usable Open Space Standard falsely given Ponto developers that resulted in 30acres of missing usable Open Space developers should have provided. You have the opportunity to: acknowledge and provide the missing 30-acres of Usable Open Space in LFMP Zone 9 Ponto developers should have provided, turn Carlsbad from the very worst So Cal Coastal City in providing a 10- minute walk to adequate Parkland to at least an average So Cal CoastalCity. Consider a new Park Standard to locate 3+ acres of City Park for 1,000residents that is within the 10-minute walk of all homes, At the very least lift Carlsbad up to 'an average Coastal City', but CarlsbadCitizens hope you will do better and make Carlsbad better, provide City Parkland where it is needed - particularly in Coastal SouthCarlsbad - not multiple large City Parks within a close and overlapping location like around Veterena Park,provide new City Parks and parkland to closer to providing 5-acres of City Park land per 1,000 population so Carlsbad can be at least as good as the 5-acres Encinitas and Oceanside provide their citizens, address the 2017 documented loss of 32-acres of High-Piority Coastal OpenSpace Land Use at Ponto that was not addressed in Carlsabd's 2015 General Plan, honestly commuincate to CarlsbadCarlsabd Citiizeitizen Cost/Benifits of City staff ideas to re-delay and forever (55+ years and counting) staff re-study the undesired PCH Relocation staff idea staff that is problematic, wastes tax-payer dollarsdollors, and is ted by Carlsbad Citizens (butrequires Carlsbad Citizens to vote to pay for), understand and honestly discuss with People for Ponto Carlsbad Citizensabout the other bettter, cheaper options Carlsbad Citizens have proposed and created since 2017 and options going forward,understand, acknowledge, and honestly consideer the 7,500+ Carlsbad Citizen and visitor petitions to the City and CCC on need and for the Cityto provide a true and significant Ponto City Park. All Carlsbad suffers if these Carlsbad Citizen issues are not openly, responcibly,and accountably to addressed with Carlsbad Citizens. All of us now in Carlsbad and all future Carlsbad Citizens and their children are impacted. If these issuesare not fully addressed and the future considered, further kicking-the-can-down- the-road delay/deferal will lead the City down a path of relatively lower Qualityof Life (and reduced relative desirablity, investment, and value) as other cities provide relatively more and better distributed Parks and Usable Open Space. Instead of an improving/sustainable Quality of Life as populations increase, Carlsbad will create an unsustainable and diminishing Quality of Life. Failure to honestly provide a much needed and TRUE and significant Ponto Park (on the last vacant unplanned land and opportunity to provide a true andmeaningful Coastal Park) will also push Coastal Park demand to North Carlsbad (or Encinitas), and increase VMT, traffic and parking congestion in NorthCarlsbad/Encinitas. Park and Coastal park demands and impacts are not isolated they impact all Carlsbad, and neighboring areas. Ponto has the last remaining vacant unplanned Coastal in South Coastal Carlsabd. Ponto Planning Area F's 11.1-acres of unplanned 'Non-ResidentialReserve' Coastal land is South Carlsbad's only viable location for its only possible Coastal Park and also is at the very center of a 6-mile length of coast without aCoastal Park. To each member of the SustainabilitySustainabilty dividually and collectivelyyour time is now. Your fellow Carlsbad Citizens hope you see the big picture, know the facts, listento your fellow citizens, are visionary, and act knowing your actions will be the final/forever Open Space land Use recommendations that will be provided. Mostall land once committed to developmentdevelopmet is or extremely expensive) to be un-developed and then preserved as Park and Open Space use. Sincerely, and with Aloha for Carlsbad and Aloha Aina, Lance Schulte CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. August 31, 2017 To: Carlsbad City Council council@carlsbadca.gov Carlsbad Parks & Recreation Commission at mike.pacheco@carlsbadca.gov Carlsbad Planning Commission at Don.Neu@carlsbadca.gov Kevin Crawford, City Manager at manager@carlsbadca.gov Chris Hazeltine, Parks & Recreation, City of Carlsbad chris.hazeltine@carlsbadca.gov Don Neu, Planning, City of Carlsbad Don.Neu@carlsbadca.gov Subject: City Park Standard in Southwest and South Carlsbad Dear Carlsbad City Council: The San Pacifico Community Association (SPCA) represents over 450 homes (around 1,000 Citizens) in the Southwest Quadrant/Park District of Carlsbad, and is the primary component and stakeholder of the Poinsettia Shores Planned Community (Poinsettia Shores Master Plan and Local Coastal Program). SPCA supported the residents in creating the Ponto Beachfront Development Review Committee (PBDRC) to:  Provide information to all San Pacifico residents (and surrounding neighborhoods) on the developments. (See www.PontoLocals.com)  Obtain and consolidate constructive feedback from the residents. Give this feedback to the residents, developers and City so that we can have productive/timely input into the projects and their designs.  Act as a strong, unified voice and with the support of our residents in upcoming Planning, Council and Coastal Commission meetings. Since PBDRC has been formed there has been a growing participation and concurrence from other Carlsbad areas and groups on the consensus PBDRC has consolidated. PBDRC and the SPCA are pleased that the City has taken action to fix a timeline defect in the Growth Management Program related to meeting a City Park standard. However there is another truly once in a lifetime opportunity to improve how the City Park standard is proposed to be met in Ponto and coastal South Carlsbad that we would like to request of the City Council. This opportunity stems from the fact that Ponto is the only vacant coastal land in South Carlsbad and is currently being evaluated for low- priority housing and other types of development. Should it be developed in this way, there will never be another opportunity to have a meaningful park in coastal Southwest Carlsbad west of Interstate 5. The request is to work with Pontolocals to provide a comprehensive and open process for citizens of the City [primarily Southwest and Southeast Carlsbad Citizens] to discuss and define possible better approaches to implement a coastal park in Southwest that can serve all of South Carlsbad. We recently had a community meeting attended by approximately 200 people and this letter reflects some of the near unanimous (90%+) concerns from that meeting. We believe these concerns are also likely to be reflective of many others living in South Carlsbad, and also in North Carlsbad. The City Park Standard is “3.0 acres of Community Park or Special Use Area per 1,000 population within the Park District”. So for every 1,000 Citizens in a Park District, such as the coastal Southwest Quadrant Park District, there is to be 3 acres of City Park to meet the standard. The rational for such a location specific standard is that parks should be distributed so as to be reasonably accessible by all citizens. It is also important to have reasonable and safe park access via walking and biking, not just by motor vehicles. The staff report on correcting the timeline defect in the Park Standard stated that correcting the timeline to correct the park quadrant deficits is “… specifically relevant to the southwest and southeast quadrants. As stated in the report a need for more park acreage in those two quadrants was identified four years ago (during FY 2012-13).” A 6.6 acre park deficit within the Southwest quadrant was identified in the Growth Management Monitoring Report for FY 2014-15. However the report indicates that “Based on the Fiscal Year 2015-16 Capital Improvement Program list of projects, Veteran’s Memorial Park (91.5 acres, with 22.9 acres applied to each quadrant) is proposed to be constructed prior to buildout.” Under this proposal the future Veteran’s Park, that is located in the Northwest Park District and located many miles away from the coastal Southwest and Southeast Quadrants and Park Districts, would be used meet the population and citizen demand for Parks for citizens within the coastal Southwest and Southeast Quadrant’s Park Districts. We know there is an outstanding opportunity for the City to do a great thing for the community and to add tremendous value to the quality of life by augmenting, enhancing, and/or adjusting planned park supply to better serve citizens and the City; and be more consistent with the General Plan and core values of the Growth Management Plan. The fundamental intent of creating four Park Districts (one for each quadrant) and managing and matching demand and supply of City Parks into smaller geographical areas (quadrant park districts) is to make the supply of City Parks reasonably accessible to their demand and more equitably distributed for citizens. Equitable distribution of City Park facilities is the right thing to do and has many citizen and city benefits:  Children and elderly can more easily walk and bike to City Parks when they are close by and within a safe walking and bicycling distance with properly designed access pathways;  Park supply created so far away from park demand creates the need to drive in a car to access the park, thus increasing vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Depending on locations this also limits park access for citizens without cars or unable to drive;  When city parks are accessible to their demand by walking/bicycling then less city park land is need to park cars. Citizens get more actual useable park space for each acre of park land;  When city parks are close to their demand busy families can quickly get to them after their workday which allows more park time for families during busy weekends;  Nearby city parks create a stronger sense of stewardship for the “neighborhoods’” park and city parks in general. Citizens watch out and care for their nearby park;  Nearby city parks that are equitably distributed and based on surrounding neighborhood demand serve to strengthen neighborhood quality and property values by providing park amenities close by. It is both a good neighborhood and economic development strategy to assure park demand and supply are locationally matched; and  Fundamentally it is the right thing to do to place park demand and supply in close proximity to each other and promote and equitable distribution public facility demand and supply. In coastal Southwest Carlsbad and South Carlsbad we have some glaring gaps in demand and supply of city parks. For instance: The Carlsbad General Plan Open Space, Conservation and Recreation Element, Figure 4-3 Parks: Shows no existing or planned coastal parks or special use areas west of Interstate 5 for all of South Carlsbad. In North Carlsbad there are 10, parks and special use areas west of Interstate 5 and on or close to the beach (9 of these are existing parks and 1 is a future park). This seems a clear and inherently unfair distribution of coastal park facilities. This unfair distribution severely reduces critical access to coastal park open space near the beach for South Carlsbad Citizens (half the City and over 26,000 homes, and over 64,000 citizens). This unserved demand for city park space in coastal South Carlsbad is evidenced by the dangerous use of the Carlsbad Boulevard [old highway 101] road shoulder and bike lanes and campground road for recreational purposes, parking demand and the frequent unauthorized recreational use of Ponto vacant land. People are using whatever land they can for needed recreational use. South Carlsbad Citizens in Aviara, La Costa, Rancho Carrillo, Bressi Ranch, La Costa Valley and all the other South Carlsbad inland neighborhoods have no coastal South Carlsbad City Beach Park areas to access the coast. Their only option is to drive significant distances (with increase VMT and greenhouse gas emissions] crosstown to access city beach parks in the North, or travel to Encinitas. This forces increased VMT and greenhouse gas emissions which is counter to both State and General Plan goals. Citizens in South Carlsbad only have a State Beach pay parking lot and a retreating primarily steep cobble beach as their “local” beach. The non-beach portion of the South Carlsbad State Beach campground is a road and lodging facility for primarily out-of-town visitors that are near this beach. It is not a city park. The Campground is not designed to serve the park needs of Carlsbad citizens, but is a great place primarily for visitors to affordably pay to spend nights camping near the beach. The lack of any park facilities at the campground is evidenced by the frequent use of the campground driveway (a significant area of the campground) by children and adults as a play area. There is an added benefit in that adding a coastal South Carlsbad Ponto Beach Park would help alleviate growing overcrowding, and increased traffic and parking congestion at North Carlsbad’s coastal parks. Citizens west of Interstate 5 in South Carlsbad have very limited access to a city park. Depending on the neighborhood one lives in, access our nearest park [Poinsettia Park] is between a 2 to 4 mile trip. Residents must cross Interstate 5 using one of only two crossings in the space of over 3 miles. These crossings are on major multi-lane, higher speed roadways (Poinsettia Lane or Palomar Airport Road). The route is not the most safe or direct, and it forces one to drive in a vehicle to access a park which increases VMT. Park access for children, the elderly, and those walking dogs west of Interstate 5 in South Carlsbad is severely restricted or effectively eliminated. Coastal Southwest and all of South Carlsbad have not met their quadrant’s Park area standard since 2012 (per the City’s Growth Management Program). A specific comprehensive and open discussion with the Southwest and all if South Carlsbad citizens on how that deficient should be resolved should occur. The current City solution to meet local park needs of coastal Southwest and South Carlsbad with a paper allocation of park acreage in the Northwest part of the City that is many miles away does not seem right. It seems inconsistent with the core values and Vision of our City. From Carlsbad General Plan Community Vision: “…the Carlsbad Community Vision, which is the foundation for this plan.” This is the foundation for the General Plan. “…In the future, … social connections will be enhanced through … more public gathering places, family- friendly activities, and open spaces within walking distance of people’s homes …” “The community is proud of the exceptional amount of open space in the city, and envisions a future of continued City commitment to open space protection and strategic acquisitions to further the city’s open space system.” “Parks, Fields, and Facilities for All Ages: The network of parks and recreation facilities will be improved to meet the community’s active lifestyle needs. Such improvements may include the strategic addition of more parks, … New facilities will be located to maximize use and access by all neighborhoods, tailored to the needs of local populations, and designed with all ages in mind.” “Beach Uses and Improvements: The beach is an important outdoor recreational resource, and protecting and enhancing access to the beach and the quality of the beach experience is a top community priority.” “ … Access to the beach and the quality of the beach experience will be improved through new compatible and supportive uses on or in close proximity to the beach, which may include … a park …” “Tailored Tourism Strategy: Tourism is an important component of the city’s economy today, and it remains an attractive economic sector for the future since it emphasizes the very resources that make the city attractive to existing residents—the ocean and beach …” “Easy and convenient pedestrian connections will be available from every neighborhood to help children get safely to schools and parks.” From General Plan Land Use Element: “Beach Access and Activity: …the community expressed an overwhelming preference for an active waterfront development strategy, which provides opportunities for activities and uses to be more integrated with the ocean. … Access to the beach will be enhanced through … open space, parking, and amenities …” General Plan Land Use Policy: “2-G.20 Develop an active ocean waterfront, with new growth accommodated west of Interstate 5, to enable residents and visitors to enjoy more opportunities for … recreating along the coastline. Develop public gathering places and recreational opportunities along the coastal corridor.” The City’s Park and Recreation Master Plan includes many areas of direction that strongly support a coastal park west of interstate 5 in South Carlsbad. Many of the most important park facilities and program needs identified in the City’s Park and Recreation Master Plan could be most efficiently addressed with a coastal park in the Ponto area. There are also significant and unique opportunities to create both public/private and public/public partnerships that would not only help reduce City recreation costs but also expand and create unique and special recreational program opportunities currently identified in the City’s Park and Recreation Master Plan. A Ponto city coastal park also implements a major General Plan policy which calls for an active waterfront and creates solutions to long standing Local Coastal Program policy and State Parks Campground issues. There are very unique and special land use compatibility opportunities and synergy from a coastal city park in south Carlsbad and Ponto area that are inline and implement high priorities identified in the City’s Park and Recreation Master Plan. In summary, Carlsbad has a once in a generation opportunity to create very special coastal South Carlsbad Ponto Beach Park in South Carlsbad. This opportunity will be true to our Carlsbad Community Vision and General Plan and the heart and soul of our Growth Management Plan’s standard of matching park demand with park supply within a particular park district. We believe this request benefits not only coastal Southwest Carlsbad and South Carlsbad but all of Carlsbad and is more consistent with the City General Plan, Growth Management Program, and Parks Master Plan and will result in a better, more valued and more sustainable City. We are a key Stakeholder in Ponto and the Poinsettia Shores Maser Plan and Local Coastal Program. We have been hearing similar concerns from other Carlsbad citizens about coastal beach park access and request that the City Council seize this opportunity to work with us to establish a comprehensive and open community discussion about the strategic acquisition of a coastal South Carlsbad Ponto Beach Park for South Carlsbad citizens and businesses. We also request before a solution to the 2012 Southwest quadrant park standard deficit is created we have an open citizen discussion with the Citizens of coastal Southwest Carlsbad on how that solution can better address the park demand created in the Southwest Park District with a better park supply created within that District. Like our City Park Standard says: “3.0 acres of Community Park or Special Use Area per 1,000 population within the Park District”. We request that a coastal City Park West of Interstate 5 be developed in South Carlsbad to be fair and equitable and to meet the needs of South Carlsbad for a coastal City Park to serve all the Citizens of South Carlsbad. This can take advantage of special land use synergies to help promote public/private collaboration, create added property and transit occupancy tax revenues for the City by creating a valuable and synergistic amenity [where none now exists] for over half the City and over 26,000 homes, along with providing support to our City’s visitor serving businesses and activities. It is the right and smart thing to do. The San Pacifico Community Association and PBDRC as key Stakeholders in Ponto wish to be a key participant any proposed City or CCC actions regarding these subjects, and would like to meet with you to see how we can discuss and advance this for the benefit of South Carlsbad Citizens. As we are citizen volunteers we sincerely appreciate advance notification to allow for preparation and coordination with our work lives and to communicate back to our members and other South Carlsbad Citizens. We wish to be notified in advance of any proposed actions related to the issues in thus letter. The San Pacifico Community Association contact information is: San Pacifico Community Association and PBDRC c/o Walters Management, Lee Leibenson 9665 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 300 San Diego, CA 92123 lleibenson@waltersmanagement.com The Ponto Beachfront Development Review Committee conducted the research cited in this letter. Along with general communications, please contact the following if you have technical questions regarding this letter. Key Committee contact information is: jeanscamp@yahoo.com sebbiessixpack@att.net; meyers-schulte@sbcglobal.net Thank you for your consideration. San Pacifico Community Association Board of Directors: Mr. Jim Nardi jtnardi1@msn.com Mr. Bill Van Cleve billvancleve@prodigy.net Mr. Adriaan van Zyl Vanzyl.aakc@live.com Mr. Tony Ruffolo tonyruffolo616@gmail.com Mr. Chas Wick chaswick@reagan.com cc: Board of Directors California Coastal Commission at Erin.Prahler@coastal.ca.gov and gbuhr@coastal.ca.gov From:Paige DeCino To:Environmental Subject:Oct. 2 commission meeting Item #2 Date:Wednesday, October 1, 2025 12:00:56 PM Attachments:image.png Dear Environmental Sustainability Commissioners, I regret I cannot attend the Oct. 2, 2025 meeting in person but did want to submit some comments relating to the planned discussion of your upcoming workplan. Open space for both wildlife and humans is a valuable commodity. The ballot literaturesupporting the growth management measure passed in 1986 (Proposition E) and signedby the mayor and city council, said passage of the measure “guarantees we will always be a low density community with 40% open space." While the city is getting close to that goal with about 38% open space, it has stepped back from fully acquiring that additional land thinking we are close enough. But looking into the actual numbers shows that we lack over 500 additional acres of open space. From Carlsbad’s General Plan: 40% of our 25,025 acres is 10,008 acres which is 562 acres more than the current total listed in the table above. As part of your workplan, I request that you look carefully into the idea of open space forour city – the categories and distribution to address the above issue as well as investigate the inequity of exempting 11 of the 25 Local Facility Management Zones (LFMZ) from the 15% unconstrained open space standard. This is not a simple issue and this commission needs to take the time to understand all the nuances of classifying open space and ensure equal access throughout all quadrants. Thank you. Paige DeCino Carlsbad resident CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.