HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-04-02; Environmental Sustainability Commission; 02; Overview of the City’s Growth Management Program Open Space Performance StandardMeeting Date: April 2, 2026
To: Environmental Sustainability Commission
From: James Wood, Environmental Sustainability Director
Staff Contact: Robert Efird, Principal Planner
robert.efird@carlsbadca.gov, 442-339-5148
Jennifer Jesser, Senior Planner
jennifer.jesser@carlsbadca.gov, 442-339-2637
Subject: Overview of the City’s Growth Management Program Open Space
Performance Standard
Districts: All
Recommended Action
Receive a presentation regarding the city’s Growth Management Program open space
performance standard, including information related to the Carlsbad Tomorrow Growth
Management Citizens Committee.
Discussion
Open space is valued for many reasons, including habitat protection, landform preservation,
scenic views, local heritage/culture, tourism, shaping urban form, rural character and farmland
preservation, public access and recreation, and green infrastructure/ecosystem services. As
such, open space is often an important part of city and regional growth management plans.
Using tools such as open space standards, transfer of development rights, zoning, conservation
easements, and subdivision dedications, jurisdictions can preserve open space through
regulations, exactions and incentives.
The city’s Growth Management Program, adopted in 1986, established 11 public facility
performance standards across 25 Local Facility Management Zones to ensure the provision of
adequate public facilities and infrastructure as the city grew. The open space performance
standard applies in zones 11-15 and 17-25. The standard requires that 15% of the total land
area in the zone, exclusive of environmentally constrained non-developable land, must be set
aside as open space. The Local Facility Management Plans for zones 11-15 and 17-25 identify
how open space will be provided within the respective zone consistent with the open space
performance standard.
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY COMMISSION
April 2, 2026 Item #2 Page 1 of 2
In all, these methods, including the Growth Management open space standard, have resulted in
38% of the city’s total land area being designated as open space.
The city utilizes other methods to protect additional open space resources and amenities such
as the Habitat Management Plan (which protects the city’s natural open space preserve
system), the parks performance standard (a separate standard in the Growth Management
Program) and the Trails Master Plan (parks and trails are considered recreational open space).
In March 2022, the Carlsbad Tomorrow Growth Management Citizens Committee was formed
with a mission to promote balanced consideration of a range of perspectives on issues affecting
the future growth and quality of life in Carlsbad and to identify the key elements of a new plan
to manage growth in Carlsbad in a way that maintains an excellent quality of life while also
complying with state law. City Council approved the committee’s recommendations in
November 2024. The committee recommended that the open space performance standard be
retained (15% within Local Facility Management Zones 11-15 and 17-25) and to clarify that, in
all areas of the city, open space shall be provided consistent with other city policies and
regulations, such as for protection of natural resources.
Fiscal Analysis
This action has no fiscal impact.
Environmental Evaluation
The proposed action is not a “project” as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act,
or CEQA, Section 21065 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5) and does not require
environment review under CEQA Guidelines Section 15060(c)(3) and 15061(b)(3), because the
proposed action to report on open space is an organizational or administrative government
activity that does not involve any commitment to any specific project which may result in a
potentially significant physical impact on the environment. Any subsequent action or direction
stemming from the proposed action may require preparation of an environmental document in
accordance with CEQA or CEQA Guidelines.
Exhibits
None.
April 2, 2026 Item #2 Page 2 of 2
From:Lance Schulte
To:Environmental; Council Internet Email; CarlsbadLCP@Coastal; City Clerk; "People for Ponto"
Subject:Public Input and Data on Carlsbad Ponto Usable Open Space for the 4/2/26 Carlsbad Sustainabilty Commssion
meeting and upcoming Carlsbad & Fenton LCP LUP Amemendment applications regarding a Flase Exemption ofGrowth Mangement Useable Open Space Standard
Date:Sunday, March 29, 2026 3:06:01 PM
Attachments:History of Open Space at Ponto - 2023-7-15.pdf
Dear Sustainability Commission and California Coastal Commission:
Carlsbad Citizens send this email and again the documented "History of
Open Space at Ponto"as public input to Carlsbad's Sustainability
Commission's April 2, 2026 meeting and to the CA Coastal Commission
regarding the LCP LUP Amendments at Ponto.
After receiving the Carlsbad Tomorrow Growth Management Committee's
recommendation on Nov. 19, 2024 a unanimous Carlsbad City Council
provide a directive to the Sustainability Commission regarding Carlsbad's
Growth Management USABLE Open Space Standard. The recommendation
and Council's directive to the Sustainability Commission is "... to
address open space needs throughout the city , address potential open space deficits
and evaluate opportunities to acquire more open space ... and by developing a plan
that prioritizes zones with less unconstrained open space [aka Ponto/LFMP-9] or
that are subject to loss due to sea level rise [also Ponto/LFMP-9]".
The Carlsbad Tomorrow Growth Management Committee recommendation
was focused and centered on over 700 Citizen presentations of data and
requests regarding Ponto/Local Facilities Management Zone 9
(Ponto/LFMP-9) and the 2 False Exemptions of the Growth Management
Usable Open Space Standard (15% of the Usable land in Ponto/LFMP Zone
9 to be preserved as Usable Open Space land.
Attached is again a documented (using official City of Carlsbad Public
Records) History of Open Space at Ponto that, along with other
documented facts, was provided to the Sustainability Commission many
months ago. The History of Open Space at Ponto documents the since 1996
Growth Management Open Space Deficit at Ponto/LFMP-9.
The attached History of Open Space at Ponto documents how a prior City
Council provided a significant gift to a Ponto developer by 2 False
Exemptions of the Growth Management Open Space Standard that was
based on 2 untruths told to Carlsbad Citizens. This City Council to
developer gift of 2 False Exemptions allowed Ponto developers to not
comply with and not meet Carlsbad's Growth Management (Usable) Open
Space land use standard, thus creating an "Growth Management Open
Space Deficit" at Ponto/LFMP-9. The directly adjacent and exactly similar
LFMP Zone developers had to comply with the Standard, but oddly
Ponto/LFMP-9 developers were Falsely Exempted.
The 2 False Exemptions resulted in the loss of a 12.8 acre Coastal
Recreation Commercial site of Usable Open Space that was originally
planned at Ponto (see map in the History), along with other planned
Usable Open Space (see data table in the History). The Ponto developer
then converted that planned Usable Open Space to Residential land use
(compare BLEPMP/LCP v. PSMP/LCP maps in History). This is an
ongoing Ponto developer request. The 2 False Exemptions contributed to
Ponto/LFMP-9 Census Tract currently having a residential density that is
now over 40% higher that the rest of Carlsbad.
The 2 False Exemptions of the Usable Open Space Standard impacted (and
currently are impacting) all of Carlsbad by removing needed Coastal
Recreation (aka, Usable Open Space) Land Use. This loss of Citywide
Usable Open Space/Coastal Recreation land use is particularity agregious
to South Carlsbad (home to 62% of Carlsbad's population and Carlsbad's
major Visitor Industries) because Ponto/LFMP-9 Usable Open Space land
use is vital to both Carlsbad's economic/social sustainability. Ponto/LFMP-
9 is at the center of a 6-mile length of coastline without a true Coastal Park,
and is the only significant vacant (and currently unplanned/Uncertified
LCP) land left to provide for true "Coastal Recreation (i.e Public Park)" land
use. Carlsbad's Current/CA Coastal Commission Certificated 2013 Local
Coastal Program Land Use Plan still requires a developer, the City, and the
CA Coastal Commission to consider "Coastal Recreation (i.e. Public Park)"
[aka Usable Open Space] and "Low-Cost Visitor Accommodation"
[currently Usable Open Space] Land Use needs at Ponto/LFMP-9 pursuant
to the CA Coastal Act prior to the the City's and/or Ponto developer's
current requests to change the last remaining unplanned open space a
Ponto/LFMP-9 to more high-density and expensive 'luxury apartments'.
The attached History of Open Space documents (with City documents) the 2
False Exemptions told to Carlsbad Citizens by Ponto developers and a prior
Council to Falsely Exempt Ponto prior developers from the Growth
Management Open Space Standard requiring a minimum 15% of the usable
land as Usable Open Space. Over 700 Carlsbad Citizens providing data and
Citizen requests bout the 2 documented False Exemptions from the Open
Space Standard at Ponto/LFMP-9 was a significant genesis of the current
Council direction to the Sustainability Commission "... to address open space
needs throughout the city , address potential open space deficits and evaluate
opportunities to acquire more open space ... and by developing a plan that
prioritizes zones with less unconstrained open space [aka Ponto/LFMP-9] or that
are subject to loss due to sea level rise [also Ponto/LFMP-9]"
Carlsbad Citizens hope the Sustainability Commission will provide an
honest and fact-based process for a truly fair, open and honest public
discussion (that actually allows citizen dialog) to correct the 2 False
Exemptions and and provide the missing Usable Open Space acreage at
Ponto/LFMP-9 to comply with the Growth Management 15% Usable Open
Space Standard.
Please read the attached History of Open Space at Ponto as it factually
documents in detail using City documents the 2 prior False Exemptions and
the missing 15% Usable Open Space at Ponto/LFMP-9 the Sustainability
Commission is directed to address. Some City staff may try to tell you you
can't address these issues, but that is counter to Council directive, untrue,
and also unAmerican in trying to deny your free-speech discussion.
Please also read the documented data Carlsbad Citizens provided the
Sustainability Commission months ago on the City's 2017 Sea Level Rise
impact analysis (done 2-years after the City's 2015 General Plan Update).
That 2017 City Report shows the not-to-distant future loss of about 32-acres
of Usable and Constrained Coastal Open Space land use at Ponto/LFMP-9.
This loss of 32-acres of Ponto Open Space Land Use is not documented,
mapped, addressed or mitigated in the City's current 2015 General Plan and
2013 CA Coastal Commission Certified Local Coastal Program.
I would be happy to answer any questions or go over the data in the
attached History of Open Space at Ponto, if the Sustainability Commission
would allow me the time to do so. I was a Carlsbad City Planner when we
created Growth Management. I wrote one of the first LFMP's for the City
(Zone 6) that ended up being the model for the subsequent developer
submitted LFMPs, and I was also the City planner for 2 of the 1st developer
submitted LFMPs Zones 11 & 12. So have I significant technical and
political understanding of the issues that current city staff could not and do
not have.
Since I have been a Carlsbad Citizen in the mid-1980s the amount and
equitable distribution of Usable Open Space has been one of the most
important issues for Carlsbad Citizens.
A past City Council told Carlsbad Citizens 2 untruths (the 2 False
Exemptions) that provided very significant financial gifts to Ponto
developers - False Exemption from the Usable Open Space Standard. The 2
False Exemptions allowed Ponto Developers to so far over-build at
Ponto/LFMP-9 such that Ponto currently (even with still 25 acres of
remaining unplanned vacant land) is already developed at a density that is
over 40% higher that the rest of Carlsbad (US Census data).
The City Council and staff, and CA Coastal Commission have so far
received about 8,000 signed/email petitions from Carlsbad Citizens and
visitors on the need for Usable Open Space at Ponto/LFMP-9 compliant
with Growth Management's 15% Usable Open Space Standard for the
Zone. The current City Council unanimously re-adopted that Usable
Open Space Standard. Carlsbad Citizens again ask the Sustainability
Commission and CA Coastal Commission to acknowledge:
The attached documented History of Open Space at Ponto,
The City documented missing Usable Open Space acreage at Ponto
within that History,
A past Council's False Exemption of the Open Space Standard (based
on 2 lies to Carlsbad Citizens) that gave a significant gift to a Ponto
developer to overbuild Ponto, and then
Please, as Council directed, provide a proposed City policy to the
City Council "... to address open space needs [at Ponto, and]
throughout the city , address potential open space deficits [at Ponto]
and evaluate opportunities to acquire more open space [at Ponto] ...
and by developing a plan that prioritizes zones with less
unconstrained open space [aka Ponto/LFMP-9] or that are subject to
loss due to sea level rise [also Ponto/LFMP-9]", and
Ask the current City Council to correct the past False Exemption and
require Ponto developers, and the City if needed, to provide Usable
Open Space so that the required 15% Usable Open Space for all of
Ponto/LFMP-9 is provided in compliance with the Growth
Management Usable Open Space Standard.
The 2 untruths told Carlsbad Citizens and 2 False Exemptions of the Usable
Open Space Standard (aka, gift to Ponto developers) have temporarily
damaged Carlsbad. But the Sustainability Commission and the current City
Council can permanently repair that prior damage. Repair requires Ponto
developers and the City to formally update Ponto/LFMP-9 (due to current
developer proposed - Master Plan and Local Coastal Program Amendment
applications - change in land use and/or City proposed 2015 General Plan
Update Local Coastal Program Amendment applications) to provide
sufficient Usable Open Space to eliminate the current Ponto/LFMP-9 Deficit
as documented by City data in the History of Open Space at Ponto.
Thank you,
Lance Schulte
Virus-free.www.avg.com
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and
know the content is safe.
Page 1 of 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):
The history of how required Growth Management Open Space (i.e. unconstrained/developable land)
that should have been dedicated Open Space was, and is now being proposed to be, inappropriately
converted to Residential land use by a Perpetuating a False Exemption of the Open Space Standard
provided Ponto Developers. This False Exemption needs correction and restitution. Ponto’s False
Exemption of the Open Space Standard and the ‘amendment shell-game’ GM Open Space history is a
critical warning sign to the Carlsbad Tomorrow Growth Management Committee, Planning Commission
and City Council. Ponto is a critical warning that a strong, accountable and accurate Open Space
Standard needs to be established for Carlsbad Tomorrow, AND a Growth Management Open Space
restitution plan needs to be established and funded that corrects the False Exemption for Ponto
Developers. If Ponto Developers were required like other similar developers at the time (Aviara and
Poinsettia Shores, “urbanizing La Costa Zones 11 & 12, etc.) to provide the required Growth
Management Open Space some of the critical Coastal Recreation and Coastal Park issues and extensive
Carlsbad Citizen needs/demands/desires at Ponto could likely have already been addressed.
How citizens found out about the False Exemption provided Ponto Developers:
In 2017 for the 1st time the city provided the GIS maps/data base accounting of Open Space in the City.
The City did this a part of settlement to a North County Advocates citizens’ lawsuit. The City Open Space
maps/data base allowed Carlsbad Citizens for the 1st time the ability to see and confirm what Open
Space was produced by Growth Management (GM). The City’s Open Space map/data base for Ponto
(LFMP-9) documented that about 30-acres of GM Open Space was missing (see; Carlsbad Official
Public Records Request - PRR 2017-164). As required by GM, and as Staff has said, to count as GM
Open Space it must be dedicated and ‘unconstrained/developable land’ to meet the GM Open Space
Standard. Being able to see for the 1st time the missing GM Open Space was one of the key awakenings
that started People for Ponto Carlsbad Citizens. Below is the City’s Open Space Map for LFMP-9, with
notes. We have the City’s parcel-based Open Space data base that confirms all the numerical data in
the notes.
Page 2 of 20
City GIS map of Ponto’s (LFMP Zone 9)
Open Space:
• Light green areas meet the City’s 15%
unconstrained Growth Management
Program Open Space Standard
• Most Ponto Open Space (pink hatch &
blue [water] on map) is “Constrained”
and does not meet the Standard
• 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?
• Why Ponto developers were never
required to comply with the 15%
Standard Open Space is subject to
current litigation
• Below is City GIS data from this map
City GIS map data summary of the 15% Growth Management Standard Open Space at Ponto
472 Acres Total land in LFMP Zone 9 [Ponto]
(197 Acres) Constrained land excluded from GMP Open Space
275 Acres Unconstrained land in LFMP Zone 9 [Ponto]
X 15% GMP Minimum Unconstrained Open Space requirement
41 Acres GMP Minimum Unconstrained Open Space required
(11 Acres) GMP Open Space provided & mapped per City GIS data
30 Acres Missing Unconstrained Open Space needed in LFMP Zone 9 [Ponto] to meet the City’s
minimum GMP Open Space Standard per City’s GIS map & data
73% of the City’s minimum 15% required Open Space Standard is missing due to over
development of LFMP Zone 9 [Ponto]
Page 3 of 20
So were did the missing GM Open Space go?
In early 1985 prior to the Ponto’s developer (SAMMIS) annexing Ponto into the City of Carlsbad, San
Diego County’s LAFCO (local agency formation commission) General Planned and pre-zoned, Ponto’s
Batiquitos Lagoon waters and the lagoon bluff slopes as Open Space. This Open Space was “Constrained
Open Space” – State jurisdictional waters, and steep slopes with Coastal Sage Scrub (CSS) habitat. These
already pre-zoned constrained/non-developable Open Spaces were accounted for as part of the City’s
25% pre-Growth Management Plan Open Space, and per Growth Management can’t be counted in
meeting the 15% Growth Management Open Space Standard. The pre-zoned Open Space is shown in
the City’s Open Space map and properly marked as “Preservation of Natural Resources” Open Space
land. This already pre-zoned Constrained (non-developable, aka ‘Preservation of Natural Resources’)
Open Space land at Ponto was documented in the proposed SAMMIS Batiquitos Lagoon Educational
Park (BLEP) Master Plan MP-175 as Areas N, O, and P in the Land Use Summary below.
On Oct, 1 1985 Carlsbad approved SAMIS’s Master Plan and EIR to develop Ponto. SAMIS’s BLEP Master
Plan MP-175. Following are BLEP MP-175’s General Plan & Land Use Summary maps:
Page 4 of 20
The BLEP MP-175 did include a variety of GM compliant Open Space.
• 12.8 acre Recreation Commercial land use (Area I) that was playfields and Coastal Recreation
site for MP-175 and South Carlsbad. This is a Critical GM Open Space that was never
dedicated.
• A minimum 30’ wide landscaped Open Space on both sides of Windrose Circle (along Areas A, B,
C, E, F, I, G and H) that circled Area A. Windrose Circle was bordered on each side by 30’ of
landscaped Open Space.
• Additional minimum 30’ wide landscaped setbacks between buildings in Area A
• 2.8 acres of private recreation open space for the maximum amount of residential units
• 45’ to 50’ landscaped setbacks from the Batiquitos Lagoon Bluff edge (this was later developed
with Residential land use in some areas of Ponto).
• 75’ landscaped separation between Areas C and D
• 70’ landscaped separation between Areas D and E
• 25’ landscaped setback along Avenida Encinas for Area E
• 30’ to 80’ landscape setback between Lakeshore Gardens and Area F
• 25’ landscaped setback along Avenida Encinas for Area F
• 50’ landscaped setback between Areas F and I
Page 5 of 20
• 75’ landscaped separation between Areas G and H
• 50’ to 80’ landscape setback for Area I between Lakeshore Gardens and between Area F
So, prior to Ponto being annexed into the City of Carlsbad in the mid-1980’s and prior to Growth
Management the Batiquitos Lagoon and lagoons bluff slopes (constrained and unusable due to habitat
and slope constraints) were already pre-zoned Open Space and General Planned as Constrained Habitat
Open Space. This constrained Open Space did not and cannot meet the 15% GM Open Space Standard.
In 1986 Citizens voted for the City’s version of Growth Management that included at New Standard for
Useable Open Space. The new standard was that 15% of all unconstrained useable/developable land
within a Local Facility Management Zone was to be dedicated as Open Space. Once the vote was in the
City adopted the Growth Management Ordinance 21.90 of Carlsbad’s Municipal Code (City Council
Ordinance No. 9791. (Ord. 9829 § 1, 1987; Ord. 9808 § 1, 1986)).
In adopting the Growth Management Ordinance 21.90.010 the Council Clearly stated:
(b) The city council of the city has determined despite previous city council actions, including
but not limited to, amendments to the land use, housing, and parks and recreation elements of
the general plan, amendments to city council Policy No. 17, adoption of traffic impact fees, and
modification of park dedication and improvement requirements, that the demand for facilities
and improvements has outpaced the supply resulting in shortages in public facilities and
improvements, including, but not limited to, streets, parks, open space, schools, libraries,
drainage facilities and general governmental facilities. The city council has further determined
that these shortages are detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare of the citizens of
Carlsbad.
(c) This chapter is adopted to ensure the implementation of the policies stated in subsection
(a), to eliminate the shortages identified in subsection (b), to ensure that no development
occurs without providing for adequate facilities and improvements, …”
The Citizens and Council recognized that prior City plans were not adequate to address the current (and
future) needs for facilities. Upon adoption of the New Growth Management Standards certain facilities
were already below-Standard simply based on the existing development and population. Growth
Management required additional facilities simply to bring the then current development/population up
to the New Minimum Standards. I am personally familiar with 3 GM Standards in LFMP-6 (old La Costa)
that I worked on – Library, Fire, and Park where already below-Standard i.e. existing
development/population in Old La Costa required more facilities to meet the new Growth Management
Standards. We worked to provide these new facilities for the existing development/population (i.e. fix
the Standard deficits) and then to also plan even more additional facilities at a ratio that met the New
Standards for the additional future development in Old La Costa. I can provide you some interesting
stories on that.
Page 6 of 20
I also recall working on the surrounding La Costa LRMP Zones 11 & 12 that Like Ponto/FMP-9 were
considered “Cat II: Urbanizing” yet Unlike Ponto/LFMP-9 LFMP Zone 11 & 12 were not falsely exempted
for the GMP Open Space Standard and had to provide the GM Open Space Standard of 15% of the
unconstrained/developable lands as dedicated Useable Open Space.
The Citizens vote on Proposition E and the subsequent Growth Management Ordinance 21.90 are the
rules on which the Growth Management Plans (both Citywide and 25 Local Facility Plans) are required to
follow.
To create the Citywide and the Local plans (Zones 1-6) for the largely developed areas the City needed
to temporarily pause development activity to allow time for city staff to Draft the Growth Management
Plan (my work as a city planner at the time was re-directed to draft growth management plans). So the
Growth Management Ordinance 21.90.030, established a Temporary Development Moratorium to
pause development processing activity while the Growth Management Plan was being Drafted.
Following is that language of 21.90.030. Notes are shown as italicized text within [example]:
“21.90.030 General prohibition—Exceptions.
(a) Unless exempted by the provisions of this chapter, 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 chapter. [Clearly indicates the exemptions in 21.90.030 are only from the temporary
development moratorium created by 21.90.]
(b) No zone change, general plan amendment, master plan amendment or specific plan
amendment which would increase the residential density or development intensity established
by the general plan in effect on the effective date of this chapter shall be approved unless an
amendment to the citywide facilities management plan and the applicable local facilities
management plan has first been approved. [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]
(c) 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 MP’s
exemption from the temporary moratorium is (g)]
(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,
Page 7 of 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]:
(1) The city council finds that the 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]
(2) 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 “all
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]
(3) The master plan establishes an educational park and 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.]
(4) 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 which the city council finds is
satisfactory and consistent with the goals and intent of the approved master plan. [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.]
(5) Prior to the approval of the final map for Phase I the master plan developer shall have
agreed to participate in the restoration of a significant lagoon and wetland resource area and
made any dedications of property necessary to accomplish the restoration. [Again clearly notes
the exemption only allows a final map for Phase I to be processed. The “lagoon and wetland
Page 8 of 20
resource area” are part of the same constrained/undevelopable lands already pre-zoned prior
to the BLEP MP being incorporated into the City of Carlsbad]”
The Aviara Master Plan (directly adjacent and east of Ponto) and was also being developed at the same
time as Ponto/BLEP MP. 21.90.030 also provided the Aviara Master Plan a similar exemption (h) and
similar lagoon related quid-pro-quo for that exemption. But Aviara did not receive a GM Open Space
Standard Exemption. :
“(iv) Prior to any processing on the [Aviara] master plan the applicant shall grant an easement
over the property necessary for the lagoon restoration and the right-of-way necessary for the
widening of La Costa Avenue and its intersection with El Camino Real. (Ord. NS-63 § 1, 1989;
Ord. 9837 § 1, 1987; Ord. 9808 § 1, 1986)”
Some City staff have incorrectly stated to the City Council that they believe 21.90.030 exempts
Ponto/LFMP-9 from the Growth Management Ordinance/Program or Growth Management Open Space
Standard. RESOLUTION NO. 8666- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA APPROVING TWO AGREEMENTS FOR BATIQUITOS LAGOON EDUCATIONAL PARK also shows
the 21.90.030 exemption was only for development permits during the temporary building moratorium.
In 1986 the City falsely exempted in the Citywide Facilities Plan all Ponto developers from providing 15%
of their useable/developable land as GM required Open Space. The City’s documented/adopted rational
in the Citywide Plan was that Ponto/LFMP-9 was 1) in 1986 already developed, or 2) in 1986 the
developer had already met the GM Open Space Standard by having already dedicated 15% of the
useable land as Open Space. Both situations were/are false. Any air photo map or even the 1986 LFMP-
9 clearly states Ponto was NOT developed in 1986, as only the Lakeshore Gardens existed and the
Ralphs Center was just starting construction. Also the City’s GIS Open Space mapping (see above) shows
that SAMMIS the Ponto developer (BLEP Master Plan MP-175) in 1986 had Not dedicated as Open Space
15% of the useable land as Growth Management compliant Open Space as shown/described in the BLEP
MP (i.e. the 12.8 Acre Recreation Commercial site and all the landscaped open space setbacks required
in the BLEP MP-175. If that 15% was dedicated in 1986 it would show-up on the City’s inventory of
Dedicated Open Space now. So how did this occur?
How Ponto’s planned GM Open Space was eliminated and replaced with Residential land use:
In late 1980’s SAMMIS the BLEP MP-175 developer started building the 75-home Rosalena Development
as the first part of Phase I of the BLEP MP. The City (based on my recollection was very desirous to
develop the BLEP MP) and required special time limits on the BLEP MP to actually advance building the
‘Educational Park’ with all the “integrated” land uses (including GM compliant Open Space) within a
certain period of time. SAMIS was having financial issues and difficulty delivering the BLEP MP land
uses. Amendments (A, B, and C) to BLEP MP reflected on these difficulties:
Page 9 of 20
• MP 175(A) to allow minor accessory structures within the rear yards of all Phase I single family
lots located in Planning Area “C”. [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
Development Permit for Rosalena. This is an interesting history that can be explained later if the
CTGMC would like.]
• MP 175(B) to realign Carlsbad Blvd., between North Batiquitos Lagoon and west of I-5 to
accommodate the Sammis Development was WITHDRAWN January 12, 1990, and
• MP 175(C) a request for 5-year extension of time for Master Plan approval related to
educational uses on this project was Approved Planning Commission Resolution No. 2841, April
19, 1989 and approved City Council Ordinance No. NS-83, September 5, 1990.
SAMMIS went bankrupt around 1990 and Kaiza Development purchased the BLEP MP. Kaiza completed
the Rosalena development started by SAMMIS. Kaiza then sought to completely change the planned
land uses on all the remaining unconstrained/developable land in the BLEP MP.
General Plan and Master Plan Amendments eliminated/reduced BLEP’s Growth Management compliant
Open Space and replace with Residential uses in the “amended” Poinsettia Shores Master Plan:
When Kaiza acquired the BLEP MP-175 and its vacant land only the State Campground, Lakeshore
Gardens, Ralphs Center, and now Rosalena were approved/existing developments at Ponto. Kaiza
proposed a Master Plan Amendment to delete the BLEP MP-175 and all its developable land uses,
except for the only portion of Phase I developed – the 75 unit Rosalena subdivision. The pre-BLEP MP
pre-zoned (and General Planned) constrained/undevelopable Lagoon waters and lagoon bluff Open
Spaces and the CA Coastal Act (LCP) required bluff top setbacks were the only Open Spaces retained in
Kaiza’s proposed General Plan land use and Master Plan Amendments.
Most all of the BLEP MP-175 (and Ponto/LFMP-9) land area was still undeveloped at the time Kaiza
proposed changing all the General Plan land uses at Ponto and eliminating the usable Open Space in
BLEP MP.
Kaiza’s General Plan land use and Master Plan ‘Amendments’ made radical land use changes that
converted some critical Useable GM Open Space to residential land use and also reduced some GM
Open Space provided in BLEP MP. Following is Kaiza’s Amended General Plan land use map and bullet
summary of the major Open Space changes without getting into a very detailed forensic analysis:
• Eliminated the 12.8 acre Recreation Commercial land use.
• Eliminated the minimum 30’ wide landscaped Open Space on both sides of Windrose Circle for
the large unbuilt portions of Windrose Circle
• Reduced by 10’ the landscaped Open Space on the smaller built portion of Windrose Circle
• Eliminated on 40.3 acres the additional minimum 30’ wide landscaped setbacks between
buildings
Page 10 of 20
• Reduced BLEP’s 2.8 acres of private recreation open space to 2.3 acres
• Except for the Rosalena (BLEP Area C) and (PSMP Area J), maintained the 45’ to 50’ landscaped
setbacks from the Batiquitos Lagoon Bluff edge
• Eliminated the 75’ landscaped separation between BLEP MP Areas C and D
• Eliminated the 70’ landscaped separation between BLEP MP Areas D and E
• Maintained the 25’ landscaped setback along Avenida Encinas. [However new Master Plan
Amendments MP-175L propose reducing the setback to 10’ on the undeveloped frontage of
Avenida between PCH and the railroad tracks]
• Placed a road in most of the 80’ landscape setback between Lakeshore Gardens
• Eliminated the 50’ landscaped setback between BLEP MP Areas F and I
• Eliminated the 75’ landscaped separation between BLEP MP Areas G and H
• Added a 20’ wide by 1,000’ long landscaped strip for an HOA trail
Kaiza’s Master Plan Amendment MP 175 (D) eliminated the 12.8 acre Open Space land use (with an
associated General Plan Amendment to add more residential land use) and reduced the other useable
Open Spaces required in the BLEP MP. When the 1994 Kaiza MP 175 (D) General Plan Amendments
were proposed, it seemed they voided the ‘1986 GM Open Space exemption’ that was clearly specific
Page 11 of 20
only to the 1986 BLEP MP land uses and regulation. Although this was a false exempted, the exemption
only applied to the complete/integrated land use and open space provided in the 1986 BLEP MP. The
1986 exemption specific to BLEP MP could not apply to a different and later 1994 General Plan land use
plan that eliminated the 12.8 acre Recreation Commercial (Open Space) site to add residential land use
and that also reduced the GM compliant Open Space provided in the 1986 BLEP MP. 21.90.030(b) notes
that:
“(b) No zone change, general plan amendment, master plan amendment or specific plan
amendment which would increase the residential density or development intensity established by
the general plan in effect on the effective date of this chapter shall be approved unless an
amendment to the citywide facilities management plan and the applicable local facilities
management plan has first been approved.”
The 1994 Kaiza General Plan land use and Master Plan (MP 175(D)) Amendments removed 12.8 acres of
Recreation Commercial (GM compliant Open Space) to add residential land use. This violated
21.90.030(b) by doing so without a first providing a Citywide Facilities Plan Amendment that analyzed
the actual amount of GM compliant Open Space being proposed in the 1994 Kaiza MP 175(D) relative to
the 1986 BLEP MP on which the 1986 GM Open Space exemption for LFMP-9 was based. MP 175(D) is
noted in the MP as follows:
• “MP 175 (D) Kaiza Poinsettia Master Plan To replace educational uses with residential land uses
And rename to Poinsettia Shores Master Plan (was) Approved Planning Commission Resolution
No. 3552, November 3, 1993, Approved City Council Ordinance No. NS-266, January 18, 1994.”
Kaiza’s MP 175(D) inaccurately and bizarrely claimed BLEP MP’s prior false exemption from the GM
Open Space Standard as the justification that Kaiza’s new 1994 Open Space land use changes that seem
to reduce the amount of GM complaint Open Space in the 1986 BLEP MP are also exempt from the GM
Open Space Standard. Kaiza’s MP 175(D) claims 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. The stated principles of Growth Management, the Growth Management
Ordnance 21.90 and the Growth Management Open Space Standard DO NOT allow a developer or the
City to count already documented Constrained and unbuildable habitat (and water) as Unconstrained
and developable land. You can’t just turn ‘an apple into a banana by saying it’, or turn
‘Constrained/Undevelopable land into Unconstrained/Developable land by just saying it.
Compliance with the law in this Open Space issue is a part of a current lawsuit by North County
Advocates a group of Citizens watchdogs. The City has unsuccessfully tried to diminish this lawsuit. A
judge/jury will determine the outcome.
Additional MP 175 Amendments have been proposed by and approved to further modify land use and
regulatory limitations at Ponto. These include:
Page 12 of 20
• MP 175(E) Poinsettia Shores Master Plan, Redefinition of minor amendment to provide a
flexible regulatory procedure to encourage creative and imaginative planning of coordinated
communities, WITHDRAWN November 1, 1994
• MP 175(F) Poinsettia Shores Master Plan minor amendment to actualize off-site option for
provision of 90 affordable housing dwelling units, Approved Planning Commission Resolution
No. 3774, April 19, 1995
• MP 175(G) Poinsettia Shores Master Plan minor amendment to adopt Coastal Commission
Suggested modifications, Approved Planning Commission Resolution No. 3922, June 5, 1996
Approved City Council July 16, 1996, NS-367
• MP 175(H) Poinsettia Shores Master Plan - major amendment FOR HOTEL AND TIMESHARE
USES, WITHDRAWN January 16, 2003
• MP 175(I) Poinsettia Shores Master Plan – Rosalena Trail Amendment, WITHDRAWN January
8, 2002
• MP 175(J) Poinsettia Shores Master Plan – major amendment for Carlsbad Coast Residential
project to allow RM land use on Poinsettia Shores, WITHDRAWN January 8, 2002
• MP 175 (K) Poinsettia Shores Master Plan – Ponto Area Specific Plan Mixed use consisting of
residential, commercial and retail uses, WITHDRAWN August 19, 2004
• MP 175(L) Poinsettia Shores Master Plan – Major amendment for commercial and residential
development on Planning Area F, Still being proposed by developers and being processed by
the City.
The false exemption for the BLEP MP based LFMP-9 should never have occurred. However,
completely eliminating BLEP MP’s OpenSpace land use (12.8 acre Recreation Commercial) and
reducing BLEP MP’s required Open Space while 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.
The CA Coastal Commission in MP 175 (G) in part recognized the elimination of the 12.8 acre Recreation
Commercial land use and maybe some of the Open Space land use changes and added the following
land use regulations for 11.1 acre Planning Area F in the Carlsbad’s Local Coastal Program LCP). The LCP
as per State Law and referenced in Carlsbad’s General Plan is the controlling land use regulation over the
General Plan, Poinsettia Shores Master Plan and in the Coastal Zone:
“PLANNING AREA F: Planning Area F is located at the far northwest corner of the Master Plan
area west of the AT&SF Railway 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.
Page 13 of 20
The intent of the NRR designation is not to limit the range of potential future uses entirely to
nonresidential, 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 this site would likely be redesignated as “unplanned.” Future
uses could include, but are not limited to: commercial, residential, office, and other uses,
subject to future review and approval.
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 the railroad.”
In 2010 the CA Coastal Commission in 2010 rejected the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan on which
MP 175(K) was based. MP 175(K) was withdrawn.
On July 3, 2017 the CA Coastal Commission provided direction to the City of Carlsbad regarding MP
175(G), Carlsbad’s 2015 General Plan Update, Carlsbad proposed Local Coastal Program Amendment
Land Use Plan (LUP) . CA Coastal Commission wrote to the City the following. Notes on the context of
communication are in bracketed italics [example]:
“The existing LUP includes policies that require certain visitor-serving developments and/or
studies relevant to the Ponto … 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. …
this study should be undertaken as a part of the visitor serving use inventory analysis described
above. [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.”
In 2017 the City conducted the first Sea Level Rise (SLR) Vulnerability Assessment
https://www.carlsbadca.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=33958 . That first initial analysis,
shows significant SLR impacts that will reduce existing Ponto Open Space - the State beach and
Campground and along the Batiquitos Lagoon. The City identified SLR impacts on Ponto Open Space are
summarized in the next section of this history.
In 2023 the CA Coastal Commission will consider the data and public input and decide the appropriate
land use for 11.1 acre Planning Area F based the CA Coastal Act and Coastal Act land use policies.
You can determine the Open Space and Park Quality of Life Standards that will be applied to this and
other future land uses.
Page 14 of 20
City assessment of Sea Level Rise impacts on reducing Ponto Open Space
The City’s 2017 SLR assessment shows SLR will significantly reduce or eliminate only existing Open Space
land at Ponto. The City’s assessment quantifies the speratic/episodic loss of Ponto/Coastal South
Carlsbad Open Space land and land uses being at the State Campground, Beaches, and Batiquitos
Lagoon shoreline – about 32 acres by the year 2100, this would be an average loss of 17,000 square feet
of Open Space per year. Following (within quotation marks) is a description, quantification and images
of the City’s projected loss of Ponto/Coastal South Carlsbad Open Space land and land use due to SLR.
[Italicized text within brackets] is added data based on review of aerial photo maps in the Assessment.
“Planning Zone 3 consists of the Southern Shoreline Planning Area and the Batiquitos Lagoon. Assets
within this zone are vulnerable to inundation, coastal flooding and bluff erosion in both planning
horizons (2050 and 2100). A summary of the vulnerability assessment rating is provided in Table 5. A
discussion of the vulnerability and risk assessment is also provided for each asset category.
5.3.1. Beaches
Approximately 14 acres of beach area is projected to be impacted by inundation/erosion in 2050. …
Beaches in this planning area are backed by unarmored coastal bluffs. Sand derived from the natural
erosion of the bluff as sea levels rise may be adequate to sustain beach widths, thus, beaches in this
reach were assumed to have a moderate adaptive capacity. The overall vulnerability rating for beaches
is moderate for 2050.
Vulnerability is rated moderate for the 2100 horizon due to the significant amount of erosion expected
as the beaches are squeezed between rising sea levels and bluffs. Assuming the bluffs are unarmored in
the future, sand derived from bluff erosion may sustain some level of beaches in this planning
area. A complete loss of beaches poses a high risk to the city as the natural barrier from storm waves is
lost as well as a reduction in beach access, recreation and the economic benefits the beaches provide.
5.3.3. State Parks
A majority of the South Carlsbad State Beach day-use facilities and campgrounds (separated into
four parcels) were determined to be exposed to bluff erosion by the 2050 sea level rise scenario
(moderate exposure). This resource is considered to have a high sensitivity since bluff erosion
could significantly impair usage of the facilities. Though economic impacts to the physical structures
within South Carlsbad State Beach would be relatively low, the loss of this park would be significant
since adequate space for the park to move inland is not available (low adaptive capacity). State
parks was assigned a high vulnerability in the 2050 planning horizon. State park facilities are recognized
as important assets to the city in terms of economic and recreation value as well as providing low-cost
visitor serving amenities. This vulnerability poses a high risk to coastal access, recreation, and
tourism opportunities in this planning area.
Page 15 of 20
In 2100, bluff erosion of South Carlsbad State Beach day-use facilities and campgrounds become
more severe and the South Ponto State Beach day-use area becomes exposed to coastal flooding
during extreme events. The sensitivity of the South Ponto day-use area is low because impacts to usage
will be temporary and no major damage to facilities would be anticipated. Vulnerability and risk to State
Parks remains high by 2100 due to the impacts to South Carlsbad State Beach in combination
with flooding impacts to South Ponto.
Table 5: Planning Zone 3 Vulnerability Assessment Summary [condensed & notated]:
Asset Horizon Vulnerability
Category [time] Hazard Type Impacted Assets Rating
Beaches 2050 Inundation/Erosion, Flooding 14 acres (erosion) Moderate
2100 Inundation/Erosion, Flooding 54 acres (erosion) Moderate
Public Access 2050 Inundation, Flooding 6 access points Moderate
4,791 feet of trails
2100 Inundation, Flooding 10 access points Moderate
14,049 feet of trails
State Parks 2050 Flooding, Bluff Erosion 4 parcels [<18 Acres] High
[Campground - 2100 Flooding, Bluff Erosion 4 parcels [>18 Acres] High
Low-cost Visitor [loss of over 50% of
Accommodations] the campground &
its Low-cost Visitor
Accommodations,
See Figure 5.]
Transportation 2050 Bluff Erosion 1,383 linear feet Moderate
Page 16 of 20
(Road, Bike, 2100 Flooding, Bluff Erosion 11,280 linear feet High
Pedestrian)
Environmentally 2050 Inundation, Flooding 572 acres Moderate
Sensitive 2100 Inundation, Flooding 606 acres High
Lands
Page 17 of 20
Page 18 of 20
[Figure 5 show the loss of over 50% of the campground and campground sites with a minimal .2 meter
Sea Level Rise (SLR), and potentially the entire campground (due to loss of access road) in 2 meter SLF.]”
This 2017 SLR data and quantified losses of Ponto/Coastal South Carlsbad Open Space land and land
uses was not considered in the City’s rejected (by CCC) Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan. The Ponto
Vision Plan is the basis for the City’s 2015 General Plan Update that is now being proposed in the City’s
Local Coastal Program Amendment now before the CA Coastal Commission.
Summary:
LFPM-9 was clearly not developed in 1986, and did not then or now dedicate 15% of the
unconstrained/developable land as Open Space as required by the Growth Management Open Space
Standard. These two reasons for the City to “exempt” LFMP-9 from Open Space Standard were/are
False. Saying Constrained/undevelopable land can be counted as Unconstrained/developable land is also
false and clearly not allowed according to the Growth Management Ordinance, Standards, principles,
and common-sense honesty to Carlsbad Citizens. LFMP-9, as the City’s own maps/data base show is
clearly missing 30-acres of GM Open Space. In addition in 2017 we learned that Ponto/Coastal South
Carlsbad will lose about 32 acres of existing Open Space due to SLF.
Closing thoughts:
Growth Management is based on the type/amount/location of General Plan land use designations, the
development potential of those land use designations in creating the demand for the
type/amount/location of facilities, and supply of the type/amount/distribution of facilities – like Open
Space and Parks. If the type/amount/location of supply of facilities does not meet the demand for those
facilities then growth management fails and Quality of Life is reduced.
Quality of Life Standards are used to assure supply and demand for facilities is properly balanced with
respect to type/amount/location.
Ponto is clearly unbalanced. The Ponto Census Track is at a 40% higher population density than the rest
of Carlsbad, yet is Ponto is NOT meeting the Open Space Standard and has NO Park (see City Open Space
maps and Park Master Plan). Ponto and all South Carlsbad have higher population demand for Parks
and Open Space facilities yet Ponto (that is the only place to provide Coastal Park and Open Space needs
for South Carlsbad) has lower or none of those two most critical GM Facilities needed to balance and
mitigate the 40% higher population density at Ponto and also the higher residential density in South
Carlsbad.
Ponto and Coastal South Carlsbad also have additional State and regional responsibilities to provide
Coastal Recreation and Open Space for populations of people and visitors from outside of Ponto and
Carlsbad.
Page 19 of 20
This failure to honestly and adequately balance the type/amount/location higher population density by
providing higher levels of Parks and Open Space in those areas will lead to a slow and but eventual
reduction of the Quality of Life for those areas.
Common sense and the Carlsbad’s Growth Management law say if you change the land use (like what
was done and is still being proposed at Ponto) you change the type/amount/location of potential
development and population and the Growth Management impacts. Land use changes require and
honest/accurate/balanced update to Citywide and Local Growth Management Plans to accurately reflect
those changes and provide an updated plan to provide facilities that meet the Standards for those land
use changes. This is the fundamental heart of any Growth Management.
The Carlsbad Tomorrow Growth Management Committee, and City Commissions and Council are all
now facing the same issues and responsibility that we faced in the 1980’s at the beginning of Growth
Management. We established New Quality of Life Standards – for Open Space and Parks – that required
New investments in Parks and Open Space by both the City and developers.
Open Space and Parks have always been identified as most critical for Carlsbad’s quality of life. The
Carlsbad Tomorrow Growth Management Committee, and City Commissions and Council, and Carlsbad
Citizens are all at a critical crossroad.
• Do we, or don’t we, enforce and set new standards that achieve the quality of life we desire?
• Do we or don’t we, fix existing past errors and below desired standard situations?
• Do we or don’t we, roll-up our sleeves a work together to a better Quality of Life?
As a long-time Carlsbad Citizen I am extremely disappointed by some who say we can’t fulfill our
Community Vision, we can’t fix things, can’t make things better, and can’t add more Parks and Useable
Open Space. This can’t attitude is not out Community Vision. We can and we did before, and we can do
it again and better.
Great cities for hundreds of years have Upgraded their Quality of Life Facility Standards, made and
implemented/funded facilities to fix things up to those Standards. A City is just like a business or person
- If you don’t improve you decline. Examples of Upgrading and funding to New Parks and Open Space
are many but include – Carlsbad’s Buena Vista Reservoir Park, additions to Pine Park, Village H Park, and
Aura Circle Open Space acquisition; and SDSU’s major new Park at the redeveloped Qualcomm Stadium
site.
Now like at the beginning of Carlsbad Growth Management the City can “despite previous city council
actions” make improvements to its Growth Management and Quality of Life Standards to address past
and future needs. Following illustrates existing R-23 (up to 23 dwellings per acre) development in
Carlsbad – most of our future residential development will be required to be like this or more dense.
Page 20 of 20
High-density housing can be great, but it requires MORE Parks and MORE useable Open Space within
walking distance to balance the density and provide large places for families and kids to really play. In
Carlsbad’s high-density residential future with no backyards and stacked flat multi-family homes the
need for both more Parks and Useable Open Space is much greater than in 1980’s.
The time to fix the Parks and Useable Open Space problems at Ponto (LFMP-9) is now. Already Ponto is
developed at a density that is 40% great than the rest of Carlsbad. New proposed and even higher-
density developments (developer driven Amendments) propose to make Ponto even more dense, yet
there are not Parks at Ponto and Ponto is missing 30-acres of Useable Open Space past developers
should have provided.
A doable, time-tested, accountable, tax-payer saving, strongly citizen desired, accountable, and honest
way to fix this was presented to you in 8/8/22 and 12/27/22 emails with attached “CTGMP Key Issues
and Suggestions – 2022-12-6”. Over 5,000 petitions expressing the need to fix the Park and Open Space
problems at Ponto have been sent to the City and the City should have provided these to you in
considering Park and Open Space issues.
Ponto Park and Open Space needs your help fixing NOW. If not Carlsbad Tomorrow will be less than it is
today, and tragically will have failed our Community Vision.
From:Steve Linke
To:Environmental
Subject:Public comment on 4/2/2026 Item #2
Date:Tuesday, March 31, 2026 3:58:40 AM
Attachments:2026-04-02 ESC GMP Open Space Performance Standard - Linke comment.pdf
Please forward the attached PDF to the commissioners and make it part of
the public record. This cover email does not need to be included.CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
1
March 30, 2026
To: Carlsbad Environmental Sustainability Commission
From: Steve Linke, former Carlsbad Tomorrow voting member representing the Carlsbad Traffic
& Mobility Commission
Re: 4/2/2026 Item #2: Overview of the City’s Growth Management Program Open Space
Performance Standard
Commissioners:
As one of the primary members of the Carlsbad Tomorrow Growth Management Update
Committee who provided testimony for recommendations to the City Council on the Open
Space, as well as Parks and Mobility, components of the Growth Management Program (GMP), I
would like to provide some background and guidance. You also should carefully review the
verbal comment about your work plan provided by our Chair Erik Larsen at your 12/4/2025
meeting. He has been involved in the governing of Carlsbad for around five decades, including
open space policy.
The origin of the Growth Management Program (1986 Proposition E) and the
reference to 40% open space
In June 1986, Carlsbad voters adopted Proposition E (see below) with the intent of
guaranteeing that all necessary public facilities would be provided concurrent with new
residential development, with emphasis on ensuring good traffic circulation, schools, parks,
libraries, open space, and recreational amenities.
2
While the proposition language itself did not refer to 40% open space, the accompanying
“Argument in Favor of Proposition E” (see below), which was authored by the city
councilmembers who had put the measure on the ballot, included the rather unequivocal
statement that it will “guarantee that we will always be a low density residential community
with 40% open space.” In fact, open space was the only public facility directly mentioned in the
argument, as opposed to the longer list in the actual ballot measure, indicating the particular
focus on 40% open space.
Current and former staff have argued that the 40% requirement is an “urban legend.” For
example, the Vice Chair of Carlsbad Tomorrow was former staff member Mike Howes, who
provided a document at our 9/14/2022 meeting giving his version of the history (“Growth
Management Background & History,” 7/22/2022). He stated that staff estimated back in 1986,
using the rather crude tools available at the time, that about 37-38% of the city could be open
space at build-out. He went on to say that civic leaders at the time mistakenly rounded that up
to 40%, and that it was never a goal of the GMP to ensure 40% open space.
Mr. Howes’ testimony on this seems very plausible from a staff perspective, but the explicit
reference to 40% in the ballot argument is difficult to reconcile from a voter/resident
perspective. In that regard, it is notable that staff has cited ballot arguments as legally binding
in other instances. For example, when arguing that General Fund money in excess of
Proposition H limits cannot be used to acquire land for parks, staff has cited the City Council’s
“Argument in Favor” of 2002’s Proposition C (1/26/2021 City Council meeting, Item #12). So,
3
when they fit the desired narrative (not buying land for parks), ballot arguments are cited as
legally binding, but when they do not fit the desired narrative (40% open space requirement),
they are ignored.
Whether or not you find this background information useful, at the very least I think it should
help explain the disagreement about the 40% standard, and you will not find this in any staff
report.
Distribution of open space around the city
Independent of the percentage requirement, the next question is the distribution of open space
around the city. As you can see above, the voter-adopted Proposition E is very short on details,
so a detailed GMP implementation plan had to be developed. The plan divided the city into 25
zones, based on property ownership, the amount of existing development, and adopted
development plans around the city (see the map below).
4
It was decided that, going forward, 15% of the total area “exclusive of environmentally
constrained non-developable land” had to be set aside as open space in the zones as the GMP
performance standard. However, 11 of the 25 zones were exempted from the 15% requirement
(see the GMP Open Space entry below), because they were determined to be:
• already fully urbanized/developed (Zones 1 through 6),
• currently urbanizing and would meet or exceed the 15% standard under already-
approved development/master plans (Zones 7 through 10), or
• non-residential (Zone 16).
Zone 9 Master Plan change reduced open space
Open space and park land in Zone 9 is a frequent topic raised by People for Ponto. Back in 1986,
when the above open space performance standard was created, Zone 9 was one of the zones
that was exempted from requiring 15% open space from future developments based on its
status as “urbanizing,” with already-approved development/master plans satisfying the 15%
requirement. However, it is my understanding that a master plan in Zone 9 was substituted in
1994 with a new plan that replaced a 12.8-acre area qualifying as open space with a residential
development, and that acreage had been necessary to allow the zone to meet the 15%
requirement for its exemption (see People for Ponto/Lance Schulte data for details).
So, an argument can be made that the Zone 9 exemption should have been reversed, because
the original basis for the exemption no longer applied. It is also unclear whether open space
5
was reduced in any of the other “urbanizing” zones relative to the plans in place when the
exemptions were applied. Despite multiple requests, staff never presented open space
percentage data by zone that excluded environmentally constrained non-developable land, so
the actual performance standard-related percentages were never available to the committee.
In any event, higher densities of residents with less open space reduces quality of life.
Large residential projects in previously exempted zones
Marja Acres (nearly 300 townhomes and apartments) was approved in exempted Zone 1, and
Aviara Apartments (~330 apartments) and West Oaks (~200 apartments) were both approved
in exempted Zone 5. It is not logical that these large residential projects would not be subject to
open space development standards, like similar projects elsewhere in the city.
2002 Proposition C allows General Fund expenditures for open space
1982 Proposition H significantly capped capital expenditures from the city’s General Fund.
However, 2002 Proposition C eliminated that cap for certain projects, including open space
projects. Therefore, open space land acquisition is consistent with voter intent and could be
financially feasible.
[…]
[…]
[…]
6
Active vs. passive approach to open space land acquisition
It is my understanding that there was an Open Space and Trails Ad Hoc Committee back in the
late 2000s that developed a list of candidate properties pursuant to Proposition C. In addition,
staff have claimed that they are continuing to monitor this. However, there does not seem to
be a very active/proactive approach given the lack of land acquisitions.
Developer exceptions to open space
During my review of residential development applications over the last several years, there
have been multiple projects in which the city waived or reduced open space-based
development standards upon the request of applicants—even in non-exempted zones. For
example, a project called La Costa Town Square Parcel 3 (80 townhomes and 20 condos in Zone
11) was granted a waiver on their open space requirement with the excuse that the project is
close to a 24-hour Fitness and about a half-mile from Stagecoach Park.
In addition, state laws—particularly Density Bonus Laws—are increasingly creating
requirements that cities waive development standards in higher-density housing projects, and
developers now frequently demand waivers of minimum open space requirements, among
many other waivers.
Again, higher densities of residents with less open space reduces quality of life, and limiting
open space development waivers to the extent possible should be a goal.
Carlsbad Tomorrow report and subsequent City Council actions
Carlsbad Tomorrow was given two general tasks—to review the existing GMP performance
standards, and to identify quality of life issues.
Open Space GMP Performance Standard: I argued that the zones exempted from the open
space requirement back in 1986 should be subject to reversal of the exemptions, if it could be
shown that development/master plans in place at the time had been changed to reduce open
space; and that new projects in exempted zones should be subject to GMP open space
requirements. In the end, though, a majority of the committee decided to recommend leaving
7
the existing scheme in place, but the following Alternative Perspective was included in the
report:
Quality of Life: Despite not supporting exemption reversals, a majority of the committee did
support proactive efforts to acquire more open space and discouraging exceptions to
development standards that would decrease open space, which appeared in the report as
follows:
Recommendations
Follow through with the two Quality of Life recommendations listed above in the Carlsbad
Tomorrow report adopted by the City Council. That includes an accurate inventory of open
space “exclusive of environmentally constrained non-developable land” in each zone—even the
exempt ones—as well as a running inventory of possible parcels to purchase. Your current work
plan to have staff just present an information-only annual report (with no action) does not
appear to satisfy this goal.
If you have any questions about the content of this letter, feel free to contact me
(splinke@gmail.com).
From:Howard Krausz
To:Environmental
Subject:Agenda Item #2 for 4/2/26 Environmental Sustainability Commission meeting
Date:Tuesday, March 31, 2026 10:33:43 PM
Attachments:Comments on open space to the Sustainability Committee.pdf
Dear Chairman and committee Members,
Please accept the attached comments and include them in the official record. I may also speak briefly in personduring the upcoming meeting.
Thank you,
Howard Krausz
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and
know the content is safe.
Comments to the Carlsbad Sustainability Commission
regarding item #2 Open Space Performance Standard
Honorable Chair and Commissions:
Carlsbad is in a naturally beautiful location with hills, lagoons, beaches and open space.
Carlsbad residents and visitors, including plants and animals, overwhelmingly value our
open space and we continue to advocate for its preservation. All growth management
plans since 1986 require that “Fifteen percent of the total land area in each zone [Local
Facility Management Zone] exclusive of environmentally constrained non-developable
land must be set aside for permanent open space and must be available concurrent
with development.” To conform to this standard, the practice has been that each new
development project is expected to leave 15% or more of its land open but many
developments were exempted leaving it to others to make up for the lost open space.
There are four defined categories of open space in the general plan: Preservation of
Resources, Managed Production of Resources, Outdoor Recreation, Aesthetic, Cultural,
Educational. These are defined further in the last page (below) taken from the Open
Space Conservation Element of the 2006 General Plan which also mentions a 5th
category of open space for public safety.
Almost all open space in each of these categories is constrained from development so
those acres are not part of the 15% performance standard open space. This is a key
distinction that city staff ignores in their annual GMP Performance reports. Their reports
and maps never specify exactly what unconstrained open space remains in each LFMZ.
In 2017 Carlsbad settled a lawsuit with North County Advocates (NCA) that among
other things required the city to make publicly available a map and corresponding table
of designated open space summarized by category of open space and by LFMZ. Below
is one such report for fiscal year 2024-2025. Notice from the right hand column that
every zone except for zone 3 is more than 15% open, usually much more. But that
includes mostly constrained open space along with a little unconstrained open space.
The accompanying maps do not show unconstrained open space, so we still have no
idea whether the 15% performance standard is met in each LFMZ or not. The most
recent 2024 GMP monitoring report states “All Local Facilities Management Zones,
except for Zone 22, have provided the required growth management open space as
identified in the applicable Local Facility Management Plans, which address required
open space through buildout of the zones. Future projects in Zone 22 must provide
their proportionate share of required open space in compliance with the standard.
Those referenced LFMPs are often 30-40 years old do not prove that every zone
currently meets the open space standard.
I and others have spoken at meetings of the City Council and of the Carlsbad Tomorrow
Citizens Growth Management Committee regarding the misleading reporting about
open space and requested that unconstrained open space be reported for each LFMZ.
In sworn court testimony, city staff replied that the lawsuit settlement only required an
annual report on open space and its content is up to staff.
Now that open space issues have been delegated to the Sustainability Committee, the
work plan of this committee must include producing an annual report, with help from
city staff, that finally reveals what unconstrained open space remains in each LFMZ.
We believe the city has that information on spreadsheets that tabulate the acreage and
description of each individual parcel in each zone or in other LFMP reports. The city is
obligated to track compliance with open space and other GMP performance standards
For zones that fall short of the 15% standard, solutions need to be proposed to bring
those zones into compliance. “Exempted zones” still need to be monitored and provide
open space wherever possible. Years of deception and self-congratulatory platitudes
by the city while hiding the facts on the ground are not what Carlsbad residents deserve.
It’s time to get out the truth about where Carlsbad complies with its GMP open space
standard and where it does not.
Howard Krausz, M.D.
North County Advocates 3/31/2026
Open Space Classification
For purposes of the OSCR Element, open space is defined as: Any area of land or
water that is devoted to an open space use and designated on the city’s Land Use
Map as open space, or dedicated in fee title or easement for open space purposes.
The open space may be in its natural state or modified. This General Plan classifies open space into four
categories (Figure 4-1):
• Category 1: Open Space for Preservation of Natural Resources (plant and
animal habitat; nature preserves; beaches and bluffs; wetland and riparian areas; canyons and hillsides;
and water features such as lagoons and
streams)
• Category 2: Open Space for Managed Production of Resources (forestry;
agriculture; aquaculture; water management; commercial fisheries; and
major mineral resources)
• Category 3: Open Space for Outdoor Recreation (school recreation areas;
public parks and recreation areas; greenways; trails; campgrounds; golf
courses; and equestrian facilities)
• Category 4: Open Space for Aesthetic, Cultural and Educational Purposes
(lands with scenic, historical and cultural value; land use buffers; open
space that marks entries to the city from surrounding communities and
to major developments and neighborhoods within the city; greenbelts
providing separation from surrounding communities; and museums,
arboreta, zoos, and botanical gardens)
From:James Wood
To:Environmental
Subject:FW: Comments on # 2 Open Space Performance Standard
Date:Wednesday, April 1, 2026 9:13:57 AM
From: Diane Nygaard <dnygaard3@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2026 3:03 PM
To: environmental@carlsbadca.org
Cc: James Wood <James.Wood@carlsbadca.gov>
Subject: Comments on # 2 Open Space Performance Standard
Honorable Chair and Commissioners
As you know the City Council modified your proposed workplan to include a specific
action to prepare an annual report on open space with recommendations. We presume
this agenda item is intended to provide you the information needed to take this action.
This report completely fails to actually provide the required performance results for
Open Space. It does repeat the Growth Management Plan(GMP) performance standard
for open space - 15 % of unconstrained land per each of the 25 Local Facility
Management Zones(LFMZ). Yet there is no text or table that identifies the
percentage of unconstrained open space that has been set aside in each ofthe LFMZ's. That is a specific numeric standard yet no results have been
reported. This discrepancy between the required performance
standard and what is included in the annual performance report has been
pointed out on numerous occasions. It now falls to you to try to makesense of this complex issue that has been swept under the rug for too
long.
We think it is important to note that to our knowledge, the city neveractually compiled the required open space performance results , nor have
they updated that information as would be expected in such an annual
report.
The GMP Citizen's Committee spent almost 2 years reviewing GMP
performance standards- and five of their meetings included extensive
discussion about open space. That work resulted in two specific
recommendations from the committee. These two recommendations havenow been passed on to you to take action on.
We believe the following issues need to be addressed in your open space
report:
1. Actual current % of unconstrained open space for each of the 25LFMZ's.
The performance standard was very specific and goes into detail about
what is not to be counted as part of the 15%- things like open water inlagoons, steep slopes, and hardline protected habitat. This data needs to
be compiled consistent with the GMP performance standard and be done in
a consistent way for all of the LFMZs.
2. Clear explanation of the original and current basis for counting any of
the LFMZ's as "exempt" from the open space requirement.
The report says that LFMZ zones 1-10 and 16 were exempt because theywere already urbanized " or " urbanizing" when the performance
standard was adopted. However even the GMP Citizen's Committee was
not able to find documents that clearly demonstrated how this vague
exemption was determined at the time these Zones were exempted. The city's own report on page 38 notes that the boundaries for the
"urbanized" and "urbanizing" zones are consistent with the LFMZ map "for
the most part." Close only counts in horseshoes- the performance
standard does not accept "close." .
That exemption further claims that each of those zones were already
developed or had approved master plans that would achieve the standard
when they were built out. But conditions in those zones changed overtime, and such changes never resulted in re- evaluating whether the Zone
still met the conditions for exemption or would meet the standard. Ponto
is a key example of that- it was compliant because a proposed master
planned development would have met the 15% open space standard. Butwhen that development went away the Zone was never re-evaluated for
compliance with the open space standard as it should have been .
3. Identification of LFMZ's that do not currently meet the open spaceperformance standard and corrective action as appropriate, based oncurrent conditions.
This should distinguish between those LFMZ that are required to meet thestandard and those that remain legitimately exempt. We note that thereremain opportunities to improve open space even for zones that were
originally determined to be exempt because they were already built out.
The Buena Vista Reservoir Park is a great example of how that can work. The Zone was exempt, but did not meet the open space standard. After amassive community effort the city agreed to retain ownership of the
former reservoir and convert it to a park instead of offering it for
development. That park helped the zone move closer to achieving the
open space standard, but did not require a costly acquisition because theland was already owned by the city.
Please direct staff to provide the information you need to complete this
very important task assigned to you by the City Council.
Diane Nygaard
On Behalf of Preserve Calavera
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and
know the content is safe.
Overview of Growth Management
Open Space Standard
Robert Efird, Principal Planner
Community Development Department
April 2, 2026
2
TODAY’S PRESENTATION
•Overview of Open Space Standard
–Background
–Where it applies
•Other open space in the city
•Growth Management Citizens Committee
3
GROWTH MANAGEMENT
•1986 – Growth Management Program
•Ensure adequate public facilities for development
•Components of the program include:
•Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan
•Local facility management plans (25 zones)
4
CITYWIDE FACILITIES AND
IMPROVEMENTS PLAN
Standards for 11 public facility types:
•City admin. facilities •Drainage
•Libraries •Sewer collection
•Parks •Water distribution
•Open space •Wastewater treatment
•Circulation (vehicle)•Schools
•Fire response
5
OPEN SPACE STANDARD
15% of the total land area in Local Facility
Management Zones [11-15 and 17-25]
exclusive of environmentally constrained non-
developable land must be set aside for
permanent open space and must be available
concurrent with development.
6
APPLICABILITY OF OPEN SPACE
STANDARD
•1986 – city identified areas that were:
•Urbanized (developed)
•Urbanizing (approved/pending master
plans)
•Future urbanizing (not developed/no plans)
APPLICABILITY OF OPEN
SPACE STANDARD
•OS standard NOT applied in developed
areas or areas with approved/pending
master plans
•White areas (facility zones 1-10 & 16)
•OS standard was applied to remaining areas
with no development or approved plans
•Gray areas (facility zones 11-15 & 17-25)
LOCAL FACILITY
MANAGEMENT PLANS
Facility plans for zones 11-15 & 17-25
identify how the open space standard
will be met in each zone
8
9
OPEN SPACE STANDARD
Environmentally Constrained
Nondevelopable Land
Examples of Qualifying Growth
Management Open Space Areas
Beaches Recreation areas (pocket parks, etc.)
Permanent bodies of water Landscape buffers
Floodways Slopes less than 40%
Natural slopes greater than 40%Open areas that are not significant habitat
Significant wetlands * Powerline easements improved as OS
Significant riparian habitat
Significant woodland habitat
Major powerline easements*
Railroad track beds
Other sig. environmental features;
determined by environmental review
10
OTHER OPEN SPACE
•In addition to the 15% open space standard,
open space is protected in other ways, such as:
•Habitat Management Plan
•Parks Growth Management standard
•Trails master plan
•Zoning standards
ALL OPEN SPACE
11
#Category % of Total City Land
1 Preservation of natural
Resources 29.5%
2 Managed production of
resources 1.3%
3 Outdoor recreation 4.8%
4 Aesthetic, cultural and
educational purposes 2.4%
CURRENT OPEN SPACE TOTAL 37.96 %
12
GROWTH MANAGEMENT
CITIZENS COMMITTEE
•March 2022 - citizens committee formed
•Mission to identify key elements of new plan to
management growth
•Nov. 19, 2024 - City Council approved plan to
implement committee recommendations
•Includes revisions to current facility standards
MODIFY OPEN SPACE STANDARD
Existing Standard Modified Standard (Summary)
15% of the total land area in the Local
Facility Management Zone (LFMZ) exclusive
of environmentally constrained non-
developable land must be set aside for
permanent open space and must be
available concurrent with development.
[Applies to Local Facilities Management
Zones 11-15 and 17-25]
Specify that open space is required in all Local
Facility Management Zones, consistent with city
policies and regulations.
Require 15% open space, as currently required,
and clarify which Local Facilities Management
Zones it does and does not apply.
Refer to the rationale used in 1986 to determine
where to apply the 15% open space requirement.
14
SUMMARY
•Open space standard established in 1986
•Only applies in facility management zones 11-15 & 17-25
•Satisfaction of the standard is documented in LFMPs,
implemented through development reviews
•Open space gained by a variety of means not just the Growth
Management open space standard
•Growth Management citizens committee recommended
retaining the existing standard and clarifying:
•The rationale used in 1986 for where the standard applies
•Open space required in all facility zones per other city
policies and regulations, as applicable
Overview of Growth Management
Open Space Standard
Robert Efird, Principal Planner
Community Development Department
April 2, 2026
17
ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABILITY
COMMISSION WORK PLAN
•Commission work plan
•Receive presentations on related topics, such as Buena Vista Lagoon
restoration, habitat management, and natural open space land acquisition
•Receive an annual report on open space acquisition and make
recommendations
•Adopt a policy that discourages exceptions to city development standards that
would decrease open space.