Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-05-04; Planning Commission; Resolution 58841 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5884 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CAFUSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT TO INCLUDE REFERENCES TO THE PONTO BEACHFRONT VILLAGE VISION PLAN INTO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN AND THE MELLO I1 AND WEST BATIQUITOS/SAMMIS PROPERTIES SEGMENTS OF THE CITY’S LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM. CASE NAME: PONTO BEACHFRONT VILLAGE VISION PLAN GPA 05-04/LCPA 05-01/DI 05-01 CASE NO.: WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad, “Applicant,” has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as the areas known as the Ponto Beachfront Village Area generally located between Carlsbad Boulevard and the San Diego Northern Railroad, north of Batiquitos Lagoon and south of Ponto Road (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program was prepared in conjunction with said project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 4th day of May, 2005, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission as follows: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 A) B) Findinps: That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby RECOMMENDS ADOPTION of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program according to Exhibit “ND,” according to Exhibits “NOI” dated March 18, 2005, and “PII” dated March 1, 2005, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings: 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find: a. it has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan - GPA 05-04LCPA 05-01/DI 05-01, the environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any comments thereon prior to RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the project; and b. the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been prepared in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and c. it reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad; and d. based on the EIA Part I1 and comments thereon, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on the environment, provided the following mitigation measures are incorporated into future development in the area: 1. Agricultural Resources Prior to approval of any future development within the Vision Plan Area, all lands identified on Map X of the Mello I1 Segment of the Local Coastal Program shall require compliance with the agricultural conversion requirements (Policy 2-1). ii. Biological Resources - Implementation of the following mitigation measures, at a minimum, shall apply to future development projects: A. A comprehensive, site-specific biological resource report must be prepared prior to environmental review of any future projects proposed on the project site. B. Development applications for future development shall conform to the City of Carlsbad’s Habitat Management Plan. C. Consistent with setback and buffer requirements of the City of Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan, all future development shall be sited at a proper distance from designated open space areas such that brush management areas would not impact PC RES0 NO. 5884 -2- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ii. iii. iv. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... PC RES0 NO. 5884 sensitive wetlands, maritime succulent scrub, disturbed southern coastal bluff scrub, and disturbed coastal sage scrub or areas revegetated with native plants as part of a mitigation program. Impacts to the onsite drainage within the future development area should be mitigated for onsite through preparation and implementation of a wetland enhancement plan. D. Cultural Resources Because there may be a subsurface component, all development projects proposed within the 50-acre development area in the future shall be required to complete additional testing to establish condition, content, and research potential of any significant cultural or paleontological resources or human remains. Noise Future onsite development will require preparation of a project- specific noise analysis to identify potential noise impacts, as well as cumulatively considerable noise impacts. All mitigation measures identified within a project-specific noise impact analysis will be required to reduce impacts to a level less than significant and consistent with noise standards given in the City of Carlsbad Noise Element. Transportation/Trafc Future development projects shall contribute a fair share contribution to the following intersection improvements: e Poinsettia LaneFaseo del Norte: Widen the westbound approach to include the following lane geometry: one left-turn lane, two through lanes, and one right turn lane. Restripe the southbound approach to include one left turn lane, one through lane, and one right turn lane. -3- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ia 15 2c 21 22 2: 24 2: 2t 2: 21 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 4th day of May, 2005, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Cardosa and Whitton Commissioners Dominguez, Heineman and Montgomery ATTEST: ~ DON NEU Assistant Planning Director PC RES0 NO. 5884 -4- City of Carlsbad MITIGATED NEGATIVE CASE NAME: PROJECT LOCATION: Ponto Beachfront Village Area generally located between Carlsbad Boulevard and the San Diego Northern Railroad, north of the Batiauitos Lagoon and south of Ponto PONTO BEACHFRONT VILLAGE VISION PLAN CASE NO: GPA 05-04LCPA 05-0 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Mello I1 and West Batiquitos/Sammis Properties segments of the City’s Local Coastal Program to include references to the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan which has been prepared to guide future development in the Ponto Beachfront Village Area. DETERMINATION: The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the initial study (EIA Part 2) identified potentially significant effects on the environment, and the City of Carlsbad finds as follows: Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. The proposed project MAY have “potentially significant impact(s)” on the environment, but at least one potentially significant impact 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. (Mitigated Negative Declaration applies only to the effects that remained to be addressed). Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, nothing further is required. A copy of the initial study (EIA Part 2) documenting reasons to support the Negative Declaration is on file in the Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. ADOPTED: ATTEST: , pursuant to Planning Commission Resolution No. DON NEU Assistant Planning Director @ 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us - City of Carlsbad NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION - CASE NAME: PROJECT LOCATION: Ponto Beachfiont Village Vision Plan Ponto BeacWont Village Area generally located between Carlsbad Boulevard and the San Dieoo Northern Railroad, north of Baticluitos Lagoon and south of Ponto Road CASE NO: GPA 05-04lLCPA 05-01 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Mello 11 and West Batiquitos/Sammis Properties segments of the city’s Local Coastal Program to include refkences to the Ponto Beachtkont Village Vision Plan which has been prepared to guide future development in the Ponto Beachfront Village Area. PROPOSED DETERMINATION: The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the initial study (EIA Part 2) did not ident& any potentially significant impacts on the environment. Therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration will be ‘,recommended for adoption by the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission and City Council. A copy of the initial study (EIA Part 2) documenting reasons to support the proposed Negative Declaration is on file in the Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. Comments fiom the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 30days of the date of this notice. The proposed project and Mitigated Negative Declaration are subject to review and approval/adoption by the City of Carlsbad tlanning Commission and City Council. Additional public notices will be issued when those public hearings are scheduled. If you have any questions, please call Gary Barberio in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4606. PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD March 18,2005 through April 17,2005 PUBLISH DATE March 18,2005 1635 Faraday Avenue s Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 6024600 0 FAX (760) 602-8559 w\Nw.q&,q&$,qj@a.US @ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART Il (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: GPA 05-04. LCPA 05-01 DATE: March 1.2005 - BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan 2. LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: City of Carlsbad, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad. 3. CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE “BER GW T. Barberio - (760) 602-4606 4. PROJECT LOCATION: South of Poinsettia Lane (west of Carlsbad Boulevard) and south of Pont6 Road (east of Carlsbad Boulevard), north of Batisuitos Lagoon, east of South Carlsbad State Beach & Camuaound, and west of the San Dieao Northern Railroad (APNs 214-160-04. - 05. -06. -10. -11, -13. -19, -20. -21. -24, -25, -27. -29. -34, -35. -36.24: 214-170-11: 214-590-04; 216-010-01. -02, -03, -04, -05: and 216-140-17, -18) 5. PROJECT SPONSOR’S NAME AND ADDRESS: Deborah Fountain. Director. City of Carlsbad Dmartment of Housing and Redeveloument, 2965 Roosevelt Street. Suite B. Carlsbad, CA 92008 (760) 434-2935 6. GENEW PLAN DESIGNATION: RMH (Medium-High Residential (8-15 ddac): T-R JTraveVRecreation Commercial): UA (Unplanned Area): and C (Community Commercial) 7. ZONING: CT (Commercial Tourist): CT-Om-M-0 (Commercial Tourist - Oualified Development OverlayiResidential Density - Multiple - Qualified Development Overlay; PC planned Community): and RD-M - 0 (Residential Density - Multiple - Oualified Development 8. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (i.e., permits, financing approval or participation agreements): California Coastal Commission PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND USES: 9. Request for approval of amendments to the City of Carlsbad’s General Plan and Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan to designate the “Ponto Beachfiont Village Area” as an area of “Special Planning Considerations,” to be developed under the guidance of the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan. The Vision Plan will serve as a framework for creation of an active pedestrian- and bicycle-oriented mixed use area with up to three hotels, townhomes (15-23 ddac), live/work units, tourist- and community-serving commercial uses, parking facilities, and community facilities. 1 The Vision Plan provides overall guidance for development of the Ponto area, as it designates six distinct character areas (Mixed Use Center, Beachfiont Resort, Townhouse Neighborhood, Village Hotel, Live-Work Neighborhood, and Garden Hotel); provides a detailed description of the intent for each area, lists its permitted uses, addresses parking needs and commuriity amenities, and has design guidelines for each area’s architectural design, building orientation, and site design; establishes a circulation system that provides for vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle uses, and connections both within the Ponto area and to adjacent land uses; dksignates gateway types, locations, and design concepts; designates specific plant palettes for landscaping uses; suggests wayfinding program elements, street furniture styles, and incorporation of public art; and provides design guidelines for pedestrian plazas and courtyards, landscaping, parking lots, parking structures, and commercial signs. Subsequent implementation of the Ponto Vision Plan by individual developers would require the appropriate City of Carlsbad discretionary permits; permits under the jurisdiction of other agencies, such as the California Coastal Commission, Army Corps of Engineers, and California Department of Fish and Game; and environmental review, including any required technical studies. The Ponto area is located south of the Hanover Beach Colony residential development south of Poinsettia Lane, east of the South Carlsbad State Beach and Campground, north of the Batiquitos Lagoon and La Costa Avenue, and west of the San Diego Northern Railroad. The area currently consists of 16 lots with residences or small light-industrial type businesses totaling approximately 8 acres and 11 vacant lots totaling approximately 42 acres. Access to the area would be from existing Ponto Drive at both the north and south ends, existing Avenida Encinas just east of its intersection with Carlsbad Boulevard, and a new public street off Carlsbad Boulevard between its intersection with Ponto Drive and Avenida Encinas (referred to as Beach Way in the Vision Plan). Surrounding land uses are the Hanover Beach Colony residential neighborhood to the north, the San Diego Northern Railroad tracks and right-of-way and the San Pacific0 neighborhood to the east, Batiquitos Lagoon to the south, and the South Carlsbad State Beach and Campground to the west. The Ponto Vision Plan area is located in the Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program. 2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Agricultural Resources 0 Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology/Soils . HazarddHazardous Materials HydrologyNater Quality Land Use and Planning 0 Mineral Resources OMandatory Findings of Significance Noise - c] Population and Housing u Public Services u Recreation Transportation/Traffic 0 Utilities & Senrice systems 3 DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency) - I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a Significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. - I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a sigdicant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have “potentially significant impact(s)” on the environment, but at least one potentially significant impact 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applieable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. A Negative Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and @) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, nothing further is required. A 4 Rev. 07/03/02 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration. - A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced mformation sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A “No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards. “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential impact is not significantly adverse, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policies. “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation meas$res has reduced an effect fkom “Potentially Significant Impacs‘ to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than sigmlicant level. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significantly adverse. Based on an “EIA-Part 11”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant adverse effect on the environment, but &l potentially significant adverse effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no‘ additional environmental document is required. When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR if the significant adverse effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR. A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant adverse effect on the environment. If there are one or more potentially significant adverse effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce adverse impacts to less than significant, and those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In hs case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated’’ may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared. 5 Rev. OJlO3lO2 I 0 An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially siwcant adverse effect has not been discussed or mitigated in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does not agree to &tigation measures that reduce the adverse impact to less than significant; (2) a “Statement of Ovemchg Considerations” for the significant adverse impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the adverse impact to less than significant; or (4) through the . EM-Part 11 analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially si&ickt effect to below a level of significance. . - A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts, which would otherwise be determined siwcant. 6 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact No Impact I. AESTmTICS - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 0 0 a 17 a. 0 b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? 0 0 Ixl Ixl 0 0 0 d) Create a new source of substantial light and glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES - (In determining whether .impacts to agricultural resources are sigmficant envirokental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model-1997 prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.) Would the project: 0 IXI a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Fannland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? 0 0 0 0 IXI b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? 0 c) Involve other changes in .the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? III. AIR QUALITY - (Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.) Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? 0 0 17 0 0 0 b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Rev. 07/03/02 7 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Issues (and Supporting Idormation Sources). Potentially Significant Impact 0 Less Than Significant Impact No Ixl c) .Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? 0 0 Ixl IXI d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 0 0 IXI o b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian, aquatic or wetland habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 0 Ixl ' c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, fling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Ixl d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Ixl IXI 0 0 e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? 0 f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? g) Impact tributary areas that are environmentally sensitive? IXI 8 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). V. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in 0 15064.5? Cause a substantial adverse change in the signifi- cance of an archeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project: Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: i. ll. ... 111. iv. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. Strong seismic ground shaking? Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Landslides? Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18 - 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1997), creating substantial risks to life or property? Potentially Significant Impact 0 0 17 0 0 CI 0 17 17 0 17 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 Ixi El IXI CI 0 0 Less Than Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 - El (x1 IXI IXI IXI IXI IXI . No Impact Ixi- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? W. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project: Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Create a significant hazard to the public or environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Est hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or environment? For a project within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard, for people residing or working in the project area? Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation pl.an? Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? WI. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Potentially Significant Impact 0 cl 17 0 0 0 0 cl 0 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 El cl 0 0 0 o 0 Less Than Significant No Ix1 Ix1 0 10 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with ground water recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local ground water table level (i.e., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? Impacts to groundwater quality? Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off- site? Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the flow rate or amount (volume) of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off- site? Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage system or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff'? Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation map? Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Increased erosion (sediment) into receiving surface waters. Increased pollutant discharges (e.g., heavy metals,' pathogens, petroleum derivatives, synthetic organics, nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances and trash) into receiving surface waters or other alteration of receiving surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? Potentially Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 El 0 Significant Unless Mi tigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Less Than Significant Impact IXI - IXI IXI Ix1 IXI IXI 0 0 0 IXI El . No -Impact 0 0 0 0 IXI IXI Ixl cl U 11 Rev. 07/03/02 - ~~~ Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Sienificant M. X. XI. n) Changes to receiving water quality (marine, kesh or wetland waters) during or following construction? 0) Increase in any pollutant to an already impaired water body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list? p) The exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses? Potentially Significant Impact 0 I7 0 ijnless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? 0 0 0 0 0 0 c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project: 0 0 a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? cl b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? 0 NOISE - Would the project result in: a) 0 IXI 0 €a Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise levels? 0 IXI c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 0 IXI d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Less Than Significant No Impact .Jmpact IXIO Ixlo no nu 00 on 12 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact -Impact . 0 0 For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? om D 17 UIXI For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or workmg in the project area to excessive noise levels? XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project: 0 IXIn a) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and , businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? 0 o[xt b) DGplace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 0 OIXI c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Xm. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, a need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: I i) Fire protection? ii) Police protection? iii) Schools? iv) Parks? v) Other public facilities? XN. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and .regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? 0 cl 0 0 13 Rev. Q7lQ3lQ2 Issues (and Supporting Infoxmation Sources). Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC - Would the project: Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Result in inadequate emergency access? Result in insufficient parking capacity? Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus tum- outs, bicycle racks)? XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS - Would the project: Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental effects? Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Poten tially Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I7 o 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 Ix1 IXI 0 0 0 0 0 El 0 cl Less Than Significant No Impact Ixl 0 0 IXI IXI Ixl IXI IXI 0 0 0 0 14 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact [XI No Impact 0 e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? 0 0 ‘0 IXI o f) Be served by a landfill .with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? 0 0 IXI 0 g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? 0 IXI 0 0 0 IXI. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumula- tively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects?) , IXI 0 c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a> Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. Mitigation measures. For effects that are “Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined fiom the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. c) 15 Rev. 07/03/02 PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENTAZ, SETTING Environmental SettindSite DescriDtion The Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan area is an approximately 130-acre, relatively 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 and right-of-way. Portions of the plan area extend north to Poinsettia Lane and south to La Costa Avenue. Under the Ponto Beachfkont Village Vision Plan, the area considered viable for future development consists of approximately 50 acres. This development area is generally defined with a northern limit at the existing . intersection of Ponto Drive with Carlsbad Boulevard, and a southern limit at the Batiquitos Lagom. - - The project site is currently vacant, with the exception of a cluster of single-family residences, some of which have onsite small-scale, light-industrial type businesses. Surrounding land uses include the Hanover Beach Colony residential neighborhood to the north, the San Diego Northern Railroad tracks and right-of-way and the San Pacific0 residential neighborhood to the east, Batiquitos Lagoon to the south and the South Carlsbad State Beach and Campground to the west. The project site is located on a westerly sloping series of well-defined coastal terraces above the Pacific Ocean. Onsite elevations across the study area for the project range from approximately 80 feet above mean sea level (amsl) on top of the bridge abutments at the Poinsettia Lane overcrossing of the San Diego Northern Railroad to 0 feet am1 along the Pacific shoreline and within Batiquitos Lagoon. Topography in the Ponto area is generally very gently sloping, although there are some areas with greater elevational change. The area south of Avenida Encinas is a bluff area with excellent views out to the Batiquitos Lagoon and the Pacific Ocean A high point in elevation occurs at the intersection of Ponto Drive and Avenida Encinas. Ponto Drive slopes down into the area of lowest elevation, where the former off-ramps and underpass for Old Highway 101 were located. Six sensitive vegetation communities were identified onsite within the 130-acre study area and include: coastal brackish marsh, southern coastal sage scrub, freshwater marsh, maritime succulent scrub, disturbed southern coastal bluff scrub, and disturbed coastal sage scrub. In addition, the site supports five U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) wetlandriparian areas. The remainder and majority of the site supports five additional land cover types: beach, disturbed lands, developed areas, open water, and non- .vegetated floodway. Within the 50-acre fbture development area, disturbed coastal sage scrub and jurisdictional waters were identified as sensitive habitat. Proposed development will be limited to the disturbed area. Soils onsite al-e generally Quaternary Terrace Deposits that generally consist of moderately consolidated, poorly indurated clean sands, silty sands and clayey sands. Portions of the site also support Land Derived Fill and Hydraulic Fill resulting from engineered fills associated with the railroad and area roadway improvements, as well as dredging operations within the Batiquitos Lagoon. Regulatory Setting The Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan area has the following General Plan land use designations: UA - Unplanned Area TR/C - TraveVRecreation CommercidCommunity Commercial RMH - Residential Medium High (8-1 5 dwelling unitdacre) RMH/TR - A dual designation indicating that with further planning, one or both uses may be appropriate OS - Open Space and Community Parks TR - Travemecreation Commercial In addition to the existing General Plan designations listed above, the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan area has three zoning designations: PC - Planned Community CT - Commercial Tourist RD-M-Q - Residential Density - Multiple zone with Qualified Development Overlay A portion of the property is designated with a dual zone CT-QKO-M-Q, which indicates that with further planning, one or both uses may be appropriate. In addition to the existing zoning and General Plan designations, the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan property is also subject to the following regulatory plans: 16 South Carlsbad Coastal Redevelopment Area Travel/Recreation Co-ercial) UA (Unplanned Area) A portion of the property is within the South Carlsbad Coastal Redevelopment Area (SCCRA) and subject to the Redevelopment Permit process, which is administered by the City’s Housing and Redevelopment Department. Local Coastal Program The Ponto Beachfiont Village Vision Plan area is located with the coastal zone. The vision plan area is located within the Mello 11 Segment Land Use Plan, one of six segments included in the City’s approved Local Coastal Program. - Special Planning Considerations Area Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan (SP 21 0) OS (Open Space and Community TR/C (TraveVRecreation Parks) The Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan directs development of a 92-acre transit oriented residential development community located primarily north of the Ponto Beachfiont Village Vision Plan area. Approximately 1.5 acres of the Ponto Vision Plan Area is also included within the specific plan area. This area is referred to as Planning kea I in the Specific Plan. It is located in the northwest comer of the Ponto Village Vision Plan, adjacent to Carlsbad Boulevard and Ponto Road. Per the Specific Plan, the land use for the 1.5-acre area is intended for commercial uses that serve the traveling public and beach visitors. Special Planning Considerations Area Special Planning Considerations Area Poinsettia Shores Master Plan (MP I75(c)) Commercial/Community Commercial) TR (TraveliRecreation Commercial) The PoinsettiiShores Master Plan area (PSMP), amended May 12, 1994, includes approximately 23.5 acres that are also included within the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan. The Poinsettia Shores Master Plan Area is broken down into 17 Planning Areas, three of which are located within the vision plan boundaries: Areas F, G and H. These areas feature travel service/commercial use, open space and an unplanned area. Special Planning Considerations Area Local Facilities Management Plans (LFMP) Local Facilities Management Plans address future development’s demand on public services and facilities. The Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan is located within the LFMPs for Zones 9 and 22. Proiect DescriDtion ‘&e project proposes to amend the City of Carlsbad’s General Plan and Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan to designate the Ponto Area as an area of “Special Planning Considerations,” to be developed under the guidance of the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan. Future development proposals within the Ponto Beachfront Village area may be required to propose General Plan and Local Coastal Program land use reclassifications and city-wide and Local Coastal Program zone changes that will be evaluated as part of the discretionary approval process. The Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan is intended to create an active pedestrian- and bicycle-oriented mixed-use area with up to three hotels, townhomes (15-23 dwelling units per acres - ddac), live/work units, tourist- and community- serving commercial uses, parking facilities, and codunity facilities. Proposed General Plan Designation Changes General PladLocal Coastal Program Land Use Amendments Existing I Proposed RMH (Residential Mehum High - 1 Special Planning Considerations Area 8 to 15 dwelling units per acre) RMWTR 1 Special Planning Considerations Area - I (Residential Medium High andor 1 - I The City has identified the following goals for the Ponto Beachfront Vision Plan: Establish the Southern Coastal Gateway to the City. 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 and support the implementation of these goals. - Provide site design guidelines that require streetscenes and site plans to respect pedestrian kale and express a cohesive and high quality architectural theme. 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. Require landscape architecture that celebrates the historic past and horticultural heritage of the City. Ensure that public facilities and services meet the requirements of the Growth Management Plan. Conform with the General Plan, Amended Zone 9 and 22 Local Facilities Management Plans, and applicable City ordinances, regulations and policies. The Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan identifies key infrastructure development to be implemented through future development proposals, City action, or a combination of the two. Key Mastructure improvements identified in the plan include a realignment of Carlsbad Boulevard and relocating existing underground and overhead utilities on the propew. I. AESTHETICS Less than Significant Impact (a - d). Future development of the Ponto Village area will be consistent with the design guidelines set forth in the Ponto Beacmont Village Vision Plan. Design guidelines are provided in the Vision Plan to reduce potential substantial adverse effects resulting from future development of the site, and incIude design measures pertaining to scale, number of stories and screening of mechanical equipment among other design elements. The design guidelines will be applied to individual development projects within the Ponto area as part of the City’s review of discretionary land use permits. Design elements of each development project will be reviewed on an individual and comprehensive basis by the appropriate review authority. Future development will also be consistent with City policies pertaining to lighting requirements. The proposed project will therefore have a less than significant impact on any scenic vista or other scenic resource. II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated (a and b no impact, c; Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated). The proposed amendments to the existing General Plan and Local Coastal Program will not result in significant impacts to agricultural resources. However,.one indwidual property at the northern boundary within the Ponto Vision Plan Area is identified in the Mello I1 Segment of the Local Coastal Program (Map X), and will require compliance with the agricultural conversion requirements when future development occurs (Policy 2-1). This loss of agricultural land within the coastal zone would not be considered a significant impact as the Local Coastal Program Mello II Segment agricultural conversion requirements would reduce impacts to less than significant. Therefore, no significant impacts to agricultural resources would occur with the proposed amendments to the General Plan and Local Coastal Program 18 III. AIRQUALITY Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? No Impact. The proposed amendments to the General Plan and Local Coastal Program would not result in significant impacts related to air quality. The project site is located in the San Diego Air Basin which is a federal and state non-attainment area for ozone (03) and a state non-attainment area for particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter (PM10). The periodic violations of national Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) in the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB), requires that a plan be developed outlining the pollution controls that will be undertaken to improve air quality. In San Diego County, this attainment planning process is embodied in the Regional Air Quality Strategies (RAQS) developed jointly by the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) and the San Diego Association of Governments (SNAG). A plan to meet the federal standard for ozone was developed in 1994 during the process of updating the 1991 state- mandated plan. This local plan was combined with plans from all other California non-attainment areas having serious ozone problems and used to create the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP was adopted by the Air Resources Board (ARB) after public hearings on November grn through 10* in 1994, and was forwarded to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for approval. After considerable analysis and debate, particularly regarding airsheds with the worst smog problems, EPA approved the SIP in mid- 1996. Future development will relate to the SIP andor RAQS through the land use and growth assumptions that are incorporated into the air quality planning document. These growth assumptions are based on each city’s and the County’s general plan. If a proposed project is consistent with its applicable General Plan, then the project presumably has been anticipated with the regional air quality planning process. Such consistency would ensure that the project would not have an adverse regional air quality impact. Section 15125(B) of the State of California Environment Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines contains specific reference to the need to evaluate any inconsistencies between the proposed project and the applicable air quality ‘management plan. Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) are part of the RAQS. The RAQS and TCM plan set forth the steps needed to accomplish attainment of state and federal ambient air quality standards. An analysis was conducted to assess the number of vehicle trips generated by development of the same project area under the existing General Plan land use designations, if the Ponto Vision Plan were not implemented. The analysis determined that, based on the existing General Plan Land Use designations, build-out of the site would generate a maximum of approximately 15,528 trips per day, which includes a maximum of approximately 616 a.m. peak hour trips and approximately 1,452 p.m. peak hour trips. Please see Table 2 under the traffic analysis discussion in Section XV of this document. Development under the Ponto Vision Plan would result in fewer total traffic trips than would development of the same area under the existing General Plan land use designations. Please see Table 4 in Section XV. As such, the proposed Ponto Vision Plan is consistent with the growth assumptions used to develop the SIP and RAQS and potential impacts to regional air quality are considered less than sigdkant. b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? No Impact. The proposed amendments to the General Plan and Local Coastal Program would not result in significant impacts to air quality. Future development on the site would require preparation of an air quality assessment on a project-specific basis. Development of the site would result in minimal short-term emissions associated with grading and construction. Standard construction measures such as the use of properly maintained equipment and watering the site for dust control would minimize emissions. Long-term emissions associated with vehicular travel of visitors and residents to and fiom the project site will be minimal. Although air pollutant emissions would be associated with future development of the site, they would likely comprise only an incremental contribution to overall air basin quality readings, and would not likely contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? 19 Less Than Significant Impact. The San Diego Air Basin is currently in a non-attainment zone for ozone and suspended fine particulates. Future development of the site, with or without implementation of the Ponto Vision Plan, would contriiute to a cumulative net increase in emissions throughout the air basin. However, the subject property is located within the San Diego Air Basin, and as such, is located in an area where a RAQS plan is being implemented. Implementation of the Ponto Vision Plan would not result in land uses that would conflict .with the adopted SIP and RAQS responsible for managing air quality in the region. Future development of the site is consistent with existing growth projections for the area will not conflict or obstruct implementation of these regional plans. Therefore, potential cumulative air quality impacts resulting from irqlementation of the Ponto Vision Plan are considered to be less than significant. . - d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantia1 pollutant concentrations? No Impact. The proposed amendments to the General Plan and Local Coastal Program would not directly result in significant air quality impacts. Ultimately, future development on the project site will be required to conform to the applicable air quality management plan. e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? No Impact. The proposed amendments to the General Plan and Local Coastal Program would not directly result in significant air quality impacts. No specific development plans have been proposed within the Vision Plan area at ths time. Future development proposals will be required to assess potential air quality impacts, including potential impacts from odors as part of the discretionary approval process. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES No impacts to biological resources would occur as a result of the proposed amendments to the General Plan or Local Coastal Program. The following discussion is provided as a guide for future discretionary permits that may be proposed as a result of implementing the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan. To evaluate potential biological resources within the plan area, a biological survey was prepared by Recon for the Vision Plan (refer to Existing Conditions Report for the Ponto Land Use Strategy, December 8,2003). The Recon survey covers the entire 130.5-acre project area, although development within the Ponto Beachfront Vision Plan area will generally be focused on ppproximately 50 acres, away from most of the sensitive habitats. The findings of the report are summarized below. - vould the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. Six sensitive habitat types were found to occur on the subject property: coastal brackish marsh, southern coastal salt marsh, fkshwater marsh, maritime succulent scrub, disturbed southern coastal blufT scrub and disturbed coastal sage scrub. In addition, the site supports five U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) wetlandriparian areas. The area designated for development within the plan area is mostly located within areas identifed as developed or disturbed habitats and are generally not considered sensitive. Future development within the Ponto Beachfront Village area will be required to comply with the mitigation measures listed at the end of this section to ensure potential impacts to sensitive habitats, including jurisdictional wetlands and waters, are reduced or avoided to the maximum extent possible. Four sensitive plant species were observed onsite. These include one California Native Plant Society (CNPS) List 1B species, Nuttal's lotus (LOW nuttalliunus); one CNPS List 2 species, California boxthorn (Lyciurn califomica); and, two CNPS List 4 species, southwestern spiny rush (Juncus scum ssp. Leopoldiz] and woolly seablite (Suaedu taxzyolia). A complete listing of the plant species observed and species known to occur in the area can be found in Attachment 3 of the Recon Existing Conditions Report, dated December 8, 2003. Impacts to sensitive plant species are considered significant. Future development within the Ponto Beachfront Village area will be required to comply with the mitigation measures listed at the end of this section to ensure that potential impacts to sensitive plant species are avoided or reduced to less than significant. 20 Two sensitive bird species were observed on-site: American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) and California homed lark (Eremophila alpesiris actia). American peregrine falcon is state listed as -endangered, is a California fully protected species, and is a HMP covered species. California homed lark is a California species of special concern The following species were not observed within the project study area, but have a high potential to oca onsite: saltmarsh skipper (Punoquina errans), long billed curlew (Numenius amencanus), and Belding's savannah sparrow (Passerculus sandwhichensis beldingi). Future development within the Ponto Beachfi-ont Village area wiU be required to comply with the mitigation measures listed at the end of this section to ensure potential impacts to sensitive wildlife species are avoided or reduced to less than significant. - ~ Mitigation Prior to approval of any fume development within the Vision Plan area, a comprehensive, site-specific biological resource analysis, including existing conditions, potential impacts, and a mitigation strategy will need to be submitted to the City and approved prior to any clearing, grubbing, or gradmg of the site. No impacts would occur and no mitigation is required at this time with the proposed amendments to the General Plan or Local Coastal Program. However, mitigation measures have been provided below as a guide to future development of the site. Implementation of the following mitigation measures, at a minimum, shall apply to future development projects: A comprehensive, site-specific biological resource report must be prepared prior to environmental review of any future projects proposed on the project site. Development applications for future development shall conform to the City of Carlsbad's Habitat Management Plan. Consistent with setback and buffer requirements of the City of Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan, all future development shall be sited at a proper distance ffom designated open space areas such that brush management areas would not impact sensitive wetlands, maritime succulent scrub, disturbed southern coastal bluff scrub, and disturbed coastal sage scrub, or areas revegetated with native plants as part of-a mitigation prow b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian, aquatic or wetland habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. A Wetland Delineation Report was completed by Recon (December 8, 2003) for the Ponto Beachfront Village area which determined that a total of 5.92 acres of wetlands and waters within the property fall under the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) jurisdiction, and 6.15 'acres of California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) jurisdictional area occur onsite (refer to the Wetland Delineation Report for the Ponto Land Use Strategy and Vision Project, December 8, 2003). The City of Carlsbad's jurisdiction for wetlands and waters matches the jurisdiction of the USACE and CDFG. The City of Carlsbad jurisdictional areas within the study area equal approximately 6.15 acres. This is the same area as the CDFG jurisdictional area onsite. Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters Wetland Determination Acres Wetland 4.39 Non-wetland waters of the U.S. - 1.53 Total USACE 5.92 Wetlandriparian habitat 4.50 Streambed - 1.65 Total CDFG 6.15 USACE Jurisdiction CDFG Jurisdiction 21 The area identifed for development within the Ponto Beachfront Village area consists of approximately 50 acres located within the easternmost portion of the plan area, north of Batiquitos Lagoon. The majority of the jurisdictional wetlands and waters are located in the southem portion of the plan area where no development is proposed. One non-wetland water area with USACE and CDFG jurisdiction occurs on the Ponto area where future development is planned. A drainage averaging three feet in width drains from north to south on the east side of Carlsbad Boulevard, from Ponto Drive to a culvert located, approximately 572 feet to the south. The drainage runs through vacant property to a concrete ditch which then connects to a drain that flows to the . Pacific Ocean. The drainage is ephemeral with surface flows occurring after rainfall.--The surface flows most likely originate as runoff from Ponto Drive and surrounding lots. The USACE and CDFG have jurisdiction over approximately 0.04-acre of the drainage. The CDFG has jurisdiction over an additional 0.05-acre of riparian vegetation (two willow trees) and the area between the banks of the drainage. - Impacts to jurisdictional waters are considered significant and should be avoided to the maximum extent possible. Jurisdictional waters are regulated by the federal, state, and local governments under a no-net-loss policy. Any approved impacts would require mitigation through habitat creation, enhancement, or preservation, as determined by a qualified restoration specialist in consultation with the regulatory agencies. In addition, regulatory agencies often require that a buffer be maintained between jurisdictional waters and any development. The width of the buffer area can vary, depending on project design, but is typically 50 to 100 feet. Any impacts to USACE and CDFG jurisdictional waters would require acquisition of a 404 permit from USACE, a 401 Water Quality Certification from the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and a 1601 Streambed Alteration Agreement from CDFG. The Ponto Beachfiont Village Vision Plan (Chapter I, pages 6-7) states that any impacts to the on-site drainage should be addressed by on-site mitigation consisting of an enhanced wetland area. The Vision Plan envisions the low-lying open space area in the center of the site as an enhanced natural wetland with an interpretive trail. The elevated boardwalk-style trail would offer numerous interpretive opportunities, such as identification signage of native plant species, educational placards and signs and bidanimal watching. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filing, hydrological interruption, or other means? Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. Please see discussion in Section IV (b) above. 4 d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. Development of the Ponto Beachf?ont Village area would not significantly reduce the habitat of either the American Peregrine Falcon or the California homed lark. As future development would only occur within the identified 50-acre development area, development would not result in a substantial reduction in habitat for these species or constrict movement between viable populations. Preservation of marsh habitats affiliated with the Batiquitos Lagoon, as mandated by the City’s HMP, would avoid impacts to other sensitive wildlife species known to occur in the area identified in the biological resources survey. To mitigate for potential impacts, future development would require focused surveys for sensitive animal species ifthe proposed development might impact the marsh habitats. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?; and, 0 Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP), or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated (e and f). The Ponto Vision Plan would not conflict with any HCP, NCCP or other approved habitat conservation plan, or local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. To mitigate for potential impacts, future developments will be 22 required to prepare a comprehensive, site-specific biological resource analysis to ensure consistency with the City’s HMP. In addition, although the Vision Plan avoids all preserve areas (i.e. for protection of the Batiquitos Lagoon) such areas are designated as open space on the City’s General Plan and Local Coastal Program Maps. Impact tributary areas that are environmentally sensitive? g) Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. Please see discussion in Section N (b) above. - V. CULTURAL RESOURCES a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? No Impact. Although the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan recognizes the historical context of the Ponto area relative to the City of Carlsbad, no significant historic resources have been identified on the site. As such, hture development of the site will not result in significant impacts to historical resources (refer to “Cultural Resource Constraints Study of the Ponto Area Plan,” prepared by RECON, June 17,2003). b) ’ Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.53 Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The Cultural Resource Constraints Study prepared for the Plan Area included research of previous work as well aS additional field surveys. A light scatter of shell, several flakes and two stone tools were observed during the survey of the site; however, these resources were identified outside of the 50-acre future development area. Previous research identified one site on the north side of Batiquitos Lagoon, west of the railroad tracks, on a point of land that overlooks a habitat and revegetation area and the lagoon. However, the site does not indicate great age. Because there may be a subsurface component, implementation of the following mitigation measure is proposed Because there may be a subsurface component, all development projects proposed within the 50-acre development area in the future shall be required to complete additional testing to establish condition, content and research potential of significant cultural resources. \ c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. As stated above, because there may be a subsurface component, paleontological resources may be located within the 50-acre future development area. Therefore, implementation of the following mitigation measure is proposed Because there may be a subsurface component, all development projects proposed within the 50-acre development area in the future shall be required to complete additional testing to establish condition, content and research potential of significant paleontological resources. d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The Ponto site is located within an area of southern California that has revealed evidence of extensive prehistoric human occupation extending back 8,000 years. Resources associated with nearby Batiquitos Lagoon, the Pacific Ocean and the peninsular foothills supported local inhabitants throughout this period. As paleontological deposits do not occur uniformly, additional exploration is recommended for future projects proposed on the site. Because there may be a subsurface component, implementation of the following mitigation measure is proposed Because there may be a subsurface component, all development projects proposed within the 50-acre development area in the future shall be required to complete additional testing to establish condition, content and research potential of significant human remains. 23 VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of 1oss;injury or death involving: - 1. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines an& Geology Special Publication 42. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less than Significant Impact. A project-specific Geotechnical Constraints and Opportunities study, dated June 11, 2003 study was prepared by Terracosta Consulting Engineering. Although there are no Alqukt- Priolo Earthquake Fault zones within the City of Carlsbad, the site is located within a moderately-active seismic region of Southern California. Ground shaking from six major active fault zones could affect the site in the event of an earthquake. However, no known active faults have been mapped on the site, nor were any observed during the geologic reconnaissance or in the immediate vicinity of the study area. As such, expoke of future development on the site to liquefaction or strong seismic ground shalung is considered to be relatively low. iv. Landslides? Less than Significant Impact. The geotechnical study indicates that landslides have reportedly occurred along the coastal bluffs and within the southerly portion of the South Carlsbad State Beach campground. The last reported landslide was in 1980, which occurred after intense rainfall. However, the area where future development is planned is located across Carlsbad Boulevard, at a distance from the westerly bluff- terminated edge of a series of well-defined coastal terraces. In addition, the easterly edge of the Carlsbad Boulevard roadway embankment and the northerly edge of the Batiquitos Lagoon shoreline are made of the erosion-resistant Santiago formation that at most, is anticipated to erode at a rate of less than one inch per year. Impacts resulting from landslides are considered to be less than significant. 1 b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? And, d) Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? Less than Significant Impact @, c, and d). The study area is generally designated as a Type C(b) coastal bluff having a resistant geologic formation at the bottom and less resistant materials in the upper portions of the bluff. The majority of the area where development will occur is generally designated as Quaternary Terrace Deposits (Qt), consisting of moderately consolidated, poorly indurated clean sands, silty sands and clayey sands. Portions of the site also support Land Derived Fill (Aafl) and Hydraulic Fill (Qaf2) which are engineered fills placed fiom railroad and principal area roadway improvements, as well as dredging of the Batiquitos Lagoon. As stated previously, the 50-acre area where future development is planned is located across Carlsbad Boulevard, at a distance fiom the westerly bluff-terminated edge of a series of well-defined coastal terraces. The geotechnical analysis determined that coastal erosion of the beach within the State Park boundaries might reach one half foot per year, and even less if sand replenishment projects continue. The approximately 1,000 feet of Carlsbad Boulevard roadway embankment that extends south of the State Beach is not protected by the State Park's bluff top area; however, it is estimated that the beach may only erode at the rate of one to two inches per year in this area, and even less if beach replenishment occurs. In 24 addition, the easterly edge of the Carlsbad Boulevard roadway embankment and the northerly edge of the Batiquitos Lagoon shoreline are made of the erosion-resistant Santiago formation that at most, is anticipated to erode at a rate of less than one inch per year. Impacts will be less than significant. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? No impact. The project site will receive sewer service from the Leucadia Water District. Three sewer force mains that currently run at an angle through the Ponto site and along its internal streets will be relocated to run parallel to the northbound lanes of Carlsbad Boulevard to provide sewer service for ihe project site. No significant impacts will occur. W. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS No Impact (a - h). The proposed amendments to the General Plan or Local Coastal Program will ultimately allow for a variety of future uses on the project site. Future land uses may require the transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials as an aspect of daily operation. Oil and/or other chemicals released fkom delivery vehicles or the vehicles of residents or visitors, as well as those used for mechanical equipment or for maintenance purposes or other purposes may be present on the site; however, the presence of such materials onsite is not anticipated to be substantial in quantity or to pose substantial risk to human ' health or safety. The Goject site is located approximately 2.5 miles southwest of the McClellan-Palomar Airport (a public airport) and is not subject to the McClellan-Palomar Anport Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP). The proposed General Plan and Local Coastal Program amendments will not impair the implementation or physically interfere with any adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan and the site is not located in an area where development would be threatened by wildland fires. VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Less than Significant Impact. The study area does contain one natural drainage course that drains the area to the south. Some water will be detained in the northerly portion of the site during rain and storm events. A hydrology report will need to be prepared prior to future development to address any potential flooding or hydrology impacts from development. Potential future water qdty impacts will also need to be analyzed when individual development plans are submitted. No hydrology or water quality mitigation is required with the current land use action, however comprehensive hydrology and water quality reports will need to be prepared prior to environmental review and approval of any future development project. Development plans within the Ponto Vision Area will incorporate permanent stormwater measures to remove pollutants-of-concern to the maximum extent practicable, per Order 2001-01 and the City of Carlsbad Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP). The type and location of these measures will be identified at a later time as projects are submitted for discretionary approvals and development permits. b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local ground water table level (Le., the production rate of preexisting nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Impacts to groundwater quality? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? 25 Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the flow rate or amount (volume) of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site? Less Than Significant Impact @, c, d and e). As stated above, potential future water quality impacts will be analyzed when individual development plans are submitted. No hydrology or water quality mitigation is required with the current land use action, however comprehensive hydrology and water quality reports will be prepared prior to environmental review and approval of any future development projects. The Ponto Vision Plan does not propose development that would significantly altei. existing drainage patterns, nor would it increase the potential for erosion or siltation in any river or stream. Although implementation of the Ponto Vision Plan will increase the amount of impervious surface area (i.e. parking areas, internal roadways, etc.), individual development projects will implement measures to reduce urban pollutants prior to discharge. A primary component of the water quality management system will be the development of a natural water quality bio-swale to be constructed within the Wetland Interpretation Area, located near the Carlsbad Boulevard overpass. All stormwater from the future development area will ultimately drain into the existing 84-inch storm drain that currently collects flows from residential areas north of Ponto for conveyance to Batiquitos Lagoon. The storm drain presently runs at an angle through the Ponto site and will be relocated onto internal streets and will then run parallel to the northbound lanes of Carlsbad Boulevard. Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm watef drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Less than Significant Impact (I and 9). Future development on the Ponto site will be required to maintain peak runoff to predevelopment flows. Compliance with NFDES requirements would ensure that future off- site flows do not increase pollutant discharges. Implementation of Best Management Practices BMPs to avoid pollutant contact and remove pollutants from stormwater will apply to future development as determined necessary through preparation of a Stormwater Management Plan. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation map? Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? No Impact (h, i, j and k). The Ponto Vision Plan does not propose future development Within a 100-year flood hazard area. No significant impacts from flooding will occur. Increased erosion (sediment) into receiving surface waters? Increased pollutant discharges (e.g., heavy metals, pathogens, petroleum derivatives, synthetic organics, nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances and trash) into receiving surface waters or other alteration of receiving surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? Changes to receiving water quality (marine, fresh or wetland waters) during or following construction? Increase in any pollutant to an already impaired water body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list? The exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses? Less than Significant Impact (1, m, n, o and p). Proposed future development on the Ponto site will be required to comply with Order 2001-01 and prepare a Stormwater Management Plan. Drainage and development will be controlled via best management practices to ensure that pollutants loads are not increased to the maximum extent practicable. Impacts to water quality will be less than significant. LAND USE AND PLANNING Would the project: Physically divide an established community? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed change in land use will not physically divide an established community. The Ponto Vision Plan does not propose to install roadways or other infrastructure that would physically divide an existing community, alter access points to an existing community or result in a significant loss of housing, including affordable housing. Therefore, potential impacts are less than significant. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to the general plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? and, Confjict with any appIicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? Less than Significant Impact (b and e). The proposed amendments to the General Plan and Local Coastal Program would designate the Ponto area as an area of “Special Planning Considerations” to be developed under the guidance of the Ponto Beachfiont Village Plan Area. The Ponto Vision Plan proposes the development of local and tourist-serving commercial, mixed-use, residential and recreational uses that are compatiile with existing surrounding development to the east, open spacehbitat connections in the south, and the beach area to the west. The Ponto Beachfiont Village Vision Plan provides a guide for development of the area to ensure that future land uses are compatible and consistent with the intended vision for the site. The Ponto Vision Plan identifies land uses to be permitted within each of the land use character areas to ensure that fitme uses proposed will be consistent with development envisioned by the City. Future individual development projects will require the appropriate discretionary permits. The project site is located in the Mello II Segment of the City’s adopted Local Coastal Program (LCP). The proposed project will require approval of an amendment to the LCP by the California Coastal Commission to ensure the LCP is consistent with the City’s General Plan and the Coastal Act. The Vision Plan area is located within Zones 9 and 22 of the City’s Local Facilities Management Plans (LFMP). The proposed General Plan and Local Coastal Program amendments do not create any potential conflicts with the goals of these plans. No specific development plans have been proposed within the Vision Plan area at this time. Future development proposals will be required to demonstrate that proposed facilities are consistent with the LFMP or propose amendments to the appropriate LFMP. A portion of the Ponto Beachfiont Village Vision Plan area is within the South Carlsbad Coastal Redevelopment Area (SCCRA) and subject to the Redevelopment Permit process, which is administered by the City of Carlsbad’s Housing and Redevelopment Department. Future development proposals will be required to demonstrate consistency with the redevelopment plans established for the portion of the property within the redevelopment area. A portion of the Vision Plan area is within the boundaries of the Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan (SP 2 10). This specific plan directs development for a 92-acre area located primarily to the north of the Vision Plan area. However, a 1.5-acre area in the northern portion of the Vision Plan area overlaps with the specific plan area. The Specific Plan identifies this area for future commercial uses that will serve the traveling public and beach visitors. No conflicts with the Specific Plan have been identified as a result of the proposed General Plan and Local Coastal Program amendments. Future development proposals will be required to demonstrate consistency with the Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan or amend the Specific Plan to remove the property. 27 A portion of the Vision Plan area is also within the boundaries of the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan (MP 175(c)). This master plan governs a total of approximately 162.8 acres of which approximately 23.5 acres is located within the Vision Plan area. Of 17 planning areas included in the Master Plan, three are located within the Vision Plan boundaries: areas F, G, and H. These areas feature travel service/comtnercial use and a non-residential reserve. No conflicts with the Master Plan have been identifed as a result of the proposed General Plan and Local Coastal Program amendments. Future development proposals will be . required to demonstrate consistency with the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan or amend--the Master Plan to remove the properties. x MINERAZ, RESOURCES No Impact (a and b). There are no known mineral resources, of local importance or otherwise, on the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of such resources. XI. NOISE Would the project result in: Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local genefal plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies? and, Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise levels? and, A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated (a, b, and e). The proposed General Plan and Local Coastal Program amendments would not result in si&icant noise impacts. Future onsite development within the Ponto Vision Plan area will be required to prepare a project-specific noise impact analysis to assess potential impacts resulting from the project, as well as cumulatively considerable noise impacts. All mitigation measures identified within a project-specific noise impact analysis will be required to reduce impacts to a level less than significant and consistent with noise standards given in the City of Carlsbad Noise Element. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed amendments to the existing General Plan and Local Coastal Program for the project would not result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels. However, future development of the site may result in the exposure of visitors to or residents of the site to substantial periodic increases in ambient noise levels .from operation of the existing railroad, located along the easterly border of the property, as well as Carlsbad Boulevard. Future onsite development will require preparation of a project-specific noise analysis to identify potential noise impacts, as well as cumulatively considerable noise impacts. All mitigation measures identified within a project-specific noise impact analysis will be required to reduce impacts to a level less than significant and consistent with noise standards given in the City of Carlsbad Noise Element. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? and, For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 28 i No Impact (e and f). The project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip and is more than two miles to the southwest of the McClellan-Palomar Airport. Therefore, development occurKing as a result of the proposed General Plan and Local Coastal Plan amendments would not be subject to an airport land use plan, nor would it result in development that exposes people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. XU. POPULATION AND HOUSING Would the project: Induce substantial growth in an area either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed amendments to the General Plan and Local Coastal Program will result in future development of the Ponto site that is consistent with the City’s vision for future growth of the area. A portion of the Ponto study area is within the South Carlsbad Coastal Redevelopment Area (SCCRA), established in July 2000, and development of the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan is the first step toward achieving the Redevelopment Area’s overall intent. The proposed project will indirectly result in hture development of new housing and businesses, as well as roadway improvements for vehicular circulation and relocation of (existing) utility lines to serve the site. The ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan envisions a mixed-use development including hotel and resort uses, retail uses, a mixture of housing types and recreational opportunities. The proposed project will ultimately allow for additional housing opportunities within the City of Carlsbad with implementation of the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan. The City of Carlsbad operates an excess dwelling unit (DU) “bank.” As land within the City is developed with less than the density allowed by the General Plan, the excess units are “returned” to the DU bank, thereby limiting the planned number of residential units. The provision of public facilities within the Zone 9 and 22 LFMPs, including parks, libraries, fire protection and police protection services, as well as other services, have been planned to accommodate the projected growth of these areas. As the facilities planning has already been completed and residential units are accounted for in the overall ‘%a&” the proposed change in land use will not create an increase in units or development that is not anticipated, or create an unexpected demand for additional future public services. Future development of the proposed residential units resulting from the proposed amendments to the General Plan and Local Coastal Program will not exceed the total growth projections anticipated for the Zone 9 and 22 LFMPs. Therefore, the proposed project will not result in a growth in housing that will substantially or adversely impact public services. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact (b and c). The project site is presently vacant, with the exception of a small enclave of existing single-family homes that will remain following approval of the Ponto Vision Plan. As such, the project will not result in displacement of any existing housing or individuals and no replacement housing will be required. PUBLIC SERVICES Less than Significant Impact. The Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan is located within the Local Facilities Management Plans (LFMP) for Zones 9 and 22. The provision of public facilities within the Zone 9 and 22 LFMPs, including parks, libraries, fire protection and police protection services, as well as other services, have been planned to accommodate the existing projected growth of these areas. No conflicts with the Zones 9 and 22 Local Facilities Management Plans (LFMP) have been identified as a result of the proposed General Plan and Local Coastal Program amendments. Future development proposals will be required to demonstrate consistency with the appropriate LFMP or amend the appropriate LFMP. 29 XIV. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? and, b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No Impact (a and b). No impacts to existing recreational uses will occur as a result of the proposed amendments to the General Plan and Local Coastal Program. Future development projects will be required to prepare design plans consistent with the Ponto Beachtiont Village Vision Plan, which includes design elements that will supplement and enhance opportunities for recreation in the area. Such elements include pedestrian trails with connection to a regional trail system, a pedestrian underpass below Carlsbad Boulevard to the Carlsbad State Beach and Campground, a linear park, and a community nal.ure/arts center. Impacts to recreational resources will be less than significant. - XV. TRANSPORTATION/"€UFl?IC No substantial impacts to transportation or traffic facilities would occur as a result of the proposed amendments to the General Plan or Local Coastal Program. The following discussion is provided as a guide for future discretionary permits that may be proposed as a result of implementing the Ponto BeacWont Village Vision Plan. To evaluate potential traffic mpacts with the plan area and surrounding roadway network, a traffic constraints study was prepared by RBF Consulting for the proposed Vision Plan (refer to 'Tonto Vision Plan Traffic Constraints Study," September 3, 2004). The study assumed development of the site at maximum allowed buildout. The findings of the report are summarized below. Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and. capacity of the street system? Potentially Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The Ponto Beachtiont Village Vision Plan consists of a mixture of compatible land uses including hotel and resort uses, live/work condominium units, townhouses, apartments, office, retail and restaurants. To assess potential traffic impacts for the proposed project, a maximum buildout scenario was considered, although a less intensive development may occur under the Vision Plan. Under the maximum buildout allowed, and applying SANDAG trip generation rates (see Table l), the Ponto Vision Plan is forecast to generate approximately 12,407 trips per day, which includes approximately 721 a.m. peak hour trips and approximately 1,102 p.m. peak hour trips (see Table 2). Figure 1 illustrates where the areas described in Table 2 are located relative to the Ponto Vision Plan area. The area identified for the traffic constraints study included 34 intersections and 20 roadway segments. The general boundaries of the study area are Palomar Anport Road to the north, El Camino Real to the east (with the exception of the Melrose DriveEalomar Anport Road and El Fuerte Streeflalomar Anport Road intersections to the east of El Camino Real); La Costa Avenue to the south; and Carlsbad Boulevard to the west. The results of the analysis show that all study intersections currently operate at acceptable levels of service based on the Intersection Capacity Utibzation (ICU) methodology, with the exception of Palomar Airport RoadMelrose Drive. Similarly, all study roadway segments are currently operating at acceptable levels of service during the peak hours. The addition of traffic associated with the proposed Ponto Vision Plan to the existing traffic volumes results in acceptable operating conditions at all study intersections, with the exception of Palomar Airport Roamelrose Drive and Palomar Airport Roam1 Camino Real. The Melrose Drive extension from its terminus in the City of Vista to Palomar Airport Road is scheduled for completion in late 2005 or early 2006. The forecasted deficient conditions at Palomar mort RoadMelrose Drive and Palomar Airport Roam1 Camino Real will be mitigated by this extension project because the roadway extension will provide additional capacity for the roadway network in the area. Overall, intersections within the study area operate at LOS C or better indicating more than 20 percent 30 available capacity. Therefore, the existing roadway network has sufficient capacity to meet the forecast traffic demands of the proposed land use plan in the short term. Additionally, a comparative analysis was also conducted to assess the number of trips that would be generated by build-out of the project area under the existing General Plan land use designations, if the Ponto Vision Plan were not to be implemented. Table 3 lists the traffic generation rates for the land uses currently designated within the plan area. For the property within the plan area that does not have a land use designation, a designation was assigned to the area consistent with the growth projections fiom the Zone 9 Local Facilities Management Plan (LFMP). Table 4 provides a calculation of the traffic trips that would be generated from the project area assuming build-out under the existing GenerakPlan designations. Some of the areas within the plan have a split designation, that is, two separate designations over the same area. For those areas, the traffic generation was calculated assuming build-out under both designations. For example, Area B has a split designation of Residential Medium High Density and Travemecreation Commercial. The calculations in Table 4 show what the total number of traffic trips would be assuming build-out of each area under the existing land use designations. As such, the total number of trips for the plan area is an approximate range between 12,708 and 15,408 trips per day. The total number of trips calculated for the plan area would fall within that range depending on what mix of land uses would be developed. Figure 1 illustrates where the areas described in Table 4 are located within the Ponto Vision Plan area. - This comparative analysis demonstrates that the proposed Ponto Vision Plan with approximately 12,407 dailypips will generate less traffic than potential development under the existing General Plan land use designations. The lowest range of daily trips calculated for the area under the existing General Plan designations is 12,708 daily trips. The uses proposed in the Ponto Vision Plan would generate approximately 301 fewer daily trips than uses allowed under the existing General Plan designations. Therefore, in comparison of the two plan scenarios, the Ponto Vision Plan would generate fewer total traffic trips than development permitted under existing General Plan land use designations. In comparing the peak hour volumes in Tables 2 and 4, the Ponto Vision Plan generates 155 more trips in the AM Peak Hour and 103 fewer trips in the PM Peak Hour, using the lower end of the trip generation numbers for Existing General land use. Using the higher end of the trip generation numbers, the Ponto Vision Plan generates 114 more trips in the AM Peak Hour and 338 fewer trips in the PM Peak Hour. As discussed in the analysis above, the traffic generated fiom the proposed Ponto Vision Plan does not significantly impact the capacity of the existing roadway system. Therefore, potential impacts related to increased traffic volumes are considered less than significant. 31 TABLE 1 SANDAG Trip Generation Rates Used for Ponto Vision Plan Area Proposed Land Uses Area A Source - SANDAG "Not So Brief Guide" - April 2002 AM Peak PM Peak Land Use Units Amount ADT Total In Out Total In Out rooms 150 1,500 90 54 36 120 72 48 Hotel wkonference facilities/restataurant TABLE 2 Ponto Vision Plan Area Forecast Traffic F Apartments du 76 456 36 7 29 41 29 12 Specialty Retail ksf 19 760 23 14 9 68 34 34 Restaurant - High Quality ksf 5 500 5 3 2 40 28 12 I lLive/work - Condos I du I 35 I280 12214118128120181 G H I I I Passivepark acre 0.75 15 2 11111 Apartments du 38 228 18 4 15 21 14 6 Specialty Retail ksf 12 480 14 9 6 43 22 22 ksf 5 800 64 32 32 64 38 26 Restaurant - Sit-Down, high turnover Aaartments du 62 372 30 6 24 33 23 10 I B IOffice I ksf I 6 I120 I17 1151 2 1161 3 1121 I I I I ~ 1 Office ksf 16 320 I 45 40 4 1 42 8 33 Saecialtv Retail ksf 16 640 I 19 12 8 1 58 29 29 I kuecialtv Retail I ksf.1 6 I240 17 14 13 122111IllI I C hotel (1 10+50 Time Share) I rooms I 160 I 1.600 1 96 I 58 I 38 I 128 I 77 1 51 I 1 D ITown homes (Condos) 1 du I 112 I 896 I 72 I 14 I 57 I 90 I 63 I 27 I I E ]Resort (200+200 Timeshares) I rooms I 400 1 3,200 I 160 I 96 I 64 I288 I 173 I 115 I TOTAL I 12,407 I 721 1 373 I 348 l1,lOZl 644 I 458 1 32 TABLE 3 SANDAG Trip Generation Rates Used for Ponto Vision Plan Area Existing General Plan Land Use - idential Condominium or any Soirrce - SANDAG "Not So Brief Guide" - April 2002 *Cit)ir land use per Local Facilities Management Plan (UMP) Zone 9 33 TABLE 4 Ponto Area Existing General Plan Land Use Trip Generation ' See Figure 1 Ponto Vision Plan Areas Hotel wi conference facilities Specialty Retail 11.5 dwelling units/acre per Growth Management Control Point Per LFMP Zone 9 Resort Hotel NOTE: Shading is used in Areas with split General Plan land use designations, e.g., RMWT-R, to depict the land use designation that generates the lower ADT. 34 VILLAGE HOTEL --I TOWNHOUSE r NEiGHBoRHooD rE BEACH FRONT r RESORT GARDEN HOTEL A -- . * - . -. __ .- I-’ I LIVE-WORK NEIGHBORHOOD * Letter Designations Correspond to Table 2 (Ponto Vision Plan Areo Forecast Traffic) I C 0 N S U LTI N G )510109911099rxOo2.li Not to Scale Ponto Vision Plan Areas Figure I b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. No traffic impacts will occur as result of the proposed amendments to the General Plan and Local Coastal Program. Future development projects will be required to prepare project specific traffic analyses to evaluate cumulative traffic impacts of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects at the time future development plans are submitted. The traffic constraints study prepared by RBF Consulting evaluated Horizon Year 2030 conditions with and without the proposed land uses included in the Ponto Beachfiont Village Vision Plan. The Horizon Year analysis assumes buildout of the City’s Circulation Element roadways and improvements at existing intersections as planned through the City of Carlsbad Traffic Impact Fee Program. The results of the Horizon Year 2030 analysis show that all study intersections are forecast to operate at acceptable levels of service when evaluated using ICU methodology, with the exception of the following seven intersections, whch are forecast to operate at LOS E or F: ~ o o o o o o o Palomar Anport Road / Paseo Del Norte; Palomar Airport Road / El Camino Real; Palomar mort Road / El Fuerte; Poinsettia Lane J Paseo Del Norte; La Costa Avenue / Coast Highway 101 (City of Encinitas); La Costa Avenue / Vulcan Avenue (City of Encinitas) (Unsignalized); and, El Camino Real / La Costa Avenue. These seven intersections are forecast to operate at “Failing” conditions with and without the maximum potential land use intensity included for the Ponto Vision Plan. All roadway segments are forecast to operate at acceptable levels of service with and without the Ponto Vision Plan. The City of Carlsbad typically uses the Growth Management standards of LOS D for the peak hour and LOS C for off-peak as the significance criteria. A LOS below these levels is considered a significant impact ‘ requiring mitigation. The City of Carlsbad traffic study guidelines identify significant impacts if one of the following two criteria are met: The addition of project-generated trips result in a change in operating conditions from acceptable to deficient; or, When an intersection or roadway segment is operating at deficient service levels, the addition of project-generated trips results in a change in V/C ratio of more than 2% (0.02) when compared to the no project condition. Of the seven intersections forecast to operate deficiently by the year 2030, traffic from the Ponto Vision Plan exceeds the above criteria at two intersections. The addition of project traffic at these two intersections exceeds more than a 2% change when compared to the no project condition. Potential traffic impacts to these two intersections are considered significant: o o Poinsettia Lane / Paseo Del Norte La Costa Avenue / Coast Highway 101 (City of Encinitas) At the intersection of Poinsettia LaneFaseo Del Norte, mitigation would be required to reduce potential traffic impacts fiom future development to less than significant; however, this intersection is forecast to operate at deficient service levels with or without the proposed Ponto Beachfiont Village Vision Plan’s development. Therefore, a fair share contribution towards improvements at th~s location would be sufficient to mitigate the identified impact. The recommended improvements that would result in acceptable operating conditions at this intersections is as follows: Widen the westbound approach to include the 36 following lane geometry:, one left-turn lane, two through lanes, and one right-turn lane. Restripe the southbound approach to include one left-turn lane, one through lane, and dedicated one right-turh lane. As noted above, the La Costa Avenue / Coast Highway 101 (Carlsbad Boulevard) intersection is within the City of Encinitas. Impacts to this intersection also occur with implementation of the North 101 -Corridor Specific Plan, which generally covers the area bounded by the City limit line on the north, B StreetEncinitas Boulevard on the south, parcels fronting Vulcan Avenue on the east, and parcels fronting North Highway 101 on the west, with some exceptions. Mitigation for impacts to the intersection are addressed in the North 101 Corridor Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Specific Plan. . Mitigation given in the EIR states that the intersection improvements recommended in &e Specific Plan be implemented. The City of Enchitas will implement the mitigation measures during build-out of the Speclfic Plan. . - The Specific Plan offers the following recommendations for mitigation of impacts to the intersection: 1) La Costa Avenue / Coast Highway 101 (Carlsbad Boulevard) Intersection: Widen the southbound approach to include two left turn lanes and two through lanes. Widen the westbound approach to include two left turn lanes and one right turn lane. With construction of the recommended lane configurations, the level of service for the intersection will improve fiom LOS D (a.m.) and LOS E @.a) to LOS A (a.m.) and LOS B (p.m.) at buildout under the Specific Plan. With implementation of the mitigation given in the North 101 Corridor Specific Plan, impacts will be reduced to less than sigruficant under 2030 conditions. Therefore, no fbrther mitigation for the proposed project is required. c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? No Impact. The proposed project does not include any aviation components. The project is located approximately 2.5 miles southwest of the McClellan-Palomar Airport and is located outside of the boundaries of the Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses? No Impact. All future project circulation improvements will be designed and constructed to City standards. Future development would not result in design hazards because access to the development area will meet City standards for sight distance and pedestrian safety. The Plan envisions a pedestrian underpass below Carlsbad Boulevard to allow pedestrians to safely cross from the Plan Area to the South Carlsbad State Beach and Campground. In addition, the Plan provides for a new fully signalized intersection at Beach Way and Carlsbad Boulevard, midway between Ponto Drive and Avenida Encinas to further facilitate pedestrian movement between the Ponto Beachfkont Village and the State Beach and Campground. The Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan has been created to ensure that fhture development within the plan area consists of compatible uses. Result in inadequate emergency access? e) No Impact. The proposed project has been designed to satisfy the emergency requirements of the Fire and Police Departments. No impacts to emergency access have been identified. 0 Result in inadequate parking capacity? No Impact. Future development plans will be required to demonstrate compliance with the City’s parking requirements based on the proposed use. g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks, etc.)? No Impact. The proposed project does not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs that support alternative transportation. 37 XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS Less than Significant Impact (a - g). All future development resulting from the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan will be required to comply with all Regional Water Quality Control Board Requiremats The proposed amendments to the General Plan and Local Coastal Program will allow for development on the site that is consistent with the Zone 9 and Zone 22 LFMPs prepared for the site. The Zone 9 and 22 LFMPs were prepared with the intention that the Ponto area would be developed and facilities were planned and . designed to accommodate future development on the site. All public facilities, including water facilities, wastewater treatment facilities and drainage facilities, have been planned and designed to accommodate the growth projections for the City at build-out. Although future development on the site will increase the demand for these facilities, such development will not result in an overall increase in the City’s growth projection. Therefore, the proposed amendments to the General Plan and Local Coastal Program to ultimately allow for development of the Ponto site will not result in land uses that will result in a significant need to substantially expand or construct new water facilities/supplies, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage facilities. Future development projects on the site will be required to ensure that waste disposal services are adequate to serve a proposed project without exceeding landfill capacities. In addition, all future development proposed will be required to comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. XW. MmATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Less Than Significant Impact. The project will result in amendments to the existing General Plan and Local Coastal Program to identify the Ponto Village Area as an area of “Special Planning Considerations;’ which will in itself, not result in a degradation of the quality of the environment. As discussed in Section N, Biological Resources, Questions a-g, and Section V, Cultural Resources, Questions a-d, the project will not degrade the quality of the environment and will not substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildhfe species. The project will not cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels and will not threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community. In addition, the project would not reduce the number nor restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal and will not eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehstory. Therefore, potential impacts are less than significant. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively Considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects?) Less Than Significant Impact. The incremental impacts of the project have not been found to be cumulatively considerable after an evaluation of all potential impacts. After careful review, there is no substantial evidence that any of the incremental impacts of the project are potentially significant. The impacts of the project have therefore not been found to be cumulatively considerable. San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) projects regional growth for the greater San Diego area, and local general plan land use policies are incorporated into SANDAG projections. Based upon those projections, region-wide standards, including storm water quality control, air quality standards, habitat conservation, congestion management standards, etc, are established to reduce the cumulative impacts of development in the region. All of the City’s development standards and regulations are consistent with the region-wide standards. The City’s standards and regulations, including grading standards, water quality and drainage standards, traffic standards, habitat and cultural resource protection regulations, and public facility standards, ensure that development within the City will not result in a significant cumulatively considerable impact. 38 There are two regional issues that development within the City of Carlsbad has the potential to have a cumulatively considerable impact on. Those issues are air quality and regional circulation. As discussed above, the project would contribute to a cumulatively considerable potential net increase in emissions throughout the air basin. As described above, however, emissions associated with the development would be minimal. Given the limited emissions potentially associated with the development of the site, air quality would be essentially the same whether or not the development is implemented. According to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15130 (a)(3), the project’s contriiution to the cumulative impact is considered less than cumulatively considerable and, therefore, less than significant. The County Congestion Management Agency (CMA) has designated three roads (Ranc30 Santa Fe Rd, El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Road) and two highway segments in Carlsbad as part of the regional circulation system. The CMA has determined, based on the City’s growth projections in the General Plan, that these designated roadways will function at acceptable levels of service in the short-term and at build- out. The project is consistent with the City’s growth projections, and therefore, the cumulative impact from the project to the regional circulation system is less than significant. - With regard to any other potential impact associated with the project, City standards and regulations will ensure that development of the site will not result in a significant cumulatively considerable impact. c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Less %ban Significant Impact. The proposed General Plan and LocaI Coastal Program amendments to designate the Ponto Beacfiont Village area as an area of “Special Planning Considerations” will not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings either directly or indirectly. Future development within the Ponto Vision Plan Area will have to prepare project specific reports to assess potential impacts to people affected by the project. Potential impacts will have to be identified and mitigation measures proposed. Those mitigation measures will be incorporated into project design or included as conditions of project approval. Any future development on the site will be required to comply with all applicable federal, state, regional and City regulations, which will ensure the development of the site will not result in an adverse impact on human beings, either directly or indirectly. 39 XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSIS USED AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of Carlsbad Planning Department located at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 92008 or the City of Carlsbad Housing and Redevelopment Department located at 2965 Roosevelt Street, Carlsbad, California, 92008. City of Carlsbad General Plan. September 16,1994. - Cultural Resource Constraints Study of the Ponto Area Plan. Prepared by RECON (RECON Number 3482A). June 17,2003. Environmental Impact Report for North 101 Corridor Specific Plan. City of Encinitas. 1997. Existing Conditions Report [Biological] for the Ponto Land Use Strategy and Vision Project. Prepared by RECON. December 8,2003. Geotechnical Constraints and Opportunities, Ponto Area Land Use Plan. Prepared by Terracosta Consulting Group, Inc. June 11,2003. Local Coastal Program- Mello II Segment. City of Carlsbad. 1996. Amended 2003. Local Facilities Management Plan. Zone 9. September, 1993. Local Facilities Management Plan. Zone 22. August 1,1997. North 10 1 Corridor Specific Plan. City of Encinitas. May 2 1,1997. Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan. November 27,1998. Poinsettia Shores Master Plan. October 20, 1993. Ponto Beachfkont Village Vision Plan (DRAFT). Prepared by RBF Consulting. July 2004. Ponto Vision Plan - Traffic Constraints Study. Prepared by RBF Consulting. September 3,2004. Redevelopment Plan - South Carlsbad Coastal Redevelopment Project. Prepared by Carlsbad Housing and Redevelopment Commission. February 4,2000. Wetland Delineation Report. Prepared by RECON. December 8,2003. 40 LIST OF MITIGATION MEASURES Agricultural Resources Implementation of the following mitigation measures, at mininnun, shall apply to future development projects to reduce impacts to agricultural resources to less than significant: Prior to approval of any future development within the Vision Plan Area, all lands identified on Map X of the Mello I1 Segment of the Local Coastal Program shall require compliance with the agricultural conversion requirements (Policy 2-1). - - Biological Resources Prior to approval of any future development within the Vision Plan area, a comprehensive, project-specific biological resource analysis, including existing conditions, potential impacts, and a mitigation strategy will need to be submitted and approved prior to project approval and any clearing, grubbing, or grading of the site. No impacts would occur and no mitigation is required with the proposed General Plan and Local Coastal Program amendments at this time. However, mitigation measures have been provided below as a guide to future development of the site. Implementation of the following mitigation measures, at a minirmun, shall apply to future development projects: 0 A corhprehensive, site-specific biological resource report must be prepared prior to environmental review of any future projects proposed on the project site. 0 Development applications for future development shall codom to the City of Carlsbad's Habitat Management Plan. 0 Consistent with setback and buffer requirements of the City of Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan, all future development shall be sited at a proper &stance fiom designated open space areas such that brush management areas would not impact sensitive wetlands, maritime succulent scrub, disturbed Southern coastal bluff scrub, and disturbed coastal sage scrub or areas revegetated with native plants as part of a mitigation program. ' 0 Impacts to the on-site drainage within the future development area should be mitigated for on-site through preparation and implementation of a wetland enhancement plan. Cultural Resources The following mitigation measure is recommended to reduce impacts to culturaYpaleontological resources to less than significant: Because there may be a subsurface component, all development project proposed within the 50-acre development area in the future shall be required to complete additional testing to establish condition, content, and research potential of any sipficant cultural or paleontological resources or human remains. Noise The following mitigation measure is recommended to reduce noise impacts to less than significant: 0 Future onsite development will require preparation of a project-specific noise analysis to identify potential noise impacts, as well as cumulatively considerable noise impacts. All mitigation measures identified within a project-specific noise impact analysis will be required to reduce impacts to a level less than significant and consistent with noise standards given in the City of Carlsbad Noise Element. TransportationlTraffic Implementation of the following mitigation measure shall apply to future development projects to reduce transportatiodtraffic impacts to less than sigdicant: 41 Future development projects shall contribute a fair share contribution to the following intersection improvements: Poinsettia Lane / Paseo Del Norte: Widen the westbound approach to include the following lane geometry: one left-turn lane, two through lanes, and one right turn lane. Restripe the southbound approach to include one left turn lane, one through lane, and one right turn lane. 42 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MJTIGATION MEASURES AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. 43 Page I of 4 APPROVAL DATE: PROJECT NAME: PONTO BEACHFRONT VILLAGE VISION PLAN FILE NUMBERS: GPA 05-04/LCPA 05-01 The following environmental mitigation measures were incorporated into the Conditions of Approval for this project in order to mitigate identified environmental impacts to a level of insignificance. A completed and signed checklist for each mitigation measure indicates that this mitigation measure has been complied with and implemented, and fulfills the City’s monitoring requirements with respect to Assembly Bill 3180 (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6). I, Monitoring Monitoring Type Department Mitigation Measure Agricultural Resources Project Planning Implementation of the following mitigation measures, at minimum, shall apply to future development projects to reduce impacts to agricultural resources to less than significance: Prior to approval of any future development within the Vision Plan Area, all lands identified on Map X of the Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program shall require ompliance with the agricultural conversion requirements Shown on Plans Remarks Verified lmplementatio n Exdanation of Headinas: Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative. Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular mitigation measure. information. Shown on Plans =When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be initialed and dated. Verified Implementation = When mitigation measure has been implemented, Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other this column will be initialed and dated. RD - Appendix P. I Paae 2 of 4 Mitigation Measure Biological Resources Prior to approval of any future development with the Vision Plan Area, a comprehensive, project-specific biological resource analysis, including existing conditions, potential impacts, and a mitigation strategy will need to be submitted and approved prior to project approval and any clearing, grubbing, or grading of the site. No impacts would occur and no mitigation is required with the proposed General Plan and Local Coastal Program amendments at this time. However, mitigation measures have been provided below as a guide to future development of the site. Implementation of the following mitigation measures, at a minimum, shall apply to future development projects: A comprehensive, site-specific biological resource report must be prepared prior to environmental review of any future projects proposed on the project site. Development applications for future development shall conform to the City of Carlsbad's Habitat Management Plan. Consistent with setback and buffer requirements of the City of Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan, all future development shall be sited at a proper distance from designated open space areas such that brush management areas would not impact sensitive wetlands, maritime succulent scrub, disturbed southern coastal bluff scrub, and disturbed coastal sage scrub or areas revegetated with native plants as part of a mitigation program. Impacts to the on-site drainage within the future development area should be mitigated for on-site through preparation and implementation of a wetland enhancement Explanation of Headinas: Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative. Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular information. Shown on Plans =When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be mitigation measure. initialed and dated. Monitoring Type Planning Planning Planning Planning Monitoring Department Project Project Project Project Shown on Plans Verified lmplementatio Remarks I Verified Implementation =When mitigation measure has been implemented, Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, 0': for other RD - Appe'ndix P. I , this column will be initialed and dated. Mitigation Measure Cultural Resources The following mitigation measure is recommended to reduce impacts to culturaVpaleontological resources to less than significant: Because there may be a subsurface component, all development project proposed within the 50-acre development area in the future shall be required to complete additional testing to establish condition, content, and research potential of any significant cultural or paleontological resources or human remains. Noise The following mitigation measure is recommended to reduce noise impacts to less than significant: Future onsite development will require preparation of a project-specific noise analysis to identify potential ‘noise impacts, as well as cumulatively considerable noise impacts. All mitigation measures identified within a project-specific noise impact analysis will be required to reduce impacts to a level less than significant and consistent with noise standards given in the City of Carlsbad Noise Element. Exdanation of Headinas: Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative. Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular mitigation measure. information. Shown on Plans = When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be initialed and dated. Monitoring Type Project Project Monitoring Department Shown on Plans Verified lmplementatio n Planning Planning Remarks Verified Implementation = When mitigation measure has been implemented, Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other this column will be initialed and dated. RD - Appendix P. I PNle 4 of 4 -~ Mitigation Measure -- Transportationflraff ic Implementation of the following mitigation measure shall apply to future development projects to reduce transportation/trafic impacts to less than significant: Future development projects shall contribute a fair share contribution to the following intersection improvements: Poinsettia Lane / Paseo Del Norte: Widen the westbound approach to include the following lane geometry: one left- turn lane, two through lanes, and one right turn lane. Restripe the southbound approach to include one left turn Monitoring Type Project Monitoring Planning/ Public Works Remarks Shown on Verified Plans Implementation L I ExDlanation of Headinas: Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative. Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for9 monitoring a particular mitigation measure. Verified Implementation = When mitigation measure has been implemented, Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other RD - Appendix P. this column will be initialed and dated. information. Shown on Plans =When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be I initialed and dated. NCTD I@ h PI/ N-6- 0 Mr. Gary Barberio City of Carlsbad Planning Department 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 RE: Dear Mr. Barberio: Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan (GPA 05-04/LCPA 05-01 ) The North County Transit District (NCTD) would like the Draft MND and Vision Pla bus stop safety and design along the stretch of Carlsbad Boulevard that parallels 1 development site. NCTD currently operates a fixed route bus service (Route 101) stretch of Carlsbad Boulevard that connects the Oceanside Transit Center to the 1 Town Center in San Diego seven days a week. 4 Specifically, the Draft MND and Vision Plan should address specific bus stop impr increase the accessibility and attractiveness of public transit at six existing or pote locations (three pairs of stops - one on each side of Carisbad Boulevard). These locations are at Avenida Encinas, Beach Way, and Ponto Road. Improvements st boarding pads that will accommodate wheelchair passengers when boarding and NCTD buses, appropriate street furniture (benches, shelters, trash cans, and strec parking zones at bus stops, bus turnouts to allow buses to not block traffic when IC unloading passengers, and accessible paths of travel to and from each of the bus to the internal paths shown in the Vision Plan. If requested, NCTD would be plea: with the City or developers to identify the types and exact locations of these types improve men ts . Thank you for the opportunity to review the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) Vision Plan for the Ponto Beachfront Village. Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on the MND for the Ponto Beach1 Vision Plan. If you have any questions regarding my comments, please contact rr 966-6546 or email me at kluhrsen@nctd.orq. qnd Draft Sincerely. Kurt Luhrsen Principal Planner I to address lis proposed dong this niversity vements to tial bus stop IUS stop 3uld include lighting from lighting), no 3ding or ,top locations ?d to work If ont Village ? at (760) i City of Carlsbad April 26,2005 Kurt Luhrsen Principal Planner NCTD 81 0 Mission Avenue Oceanside CA 92054-2825 SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS - MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARAl ON FOR GPA OS-041LCPA 05-01 - PONTO BEACHFRONT VILLAGE VISION PLAN Dear Ms. Luhrsen: I Thank you for your comments on the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Pohto Beachfront Village Vision Plan. Your comments regarding bus stop design and location are duly' noted and will be placed into the public record. Following is a response to your comments. The Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan is intended to provide general guidaince for future development in the area but it does not approve any specific development proposals. The Mitigated Negative Declaration addressed all potential environmental impacts that are foreseeable at this time as a result of approval of the Vision Plan and the associated General Plan and Local Coastal Program Amendments. Mitigation measures to address the impacts that are foreseeable at the time of approval of a Vision Plan have been incorporated into the Negative Declaration. All future development proposals within the Vision Plan area will be reviewdd for needed improvements to existing bus stops to enhance their accessibility and attractiveness. The city fowards all applications for specific development proposals to NCTD for review and comment. The city also places a condition on all development proposals where NCTD determines the need for bus stops which reads as follows: "Developer shall provide bus stops to service this development at locations and with reasonable facilities to the satisfaction of the North County Transit District and the Planning Director. Said facilities shall be free from advertising and shall at a minimum include a bench and a pole for the bus stop sign. The facilities shall be designed to enhance or be consistent with the basic architectural theme of the project." Feel free to contact me at (760) 602-4606 if you have any questions or would like to 'further discuss this matter. Sincerely, -q /GAR\/T. BARBER10 Principal Planner GTB:ls ~ C: Deborah Fountain, Housing and Redevelopment Director File Copy 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 vfww ci.carlsbad.ca.us 04/13/2005 16:03 FAX 916 657 5390 NAHC 001/004 NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION 9?5 CAPllUL MALL, ROOM 364 SACRAMENTO, CA 85814 (916) 65WW (916) 867-5380 - F~x April 13, 2065 Mr. Gary BaMo cityofcarlsbad 1636 Famday Ave. Carl6bad,CA 92008 Re: QPA WLCPA 05-01 - Ponto Beahfront Village Viion Plan SCM 200!5031073 Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the abovbmentioned document The Commiscllon was able to perform a record search of its Sacred Lands File for the project am, which failed to indicate the presence of Native American cultural mources in the Immediate pa& area, The absence of specific site informdon in the Sacred Lands File does not indicate the absence of altural resoUM in any project am. Other 3otlroes of cultural recources should also be contacted for lnbrtnaihn regarding known and reoorded sitea. a project is undemy. Enclosed is a list of Native Arnerkans individualalorggnWons that may have knWledge of cultural resources in the project area. The Commission makes no recommendation of a single individual or group over another. Please contact all those listed; if they cannot supply you with specific infwmation, they may be able to reawnmend othm with spacific knowleUge. By Conbdsng all those Ikted, your organization will be better able to respond to Urns of failure to oonsuult with the appropriate tribe or group. If you have not mx‘wed a response within two weeks’ time. we rscommend that you follow-up with a telephone call to make sure that the information was received. Lack of surface evidence of archeokgicd msources docs not predude the existence of archeobgioal mwm. Lead asancia shwld cansi~voidance. as defined in Section 15370 of U*ll~~. when sianificant cultural resources mu Id be affected bva 0 @I& ~mionsshoukl also bra included for accidentally discovered archeological resources during construction per California Envitonmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code fl5064.5 (0. Health and SfeV Code §7050.5; and Public Resources Code m7.98 mandate the process to be followed in the evcrvt d an accidental discovary of any human remains in a lamtion other than a dedicetsd cemetery and should be induded in all environmental documents. If you have any questions, pl- contact me at (916) 853- e251 - Early consultation with tribes in your area is the best way to avoid unofiticipakd discbvcrlss once .- 04/13/2005 16:03 FAX 916 657 5390 NAHC @l002/004 Native Amerlcan Contacts San Diego County April 13, 2005 krona Group of the Capitan Grande Rhonda Welch-Scalco, Chairperson Ron Christman 1095 8arona Road Diegueno 56 Viejas Grade Road Dieg uenoKumeyaay sue @ barona.org (619) 4454385 (619) 443-661 2 Kumeyaay Cultural Historic Committee Lakeside 9 CA 92040 Alpine 9 CA 92001 Barona Group of the Capitan Grande ATN: David Baron 1095 Barona Road biegueno 1095 Barona Road Dieg uenoMumeyaay (61 9) 443-6612 Kumeyaay Cultural Repatriation Committee Steve Banegas, Spokesperson (61 9) 443-661 2 (619) 443-0681 FAX Lakeside CA 92040 Lakeside 9 CA 92040 Barona Group of the Capitan Grande La Jolla Band of Mission Indians AlTN: EPA Specialist ATTN: Rob Roy, Environmental Director 1095 Barona Road Diegueno 22000 Highway 76 Luiseno Lakeside I CA 92040 PaumaVailey CA 92061 laidla-sherrvQaol.com and -. -- -In---*- A.." April 26,2005 Carol Gaubatz Program Analyst Native American Heritage Commission 915 Capitol Mall Room 364 I’ Sacramento, CA 95814 SUBJECT RESPONSE TO COMMENTS - MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR GPA 05-04/LCPA 05-01 - PONTO BEACHFRONT VILLAGE VISION PLAN Dear Ms. Gaubatz: Thank you for your comments on the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan. Your comments regarding cultural resources are duly noted and will be placed into the public record. Following is a response to your comments. The Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan is intended to provide general guidance for future development in the area but it does not approve any specific development proposals. The Mitigated Negative Declaration addressed all potential environmental impacts that are foreseeable at this time as a result of approval of the Vision Plan and the associated General Plan and Local Coastal Program Amendments. Mitigation measures to address the impacts that are foreseeable at the time of approval of a Vision Plan have been incorporated into the Negative Declaration including one related to cultural resources. The measure reads as follows: “Because there may be a subsurface component, all development projects proposed within the 50-acre development are in the future shall be required to complete additional testing to establish condition, content, and research potential of any significant cultural or paleontological resources or human remains.” Therefore when specific development proposals are submitted in the future, they will be required to comply with this measure. Feel free to contact me at (760) 602-4606 if you have any questions or would like to further discuss this matter. /, GARS T. BARBER10 Principal Planner GTB:bd C: Deborah Fountain, Housing and Redevelopment Director File Copy 43 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us Sent by: Worden,Williams,Richrnond v1/ WORDEN WILLIAMS Rcprt.~rrrttiry b'ublk Aiprii:l?t Private L'qLilrcj I 858 755 5198; Sent by: Worden,Williams,Richrnond v1/ WORDEN WILLIAMS APC, 04/10/2005 15:02; #656; Page 2J3 April 18,2005 Gay Barberio Planning Department City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 Re; Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan LCPA 05-0 1 GPA 05-004 Dear Mr. Barberio: I understand that the comment period for the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the above Project closes today at 500 p,m. We were retained today by homeowners near the Project who have concerns with regard to site access, traffic, public parking, public trails, aesthetics, lighting, noise and other impacts that the Project may or may not cause. However, given the short time frame, I am unable to review or draft meaningful comments on the Mitigated Negative Declaration. I therefore, object to the Mitigated Negative Declaration based on those issues, and request that the comment period be extended until Friday, April 22, SO that I may review the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Draft Vision Plan and comment appropriately. If possible, I will send any comments prior to Friday so that you can keep your Project on track for the May 4 Planning Commission hearing. .\I II,w%t\: Sent by: Worden,Williams,Richmond 1 058 755 5190; Q411013~05 15:02; #656; Page 313 Gary Barberio April 18,2005 Page 2 Please place this office on the mailing list to receive all public notices regarding the above Project. Thank you, in advance, for your attention to this matter. Very truly yours, WORDEN WIWS, APC D. Wayne Brechtet dwb{&wordenwitliims.com cc: Client Redevelopment Agency \x. WORDEN WILLIAMS APC Representing Public Agencies, Private Entities, and Individuals April 22,2005 Gary Barberio Planning Department City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 Re: Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan LCPA 05-01 GPA 05-004 Dear Mr. Barberio: This office represents residents of the Hanover Beach Colony to the north of the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan area. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Vision Plan. While we have not had the time to review all of the back-up documents referenced in the MND, we have reviewed the Draft Vision Plan and the MND. We plan to attend the upcoming Planning Commission hearing and may have additional comments, but in the meantime we offer the following: e The language in the Vision Plan is very flexible, using terms such as “should” instead of “shall.” Given the flexible language, and the fact that it is not a formal planning document, there is very little certainty that the guidelines allegedly mitigating impacts will, in fact, ultimately occur. This is especially important when it comes to providing public benefits that will not generate income for developers, such as public plazas, pedestrian paths, public art, etc. e For example, the Project envisions a community trail, but the language on page 3-7 uses terms such as “should” instead of “shall.” The City has a history of difficulty in getting developers to implement pedestrian paths envisioned in guidance documents when there is no strong condition AREAS OF PRACTICE PUBLIC AGENCY LAND USE AND ENVIRONMENTAL REAL ESTATE PERSONAL INIURY ESTATE PLANNING AND ADMINISTRATION CIVIL LITIGATION ATTORNEY 5 TRACY R. RICHMOND D. WAYNE BRECHTEL TERRY J. KILPATRICK TERRY M. GIBBS MALINDA R. DICKENSON MICHAEL 6. FURMAN, LL.M. Of Counsel D. DWIGHT WORDEN Of Counsel W. SCOTT WILLIAMS Of Counsel OFFICE 462 STEVENS AVENUE SUITE 102 SOLANA BEACH CALIFORNIA 920i5 (8581 755-6604 TELEPHONE 1 (858) 755-5198 FACSIMILE www.wordenwilliams.com I Gay Barberio April 22,2005 Page 2 requiring the path. Similarly, there are no specific percentages of how much public open space is needed in order for a proposed development to consistent with the Vision Plan. 8 Environmental review for Projects proposed as part of the Vision Plan is inadequate. For example, the Vision Plan proposes a resort hotel facility at the north end of the Project area. This Project element is proposed by Wave Crest and has the potential to cause a number of significant environmental effects, such as noise, traffic, and view impacts. As currently proposed, access to the facility would be by way of the same street that serves as access to the Hanover Beach Colony. This creates the potential for significant traffic, circdation and parking impacts. However, the MND lacks any specific analysis of potential traffic and parking impacts for the resort facility. Instead, the MND includes general conclusions regarding overall traffic, purportedly, being lower than what would occur under General Plan build out. In addition, the MND lacks any specific studies identifying public and private view impacts across the hotel facility and no noise study identifying potential impacts and mitigation measures that could be used to avoid noise impacts to the adjacent community. Preliminary information indicates that the Project will include a large hotel and parking structure that could significantly impact local views. These, and other potential impacts of Project specific elements, must be addressed adequately in the MND. e Further, we are concerned that when specific development proposals are made, the City will not have enough information or criteria in the Vision Plan to evaluate and mitigate potential impacts of various proposals. This point is made clear when one considers the preliminary proposal by Wave Crest for a hotel in the north end of the Project area. There is so little detail, in terms of hard and fast criteria, in the Vision Plan, it seems that the City would have a hard time requiring the applicant to provide percentages of open space, mitigation for loss of views, reduction in traffic and noise impacts, etc. It is almost as if the public is at the mercy of the generosity or’ each cieveioper, since the City wili have little say in the Project. 0 The Plan does not discuss how changes in the Plan will be accomplished. Will there be public review? Will the Redevelopment Department be able to change the Plan without notice to the public? Do changes go through the Planning Commission and City Council? 8 Which agenqddepartment will be able to interpret any ambiguities? For example, on page 2-12 it indicates that residential is allowed as long as it does not “disrupt retail continuity.” Who will get to decide if a proposed project is “disrupting” the retail continuity? K\ClientsLipbow\Letters\Planning Dept.~2.Cornments.wpd vv Gary Barberio April 22,2005 Page 3 The Plan does not discuss how the public will be involved in the decision making process as specific Projects go forward. Will there be opportunities to affect the design of each development? Given the whole Plan is being processed as a Negative Declaration, how likely is it that there will be an EIR to address the specific issues related to proposed developments? The MND found the potential for significant impacts to the loss of agricultural areas, biological resources, cultural resources, noise and transportatiodtraffic. The MND proposes mitigation tc~ addrrss thcsr ccncerns. For the most part, the mitigation involves site specific studies when specific developments are proposed. This appears to be an improper deferral of mitigation. While site specific impacts may be difficult to address at this level of planning, the regional impacts should be addressed. In this regard, it appears that the MND falls short of the mark. For example, the MND traffic analysis did not address the 1-5 freeway or the freeway odoff ramps. In addition, the MND traffic analysis claims that the congestion management roads are not significantly impacted, but this appears to be a conclusory statement not supported by substantial evidence. The traffic analysis done for the MND is also flawed because it incorporates traffic assumptions for an area designated as “unplanned.” Specifically, the MND concludes that traffic that would be generated by uses allowed under the current Plan would be greater than those permitted by the Vision Plan. This assumption has absolutely no basis with respect to the area designated as “unplanned.” Further, it is an improper focus of an environmental analysis to measure against what could happen. The proper reference for purposes of environmental review is current conditions and how those would be modified by the proposed Project The MND failed to identify that the area in general is deficient in public parking. There needs to be convenient public parking for beach use in this area. The parking needs to be accessible from Carlsbad Boulevard, not the internal streets of the development. There also needs to be enough parking for the proposed trail use. There is no provision in the Plan for providing public restrooms, and yet the Plan talks about encouraging the public and pedestrian use. The MND did not identify the significant loss of views that Amtrak and Coaster riders will experience. K:\ClientsLpbow\LettersVlanning Dept.002.Comments.wpd Gary Barberio April 22,2005 Page 4 a The area could use a large park or play field, and yet the Plan does not seem to identify a place for this. Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment on the MND. Please place this office on the mailing list to receive all public notices regarding the above Project. Thank you, in advance, for your attention to this matter. Very tdy yours, WORDEN WILLIAMS, APC D. Wayne Biechtel dwb@wordenwilIiams.com DWB:lg cc: Clients Debbie Fountain, Housing and Redevelopment Department Kr\Clients\LipbowLetteten\Planning Dept.002 .Comments.wpd - City of Carlsbad April 27,2005 D. Wayne Brechtel Worden Williams, APC 426 Stevens Avenue Solana Beach, CA 92075 SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS - MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR GPA 05-04/LCPA 05-01 - PONTO BEACHFRONT VILLAGE VISION PLAN Dear Mr. Brechtel: Thank you for your comments on the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan. Your comments are duly noted and will be placed into the public record. Following are responses to your comments. General Response: The Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan is intended to provide general guidance for future development in the area but it does not entitle any specific development proposal. The Mitigated Negative Declaration addressed all potential environmental impacts that are foreseeable at this time as a result of approval of the Vision Plan and the associated General Plan and Local Coastal Program Amendments. Mitigation measures to address the impacts that are foreseeable at the time of approval of the Vision Plan have been incorporated into the Mitigated Negative Declaration, including measures dealing with agricultural resources, biological resources, cultural resources, noise and traffic. Specific Responses (the number of each response corresponds to the sequence of the comments in your letter): 1. The Plan is intended to set the overall vision for the area and, by its very nature is intended to be somewhat general and flexible. However, the proposed General Plan and Local Coastal Program Amendments incorporate references to the Plan into the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program. This ensures that the Plan will guide future development proposals. Also, the Mitigated Negative Declaration incorporates mitigation measures for foreseeable impacts as a result of approving the Plan which must be complied with on any subsequent project actions. 2. Same response as Number I above. Also, any future development proposals must be consistent with and comply with the General Plan, the Local Coastal Program, the Zoning Ordinance, and any applicable Specific Plan, Master Plan, etc. All future proposals for development must go through the appropriate City discretionary permit process and may be conditioned to provide improvements, facilities, and project features such as trails and open space as warranted by the scale of the development project and all applicable development standards established by the City. @ 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 - FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. IO. The Mitigated Negative Declaration proposes mitigation measures for the impacts that are foreseeable at this time as a result of the approval of the Plan. The Mitigated Negative Declaration analyzes traffic, parking, noise and view issues for a maximum buildout scenario for the entire Plan area, based on the land uses proposed in the Plan. No formal applications for specific development proposals have been submitted in the Plan area at this time. Same response as Number 1 and Number 2 above. As an example, the need for public facilities, such as parks, is determined by the City’s Growth Management Plan. The Growth Management Plan does not identify the need for a park within the Plan area. Poinsettia Park and Aviara Park provide the needed park facilities for the southwest quadrant of the city. However, the Plan does propose a small wetland interpretive park in the Plan area and all future development projects will be required to provide individual open space and recreational amenities consistent with the standards contained in the General Plan, the Local Coastal Program, the Zoning Ordinance, and/or any applicable Specific Plan, Master Plan, etc. Any change or amendment to the Plan would have to go through the same review and adoption process by which the Plan is adopted. The Plan will be reviewed and approved through noticed public hearings of the Planning Commission and the City Council. The ultimate authority to interpret the Plan lies with the decision-making bodies (Planning Commission andlor the City Council). City staff would makes recommendations on specific project proposals to the appropriate decision-making body, consistent with the purpose and intent of the Plan. Future development projects will go through the City’s normal discretionary review process just like any other project in the city with the same requirements for public notice and participation. The need to prepare an EIR for a future project will be determined at the time a formal application is submitted and determined to be complete. The Mitigated Negative Declaration proposes mitigation measures for the impacts that are foreseeable at this time. The Plan mitigation measures will serve to guide project- specific mitigation in the future. No formal applications for specific development proposals have been submitted at this time. To evaluate potential traffic impacts associated with future development in the Vision Plan area and the surrounding roadway network, a traffic constraints study was prepared entitled “Ponto Vision Plan Traffic Constraints Study” dated September 3, 2004. The area identified for the traffic constraints study included 34 intersections (including Palomar Airport Roadll-5, Poinsettia Lane/l-5, and La Costa Avenuell-5) and 20 roadway segments. The general boundaries of the traffic study area were Palomar Airport Road to the north; El Camino Real to the east; La Costa Avenue to the south; and Carlsbad Boulevard to the west. The analysis showed that future development in the Plan area would not have significant impacts on traffic in the traffic study area with appropriate mitigation. A traffic mitigation measure is proposed requiring all future projects to participate in improvements to the intersection of Poinsettia Lane and Paseo Del Norte. The estimate of traffic generation from the “unplanned” area within the Plan boundaries was determined by using the land use projection and corresponding traffic generation 11. 12. 13. 14. contained in the City Growth Management Plan Zone 9 Local Facilities Management Plan and the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan. These are the best sources for estimating future traffic generation for the “unplanned” areas within the Plan area. The traffic study completed for the Plan did identify current traffic conditions as well as future traffic generation based on the ultimate development of the area. Comment noted. Most of the coastal areas in Carlsbad have a need for more parking especially during the peak beach use seasons. One of the objectives of realigning Carlsbad Boulevard along the Plan area is to increase public parking. All future development projects in the Plan area will be required to provide parking in compliance with the parking standards of the Zoning Ordinance. The Plan also encourages pedestrian and bicycle oriented development, which serves to help to reduce any potential future parking problem. Comment noted. The issue of public restrooms was not raised at the public workshops held during the development of the Plan. The City currently has no adopted standard for requiring public restrooms with development. Future development proposals can be evaluated with respect to the need to provide public restrooms as appropriate. The Mitigated Negative Declaration proposes mitigation measures for impacts which are foreseeable at this time as a result of approval of the Plan. It is not foreseeable without a specific development proposal to determine if development in the area will affect public views. The need for public facilities, such as parks, is determined by the City’s Growth Management Plan. The Growth Management Plan does not identify the need for a park within the Plan area. Poinsettia Park and Aviara Park provide the needed park facilities for the southwest quadrant of the city. However, the Plan does propose a small wetland interpretive park in the Plan area and all future development projects will be required to provide individual open space and recreational amenities consistent with the standards contained in the General Plan, the Local Coastal Program, the Zoning Ordinance, and/or any applicable Specific Plan, Master Plan, etc. Feel free to contact me at (760) 602-4606 if you have any questions or would like to further discuss this matter. ‘ GARY T. BARBER10 Principal Planner GTB:ls c: Deborah Fountain, Housing and Redevelopment Director File Copy