HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-06-28; City Council; 18188; Ponto Beachfront Village Vision PlanAB# 18,188 TITLE:
MTG. 6/28/05
DEPT. HD.
DEPT.HSG&REDEVI - PLN
Project application(s) Administrative
Approvals
Mitigated Negative Declaration
General Plan Amendment
GPA 05-04
Local Coastal Program Amendment
LCPA 05-01
Ponto Beachfront Village
Vision Plan - DI 05-01
Reviewed by and
Final at Planning
Commission
To be Reviewed -
Final at Council
X
X
X
X
PONTO BEACHFRONT VILLAGE VISION PLAN
GPA 05-04/LCPA 05-01/DI 05-01
CITY ATTY.
CITY MGR
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
That the City Council ADOPT Resolution No. , ADOPTING a Mitigated Negative
Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and APPROVING an amendment to
the text of the Land Use Element of the General Plan (GPA 05-04), and an amendment to the text of
the Mello II and West Batiquitos Lagoon/Sammis Properties Segments of the Local Coastal Program
(LCPA 05-01), and ADOPT Resolution No. , APPROVING the Ponto Beachfront
Village Vision Plan (DI 05-01) based on findings and subject to the conditions contained therein.
2005-21 1
2005-212
On May 4, 2005, the Planning Commission voted 4-0-3 (Dominguez, Heineman, and Montgomery
absent) to recommend to the City Council adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program and to recommend approval of a General Plan Amendment, Local
Coastal Program Amendment and the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan.
The Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan is intended to guide future development in the Ponto area
of the city by encouraging a mixed-use, active pedestrian and a bicycle-oriented area with a strong
sense of place, village atmosphere and unique character of design. The Vision Plan contains a
vision statement, desirable land uses, a proposed vehicular and pedestrian circulation system and
design guidelines. In order for future development proposals to be guided by the Plan and in order to
allow the city to review future proposals for compliance with the intent of the Plan, it is necessary to
amend the city’s General Plan and Local Coastal Program to incorporate a reference to the Ponto
Beachfront Village Vision Plan.
The General Plan Amendment (GPA 05-04) would amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan
by referencing the Plan and including the Ponto Beachfront Village area as an area of “Special
Planning Considerations”. This will allow the city to utilize the Plan as a guide in reviewing future
development proposals in the area.
The Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA 05-01) would amend the text of the Mello II and
West Batiquitos Lagoon/Sammis Properties Segments of the Local Coastal Program, by adding references to the Plan similar to the proposed General Plan Amendment.
The Planning Commission is recommending that the text of the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan
be amended such that in the Beachfront Resort character area the community trail and the
pedestrianlbicycle bridge over the railroad are “required” rather than “encouraged”. Amended text
PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. 18,188
language has been included in the attached City Council Resolution (Exhibit 2) to implement this
Planning Commission recommendation.
A full disclosure of the Planning Commission’s actions and a complete project description and staff
analysis of the proposed actions are included in the attached minutes and Planning Commission
Staff Report, dated May 4, 2005. The Planning Commission and staff are recommending approval of
the proposed actions.
ENVIRONMENTAL:
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the Environmental Protection
Ordinance of the Carlsbad Municipal Code (Title 19), staff conducted an environmental impact
assessment to determine if the plan could have any potentially significant impact on the environment.
The environmental impact assessment identified that future development in conformance with the
Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan may have potentially significant impacts to agricultural
resources, biological resources, cultural resources, noise, and transportationAraffic. Mitigation
measures and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program have been placed as conditions of
approval for the plan such that all potentially significant impacts have been mitigated to below a level
of significance .
The Planning Department issued a Notice of Intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
project on March 18, 2005. During the 30-day public review period (March 18, 2005 to April 17,
2005) two comment letters were received. The first was from the North County Transit District and
the second letter was from the Native American Heritage Commission. In addition, at the request of
the law firm of Worden Williams, representing residents of the Hanover Beach Colony located
immediately north of the Ponto area, the City extended the 30-day public comment period to April 22,
2005. During this extended public comment period, Worden Williams also submitted a third
comment letter. The three letters and staff responses are included with this report as a part of Exhibit
4. These comment letters raised concerns associated with future development in the Vision Plan
area. The Vision Plan is intended to provide general guidance for future development in the area but
it does not entitle 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 the Vision
Plan have been incorporated into the Mitigated Negative Declaration and with the inclusion of those
mitigation measures the proposed Vision Plan would not have potentially significant environmental
impacts. Therefore, the Planning Commission and staff are recommending that the Mitigated
Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program are appropriate and
adequate for the actions presently under consideration.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The proposed project is an amendment to the General Plan and Local Coastal Program and approval
of the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan. It does not commit city resources nor does it generate
revenue for the city at this time. As such, the actions do not presently have a fiscal impact on the
city.
EXHIBITS:
1. City Council Resolution No. 2005-21 1 , Mitigated Negative Declaration,
GPA 05-04, and LCPA 05-01
2. City Council Resolution No. 2005-2 12 , DI 05-01
3. Location Map
4. Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5884, 5885, 5886, and 5887
PAGE 3 OF AGENDA BILL NO. 18,188
5.
6.
7.
Planning Commission Staff Report, dated May 4, 2005
Draft Excerpts of Planning Commission Minutes, dated May 4, 2005
Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan, previously distributed.
DEPARTMENT CONTACT: Debbie Fountain, (760) 434-2935, dfoun@ci.carlsbad.ca.us
Gary T. Barberio. (760) 602-4606, gbarb(i3ci.carlsbad.ca.u.s
3
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
RESOLUTION NO. 2005-21 1
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING
AND REPORTING PROGRAM AND APPROVING 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 II AND
WEST BATIQUITOS LAGOON/SAMMIS PROPERTIES
SEGMENTS OF THE CITY'S LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM.
CASE NAME: PONTO BEACHFRONT VILLAGE VISION
PLAN
CASE NO.: GPA 05-04/LCPA 05-01
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on May 4, 2005, hold a duly noticed
public hearing as egative Declaration and
Mitigation (GPA 05-04), and
adopted
Planning Commission to the City
day
at they be approved; and,
ring to consider said
Program, General
WHEREAS, at said pu ering all testimony
eard, the City Council considered all
toring and Report
and arguments, if any, of all persons desirin
Program, General Plan Amendment, and Local Coastal Program Amendment.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City of Carlsbad, California does hereby resolve as
follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
2. That the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission contained
in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5884, 5885 and 5886 for the Mitigated Negative
Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, General Plan Amendment, and
Local Coastal Program Amendment constitute the findings and conditions of the City Council
in this matter. 4
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
3. That the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigated Monitoring and
Reporting Program are adopted as shown in Planning Commission Resolution No. 5884, on
file with the City Clerk and incorporated here in by reference.
4. That the reco ommission for the approval
ng Commission Resolution
roved with GPA
of the General Plan Amendment (
No. 5885 is hereby accepted, app
Batch No. 2 of 2005, comprised of
Lagoon/Sammis Pro
approved as shown i
and incorporated herein by reference.
ffective until it is
I Commission’s
approval becomes effective.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
CLAUDE A. LEWIS, Mayor
ATTEST:
LORRAINE M. WOOD, City Cl$k
(SEAL)
5
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
RESOLUTION NO. 2005-2 12
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE PONTO
BEACHFRONT VILLAGE VISION PLAN WHICH IS INTENDED
TO PROVIDE GUIDANCE IN REVIEWING FUTURE
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS IN THE AREA GENERALLY
LOCATED BETWEEN CARLSBAD BOULEVARD AND THE SAN
DIEGO NORTHERN RAILROAD, NORTH OF BATIQUITOS
LAGOON AND SOUTH OF PONTO ROAD.
CASE NAME: PONTO BEACHFRONT VILLAGE VISION
PLAN
CASE NO.: DI 05-01
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on May 4, 2005, hold a duly noticed
public hearing to consider the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan, and the Planning
the City Council of
to consider said
and,
WHEREAS, at said
iI considered all
NOW, THEREFO
hereby resolve as follows:
as recommended by the Planning Commission including the amended text as indicated in
Exhibit “A to this resolution.
3. That the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission contained in
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5887, constitute the findings and conditions of the City
Council in this matter.
. . ..
G
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
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at / regular meeting of the City
Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the day
, 2005, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
/ CLAUDE A. LEWIS, Mayor
/ ATTEST: I
LORRAINE M. WOOD, City Clery
(SEAL)
of
1
Chapter
“EXHIBIT A”
to
City Council Resolution No. 2005-21 2
Amended Text
Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan
5 is amended as follows:
LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM (LCP)
On the southern bluff edge overlooking Batiquitos Lagoon, bluff top accessways or
equivalent overlook areas and a bike/pedestrian path shedd &aJ be provided. Land has
been conveyed to the State Lands Commission as part of the Batiquitos Lagoon
Enhancement Plan (BLEP), and any activities must be consistent with BLEP.
Chapter 2, Page 6 is amended as follows:
Beachfront Resort
The required Pperimeter trail &aJ links to the regional trail system and shall provides a
crossing over the railroad tracks.
The required A community trail shall be open to the public variety of seating areas to take advantage of the views to lagoon and ocean. offers pedestrian amenities and a
Minor grade separations and landscaping are used to create a soft delineation between public and private areas along the required trail.
Direct access to the required trail is provided along the rear of the resort.
Chapter 2, Page 25 is amended as follows:
Beachfront Resort Community Trail
A required public trail around the perimeter of the Beachfront Resort ensures that the
large development does not preclude community views to the lagoon and ocean. Instead,
the resort becomes a community amenity and is an integral part of the Ponto Beachfront
Village. A multi-use trail approximately ten to twelve feet wide is envisioned, with
landscaped edges, interpretive signage, and occasional seating areas along the required
path. The required trail will eventually wrap around Avenida Encinas via a parallel route
with the railroad.
“EXHIBIT A”
to
City Council Resolution No. 2005-212
Amended Text
Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan
(Continued)
Chapter 2, Page 26 is amended as follows:
Connection to Regional Trail System
A link to the regional trail system by means of a required pedestrianhicycle bridge over
the railroad tracks +pqesed shall be provided. The bridge would be located at the
southeast corner of the Beachfront Resort Hotel grounds, atop the bluff overlooking
Batiquitos Lagoon. The required bridge would connect the Beachfront Resort’s required
community trail to the regional trail in the Poinsettia Shores residential community, with
access to the trail running behind homes along Stem Way and also the north-south trial
along the railroad right-of-way.
Chapter 3, Page 7 is amended as follows:
BUILDING ORIENTATION AND SITE DESIGN
Resorts and hotels should provide publicly accessible amenities (such as trails, putting
course, restaurants, and retail). For the beachfront resort, a public trail that encircles the
property &iJl s+haik€ be integrated into the development.
9
EXHIBIT 3
PONTO BEACHFRONT VILLAGE VISION PLAN
GPA 05-04/LCPA 05-01/DI 05-01
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
EXHIBIT 4
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5884
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COJhOftSSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, 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 05-04LCPA 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, &d
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)
Findings:
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.
Transportationl'Traffic
Future development projects shall contribute a fair share contribution
to the following intersection improvements:
0 Poinsettia Lanepaseo 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 - 13
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
Commissio
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 4th day of May, 2005, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Cardosa and Whitton
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Commissioners Dominguez, Heineman and Montgomery
ATTEST:
Assistant Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 5884 -4-
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 hture
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 NEGATJVE
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 hrther 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 NEW
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 DECLkRATION
-
CASE NAME:
PROJECT LOCATION:
Ponto Beachtiront VilIa.ge Vision Pfan
Ponto Beachfront Village Area generally located between Carlsbad
Boulevard and the San Diego Northern Railroad, north of
Batiauitos La,ooon and south of Ponto Road
CASE NO: GPA 05-04LCPA 05-01
PROJECT DESCRFIXON: Amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the
Mello ZI and West Batiquitos/Sammis Properties segments of the city’s Local Coastal Program to
include refkences to the Ponto BeacMont Village Vision Plan whlch has been prepared to ,&de
future development in the Ponto BeacMont 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 (EL4 Part 2) did not identi.@ 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 fkom 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
approvdadoption by the City of Carlsbad ~lanning Commission and City Council. Additional
public notices will be issued when those public hearings are scheduled. If you have my
questions, please call Gary Barberio in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4606.
PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD March 18,2005 throu.41 April 17.2005
PUBLISH DATE March 18,2005
1535 Faraday Avenue 9 Carisbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 6024600 FAX (760) 602-8559 * www.q@+J8$$@a.us @
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART TI
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: GPA 05-04, LCPA 05-01 DATE: March 1.2005 -
BACKGROUND
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
CASE NAME: Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan
LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: City of Carlsbad, 1635 Faraday Avenue. Carlsbad,
CA 92008
CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUJMBER Gary T. Barberio - (760) 602-4606
PROJECT LOCATION: South of Poinsettia Lane (west of Carlsbad Boulevard) and south of
Po& Road (east of Carlsbad Boulevard), north of Batiauitos Lagoon, east of South Carlsbad
State Beach & Camwround. and west of the San Dieno Northern Railroad (APNs 214-160-04. -
05, -06, -10, -11. -13. -19, -20, -21, -24. -25, -27, -29. -34. -35. -36.24: 214-170-1 1: 214-590-04: 216-010-01, -02. -03, -04, -05: and 216-140-17. -18)
PROJECT SPONSORS NAME AND ADDRESS: Deborah Fountain, Director, City of Carlsbad
DeDartment of Housing and RedeveloDment. 2965 Roosevelt Street, Suite B, Carlsbad. CA 92008 (760) 434-2935
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION. RMH (Medium-High Residential (8-15 ddac): T-R [TravelRecreation Commercial): UA (Unrkmned Area): and C (Community Commercial)
ZONING: CT (Commercial Tourist): CT-O/RD-M-O (Commercial Tourist - Oualified Develoument OverlavResidential Density - Multiule - Oualified Develoument Overlav: PC
planned Community); and RD-M - 0 Residential Density - Multiple - Oualified Development Overlay)
OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQU~RED (i.e., permits, fiancing
approval or participation agreements): California Coastal Commission
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND USES:
Request for approval of amendments to the City of Carlsbad’s General Plan and Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan to designate the “Ponto Beachfront 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 17
The Vision Plan provides overall guidance for development of the Ponto area, as it designates six
distinct character areas (Mixed Use Center, Beachfront 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 architectual 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; designates gateway
types, locations, and design concepts; designates specific plant palettes for landscaping uses;
suggests wayfiiding progrq 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
Laguon 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.
0 Aesthetics 0 Geology/Soils Noise -
Agricultural Resources
0 Air Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
‘ [7 HazarddHazardous Materials and Housing
Hydrology/Water Quality
0 Land Use and PIanning
[7 Public Services
Recreation
0 Mineral Resources
UMandatory Findings of
. . Significance
Transportatioflraffic
Utilities & Service Systems
3
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by Le Leal
-
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a sigdicant 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 sigmficant 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 sigruficant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have ‘potentially signtficant impact(s)” on the environment, but at
least one’potentially si&icant 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 descnied 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 (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that eaflier
E”MENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, nothing further is required. .
/
3/8/0$--
Planning Director’s Signature Date
4 Rev. 07/03/02
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental
Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Environmental
Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical,
biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information .
to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (Em), Negative Declaration, or
to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
-
-
0 A brief explanation is required for all answers except ‘Wo Impact” answers that are adequately supported
by an information source cited in the parentheses following each question A ‘Wo Impact” answer is
adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to
projects like the one involved. A “No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source
document to refer to, or it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
0 “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential impact is not
significantly adverse, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policies.
0 ‘‘Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation
meas$res has reduced an effect fiom “Potentially Significant Impact“ to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must descriie the mitigation measures, and briefly
expIain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level.
0 “Potentially Sigmficant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is siflcantly
adverse.
0 Based on an “EIA-Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant adverse effect on the
environment, but glJ potentially sigdicant 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.
0 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 Ovemding Considerations” has been made
pursuant to that earlier EIR.
0 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.
0 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 sigmiicant, and those mitigation
measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the appropriate “Potentially
Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration
may be prepared.
.
5 Rev. 07/03/02
0 An EIR must be prepared if“PotentiaI1y Si&cant Impact” is checked, and including but not limited to
the following circumstances: (1) the potentially sigmficant 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 Ovemding
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 .
EIA-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 sigrufic&t 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 E”MENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussing
mitigation for impacts, which would otherwise be determined sigmficant.
6 Rev. QllQ31Q2
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
Potentially Significant Impact
I. . AESTHETICS - Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
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?
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 significant
envirokntal 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:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural
use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or
a Williamson Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in .&e existing environment,
which, due to their location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use?
Ill. AIR QUALITY - (Where available, the simcance
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?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contriibute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?
17
0
Potentially Significant
Mitigation significant - : No Incorporated Impact Impact
Unless Less Than
17 IZ 0..
17
IXIO
uIx1
I3 CI UIXI
(x1 nu
nrxr
0 UIXI
7 Rev. 07/03/02 33
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant
Impact
Potentidly
Significant Impact
No
.Impact .
0 0 0 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)?
CI
01
cl
0
IXI d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
IXI e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number of people?
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
0 IXI a) Have-a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifcations, 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?
IXI 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 US. Fish and Wildlife Service? a 0 ' 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,
filing, hydrological intermption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species
or with established native resident or migratory
wildlife comdors, or impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites?
IXI 0
(XI
IXI
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
0 0 O 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?
0 g) Impact tributary areas that are environmentally
sensitive?
Rev. Q7lO3JQ2 8
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
* Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant - No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -Would the project:
cl (7 CI IXI-
€4 no
Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in Q 15064.5?
Cause a substantial adverse change in the si@-
cance of an archeological resource pursuant to
Q 15064.5?
-
0 on Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?
cl IXI cln Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside,of formal cemeteries?
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Pnolo
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.
0 n IX10
0 IXIO ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
0 NO iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv. Landslides?
El Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
0 0 [XI0 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 - I-B of the Uniform Building Code (1997), creating
substantial risks to life or property?
U 0 BCI
9 Rev. 07103l02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated
0 0 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?
M. HAZARDS AND aAzARDOUS MATERIALS -
Would the project:
Create a sigmficant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
Wosal of hazardous materials?
Create a sisnificant hazard to the public or
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
En& 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 ph 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 physicdy 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?
MII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the
project:
0
cl
0
0
CI
0
0
0
0
0
CI
CI
CI
0
Less Than
Significant No Impact Impact .
OEI
-
-
0
0
0
CI
0
0
0 0 mu a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements?
10 Rev. 07tQ3lQ2 41
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
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? . ‘
substantia1ly 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 systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runof€?
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 (sedment) 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)?
PotentialTy
Impact
Significant
El
cl
0
CI
I7
0
0
17
0
0
Potentially Significant Unless Less Than
Mitigation Significant Incorporated Impact
0 IXI
No [mpact
cl Ix1
0 ‘(XI
CI
0
0
0
CI
IXI
cl
0
0
a. cl
11 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant
Ix.
X.
XI.
n) Changes to receiving water quality (marine, fiesh or wetland waters) during or following compuction?
0) Increase in any pollutant to an already irnpaired 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?
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?
c) Conflict with any .applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?
MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a lcnown mineral
resource that would be of future value to the region
and the residents of the State?
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?
NOISE - Would the project result in.
Potentially
Significant Impact
El
0
0
13
0
unless
Mitigation Incorporated
CI
0 IXI
0 IXI
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
0 IXI
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
Less Than Significant Impact
IXI
-_ El
(XI
El
IXI
[XI
0
0:
No
.-act
0
CI
nu
on
clcl
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 om e) 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?
0 OB f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project expose people residing or worlung
in the project area to excessive noise levels?
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project:
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 hfhstructure)?
b) Diiplace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
0 17
0
0 0 c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
WI. 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) Fire protection?
ii) Police protection?
iii) Schools?
iv) Parks?
v) Other public facilities?
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?
0 cl
13 Rev. 07103lO2 019
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
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?
XV. TRANSPORTATIONITRAEFIC - 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 turn-
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 fiom existing entitlements and resources, or
are new or expanded entitlements needed?
Potentidly
Significant
Impact
17
0
0
cl
0
0
CI
0
0
0
0
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated
0
Ixl
[XI
cl
0
0
0
0
0
0
cl
cl
14 Rev. 07/03/02 30
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Sigmticant Unless Less Than
Mitigation Significant Incorporated Impact
Potenti&€y Significant Impact No
.mJact
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?
f) Be served by a landfill .with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste
disposal needs?
0 0
0 g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
XW. MANDATORY FIM)INGS 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?
cl 0 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?)
I
CI c) Does the project have environmental effects, which
will cause the substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
0
XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program E& 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. Idenhfy earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checkljst 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.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are “Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,”
describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document
and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
15 Rev. 07/03/02
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Environmental SettindSite DescriDtion
The Ponto Beachfiont 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 CarIsbad 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 Beachfiont 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 Lagoon.
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 exce2lent 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 future 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
are 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
fkom engineered Nls associated with the railroad and area roadway improvements, as well as dredging operations
within the Batiquitos Lagoon.
Regulatory Setting
The Ponto Beacsont Village Vision Plan area has the following General Plan land use designations:
UA - Unplanned Area
TR/C - TraveVRecreation CommerciaYCommmity Commercial
RMH - Residential Medium High (8-15 dwelling unitdacre) RMWTR - A dual designation indicating that with fi,uther planning, one or both uses may be appropriate OS - Open Space and Community Parks
TR - TraveVRecreation 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-QRD-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
Existing RMH (Residential Medm High -
8 to 15 dwelling units per acre)
RMH/TR
(’Residential Medium High and’or
A portion of the property is within the South Carlsbad Coastal Redevelo6ment Area (SCCRA) and subject to the
Redevelopment Permit process, which is administered by the City’s Housing and Redevelopment Department.
Local Coastal Program
Proposed
Special Planning Considerations Area
Special Planning Considerations Area
The Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan area is located with the coastal zone. The vision plan area is located
within the Mello II Segment Land Use Plan, one of six segments included in the City’s approved Local Coastal
Program. -
;Travel/Recreation Co&cial)
UA (Unplanned Area)
Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan (SP 21 0)
Special Planning Considerations Area
The Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan directs development of a 92-acre transit oriented residential development
community located primarily north of the Ponto Beachfront 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 Area 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.
OS (Open Space and Community
Parks)
Poinsettia Shores Master Plan (MP I7S(c))
Special Planning Considerations Area
The PoinsettiiShores Master Plan area (PSMF’), amended May 12, 1994, includes approximately 23.5 acres that are
also included within the Ponto Beachfkont VilIage Vision PIan. The Poinsettia Shores Master Plan Area is broken
down into 17 Planning Areas, three of which are located witbin the vision plan boundaries: Areas F, G and H. These
areas feature travel service/commercial use, open space and an unplanned area.
i=ommercial/Community Commercial)
TR (TravelRecreation Commercial)
Local Facilities Management Plans (LFMP)
Special Planning Considerations Area
Local Facilities Management Plans address future development’s demand on public services and facilities. The
Ponto BeacWont Village Vision Plan is located within the LFMPs for Zones 9 and 22.
Project DescriDtion
The 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 Beachfiont 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
Beachfiont 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.
I Eemecreation
1 Special Planning Considerations Area
17 33
The City has identified the following goals for the Ponto Beachfi-ont Vision Plan:
0 Establish the Southern Coastal Gateway to the City.
0 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.
0 Provide site design guidelines that require streetscenes and site plans to respect pedestrian kale and express a
cohesive and high quality architectural theme.
0 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.
0 Provide expanded beach access.
0 Establish a mixed-use district that encourages local and tourist-oriented retail, commercial, recreational and
residential uses.
0 Require landscape architecture that celebrates the historic past and horticultural heritage of the City.
0 Ensure that public facilities and services meet the requirements of the Growth Management Plan.
0 Conform with the General Plan, Amended Zone 9 and 22 Local FaciIities Management Plans, and applicable City
ordinances, regulations and policies.
The Ponto BeacMont Village Vision Plan identifies key infrastructure development to be implemented through
future development proposals, City action, or a combination of the two. Key infrastructure improvements identified
in the plan include a realignment of Carlsbad Boulevard and relocating existing underground and overhead utilities
on the property.
I. AESTaETICS
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 Beachfiont Village Vision Plan. Design guidelines are provided in the
Vision Plan to reduce potential substantial adverse effects resulting fiom future development of the site, and include
design measures pertaining to scale, number of stones 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 deveIopment 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 individual property at the northern boundary
within the Ponto Vision Plan Area is identifed in the Mello 11 Segment of the Local Coastal Program (Map X), and
will require compliance with the agricultural conversion requirements when future development occurs (PoIicy 2-1).
This loss of agricultural land within the coastal zone would not be considered a si@cant impact as the Local
Coastal Program Mello II Segment agricultural conversion requirements would reduce impacts to less than
significant. Therefore, no significant impacts to agncultural resources would occur with the proposed amendments
to the General Plan and Local Coastal Program.
18 34
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 (PMlo). The periodic violations of natio~~tl 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 9* through 10* in 1994, and was forwarded to
the Environmen;tal 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 and/or 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 CaIifomia 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 am peak hour
trips and approximately 1,452 p.m. peak hour trips. Please see Table 2 under the traffic analysis discussion in
Section 2CV 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 siwcant.
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
signXcant 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 firom 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 3 5-
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 Font0 Vision
Plan, would contriiute to a cumulative net increase in emissions througkout 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 fiom unplementation of the Ponto Vision Plan
are considered to be less than significant. -
d)
No Impact. The proposed amendments to the General Plan and Local Coastal Program would not directly result in
sigmficant air quality impacts. Ultimately, future development on the project site will be required to conform to the
applicable air quality management plan.
Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
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 this
time. Future development proposals will be required to assess potential air quality impacts, including potential
impacts fiom 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 Beachfiont 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 Beachf?ont Vision Plan area will generally be focused on
ppproximately 50 acres, away f7om 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, freshwater marsh, maritime
succulent scrub, disturbed southern coastal bldf 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 identified 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, includmg
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 (Lorus nuttallianus); one CNPS List 2 species, California boxthorn (Lycium
calgotnica); and, two CNPS List 4 species, southwestern spiny rush (Juncus acutus ssp. Leopoldia] and
woolly seablite (Suaeda tmiolia). 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
Beachfkont 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 36
Two sensitive bird species were observed on-site: American peregrine falcon (Falco perep‘nus) and
California homed lark (Eremophila dpestrir actia). American peregrine falcon is state listed as endangered,
is a California fully protected species, and is a HMP covered specigs. 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 occur onsite: saltmarsh skipper (Panoquina errans), long billed curlew (Numenius
americanus), and Belding’s savannah sparrow (Passerculus sandwhichensis beldingz]. Future development
witbin the Ponto BeacMont Village area will be requued 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
sipficant.
Mi tigation
-
Prior to approval of any future 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 grading 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 confii 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 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.
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 BeachGront Village area which determined that a
total of 5.92 acres of wetlands and waters within the prop- 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 US. - 1.53
Total USACE 5.92
Wetlandriparian habitat 4.50
Streambed - 1.65
Total CDFG 6.15
USACE Jurisdiction
CDFG Jurisdiction
21 37
The area identified 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. Themajority of
the jurisdictional wetlands and waters are located in the southm 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 fiom 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 fiom 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 sigmficant 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 fiom
USACE, a 401 Water Quality Certification from the Regional Water Qdty Control Board (RWQCB),
and a 1601 Streambed Alteration Agreement from CDFG. The Ponto Beachftont 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 sip and bidanimal watching.
4 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, fding, hydrological interruption, or other means?
Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. Please see discussion in Section N (b)
above.
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 Beachfront
Village area would not significantly reduce the habitat of either the American Peregrine Falcon or the
California homed lark. As fixture 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 if the 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,
f) 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 r). 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 38
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 th6 City’s General Plan and Local Coastal
Program Maps.
Impact tributary areas that are environmentally sensitive? 8)
Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. Please see discussion in Section IV (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, future development of the site will not result in sigDlficant 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 -1 5064.5?
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
content and research potential of significant cultural resources. , development area in the future shall be required to complete additional testing to establish condition,
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, paleo.ntologica1 resources may be located within the 50-acre hture 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 hture 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, lmplementation 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 39
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:
i. 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.
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 Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault zones within the City of Carlsbad, the site is located within a moderately-active
seismic region of Southern California. Ground shaking fiom six major active fault zones could affect the
site in the event of an earthquake. However, no lcnown 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, exposure of future development on the site to liquefaction or strong seismic ground shalung is considered
to be relatively low.
Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
iv. Landslides?
Less than Significant Impact. The geotechnical study indicates that landslides have reportedly occurred
along the coastal bluff's and within the southerly portion of the South Carlsbad State Beach campground.
The last reported landslide was in 1980, which occurred after intense rdall. 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 fonnation 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 signrficant.
.
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@) coastal
bluff having a resistant geologic formation at the bottom and less resistant materials in the upper portions of
the bluff. The majoriq 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 (Aaf,) and Hydraulic Fill (Qafi) which are
engineered fills placed from 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 m 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 fonnation that at most, is
anticipated to erode at a rate of less than one inch per year. Impacts *will be less than significant.
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 fie project site. No
si@cant impacts will occur.
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIACS
No Impact (a - h). The proposed amendments to the General Plan or Local Coastal Program wiIl
ultimately allow for a variety of hture 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 andor other chemicals released
kom delivery vehicles or the vehcles 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 hoject site is located approximately 2.5 miles southwest of the McClellan-Palomar Airport (a public
airport) and is not subject to the McClellan-Palomar mort Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP).
The proposed General Plan and Local Coastal Program amendments wilI 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.
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
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 quality 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.
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 (i.e., 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)?
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?
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- br off-site?
..
Less Than Significant Impact (b, c, d and e). As stated above, potential fiture 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. AU stormwater fiom the future development area will
ultimately drain into the existing 84-inch storm drain that currently collects flows fiom 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?
Othemise substantially degrade water quality?
Less than Significant Impact (f and g). Future deveIopment on the Ponto site will be required to maintain
peak runoff to predevelopment flows. Compliance with "DES 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 fiom 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?
26 42
Less than Significant Impact (I, 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.
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the project:
a) 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 bfi-astructure 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.
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, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance)
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
and,
Confjict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? c)
Less than Significant Impact (b and c). 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 Beachfront Village Plan Area. The Ponto Vision Plan proposes
the development of local and tourist-serving commercial, mixed-use, residential and recreational uses that
are compati%le with existing surrounding development to the east, open spaceihabitat connections in the
south, and the beach area to the west. The Ponto Beachfront 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 future 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 Beachfront 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
210). 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 AG3
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 servicelcommercial use
and a non-residential reserve. No conflicts with the Master 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 Shores Master Plan or amend--the Master Plan to
remove the properties.
-
x. MINERALRESOURCES .
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
general 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 c). The proposed General
Plan and Local Coastal Program amendments would not result in sigcuficant 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 sigmficant 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 44
No Impact (e and 0. 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 occurring 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 residmg or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels.
XII. 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 Beacbfkont Village Vision Plan is the
first step toward achieving the Redevelopment Area’s overall intent.
The proposed project will indirectly result in future 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 Beacwont 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 “bank,” 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 fkom 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 45
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 BeacEont 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 nature/arts center.
Impacts to recreational resources will be less than significant.
XV. TRANSPORTATIO*N/TRAFFIC
No substantial impacts to transportation or traffic facilities would occur as a result of the proposed amendments to
the General Plqor Local Coastal Program. The following discussion is provided as a guide for future dmretionary
permits that niay be proposed as a result of implementing the Ponto Beachflont Village Vision Plan. To evaluate
potential traffic impacts within the plan area and surrounding roadway network, a traffic constraints study was prepared
by RBF Consulting for the proposed Vision Plan (refer to “Ponto Vision Plan Traffic Constramts 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 traffx load and. capacity of
the street system?
Potentially Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The Ponto Beachf?ont Village Vision
Plan consists of a mixture of compatiile 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 I), the Ponto Vision Plan is forecast to generate approxiinately 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 Purport Road to the north, El Camino Real to the east
(with the exception of the Melrose Drive/Palomar Airport Road and El Fuerte StreetRalomar Airport 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 Utihation (Iw methodology, with the exception of Palomar Airport
Road/Melrose 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 Road/Melrose Drive and Palomar *art RoadlEl 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 wort
Road/Melrose Drive and Palomar Airport RoadiEl 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 46
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 Genera1 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 fiom the project area assuming build-out under the existing GenerdPlan 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 TraveVRecreation
Comercial. 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 tlie 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 firom 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 47
TABLE 1
SANDAG Trip Generation Rates Used for Ponto Vision Plan Area Proposed Land Uses
wkoderence
Area
Source - SANDAG "Not So Brief Guide" - April 2002
AM Peak PM Peak
Land Use Units Amount ADT Total I In I Out Total1 In [ Out
TABLE 2
Ponto Vision Plan Area Forecast Traffic
/Specialty Retail I ksf I 16 I 640
TOTAL 1 12,407
19 12 8 58 29 29
721 373 348 1,102 644 458
Apartments 62 / 372 1 30 1 6 1 24 I 33 1 23 1 10 I ksf I 16 I 320 I 45 I 40 I 4 I 42 I 8 I 33 I
32
TABLE 3 SANDAG Trip Generation Rates Used for Ponto,Vision Pian Area
Existing General Plan Land Use
CITY
LAND USE
SANDAG TRAFFIC
GENERATION RATE
RMH
SIDENTIAL
Residential Condominium or any
multi-family 6-20 DU/Acre
T-R
TRAVEURECREA Specialty Retail (also see below in
"ION Unplanned Area)
COMMERCIAL
Lodging - Resort Hotel
Lodging - Hotel (w/ conference
facilitiedrestaurant)
UAUNPLANNED
TraveVRecreation
Commercial / Specialty Retail
conrmunity
Commercial
acre
acre
.p Commercial Neighborhood beighborhood Shopping Center
100 5% 60% 40% 7% 40%
300 6% 60% 40% , 8%. 60%
Ty
8% 20% 80% 10% 70%
ksf
acre
40 3% 60% 40%. 9% 50%
400 3% 60% 40% 9% 50%
ksf
acre
40 3% 60% 40%. 9% 50%
400 3% 60% 40% 9% 50%
AREA*
T-WC
-
out
30%
-
ksf
60%
40%
-
-
-
50%
-
50%
120 4% 60% 40% 10% 50% 50% -
Sotirce - SANDAG "Not So Brief Guide" - April 2002
*CiV land use pa Local Facilities Management Plan (LFh4P) Zone 9
33
TABLE 4
Ponto Area Existing General Plan Land Use
Trip Generation
Area'
A
ANI Peak PM Peak
GP Land Cse II Units Amount ADT Total In Out Total In Out
T-RTravel/RecreationCommercial' I ac I 1.24 372 22 1 13 9 1 30 18 12 1. ~
A
ii TraveLrRecreationC~mmercial~~ ac 2.15 1 860 26 1 15 1 10 I 77 1 39 1 39 1
I
TraveVRecreation Commercial ! i I ELMWT-R Residential Medium High OR 1
RMHIT-R Residentlal Medium High OR
I I
'See Figure 1 Ponto Vision Plan Areas
' Hotel w/ conference facilines
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., RPVIWT-R, to depict the land
use designation that generates the lower ADT.
33
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 ocw 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 Consdting evaluated Horizon Year 2Q30 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,
which 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 Anport Road / El Fuerte;
Poinsettia Lane / 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 Carkbad 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 iden@ significant impacts if one of the following two criteria
are met:
The addition of project-generated trips result in a change.in operating conditions
fiom 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 m 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 LanePaseo 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 Beachfront Village Vision Plan’s
development. Therefore, a fair share contribution towards improvements at this 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
_.
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 Beachfront 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 Carkbad 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 methodoIogy, with the exception of the following seven intersections,
which are forecast to operate at LOS E or F:
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Palomar Airport Road / Paseo Del Norte;
Palomar Wort Road / El Camino Real;
Palomar Avport Road / El Fuerte;
Poinsettia Lane / 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 potentia1 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 traffk study guidelines identify sigmficant 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 fiom 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 LanePaseo Del Norte, mitigation would be required to reduce potential
traffic impacts from future development to less than significant; however, this intersection is forecast to
operate at deficient service levels with or without the proposed Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan’s
development. Therefore, a fair share contribution towards improvements at this location would be sufficient
to mitigate the identified @act. The recommended improvements that would result in acceptable
operating conditions at this intersections is as follows: Widen the westbound approach to include the
36 53
following Iane 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
Streefinchitas Boulevard on the south, parcels fionting Vulcan Avenue on the east, and parcels fionting
North Highway 101 on the west, with some exceptions. Mitigation for impacts to the intersection are
addressed in the North 101 Comdor Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Specific Plan. .
Mitigation given in the EIR states that the intersection improvements recommended in he Specific Plan be
iraplemented. The City of Encinitas will implement the mitigation measures during build-out of the
Specific 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 tum 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 from LOS D (a.m.) and LOS E @.m) to LOS A (a.m.) and LOS B @.m.) at buildout unda the
Specific Plan. With implementation of the mitigation given in the North 101 Comdor Specific Plan,
impacts will be reduced to less than significant under 2030 conditions. Therefore, no further 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.
4 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 fiom 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 Beachfront Village and the State Beach and Campground. The
Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan has been created to ensure that future 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 Requirements. The
proposed amendments to the General Plan and Local Coastal Program will allow for deveIopment 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, includipg water facilities,
wastewater treatment facilities and drainage facilities, have been planned and designed to accommodate the
growth projections for the City at build-out. AIthough 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 facilitiedsupplies, 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. .
XVII. mAT0RY 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 IV, 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 wddlife
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 prehistory. 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 53-
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 considemile potential net increase in emissions
throughout the air basin. As descriied 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 contribution 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 (Ranclo 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 GeneraI 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 sigdicant.
-
With regard to any other potential impact associated with the project, City standards and reguhtions 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 2han Significant Impact. The proposed General Plan and Local Coastal Program amendments to designate the Ponto Beachfront 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 56
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 10 1 Comdor 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 CoGtal Program- Mello II Segment. City of Carlsbad. 1996. Amended 2003.
Local Facilities Management Plan. Zone 9. September, 1993.
Local Facilities Management Plan. Zone 22. Au3gu.st 1 , 1997.
North 101 Comdor Specific Plan. City of Encinitas. May 21, 1997.
, Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan. November 27,1998.
Poinsettia Shores Master Plan. October 20, 1993.
Ponto BeacWont Village Vision Plan (DRAFT). Prepared by REF Consulting. July 2004.
i
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 57
LIST OF MITIGATION MEASURES
Agricultural Resources
Implementation of the following mitigation measures, at minimum, 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 II Segment of the Local Coastal Program shall require compliance with the agricultural conversion
requirements (Policy 2-1). -
-
Biological Resources
Prior to approval of any hture 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.
w’lementatim of the following mitigation measures, at a minimum, shall apply to future development projects:
0
0
0
‘0
A CoIfqrehensive, 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 htance 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. .
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 cultural/paleontological resources to
less than sigmiicant:
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 sigdicant 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 id en^ potential noise impacts, as well as cumulatively considerable noise impacts. AII 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.
Transportatioflraffic
Implementation of the following mitigation measure shall apply to future development projects to reduce
transportatiodtraffic impacts to less than si@cant:
41 59
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 59
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVk MITIGATION MEASURES AND
CONCUR WITH THE ADDIT.ION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
43
c 9 v) 0 d
I 2
d
v) 0
?
a n t3
2
!
4
..
w rn r 3 Z
LL
z
n
s z
W t3 4 $
2
I- z
U I 0
W a
m
z 0 n
P, m 0) E C c C C c C C E m m m
.- .- .- - h h n
0) c C C m
.-
B
0
S
0 c v)
3
2 7 m E
- 5 a f
P
L- P
rn '5
II) C m - n
C 0 C
c u)
2
0 I- E - \ c
m
0 P VI C
2 U
U L
E -
C 0
NCTD
April 6,2005
Mr. Gary Barberio
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314
-.. . I
----
RE: Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan (GPA 05-04/LCPA 05-01)
Dear Mr. Barberio:
Thank you forthe opportunity to review the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and Draft
Vision Plan for the Ponto Beachfront Village.
The North County Transit District (NCTD) would like the Draft MND and Vision Plan to address
bus stop safety and design along the stretch of Carlsbad Boulevard that parallels this proposed
development site. NCTD currently operates a fixed route bus service (Route 101) along this
stretch of Carlsbad Boulevard that connects the Oceanside Transit Center to the University
Town Center in San Diego seven days a week.
Specifically, the Draft MND and Vision Plan should address specific bus stop improvements to
increase the accessibility and attractiveness of public transit at six existing or potential bus stop
locations (three pairs of stops - one on each side of Carlsbad Boulevard). These bus stop
locations are at Avenida Encinas, Beach Way, and Ponto Road. Improvements should include
boarding pads that will accommodate wheelchair passengers when boarding and alighting from
NCTD buses, appropriate street furniture (benches, shelters, trash cans, and street lighting), no
parking zones at bus stops, bus turnouts to allow buses to not block traffic when loading or
unloading passengers, and accessible paths of travel to and from each of the bus stop locations
to the internal paths shown in the Vision Plan. If requested, NCTD would be pleased to work
with the City or developers to identify the types and exact locations of these types of
i m prove men ts.
Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on the MND for the Ponto Beachfront Village
Vision Plan. If you have any questions regarding my comments, please contact me at (760)
966-6546 or email me at kluhrsen@nctd.orq.
Sincerely,
Kurt Luhrsen
Principal Planner
65'
- 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 DECLARATION FOR GPA
05-04/LCPA 05-01 - PONTO BEACHFRONT VILLAGE VISION PLAN
Dear Ms. Luhrsen:
Thank you for.your comments on the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Ponto 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 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.
All future development proposals within the Vision Plan area will be reviewed for needed
improvements to existing bus stops to enhance their accessibility and attractiveness. The city
forwards 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. BARBERIO
Principal Planner
GTB:ls
C: Deborah Fountain, Housing and Redevelopment Director
File Copy
61, @ 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us
04/13/2005 16:03 FAX 918 657 5390 NAHC @I 001/004
NATtVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION
915 CAflTOl MALL, ROOM 3a4
SACRAME?frO, CA 95814
(SW - (916) 8575380 -Fa
April 13,2005
Mr. Gary Barbedo City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Ave. Cadabad, CA 92008
Re: GPA OWLCPA 05-01 - Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan SCW 2oO5031073
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above-mcntioned document The Commission
was able to pMom a record search of its Sacred Lands File for the project area. which failed to indicate
the presence of Native American cultural mwrces in the imrnedii pdect area, The absence of speciftc site information in the Sacred Lands File does not indicate the absence of culhrrsl resources in any project area. Other sources of cultural resources shouId also be contacted for information regarding
known and mded sites.
a project is underway. Endosed is a list of Native Americans individualdorganizatitians that may have knowledge of cultural resources in the project area. The Commission makes no recommendation of a single individual or group over andher. Please contact afl those listed; If they cannot supply you with specific mfonnation, they may be able tu mmend others with specific knowkdge. 8y corttacting dl those Ikted, your organization will be better able to respond to daims of failure to oonsult with the appropriate tribe or group. If you have not received a response within wo weeks' time, we recommend that you follow-up with a telephone call to make sure that the information was received.
archeological resources. <q n in- 15 f
also be included for accidentally discovered archeologbl rcswrces during construction per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA}, Public Reswtccs Code 51 5064.5 (0. Health and Sfety Code
$7050.5; and Public Resources Code §.5097.88 mandate the process to be followed in the event of an
accidental discovery of any human remains in a location other than a dediid CemetW and should be inciudeci in all environmental documents. If you have any questions, please contact me at (916) 653-
6251.
Early Consultation with tribes in your area ia the bestway to avoid unafiticiDaW discbvek Once
Lack of surface evidence of artheobgid tesaurcec does not predude the existme of
s 1 U affectodb . Pmvisionsshould
Sinerely,
Cc: State Clearinghouse
04/13/2005 16:03 FAX 916 657 5390 NAHC @ 002/004
E3arona Group of the Capitan Grande
Rhonda Welch-Scalco, Chairperson
1095 Barona Road Diegueno
sue 8 barona.org (61 9) 443-661 2
Lakeside 9 CA 92040
Native Amerlcan Contacts San Diego County April 13,2005
Barona Group of the Capitan Grande
AnN: David Baron
1095 Barona Road Diegueno
(619) 443-6612 Lakeside 1 CA 92040
Barona Group of the Capitan Grande
Am: €PA Specialist
1095 Barona Road Diegueno
Lakeside 8 CA 92040 -. -- GaL----e. mwc.
Kumeyaay Cultural Historic Committee
Ron Christman
56 Viejas Grade Road
(61 9) 4.lt5-0385
Dieg uenoKumeyaay Alpine 9 CA 92001
Kumeyaay Cultural Repatriation Committee
Steve Banegas, Spokesperson
1095 Barona Road Dieg ueno/Kumeyaay
(619) 443-6612
(619)443-0681 FAX
Lakeside CA 92040
La Jolla Band of Mission Indians
ATTN: Rob Roy, Environmental Director
22000 H'ihway 76 Luiseno PaumaValley CA 92061 laiolla-sherrv@aol.com and
-. City of Carlsbad
April 26, 2005
Carol Gaubatz
Program Analyst
Native American Heritage Commission 91 5 Capitol Mall Room 364 *.
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.
GAR9 T. BARBER10
Principal Planner
GTB:bd
C: Deborah Fountain, Housing and Redevelopment Director
File Copy
L9
1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us
Sent by: Worden,Williams,Richrnond 1 858 755 5198; 04/18/2005 15:02; #656; Page 2t3
April 18,2005
Via Facsimite and W .S. Mail
Gay Barberio
Planning Department
City of Carlsbad 1635 Fardaay Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
Re; Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan
LCPA 05-01
GPA 05-004
Dear Mr. Barberio:
I understand that the comment period for the Mitigated Negative Deciaration for
the above Project closes today at 5:OO pm. 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. Hawever, 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 untii Friday, Aprii 22, so that I may
review the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Draft Vision Plan and comment
appropriately. If possible, I wit1 send any comments prior to Friday so that you can
keep your Project on track for the May 4 Planning Commission hearing.
I )I I II 'I
76
Sent by: Worden ,Williarns,Richrnond 1 658 755 5198; 04/18/3~05 15:02; #656; Page 3/3
Gaiy Barberio
April 18,2005
Page 2
Please place this office on the mailing list to receive all public notices reganling the above
Project. Thank you, in advance, for your attention to this matter.
Vey tntiy yours,
WORDEN WIWS, APC -
D. Wayne B-chtet
dwb(~wdenwil~im.corn
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:
0 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.
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
ENVl RON MENTAL
REAL ESTATE
PERSONAL INIURY
ESTATE PLANNING
AND ADMINISTRATION
CIVIL LITIGATION
ATTORNEYS
TRACY R. RICHMOND
0. WAYNE BRECHTEL
TERRY I. KlLPATRlCK
TERRY M. GIBBS
MALINDA R. DICKENSON
MICHAEL 6. FURMAN, LL.M.
Of Counsel
D. DWIGHT WORDEN
Oi Counsel
W. SCOTT WILLIAMS
Oi Counsel
OFFICE
462 STEVENS AVENUE
SUITE 102
SOLANA BEACH
CALIFORNIA
920i5
(858) 755-6604 TELEPHONE
(858) 755-5198 FACSIMILE
www.wordenwilliarns.com
Gary 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.
0 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, circulation and parking inipazts. Hawever, 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.
0 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 pubiic is at the mercy of the generosity oi each developer, 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?
--
0 Which agency/department 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?
~\ClientrUjpbowUatters\Planning Dept.OOZ.Commen&.wpd
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 t~ actd~ss thcsc ccficerns. For the mcst part, the mitigztim
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
wouid be mcldified by “ne 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\Clients\LipbwVetterr\Planning Dept.M)Z.Commenk.wpd
Gary Barberio
April 22,2005
Page 4
0 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.
WORDEN WIWS, APC
D. Wayne Biechtel
dwb@ wordenw illiams . corn
DWB:lg
cc: Clients
Debbie Fountain, Housing and Redevelopment Department
K:\Clienk\LipbowLetters\Planning Dept.OO2.Cornrnents.wpd
75
-. 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 1 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.
76
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.
The Mitigated Negative Declaration proposes mitigatih 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 and/or 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 Road/ld, Poinsettia Lane/l-5, and La Costa Avenue/l-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.
..
IO. 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
77
11.
12.
13.
14.
contained in the City Growth Management Plan Zoie 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
78
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
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5885
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNLA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE
ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN TO INCLUDE
REFERENCE TO THE PONTO BEACHFRONT VILLAGE
VISION PLAN FOR PROPERTIES GENERALLY LOCATED
BETWEEN CARLSBAD BOULEVARD AND THE SAN DEGO
NORTHERN RAILROAD, NORTH OF BATIQUITOS
LAGOON AND SOUTH OF PONTO ROAD.
CASE NAME: PONTO BEACHFRONT VILLAGE VISION
PLAN
CASE NO: GPA 05-04
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, said verified application constitutes a request for a General Plan
Amendment as shown on Exhibit “A” dated May 4, 2005, attached hereto and on file in the
Carlsbad Planning Department, PONTO BEACHFRONT VILLAGE VISION PLAN - GPA
05-04 as provided in Government Code Section 65350 et. seq. and Section 21.52.160 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code; 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, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
relating to the General Plan Amendment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, as follows:
79
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) That the above recitations are true and cirrect.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the PONTO BEACHFRONT VILLAGE
VISION PLAN - GPA 05-04, based on the following findings and subject to the
following conditions:
Findings:
1. The amendment is consistent with Section I1 of the Land Use Element of the
General Plan, Subsection D (Special Planning Considerations) which allows the city.
to designate specific areas or land uses in the city for special planning
considerations.
2. The amendment is consistent with Goal A.l, Goal A.3, Objective B.l, and Objective
B.3 of the Land Use Element of the General Plan as identified and described in
* Table A of the Planning Commission staff report dated May 4,2005.
3. The amendment is consistent with all other applicable City plans as described in the
Planning Commission staff report dated May 4,2005.
Conditions:
1.
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
Approval is granted subject to approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, LCPA 05-01 and DI 05-01, and is
subject to Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5884, 5886 and 5887 for those other
approvals incorporated herein by reference.
PC RES0 NO. 5885 -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
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTkD 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:
Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Cardosa and Whitton
Commissioners Dominguez, Heineman and Montgomery
ABSTAIN:
/9 s JEFFRE N. SEGALL, C erson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST: n
DON NEU
Assistant Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 5885 -3 -
Exihibit “A
May 4,2005
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
PONTO BEACHFRONT VILLAGE VISION PLAN
PROPOSED AMENDMENT
GPA 05-04
Amend Section II of the Land Use Element of the City of Carlsbad General Plan by adding a
new Number 3 to Subsection D. Special Planning Considerations to read as follows:
“3. The Ponto Beachfront Village Area consists of approximately 50 acres of land located
between Carlsbad Boulevard and the San Diego Northern Railroad, north of Batiquitos
Lagoon and south of Ponto Road. It is part of a larger land use and circulation study area
containing 130 acres extending from the southern city limits on Carlsbad Boulevard to
Poinsettia Lane. The northern portion of the area is also located within the boundaries of
the city’s.South Carlsbad Coastal Redevelopment Plan. Presently, the area contains older
homes and businesses which have a strong potential for redevelopment and several
important underutilized or vacant properties. Recognizing the potential for new
development in this area and its important location at the southern gateway to the city, a
Vision Plan has been prepared for the area. The Plan includes a Vision Statement,
desirable land uses, a proposed vehicular and pedestrian circulation system and design
guidelines to direct future development in the area. The intent of the Vision Plan is to
create a mixed use, active pedestrian and bicycle oriented area with a strong sense of
place, village atmosphere and unique character of design. Future proposals for new
development within this area of special planning consideration shall be guided by the Vision
Plan and all future development permits (site development plan, coastal development
permit, etc.) shall be reviewed by the city for conformance with the Ponto Beachfront
Village Vision Plan.”
Renumber existing Subsection D. numbers 3 through 7 to numbers 4 through 8.
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
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5886
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE CARLSBAD
LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM LAND USE PLAN TO ADD
TEXT TO THE MELLO II AND WEST BATIQUITOS/SAMMIS
PROPERTIES SEGMENTS TO INCORPORATE REFERENCE
TO THE PONTO BEACHFRONT VILLAGE VISION PLAN
FOR PROPERTIES GENERALLY LOCATED BETWEEN
CARLSBAD BOULEVARD AND THE SAN DIEGO
NORTHERN RAILROAD, NORTH OF *BATIQUITOS
LAGOON AND SOUTH OF PONTO ROAD.
CASE NAME: PONTO BEACHFRONT VILLAGE VISION
PLAN
CASE NO: LCPA 05-01
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, said verified application constitutes a request for a Local Coastal
Program text amendment as shown on Exhibit “X,” dated May 4, 2005, attached hereto and on
file in the Carlsbad Planning Department, PONTO BEACHFRONT VILLAGE VISION
PLAN - LCPA 05-01; and
WHEREAS, said verified application also constitutes a request for a Local
Coastal Program Amendment as provided in Public Resources Code Section 30574 and Article
15 of Subchapter 8, Chapter 2, Division 5.5 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations of
the California Coastal Commission Administrative Regulations; 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
8:
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
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
relating to the Local Coastal Program Amendment; and
WHEREAS, State Coastal Guidelines requires a six week public review period
for any amendment to the Local Coastal Program.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
’ B) At the end of the State mandated six week review period, starting on March 18,
2005, and ending on April 29, 2005, staff shall present to the City Council a
summary of the comments received,
C) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the PONTO BEACHFRONT VILLAGE
VISION PLAN - LCPA 05-01 based on the following findings, and subject to
the following conditions:
Findings:
1. That the proposed Local Coastal Program Amendment meets the requirements of, and is
in conformity with, the policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act.
2. That the proposed Local Coastal Plan Amendment is consistent with the existing
policies of the Mello I1 and West Batiquitos/Sammis Properties segments of the
Local Coastal Program in that the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan which is
being incorporated into the plan segments encourages enhanced public access and
views, mixed use, including visitor/tourist-serving uses and a unique character of
design.
3. That the proposed amendment requires all future development in the area to be
consistent with the policies of the Coastal Act and the City’s Local Coastal Program.
Conditions:
1. Approval is granted subject to the approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, GPA 05-04 and DI 05-01, and is
subject to Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5884, 5885 and 5887 for those other
approvals incorporated herein by reference.
...
...
-2- 89 PC RES0 NO. 5886
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
_.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting to the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, held on the 4th day of May 2005, by the following vote, to
wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Cardosa and Whitton
Commissioners Dominguez, Heineman and Montgomery
ABSTAIN:
3 JEF RE N. SEGALL, airperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
DON NEU
Assistant Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 5886 -3 -
Exhibit “X”
May4,2005 --
LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT
PONTO BEACHFRONT VILLAGE VISION PLAN
PROPOSED AM ENDM ENTS
LCPA 05-01
1. Amend the Mello II segment of the city’s Local Coastal Program by the addition of a new
Policy 6.10 (on page 67) to read as follows:
“Policy 6.1 0 Ponto Beachfront Villaqe Vision Plan
The Ponto Beachfront Village Area consists of approximately 50 acres of land located
between Carlsbad Boulevard and the San Diego Northern Railroad, north of Batiquitos
Lagoon and south of Ponto Road. It is part of a larger land use and circulation study
area containing 130 acres extending from the southern city limits on Carlsbad Boulevard
to Poinsettia Lane. The northern portion of the area is also located within the
boundaries of the city’s South Carlsbad Coastal Redevelopment Plan. Presently, the
area ‘contains older homes and businesses which have a strong potential for
redevelopment and several important underutilized or vacant properties. Recognizing
the potential for new development in this area and its important location at the southern
gateway to the city, a Vision Plan has been prepared for the area. The Plan includes a
Vision Statement, desirable land uses, a proposed vehicular and pedestrian circulation
system and design guidelines to direct future development in the area. The intent of the
Vision Plan is to create a mixed use, active pedestrian and bicycle oriented area with a
strong sense of place, village atmosphere and unique character of design. A strong
emphasis is placed on recreation and visitor serving uses. Future proposals for new
development within this area shall be guided by the Vision Plan and all future
development permits (site development plan, coastal development permit, etc.) shall be
reviewed by the city for conformance with the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan.
2. Amend the West Batiquitos Lagoon/Sammis Properties segment of the city’s Local
Coastal Program by the addition of a new section J. (on page 88) to read as follows:
“J. Ponto Beachfront Villacle Vision Plan
Planning Areas F, G and H of the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan are also located in the
area identified by the City of Carlsbad as the Ponto Beachfront Village. The Ponto
Beachfront Village Area consists of approximately 50 acres of land located between
Carlsbad Boulevard and the San Diego Northern Railroad, north of Batiquitos Lagoon
and south of Ponto Road. It is part of a larger land use and circulation study area
containing 130 acres extending from the southern city limits on Carlsbad Boulevard to
Poinsettia Lane. Presently, the area contains older homes and businesses which have
a strong potential for redevelopment and several important underutilized or vacant
properties. Recognizing the potential for new development in this area and its important
location at the southern gateway of the city, a Vision Plan has been prepared for the
area. The Plan includes a Vision Statement, desirable land uses, a proposed vehicular
and pedestrian circulation system and design guidelines to direct future development in
the area. The intent of the Vision Plan is to create a mixed use, active pedestrian and
bicycle oriented area with a strong sense of place, village atmosphere and unique
character of design. Future proposals for development within Planning Areas F, G and
H of the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan shall be guided by the Vision Plan and all future
development permits (site development plan, coastal development permit, etc.) shall be
reviewed by the city for conformance with the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan.
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
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5887
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
ING APPROVAL OF THE PONTO BEACHFRONT VILLAGE
VISION PLAN FOR THE AREA GENEWLY LOCATED
BETWEEN CARLSBAD BOULEVARD AND SAN DIEGO
NORTHERN RAILROAD, NORTH OF BATIQUITOS
LAGOON AND SOUTH OF PONTO ROAD.
CASE NAME: PONTO BEACHFRONT VILLAGE VISION
CITY OF CITY CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMEND-
PLAN
CASE NO: DI 05-01
WHEREAS, the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan has been prepared by
the city and submitted to the Planning Commission for review; and
WHEREAS, the intent of the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan is to
create a mixed use, active pedestrian and bicycle oriented area with a strong sense of place,
village atmosphere and unique character of design in the Ponto area; and
WHEREAS, a General Plan Amendment (GPA 05-04) and Local Coastal
Program Amendment (LCPA 05-01) to incorporate reference to the Ponto Beachfront
Village Vision Plan has also been considered by the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 4th day of May, 2005, consider
said matter and all factors relating to ths item.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the p.ublic hearing, the Commission
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the PONTO BEACHFRONT VILLAGE
VISION PLAN - DI 05-01 based on the following findings and subject to the
following conditions:
Findings:
1. The Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan is consistent with the General Plan and
the Local Coastal Program as described in GPA 05-04 and LCPA 05-01.
2. The Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan contains desirable land uses, circulation
system and design guidelines which will allow future development proposals to
comply with the intent of the Plan to create a mixed use, pedestrian and bicycle 8
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
oriented, and visitor-serving area with strong sense of place and village
atmosphere.
Conditions:
1. Approval is granted subject to approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, GPA 05-04 and LCPA 05-01, and is
subject to Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5884, 5885 and 5886 for those other
approvals incorporated herein by reference.
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: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Cardosa and Whitton
NOES:
ABSENT: Commissioners Dominguez, Heineman and Montgomery
ABSTAIN:
JEFF=-N. SEGALL, Chai6on
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST: n
DON NEU
Assistant Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 5887 -2-
The City of Carlsbad Planning Department EXHIBIT 5
-. A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
P.C. AGENDA OF: May 4,2005
Application complete date: NIA
Project Planner: Debbie Fountain
Gary Barberio
Project Engineer: Bob Wojcik
SUBJECT: GPA 05-04aCPA 05-01/DI 05-01 - PONTO BEACHFRONT VILLAGE
VISION PLAN - Request for approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration,
General Plan Amendment, and Local Coastal Program Amendment for the Ponto
Beacuont Village Vision Plan in order to approve the Vision Plan document and
to reference it in the city’s General Plan and Local Coastal Program.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5884, 5885,
5886 and 5887 RECOMMENDING ADOPTION of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of
General Plan Amendment (GPA 05-04), Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA 05-01) and
the Ponto Beachfiont Village Vision Plan @I 05-01) based on the findings contained therein.
11. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
The Ponto area is located in the most southwesterly portion of the city near the city’s southern
entrance along Carlsbad Boulevard. It presently contains older homes and businesses most of
which were developed in the county before the city incorporated. Recognizing its potential for
redevelopment and its prime coastal location across fiom the state campgrounds and near new
single-family neighborhoods, the city decided to create a “vision plan” for the area to direct
future development in the Ponto area. With input fiom the property owners, nearby residents,
and other interested persons, the Ponto Beachfiont Village Vision Plan was prepared. The Plan
covers a larger study area consisting of approximately 130 acres. However, the area considered
viable for future development or redevelopment is approximately 50 acres. The 50 acres (refer
to location map) consist of the older Ponto area which is also included in the South Carlsbad
Coastal Redevelopment area, one small, vacant parcel located within the boundaries of the
Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan and several vacant properties located in the previously
approved Poinsettia Shores Master Plan.
The intent of the Ponto Beachfront Vision Plan is to create a mixed use, active pedestrian and
bicycle oriented area with a strong sense of place, village atmosphere and unique character of
design. Because of its prime location at the southern gateway to the city and across from the
beach and campgrounds, it could become a vibrant part of the city providing amenities for city
residents as well as tourists. A copy of the Vision Plan is attached for Planning Commission
review and approval.
In addition to background information (including the public input process) the Plan contains a
Vision Statement, desirable land uses, a proposed vehicular and pedestrian circulation system
GPA 05-04/LCPA 05-01DI 05-01 - PONTO BEACHFRONT VILLAGE VISION PLAN
May 4,2005
and design guidelines to direct future development in the area. In order for fhture development
proposals to be guided by the Plan and in order to allow the city to review future proposals for
compliance with the Plan, it is necessary to amend the Land Use Element of the city’s General
Plan and to amend the Local Coastal Program (Mello I1 and West Batiquitos segments) by
incorporating references to the Ponto Beachfiont Village Vision Plan.
111. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This item is a request to have the Planning Commission review the Ponto Beachfront Village
Vision Plan, to approve a General Plan Amendment to incorporate text referencing the Plan into
the Land Use Element of the General Plan and to approve a Local Coastal Program Amendment
which would also incorporate text referencing the Plan into the Mello II and the West Batiquitos
LagoodSammis Properties segments of the Local Coastal Program. By incorporating a
description .and references to the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan in these documents, it
will allow fitwe proposals for development to use the guidelines contained in the Plan and it will
permit the city to review fhre developments for conformance with the Plan.
General Plan Amendment
The Land Use Element of the General Plan presently references areas of the City for “Special
Planning Considerations” (Section D, Page 21 of the Land Use Element). This section presently
includes areas of the city such as the Downtown Village area, the McClellan-Palomar Airport
area, the Buena Vista Watershed and the Barrio area. Staff is recommending that the Ponto
Beachfront Village Area be added to this section of the Land Use Element to read as follows:
“3 - Ponto Beachfront Village Area
The Ponto Beachfiont Village Area consists of approximately 50 acres of land
located between Carlsbad Boulevard and the San Diego Northern Railroad, north
of Batiquitos Lagoon and south of Ponto Road. It is part of a larger land use and
circulation study area containing 130 acres extending from the southern city limits
on Carlsbad Boulevard to Poinsettia Lane. The northern portion of the area is also
located within the boundaries of the city’s South Carlsbad Coastal Redevelopment
Plan. Presently, the area contains older homes and businesses which have a strong
potential for redevelopment and several important underutilized or vacant
properties. Recognizing the potential for new development in this area and its
important location at the southern gateway to the city, a Vision Plan has been
prepared for this area. The Plan includes a Vision Statement, desirable land uses, a
proposed vehicular and pedestrian circulation system and design guidelines to
direct future development in the area. The intent of the Vision Plan is to create a
mixed use, active pedestrian and bicycle oriented area with a strong sense of place,
village atmosphere and unique character of design. Future proposals for new
development within this area of special planning consideration shall be guided by
the Vision Plan and all fbture development permits (site development plan, coastal
development permit, etc.) shall be reviewed by the city for conformance with the
Ponto Beachfkont Village Vision Plan.”
GO
GPA 05-04LCPA 05-01DI 05-01 - PONTO BEACHFRONT VILLAGE VISION PLAN’
May 4,2005 --
Local Coastal Plan Amendment
The Ponto Beachfront Village Area is located in two segments of the city’s Local Coastal
Program; Mello II for the properties that are located in what is generally considered the older
Ponto Area and the West Batiquitos LagoodSammis Properties segment for the vacant
properties south of the older Ponto Area which are also part of the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan.
Staff is recommending that these two segments of the Local Coastal Program be amended as
follows:
Amend the Mello 11 segment of the city’s Local Coastal Program by the addition of a new Policy
6.10 (on page 67) to read as follows:
“Policy 6.10 Ponto Beachfront Village Area
The Ponto Beachfront Village Area consists of approximately 50 acres of land
1ocated.between Carlsbad Boulevard and the San Diego Northern Railroad, north
of Batiquitos Lagoon and south of Ponto Road. It is part of a larger land use and
circulation study area containing 130 acres extending from the southern city limits
on Carlsbad Boulevard to Poinsettia Lane. The northern portion of the area is also
located within the boundaries of the city’s South Carlsbad Coastal Redevelopment
Plan. Presently, the area contains older homes and businesses which have a strong
potential for redevelopment and several important underutilized or vacant
properties. Recognizing the potential for new development in this area and its
important location at the southern gateway to the city, a Vision Plan has been
prepared for the area. The Plan includes a Vision Statement, desirable land uses, a
proposed vehicular and pedestrian circulation system and design guidelines to
direct future development in the area. The intent of the Vision Plan is to create a
mixed use, active pedestrian and bicycle oriented area with a strong sense of place,
village atmosphere and unique character of design. A strong emphasis is placed on
recreation and visitor serving uses. Future proposals for new development within
this area shall be guided by the Vision Plan and all future development permits
(site development plan, coastal development permit, etc.) shall be reviewed by the
city for conformance with the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan.”
Amend the West Batiquitos LagoodSammis Properties segment of the city’s Local Coastal
Program by the addition of a new section J (on page 88) to read as follows:
6cJ. Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan
Planning Areas F, G and H of the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan are also located in
the area identified by the City of Carlsbad as the Ponto Beachfront Village Area.
The Ponto Beachfkont Village Area consists of approximately 50 acres of land
located between Carlsbad Boulevard and the San Diego Northern Railroad, north
of Batiquitos Lagoon and south of Ponto Road. It is part of a larger land use and
circulation study area containing 130 acres extending fi-om the southern city limits
on Carlsbad Boulevard to Poinsettia Lane. Presently, the area contains older
homes and businesses which have a strong potential for redevelopment and several
important underutilized or vacant properties. Recognizing the potential for new
development in this area and its important location at the southern gateway to the
city, a Vision Plan has been prepared for the area. The Plan includes a Vision
GPA 05-04LLCPA 05-01DI 05-01 - PONTO BEACHFRONT VILLAGE VISION PLAN
May 4,2005
PROPOSED USES &
IMPROVEMENTS One of the primary goals of the Vision Plan is to encourage
development which respects the prominent beach location and historical character of this area of the citv.
Statement, desirable land uses, a proposed vehicular and pedestrian circulation
system and design guidelines to direct future development in the area. The intent
of the Vision Plan is to create a mixed use, active pedestrian and bicycle oriented
area with a strong sense of place, village atmosphere and unique character of
design. Future proposals for development within Planning Areas F, G and H of the
Poinsettia Shores Master Plan shall be guided by the Vision Plan and all hture
development permits (site development plan, coastal development permit, etc.)
shall be reviewed by the city for conformance with the Ponto Beachfiont Village
Vision Plan.”
COMPLY?
Yes
IV. ANALYSIS
The Vision Plan encourages a mix
of land uses including commercialhetailhisitor-serving
uses which will provide economic benefits to the community.
A primary goal of the Vision Plan is
to create a strong sense of place in this prominent location within the
city so that residents and visitors feel they are in a unique, special
neighborhood within the city.
The proposed amendments to the General Plan and Local Coastal Program involve only text
changes to .the documents and do not allow for or accompany any specific development
proposals. Therefore, the analysis applied to this request needs to be reviewed for overall
consistency with the city’s General Plan, the Local Coastal Program and any other applicable
City plans.
Yes
Yes
General Plan
Section IT of the Land Use Element of the General Plan (Description of the Land Use Element),
Subsection D (Special Planning Considerations) allows for the city to designate specific areas or
land uses in the city for special planning consideration. Therefore, the proposed General Plan
Amendment request is consistent with this provision of the Land Use Element. The proposed
amendment is also consistent with other ,policies of the Land Use Element relating to the overall
land use pattern as shown on Table A below:
ELEMENT
Land Use
Land Use
Land Use
TABLE A - GENERA
USE, CLASSIFICATION,
GOAL, OBJECTIVE, OR
PROGRAM
Goal A. 1 A city which preserves
and enhances the environment, character and image of itself as a
desirable residential, beach and
open space oriented community.
Goal A.3 A city which provides for land uses which through their
arrangement, location and size, support and enhance the economic viability of the community.
Objective B. 1 To create a distinctive sense of place and
identity for each community and
neighborhood of the city through the development and arrangement
of variousland use components.
GPA 05-04/LCPA 05-01DI 05-01 - PONTO BEACHFRONT VILLAGE VISION PLAN
May 4,2005
Page 5
GOAL, OBJECTIVE, OR
PROGRAM
Objective B.3 To provide for the
social and economic needs of the
community in conjunction with permitted land uses.
ELEMENT PROPOSED USES & COMPLY?
IMPROVEMENTS
The Vision Plan encourages a mixture of residential, retail and
tourist-serving commercial in order Yes
to provide both social and economic benefits to the communitv.
Land Use
TABLE A - GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE CONTINUED
USE, CLASSIFICATION, I
Local Coastal Program
Review of the existing Local Coastal Program was done to analyze consistency of the proposed
amendments to existing program policies and to determine compatibility of the Local Coastal
Program with the goals and intent of the Ponto Beachfkont Village Vision Plan. The Local
Coastal Pro&am encourages enhanced public access, mixed use, visitor/tourist-serving uses,
visual amenities and character of design. The purpose of the requested amendment is to
reference the Ponto Beachfkont Village Vision Plan so that the area can be developed with these
enhancements. The following summarizes specific policies in the existing Mello I1 and West
Batiquitos Local Coastal Program Land Use Plans that are addressed by the Vision Plan:
Maximize public access to and along the coast and maximize public
recreational opportunities in the coastal zone.
e The Plan proposes extensive pedestrian and bicycle paths, linkage
across Carlsbad Boulevard to the State Beach and central plazas
and paseos.
Visitor-serving uses (hoteVmote1 and restaurant) should be established.
e The Plan allows for up to 3 hotels, to include restaurants and other
visitor-serving uses.
Mixed use development (residential and recreational-commercial) shall be
permitted on properties fionting on Carlsbad Boulevard across fi-om South
Carlsbad State Beach.
e The Plan encourages a balanced and cohesive mix of local and
tourist serving commercial, medium and high density residential,
mixed use, live/work and open space opportunities.
In the “Unplanned Area” of Ponto, which roughly corresponds to the
vacant land area north of Avenida Encinas, specific planning efforts are
required. The intent is to allow a variety of uses including residential.
Future uses could include commercial, residential, office and others.
Consider the need for lower cost visitor or recreation facilities on west
side of the railroad tracks.
e The Plan allows residential use in this portion of the area and
proposes a mixed-use commercial center along Carlsbad
Boulevard.
93
GPA 05-04LCPA 05-01/DI 05-01 - PONTO BEACHFRONT VILLAGE VISION PLAN
May 4,2005
Page 6
(5) In the area south of Avenida Encinas, hotel and timeshare units are
allowed, with other uses primarily directed toward tourists visiting hotel,
conference center and local scenic and recreation areas.
e The Plan allows for a beachfront resort with hotel units, timeshares
and public commercial uses.
On the southern bluff edge overlooking Batiquitos Lagoon, bluff top
accessways or equivalent, overlook areas and a bike/pedesttian path
should be provided.
e The Plan proposes a multi-purpose perimeter trail along the bluff
top and connecting to the rest of the area.
(6)
Other Applicable Plans
The northern portion of the Ponto Beachfi-ont Village Area consists of the older Ponto area and is
located within'the South Carlsbad Coastal Redevelopment Plan which was approved in July
2000. The overall intent of the Redevelopment Plan is to (a) strengthen and stimulate the
economic base of the area; (b) enhance commercial and recreational functions; (c) increase
amenities to benefit the public; (d) increase and improve the affordable housing supply; and (e)
assure quality design in the area's development. The Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan is
consistent with the intent of the Redevelopment Plan and is the first step in achieving
implementation of the Redevelopment Plan. The Redevelopment Plan defers to the General
Plan, the Zoning Code and any other applicable City plans for allowable uses and development
standards. Therefore, the requested actions (GPA and LCPA) are consistent with the Plan.
The southern portion of the Ponto Beachfront Village Area is located in the Poinsettia Shores
Master Plan and consists of three properties known as Planning Areas F, G and H of the Master
Plan. The uses permitted by the Master Plan in these Planning Areas is consistent with the uses
encouraged by the Ponto Beachfi-ont Vision Plan and the development standards do not conflict.
Therefore, the requested actions are consistent with the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan.
One lot consisting of 1.5 acres located at the northeasterly corner of the Ponto Beachfront
Village Area is also located in the Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan. This Specific Plan
primarily regulates development of the residential projects located north of the Vision Plan area.
However, it includes this small parcel and designates it for visitor-serving commercial. This is
consistent with the use for the lot encouraged by the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan.
V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The initial study (EM Part 11) prepared for these proposed actions indicated that fkture
development in conformance with the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan may have the
potential to impact the environment unless mitigation measures are incorporated into the design
of future development projects. Mitigation is needed in the areas of transportatiodtraffic, noise,
biology, cultural resources and agriculture. A Mitigated Negative Declaration is proposed which
includes a Mitigation and Monitoring Program which must be implemented through the design
of future development projects. With the incorporation of the mitigation measures, it has been
determined that the requested actions will not have a significant impact on the environment.
GPA O5-04/LCPA 05-01DI 05-01 - PONTO BEACHFRONT VILLAGE VISION PLAN May 4,2005 -.
A 30-day public notice for comments (March 18 through April 17) on the Initial Study and the
proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration was mailed to all affected property owners and other
interested persons or agencies requesting notice, was published in the newspaper and sent to the
State Clearinghouse for required circulation.
During the 30-day public comment period, two comment letters were received. The first is fi-om
the North County Transit District and the second letter was fi-om the Native American Heritage
Commission. In addition, at the request of the law firm of Worden Williams (letter attached as a
part of Attachment l), representing residents of the Hanover Beach Colony located immediately
north of the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan area, the 30-day public comment period was
extended by the City to April 22, 2005. During this extended public comment period, Worden
Williams also submitted a comment letter. The letters and staff responses are included with the
staff report as a part of Attachment 1. These comment letters raise concerns associated with
future development in the Vision Plan area. The Vision Plan is intended to provide general
guidance for future development in the area but it does not entitle 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 the Vision Plan have been incorporated
into the Negative Declaration and with the inclusion of those mitigation measures the proposed
Vision Plan would not have potentially significant environmental impacts. Therefore, staff
believes that the Mitigated Negative Declaration is appropriate and adequate for the actions
presently under consideration.
ATTACHMENTS:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5. Location Map
6.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5884 (Mitigated Negative Declaration)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5885 (GPA)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5886 (LCPA)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5887 (DI - Vision Plan)
Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan - Previously distributed
Planning Commission Minutes May 4,2005 DRAFT Page 4 EXHIBIT 6
3. GPA 05441LCPA 05-011DI 05-01 - PONTO BEACHFRONT VILLAGE VISION PLAN -
Request for approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, General Plan Amendment, and
Local Coastal Program Amendment for the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan in order
to approve the Vision Plan document and to reference it in the city’s General Plan and
Local Coastal Program.
Mr. Neu introduced agenda item 3 and stated Director of Housing and Redevelopment Debbie Fountain
would make the staff presentation with the assistance of Principal Planner Gary Barberio.
Ms. Fountain gave a detailed presentation and then asked Mr. Barberio to discuss the action items for the
project plan. Mr. Barberio concluded the presentation and stated that he and Ms. Fountain would be
available for any questions.
Chairperson Segall asked how many votes were needed to approve a General Plan Amendment. Mr.
Neu stated that four affirmative votes are required to recommend adoption to City Council. Chairperson
Segall asked if other items in the project required the same number of votes or would it be less. Mr. Neu
stated that the required four votes are for the General Plan Amendment.
Chairperson Segall asked Ms. Fountain to review the current changes made to the draft plan. Ms.
Fountain stated that three changes were made to the original document; 1) A property owner asked if
they would be able to continue their project if it extended past the current character area into the live/work
character area. A paragraph in Chapter 2, page 1, was added giving flexibility to approve a project if it
extended from one character area into another; 2) In Chapter 4, page 2, a minor revision was made to a
map reflecting the property on the most northern end near the Hanover Beach Colony residential area
that has a T-R General Plan designation rather than a residential designation. She stated the T-R
General Plan designation was required for the site when the Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan was
approved through Coastal Commission review, making it a tourist oriented development site; 3) An
amendment was made in Chapter 4, page 4, to eliminate a bullet point requiring changes to existing
General Plan land uses for the entire vision. It was deleted when the decision was made not to create a
specific Ponto General Plan designation for the entire area.
Chairperson Segall asked if the City Council and Coastal Commission would hear the Vision Plan if the
Planning Commission approved it this evening. Ms. Fountain stated that it would be heard by the City
Council for final adoption and then by the Coastal Commission.
Commissioner Whitton asked if it would be possible to take maximum advantage of the ocean view from a
hotel restaurant. Ms. Fountain stated that one of the goals for the plan is to create as many ocean view
opportunities as possible in the hotels and restaurants. She further stated that a resident/tourist survey
had been completed showing one of the top priorities requested was creating restaurant opportunities
with ocean views. Commissioner Whitton asked if there would be rooftop restaurants. Ms. Fountain
stated that this is possible.
Commissioner Whitton asked if there would be a gas station included in the area. Ms. Fountain stated it
is not a current proposal in the plan area.
Commissioner Cardosa asked if the plan could be changed after it is approved by City Council. Ms.
Fountain stated the City Council could still make changes to the plan prior to approval. Commissioner
Cardosa asked how much latitude there is to change the current concept once approved by City Council.
Ms. Fountain stated the site plans are conceptual and not set and could be changed. However, the land
uses are specific as to what is and what is not allowed on the General Plan and, therefore would stay
consistent with the plan.
Commissioner Cardosa asked for clarification of the statement regarding a project needing to expand
outside the boundaries of their particular character area. He asked if there were monitoring factors in the
plan that would designate a percentage or if it was on a judgment basis. Ms. Fountain stated there is not
a specific percentage in the plan, but would be considered on a case-by-case basis for each project. Ms.
Fountain further stated those types of projects would still be heard in public hearings at Planning
Planning Commission Minutes May 4,2005 Page 5
Commission and City Council, allowing the opportunity to say what is not consistent with what the vision
is for the area.
Chairperson Segall asked if each of the planning areas would come back to the Planning Commission as
a Site Development Pan, giving the Planning Commission and the public another opportunity to the see
the exact proposals, to which Ms. Fountain stated yes. Chairperson Segall asked if the Coastal
Commission would then hear the project after approval of a Site Development Plan by the City Council.
Mr. Barberio stated it would be on a case-by-case basis and would be heard by the Coastal Commission
if there were a need to change the General Plan or Zoning designation.
Commissioner Cardosa asked if there was a method to encourage hotel and restaurant projects to take
advantage of the ocean views. Ms. Fountain stated staff would be happy to incorporate any
recommendation by the Planning Commission and add specific language into the Vision Plan.
Commissioner Baker asked if the parking structure and Interpretive Center are projects the City is
intending to build or how will it be accomplished. Ms. Fountain explained the parking structures would
most likely be a partnership between the private developers and the City. She explained it has not been
determined if the public facilities will be conditioned as a part of a project and further stated in the past
some have been conditioned as requirements for a specific development. Ms. Fountain further stated
some of the projects could be funded under redevelopment programs, which is something staff is
considering.
Commissioner Baker asked how long the General Plan Designation has been TraveVRecreation
Commercial (T-R). She also asked if the properties have always been designated for development or
expected to remain as open space. Mr. Barberio stated the most northern property designated T-R is
part of the Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan and was adopted in the late 1990s. He stated the most
southern area that is vacant is part of the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan, which allows for T-R
development. Commissioner Baker clarified her question by referring to one of the letters in opposition in
the presentation and preference of the public for open spaces to remain'undeveloped or become a park.
Ms. Fountain stated the areas are part of the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan and developments were
already anticipated and intended since approval of the Master Plan, such as the hotel. Ms. Fountain
further stated that working from a vision standpoint, staff was including amenities and a layout that would
be preferred for those developments.
Commissioner Baker asked if all the character areas are privately owned or if any are publicly owned.
Ms. Fountain stated the City has a few properties within the character areas located near the Interpretive
Wetland vision area, some right-of-way areas that had been abandoned, as well as the State
Campground area owned by the state.
Commissioner Baker asked if there are guidelines to ensure the design standards are consistent
throughout the area and if there is flexibility to require changes once approved, if it is not what was
expected. Ms. Fountain stated the goal of the vision statement was to provide staff with tools and give
direction when reviewing projects, such as pictures and visuals in the document showing what is
considered higher quality architecture in developments. Commissioner Baker asked if staff would be very
strict using the guidelines in the plan, to which Ms. Fountain stated yes.
Commissioner Baker asked if staff had considered any traffic circles, which has been used in may cities
as a gateway or entry into the area. Ms. Fountain stated there is an alternative in the plan for the Ponto
Drive area, which has an alternative in the plan to possibly straighten the road to include a traffic circle
near the new Beach Way Street; however, this would depend on the property ownership when
developments are considered.
Commissioner Baker asked if the Mitigated Negative Declaration were approved, would each project be
required to complete further environmental documents. Mr. Barberio stated the Commission's action this
evening would be a recommendation on the Mitigated Negative Declaration to the City Council. He
further stated if the City Council adopted the Mitigated Negative Declaration, future development projects
would go through CEQA review, and the need for additional environmental documentation would be
determined at the time of a development application. Commissioner Baker asked the purpose of
Mitigated Negative Declaration. Mr. Barberio stated the Mitigated Negative Declaration is the CEQA
97
Planning Commission Minutes May 4,2005 Page 6
document for the actions the City Council will take on this project. He further stated it is not a program
Environmental Impact Report that would necessarily cover all subsequent development action.
Chairperson Segall asked if this plan will displace people, and if so, how will this be handled depending
on who has the right of imminent domain. Ms. Fountain gave a description, showing locations on a map,
of small properties that are a majority of single owners, further stating it is located in the South Carlsbad
Coastal Redevelopment project area. This means the Redevelopment Agency has authority of imminent
domain, and the City could take the properties; however, one action the City Council took when adopting
the Redevelopment Plan was a policy to work with the property owners and not take away their
ownership, which is the reason this area is designated in the plan as a live/work area. This allows owners
to stay if they chose to do so, but it may require cooperation with other owners in developing, or they
could develop individually. The intent of the City is not to displace people, but there is a possibility the
plan may cause businesses which lease their property to leave when a new owner who would like to
develop something different and consistent with the plan.
Chairperson Segall asked if certain establishments would be allowed to remain, as they currently exist,
when there is not a general community consensus for redevelopment. Ms. Fountain stated this is
possible when there are new developments in an area; however, staff would become involved and
encourage owners to redevelop by providing incentives to be consistent with the pian.
Chairperson Segall asked if new buyers in the area be held to new zoning and the Vision Plan. Ms.
Fountain stated any owner in the area, whether existing or new, would be required to comply with the
plan for any new development.
Chairperson Segall asked if staff had contacted the Batiquitos Lagoon Foundation as a possible
organization to be involved with the Interpretive Center. Ms. Fountain stated there had not been any
direct conversation regarding their involvement, but mentioned knowledge of their interest in participating.
Chairperson Segall asked about the realignment of Carlsbad Boulevard and if staff was asking for a
recommendation from the Planning Commission of options were preferred. Ms. Fountain stated staff
welcomed any recommendation offered by the Planning Commission and would forward the
recommendation to the City Council.
Chairperson Segall asked how compatible the townhouse community is in terms of living and lifestyle
standard to the nearby hotel transient community. Ms. Fountain stated the goal was to create a village
concept with a balance and mix of uses. She believes they are compatible and create synergy with each
other as in the downtown Carlsbad Village area.
Chairperson Segall asked for clarification on the plan description for the use of the mixed-use areas and if
the ground level will be mainly retail or will it office spaces. Ms. Fountain stated the goal is for retail and
restaurants, and if there is a need for offices, they will be located on the second or third level.
Chairperson Segall asked if the intent is to have only tourist retail or will it include a combination for the
benefit of residents. Ms. Fountain stated the vision is not intended to primarily serve visitors, but to
provide an opportunity for residents to benefit as well. She further stated staff is hoping to coordinate with
the State Campground area to provide services that will meet their needs as well.
Chairperson Segall asked for speculation of when this will become a reality. Ms. Fountain stated there is
strong interest from several developers in the area and the City could potentially see projects moving
forward in the next several years.
Commissioner Whitton asked if the parking garages in the live/work area would alleviate the traffic using
the retail stores as well as parking for employees. Ms. Fountain responded parking garages are for
employees, visitors to the businesses and possibly residents.
Commissioner Whitton recommended Alternative Three for the realignment of Carlsbad Boulevard.
Chairperson Segall asked if any individuals in the live/work area protesting. Ms. Fountain stated
businesses that own their property have expressed concern, but no formal protests have been received.
However, businesses that do not currently own property have stated opposition.
Planning Commission Minutes May 4,2005 Page 7
Commissioner Cardosa asked for the number of owners versus non-owner occupants who have voiced
their concerns. Ms. Fountain stated she did not have an exact number.
Commissioner Cardosa asked what percentage of acreage are the small individual owners. Ms. Fountain
stated it is approximately 12 acres.
Mr. Barberio made a follow up to Commissioner Baker’s questions stating the Poinsettia Properties
Specific Plan was adopted in November 1998, and covers the very northern parcel that is in the Garden
Hotel character area. He further stated the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan was adopted in October 1993,
and this covers the townhouse neighborhood, the southern half of the Mixed-Use Center and the
Beachfront Resort character area. Mr. Barberio stated the other areas have General Plan And Zoning
designations and are not part of a Master or Specific Plan.
Chairperson Segall asked the name of the development next to the townhouse neighborhood and if the
residents were notified at the time of purchase about the vision plan for the area. Ms. Fountain stated the
development name is San Pacifico, which is part of the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan, and residents
were notified. The Master Plan was made available and specific language was included in the disclosure
statement regarding potential construction and development and no protection of views.
Commissioner Baker asked if the plan is contingent upon an agreement with the State Parks. Ms.
Fountain stated there is not a need for an agreement with the State Parks, but staff would like to partner
with them to provide more openings in the State Campground for pedestrian access to the beach.
Chairperson Segall asked what type of specialty grocery store is being considered. Ms. Fountain stated it
would be a local market such as a Boney’s or Trader Joes and was not proposed as a large grocery chain
like Ralphs or Vons.
Chairperson Segall asked if there were other questions of staff. Seeing none, he asked if members of the
audience wished to speak on the item and opened public testimony.
The following members of the audience stated their concerns regarding loss of views and open space,
building height, traffic and parking impacts, public safety, hotelhansient uses, noise and lighting impacts,
environmental impacts and consideration of the resident community.
Dale Ordas, 7325 Seafarer Place, Carlsbad
Michael Burner, 701 7 Leeward Street, Carlsbad
Paul Connolly, 7122 Leeward, Carlsbad
Liam Ferguson, 7065 Leeward Street, Carlsbad
Robert Rosenthal, 71 00 Whitewater Street, Carlsbad
Rosalie Skaff, 527 Meridian Way, Carlsbad
Mark O’Donnell, 701 4 Leeward Street, Carlsbad
James Meador, 71 04 Whitewater Street
Mark Kerwin, 7393 Portage Way, Carlsbad
Tom Adams. 15501 Via de la Olas Pacific Palisades
Bill Hoffman, 5900 Pasteur Court, Suite 150, Carlsbad, representing Wave Crest Resorts, stated his
support for the plan and recommended dropping the requirement of landscape medians on Ponto Drive.
He further stated he would like the plan to indicate that the 40 foot required setback from Carlsbad
Boulevard should be measured from curb line rather than property line.
Don Connor, 921 Begonia Court, Carlsbad, representing the Batiquitos Lagoon Foundation, stated his
environmental concerns regarding sensitive areas in the Lagoon that may be affected by watershed and
drainage issues. He stated the Foundation is interested in participating and coordinating with the City in
the Interpretive Center
Greg Thompsen, 71 55 Linden Terrace, Carlsbad, stated his concerns regarding the views, loss of open
space, environmental impacts, and traffic flow.
99
Planning Commission Minutes May 4,2005 Page 8
Commissioner Baker asked the specific neighborhood where Linden Terrace is located. Mr. Thompsen
stated it is located in Seacliff, east of the Interstate 5.
Wayne Brechtel, 462 Stevens Avenue, Suite 103 Solana Beach, stated he is a Land Use Attorney and
represents a Hanover Beach Colony resident. He stated his concerns regarding the permissive language
in the plan and environmental impacts.
John Humphrey, 7052 Whitewater Street, Carlsbad, stated his concerns regarding the hotel
developmentltransient community, traffic impacts and impacts on residents. He further stated that when
purchasing his home, he was told the future hotel, next to his development, would be a small boutique
hotel.
Commissioner Baker asked Mr. Humphrey who in his community stated the hotel would be a boutique
type development. Mr. Humphrey explained it was the Sales Office.
Chairperson Segall asked if there were any other members of the audience who wished to speak. Seeing
none, he closed public testimony.
Chairperson Segall stated there had been nine email comments in support of the project and 2 in
opposition.
Chairperson Segall asked for staff to respond to the public comments and concerns.
Ms. Fountain stated the majority of the public comments tonight were project specific and may need to be
addressed on the individual projects, and that this is a vision plan not specific project approvals. She
further stated staff would enforce all the current development standards in the area.
Mr. Barberio responded to the comment regarding building heights stating the Vision Plan does not
recommend any changes in how the City will measure height. He stated it is consistent with City
Ordinances and will be enforced in future developments. Commissioner Baker asked what would be the
maximum height allowed. Mr. Barberio stated the overall height allowed would be 35 feet. Mr. Neu
stated there is a provision in the height definition that allows the Planning Commission and City Council
the ability to establish the new grade, as there is an averaging when raising some portions and lowering
others. Mr. Neu stated it is
controlled by road elevations and utilities in the property and the goal is to balance the grading. Mr. Neu
further stated staff does not foresee that the future development of properties will be subject to the City
Hillside Ordinance.
Chairperson Segall asked what maximum variant would be allowed.
Ms. Fountain responded to the comment regarding the traffic signal. She stated that a traffic analysis
was part of the environmental review and a signal at that location was not identified as a mitigation need,
but the City Council has the ability to approve installation of additional signal lights.
Ms. Fountain responded to the comment regarding traffic stating it is addressed in the environmental
review and consistent with staff anticipation for future development potential and traffic projections.
Ms. Fountain responded to the comments regarding public safety and narrowness of the streets stating
staff has worked closely with the City’s Fire Chief and Public Works Director on the design, the minimum
road size and acceptable landscaping, further stating fire safety and access is reflected in the plan.
Ms. Fountain responded to the comment regarding the widening of Ponto Drive stating staff would be
happy to look at this request on a project specific basis.
Ms. Fountain responded to the comment regarding the pedestrian underpass stating it is something that
will need to be considered from a public safety standpoint. We will need to develop the project in a
manner to prevent it from becoming a nuisance. She further stated staff works closely with the Police
Department when designing projects of this nature, as well as parking structures.
Ms. Fountain responded to Mr. Hoffman’s recommendations stating the comments are project specific
and staff would not propose the vision document be changed. She stated there is discussion in the
Planning Commission Minutes May 4,2005 Page 9
document regarding the setbacks and the possible vacation of right-of-way, and feels the document
already addresses the recommendations.
Mr. Fountain responded to Mr. Connor’s comments stating staff is interested in partnering with the
Batiquitos Lagoon Foundation during development of projects which impact the lagoons.
Ms. Fountain responded to the comments regarding loss of open space stating this is always a conflict;
however, it is important to recognize the areas are privately owned and the owners feel they have a right
to develop and not leave it as open space. She stated staff tried to insert into the vision statement what
was felt was most appropriate for those areas and limits the developers. However, at this time, it is not
felt this can be designated as an open space or park, but if the owner decided to turn over or the property
or sell the property to the City, it is something that could be considered.
Ms. Fountain responded to the comment regarding limiting the building height to one or two stories stating
she feels that is appropriate if planning single family homes, but the vision plan for the area calls for a mix
of uses and to be successful and viable, two and/or three story buildings is necessary in most cases.
Ms. Fountain responded to the comment regarding the number of hotel developments stating staff spent
a lot of time debating what was the appropriate number. Staff finally decided on three. But if there is not
enough development opportunity, one of the hotels has an alternative to build a residential community on
the site. Ms. Fountain stated the garden hotel site is specifically designated to a commercial serving use
that was a directive of the Coastal Commission and if it is not a hotel, it must be another
touristkommercial serving use. In regards to the other comment regarding one of the hotels being too
large with 200 rooms, Ms. Fountain stated it is important to remember the developer has not submitted a
formal application for that project. She stated it was unfortunate the developer of the homes near the
area led buyers to believe it would something other than a larger hotel. Ms. Fountain stated staff has
always used the number of 150 rooms when speaking about the project, and it has been only recently
that the developer has indicated the addition of 50 rooms. Once a formal application is submitted, staff
will look at the concerns on a project basis to determine if it is consistent with the Vision Plan.
Ms. Fountain responded that the comment in regards to the area being used as an elementary school, it
is not one of the plans in the vision. It is not something that was considered as appropriate for the area.
Ms. Fountain responded to the comment regarding the speaker not being in agreement with the positions
staff took in planning. Staff believes they have laid out the uses in the appropriate manner to create the
balance in the plan and provide the amenities that are most appropriate to those uses.
Ms. Fountain responded to the comment regarding the parking structure on Avenida Encinas and is
proposed it will be one story below ground and three stories above. Staff is trying to encourage the
consolidation of parking and reduce the amount of surface parking to create more people places.
Ms. Fountain responded to the comment regarding more open space and it is something that staff will
need to address when looking at specific projects such as the garden hotel. She stated staff is trying to
create a livable streets concepts and using landscaping medians and pop outs to slow down traffic for the
residents in the area.
Ms. Fountain responded to the noise concerns related to entertainment at restaurants stating it is
something the City is looking at with a potential entertainment ordinance that would address this. She
stated it is too specific to include in the vision plan.
Ms. Fountain stated staff would speak with the developers of hotel developments and address some of
the concerns the property owners may have. She then asked Alex Jewell from RBF Consulting to
address the environmental issues.
Alex Jewell, RBF Consulting, stated when completing the environmental document for the project they
focused on the fact that it is a vision plan. They looked at the specific project, but realized there would be
future developments and not knowing what they will be have required additional specific studies to be
performed when the developments are proposed. In regards to some issues regarding environmental
impacts the City has specific standards that must be met for a project to be consistent.
Planning Commission Minutes May 4,2005 Page 10
Commissioner Baker asked what is expected when a project such as the garden hotel development
moves forward, and if it will prompt an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or another Mitigated Negative
Declaration. Mr. Jewell stated the proposed project will be compared with the Vision Plan and determine
whether the potential impacts are covered or whether additional studies need to be performed. He further
stated it is difficult to predict what future environmental review will be required until the intensity of the
project is seen and what is proposed.
Commissioner Baker asked Mr. Jewell if he had any answers to the audience who felt there was a need
for an EIR and that the language was not strict enough in the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). Mr.
Jewell stated the future environmental studies will be specific to future development proposed. It is
difficult to determine what environmental document will be required at this time.
Chairperson Segall asked for clarification as to if the hotel is 150 rooms versus 200 rooms, will it require
different environmental documents. Mr. Jewell stated this is correct, as traffic would be lessened, may
have more open area or a better way to mitigate biological impacts.
Commissioner Baker asked if the vision document sets a standard to determine when a project is
proposed if they are above or below the standard and prompt other environmental reports. Mr. Jewell
stated, yes, that at a minimum the development would need to provide the reports identified in the vision
plan MND document. He stated if at that time additional impacts are determined then an EIR may be
required. Commissioner Baker asked for clarification as to if this document would take care of the
environmental reports required if there were no additional concerns or would the developer need to
present a Mitigated Negative Declaration. Mr. Jewell stated the City would need to make certain findings
that the Vision Plan adequately covers the project and the project is not resulting in any new or significant
impacts. Commissioner Baker asked if there would be more studies or additional analysis to alleviate
some audience concerns. Mr. Barberio stated, yes, and staff believes the Mitigated Negative Declaration
addresses all foreseeable impacts at this time and has a list of mitigation measures that serve as a tool
for future reviewing projects.
Mr. Barberio responded to the concern regarding the permissive language in the vision plan document
stating staff believes the language is there and will provide a guidance tool as to what the City would like
to be see in terms of future development in the area. Commissioner Baker stated she understands the
need to be flexible but feels some of the public would prefer seeing words like “shall include” and “will
include” instead of “like to see.”
Chairperson Segall stated the architectural guidelines are not included in the vision plan, but asked if a
step would take place where architectural and other principles to be incorporated once the vision plan is
approved or once approved would it go right to a site development plan. Ms. Fountain stated the
document has design guidelines leaving flexibility for staff to ensure the area is developed in consistency
with the planned vision instead of having piece meal development that may preclude something else in
the area and that this is the reason it includes language such as “may.” Ms. Fountain stated she would
be happy to change the language concerning the trails as this is something staff would like to see
happen. Mr. Barberio stated the City has Architectural Guidelines that include additional language for
design guidelines that will be used for developments in the Vision Plan area as well as citywide.
Chairperson Segall asked if after approval of the Vision Plan, would the Planning Commission and City
Council hear future projects. Mr. Barberio stated it would be heard by the Planning Commission and
possibly City Council, depending on the size of the project, would be a publicly noticed hearing.
Commissioner Baker asked why the beach was closed at Ponto related to water quality. Mr. Barberio
stated it was a sewer line break that temporarily closed the beach and it is not related to the project, but
agreed water quality is a concern. He stated provisions exist for any development to address cleanliness
and quantity of water run off. Commissioner Baker asked if the storm water prevention plan could
potentially become better in the future than present. Mr. Barberio stated that the City requires water to be
treated on site before it leaves the site and any future developments will need to meet the existing
standards and yes it could improve the water quality in the future.
Commissioner Baker asked about the views and ocean breezes. Mr. Barberio stated the City does not
have view ordinances to protect private views. He stated the Local Coastal Program does address public
Planning Commission Minutes May 4,2005 Page 11
views and future development would need to comply with the Local Coastal Program, further stating view
preservation is from a public view standpoint such as road corridors or public space in the area.
Ms. Fountain responded to the comment regarding the Coastal Commission and their involvement stating
staff has spoken to them, but they have not approved anything yet. She stated a formal decision would
not be made until a formal application is submitted, and the Vision Plan would need to be submitted to the
City Council before the Coastal Commission. Ms. Fountain stated the Coastal Commission does have
their areas of concern and are interested in access to the ocean and beach area visitor
servingkommercial uses, and run off, further stating there are no guarantees the Costal Commission will
approve the plan. Chairperson Segall asked for clarification of staff having spoken to the Coastal
Commission and if it really meant they had spoken with the staff of the Coastal Commission and not the
decision making body. Ms. Fountain stated, yes, they have spoken to the staff and the decision makers
have not made a decision.
Chairperson Segall asked what the vision is in terms of access to the garden hotel from a visitor
perspective and a service standpoint. Ms. Fountain stated staff is looking at the issue with delivery trucks
and this is project specific, but it is true that the proposed access to the hotel will come in at Ponto Drive
from Carlsbad Boulevard. She also showed on a site map where there is a potential area for delivery
trucks and the developer is aware it is a concern for the neighborhood.
Commissioner Whitton stated his concerns regarding the proximity of the garden hotel and Hanover Beach Colony where medians might create a safety problem by masking vision when considering the
residents and children in the area. He suggested removing the medians and leaving the area open and
creating a wider road.
Chairperson Segall asked if there were any other questions of staff. Seeing none, he closed the public
hearing.
Commissioner Whitton stated his concerns about the flexibility of the language in the plan and asked staff
to consider amending the text to include specific language regarding public trails to ensure they are
required in the plan. He also gave a recommendation of Alternative Three for Carlsbad Boulevard in the
plan.
Commissioner Cardosa concurred with Commissioner Whitton regarding specific language on public trails
and Alternative Three for Carlsbad Boulevard. He also recommended specific language for Engineering
to follow up on a project-by-project basis in regards to traffic and street widths and inclusion of
reevaluation and specific language that will protect the privacy of individuals in the area regarding sound
and light.
Commissioner Baker concurred with fellow Commissioners Whitton and Cardosa regarding specific
language for public trails, but would like to leave some specifics flexible to review developments on a
project-by-project basis. She stated she is not in favor of widening the street on Ponto Drive as it would
create higher traffic speed and safety problems. She stated that if the Fire Department has agreed they
are able to get their equipment in the area, she would like to see that the median and trees are included.
She would like to see traffic circles included on Carlsbad Boulevard or within the project, as there are
opportunities for slowing traffic but keeping it moving. She also recommended Alternative 2 for Carlsbad
Boulevard. She also thanked staff and the City for their initiative to envision what this area will look like in
the future and it will be a benefit to the residents and others in the City.
Chairperson Segall asked staff which realignment Alternative calls for removal of trees on Carlsbad
Boulevard. Ms. Fountains showed the plans that removed the trees and ones that save the Cypress
trees. Chairperson Segall asked if the Cypress trees would be healthy enough to be moved and
transplanted or would it destroy them. She explained staff is not sure the trees are healthy enough to
replant. However, she stated an Arborist has looked at the trees and felt they are healthy enough and
should remain. She also stated this does not mean they cannot be removed.
Commissioner Whitton asked for clarification if Alternative 3 took away from the beach area. Ms.
Fountain stated, no, it does not take the beach area. Commissioner Whitton asked about the intersection
at Avenida Encinas and if it was a standard intersection allowing movement completely across and not
la 3
Planning Commission Minutes May 4,2005 Page 12
requiring stopping in the middle. Ms. Fountain stated, yes, it is a standard intersection. Commissioner
Whitton stated he still recommends Alternative 3 for Carlsbad Boulevard.
Chairperson Segall stated his concerns for Alternative 1 and it creates a human safety situation as it
exists, and recommended Alternative 2. He stated he would like to see the use of views for restaurants
so the public is able to enjoy them versus private benefit to hotel guests, and would like to see more
restaurants with those views. He also would like to see a variety of useable retail, not just tourist shops,
but also a destination for residents such as bookshops or ice cream shops. He recommended more open
space or passive parks in the public area allowing people to sit, eat or play with their children. He would
like to see parking structures that appear as part of the architecture that would mask the view of vehicles.
He also stated his concerns regarding the garden hotel and proximity to the residential community and
would like to see mitigation of noise to protect the integrity of the community.
Ms. Fountain stated staff will take the recommendations of the Planning Commission and share them with
the City Council.
Chairperson Segall asked if the Planning Commission would like to see anything added to the plan or
would they like to see this as only recommendations. Mr. Barberio stated if the Planning Commission
would like to make a motion to incorporate amendments to the plan, staff would be happy to make the
changes.
Commissioner Whitton stated he feels the Commission concurred regarding specific language relative to
public trails. Fellow Commissioners Cardosa and Baker concurred.
Chairperson Segall asked for the wording. Commissioner Baker recommended the language be
amended to the Vision Plan stating that the southern most property will have a trail on its perimeter as
appropriate with existing environmental constraints.
Commissioner Whitton asked if the Planning Commission would like to also include language for the
entrance from the beachfront resort to Batiquitos Lagoon area. Mr. Barberio stated there is an option of
referencing Figure 2.1 1, Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation, and recommend “shall” language, as the
figure includes the trail around the beachfront resort and connection across the railroad towards the east.
Commissioners Whitton, Cardosa and Baker concurred.
Mr. Barberio asked if the Planning Commission would like to add specific language regarding the hotel
restaurant views. Commissioner Whitton stated it may not be possible to put in specific text at this time
and it needs to be considered on a project-by-project basis, but has been made known that the Planning
Commission would like to make maximum use of the views from restaurants.
Commissioner Cardosa recommended an opportunity to align the road for the best use and availability of
additional open space. He recommended that Alternative 3, if appropriate, the additional space should be
for the public and not to extend the development area.
Commissioner Whitton stated he would like to see the road moved to the west, closer to the coast leaving
as much open space as possible on the east side.
Chairperson Segall asked who would put this in the Vision Plan stating the Planning Commission’s desire
desire to use this additional space as open space or as a passive park. Ms. Fountain stated it would be a
joint effort between the City and developer and suggested leaving some flexibility to ensure visibility and
the public is aware the area is there for their use.
Chairperson Segall stated he supports either Alternative 2 or 3 as long as the open space is for public
use in a passive park setting. He also concurred with Commissioner Cardosa in regards to the
Engineering traffic study and lighting.
MOTION
ACT1 ON : Motion by Commissioner Baker, and duly seconded, that the Planning
Commission approve Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5884, 5885, 5886,
Planning Commission Minutes May 4,2005 Page 13
5887, General Plan Amendment 05-04, Local Coastal Program Amendment 05-
01, and Discussion Item 05-01, including amending the language concerning
pedestrian trails to be changed to “shall be included in the southern most
character area,” based on the conditions and findings contained therein.
DISCUSSION
Commissioner Baker made a statement to the residents of the Hanover Beach Colony and surrounding
neighborhoods that the Planning Commission understands it is difficult when vacant land is developed,
but property rights are recognized and as long as the developers follows the rules development may
occur. She further stated the document gives vision and restrictions that allows development to occur
and be an asset to the community. She also commended the City for their initiative in thinking ahead to
make this a good vision.
Commissioner Whitton stated he feels this is a good project created in a cohesive manner with nice
conceptual ideas for the area. He further stated for the residents that when looking at projects and
specific planning there are controls to ensure what happens in the area is consistent with the vision
document and protects their concerns.
Commissioner Cardosa concurred with fellow Commissioners Baker and Whitton. He commended the
City and staff for their diligent effort and fine presentation and content on a beautiful project.
Chairperson Segall concurred with fellow Commissioners. He thanked the public for their attendance and
comments. He also thanked the staff for their presentation.
VOTE: 4-0
AYES:
NOES: None
ABSENT:
Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Cardosa, and Whitton
Commissioners Dominguez, Heineman and Montgomery
Chairperson Segall closed the public hearing on Item 3 and asked for a motion to extend the meeting
past 1O:OO p.m. to hear agenda Items 4 and 5.
MOTION
ACT1 0 N : Motion by Commissioner Baker, and duly seconded, that the Planning
Commission continue Planning Commissioner meeting May 4, 2005 to address
agenda Items 4 and 5.
Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Cardosa, and Whitton
Commissioners Dominguez, Heineman and Montgomery
VOTE: 4-0
AYES:
NOES: None
ABS E NT:
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
(2010 & 2011 C.C.P.)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of San Diego
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of
the County aforesaid: I am over the age of eighteen
years and not a party to or interested in the above-
entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the
printer of
North County Times
Formerly known as the Blade-Citizen and The
Times-Advocate and which newspapers have been
adjudicated newspapers of general circulation by
the Superior Court of the County of San Diego,
State of California, for the City of Oceanside and
the City of Escondido, Court Decree number
171349, for the County of San Diego, that the
notice of which the annexed is a printed copy (set
in type not smaller than nonpariel), has been
published in each regular and entire issue of said
newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on
the following dates, to-wit:
June 17fh, 2005
I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that
the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated at SAN MARCOS California
This 17'h Day of June, 2005
Signature
This space is for the County Clerk's Filing Stamp
Proof of Publication of
CASE FILE GPA 05-04/LCPA 05-01/DI 05-01
ZASE NAME. PONTO BEACH- FRONT VILLAGE VISION PLAN
CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL NCT 1803585 June 17,2005
Jane Olson
NORTH COUNTY TIMES
Legal Advertising
U
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a
public hearing at the City Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California,
at 6:OO p.m. on Tuesday, June 28, 2005, to consider a request for approval of a Mitigated
Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, General Plan Amendment,
and Local Coastal Program Amendment for the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan in order to
approve the Vision Plan document and to reference it in the city’s General Plan and Local
Coastal Program for 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
within the Mello II and the West Batiquitos Lagoon/Sammis
Properties segments of the City’s Local Coastal Program.
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public
hearing. Copies of the agenda bill will be available on and after June 24, 2005. If you have any
questions, please call Debbie Fountain in the Housing and Redevelopment Department at (760)
434-2935 or Gary T. Barberio in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4606.
If you challenge the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program, General Plan Amendment, and/or Local Coastal Program Amendment in court, you
may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing
described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad, Attn:
City Clerk, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad CA 92008, at or prior to the public hearing.
CASE FILE: GPA 05-04/LCPA 05-01/DI 05-01
CASE NAME: PONTO BEACHFRONT VILLAGE VISION PLAN
PUBLISH: June 17,2005
CITY OF CARLSBAD
CITY COUNCIL
SITE
PONTO BEACHFRONT VILLAGE
VISION PLAN
GPA 05-04/LCPA 05-01/DI 05-01
DOLORES WELTY
2076 SHERIDAN ROAD
ENCINITAS CA 92024
Jam Free Printing
UseAvety@ TEMPLATE 5160@
www.avery.com
1-800-GO-AVERY
'CARLSBAD UNIF SCHOOL DIST
6225 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD CA 92009 SAN MARCOS CA 92069 ENClNlTAS CA 92024
SAN MARCOS SCHOOL DlST
1 CIVIC CENTER DR
ENClNlTAS SCHOOL DlST
101 RANCHO SANTA FE RD
SAN DlEGUlTO SCHOOL DlST
701 ENClNlTAS BLVD TIM JOCHEN 1966 OLIVENHAIN RD
ENClNlTAS CA 92024 1960 LA COSTA AVE ENClNlTAS CA 92024
CARLSBAD CA 92009
LEUCADIA WASTE WATER DlST OLIVENHAIN WATER DlST
CITY OF ENClNlTAS
505 S VULCAN AVE
ENClNlTAS CA 92024
CITY OF SAN MARCOS
1 CIVIC CENTER DR
SAN MARCOS CA 92069-2949 OCEANSIDE CA 92054
CITY OF OCEANSIDE
300 NORTH COAST HWY
I. P. U.A.
SCHOOL OF PUBLIC ADMIN AND
SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY
CITY OF VISTA
PO BOX 1988 201 VALLECITOS DE OR0 URBAN STUDIES VISTA CA 92085
VALLECITOS WATER DlST
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
SAN DIEGO CA 92182-4505
CALIF DEPT OF FISH & GAME
ATTN NANCY FROST STE 100 STE B
4949 VIEWRIDGE AVE 9174 SKY PARK CT 5201 RUFFIN RD
SAN DIEGO CA 92123 SAN DIEGO CA 92123-4340 SAN DIEGO CA 92123
REGIONAL WATER QUALITY SD COUNTY PLANNING
LAFCO
1600 PACIFIC HWY
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
AIR POLLUTION CNTRL DlST SANDAG
9150 CHESAPEAKE DR STE 800
SAN DIEGO CA 92123 401 B STREET
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
ATTN TED ANASIS
AUTHORITY
PO BOX 82776
U.S. FISH &WILDLIFE CA COASTAL COMMISSION SAN DIEGO COUNTY AIRPORT
ATTN LEEANN CARRANZA STE 103
6010 HIDDEN VALLEY RD
CARLSBAD CA 92009 SAN DIEGO CA 92108-4402 SAN DIEGO CA 92138-2776 7575 METROPOLITAN DR
COASTAL CONSERVANCY
STE 11 00
1330 BROADWAY
OAKLAND CA 94612
CA RESOURCES AGENCIES
STE 131 1
1416 gTH ST
SACRAMENTO CA 95814
STATE LANDS COMMISSION
STE 1005
OFFICE OF PLANNING & RESEARCH
PO BOX 3044
100 HOWE AVE
SACRAMENTO CA 95825-8202
SACRAMENTO CA 95812-3044
HOFMAN PLANNING ASSOC
STE 150 STE A
5900 PASTEUR CT
CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD CA 92008
JACK HENTHORN & ASSOC
5365 AVENIDA ENCINAS
Jam Free Printing
Use Avee TEMPLATE 5160@ - www.avery.com
1-800-GO-AVERY - BIA
ATTN SCOTT MOLLOY ALLISON ROLFE STE A
6336 GREENWICH DR SAN DIEGO BAYKEEPER ~
2924 EMERSON ST STE 220
SANDIEGO CA 92106 SAN DIEGO C 92122-5922
CARLSBAD CHAMBER OF COMM
5934 PRIESTLY DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008 SACRAMENTO CA 95801
WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BD
PO BOX 100
NATIONAL OCEANIC & SAN FRANCISCO BAY CONSERVA-
ATMOSPHERIC ADMIN OCRM,55MCR
N/ORM-3 STE 2600 1305 EAST-WEST HWY
TlON & DEVMT COMM
50 CALIFORNIA ST
SILVER SPRING MD 20910 SAN FRANCISCO CA 941 11-4704
US BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
2800 COTTAGE WAY
US FISH &WILDLIFE SVC
2800 COTTAGE WAY
MID-PACIFIC REGION STE W-2605
SACRAMENTO CA 95825 SACRAMENTO CA 95825-1 888
USDA - RURAL DEVLPMT
DEPT 4169 MAIL ST 50
430 G ST
CALTRANS DlST 11
PO BOX 85406 DAVIS CA 95616 SAN DIEGO CA 92186-5406
BUSINESS TRANSPORT & HSG
BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS AGENCY
2800 COTTAGE WAY STE 2450
SACRAMENTO CA 95825 980 NINTH ST
SACRAMENTO CA 95814
DEPT OF DEFENSE
LOS ANGELES DlST ENGINEER PO BOX 271 1
DEPT OF ENERGY
STE 400 61 1 RYAN PLAZA DR
LOSANGELES CA 90053 ARLINGTON TX 7601 1-4005
DEPT OF FISH & GAME
ENVIR SVCS DIV RM 100
PO BOX 944246
SACRAMENTO CA 94244-2460 SACRAMENTO CA 95814
DEPT OF FOOD &AGRICULTURE
1220 N ST
DEPT OF JUSTICE
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
RM 700
SANDIEGO CA 92101
DEPT OF HOUSING & URBAN DEV
450 GOLDEN GATE AVE
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94102 110 WEST A ST
LADWIG DESIGN GROUP
STE 300
703 PALOMAR AIRPORT RD
CARLSBAD CA 92009
MARINE RESOURCES REGION DR & G ENVIRONMENTAL SVCS
350 GOLDEN SHORE
LONGBEACH CA 90802
US BUREAU OF LAND MGMT
STE RM W 1834
2800 COTTAGE WAY
SACRAMENTO CA 95825
US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
STE 702
333 MARKET ST
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94105-2197
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMIN
WESTERN REG
PO BOX 92007
LOSANGELES CA 90009
COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
722 JACKSON PL NW
WASHINGTON DC 20006
DEPT OF ENERGY
STE 350
901 MARKETST
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94103
DEPT OF FORESTRY
PO BOX 944246
SACRAMENTO CA 94244-2460
DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION
RM 5504
1120 N ST
SACRAMENTO CA 95814
Jam Free Printing
Use 'Avery@ TEMPLATE 5160@
MERON FAMILY LIVING
REVOCABLE T
7105 WHITEWATER ST
CARLSBADCA
92009
CHIEN DAVID DA-KWUN&CHIANG
HSlN .
7083 WHITEWATER ST
CARLSBAD CA
92009
BRUMMETT GARY L&RAIJA H
7084 WHITEWATER ST
CARLSBAD CA
92009
KERINS FAMILY TRUST 05-13-04
7108 WHITEWATER ST
CARLSBAD CA
92009
HARRIS-MOTTA JANET S
P 0 BOX 26225 EUGENE OR
97402
WILLIAMS FAMILY TRUST 08-09-97
7036 WHITEWATER ST
CARLSBAD CA
92009
SANDOW H DOUGLAS&PAMELA K
7077 LEEWARD ST
CARLSBAD CA
92009
DUNN CRAIG&ANN
7078 LEEWARD ST
CARLSBAD CA
92009
- www.avery.com __
1 -800-GO-AVERY: - @ AVERY@ mo@
HALL PATRICIA A STONE ELISSA 2003 TRUST 02-22-0
.. 7101 WHITEWATER ST
CARLSBAD CA
92009
7087 WHITEWATER ST,
CARLSBAD CA
92009 *
ZEISLER GWYNN D
7079 WHITEWATER ST
CARLSBAD CA
92009
HAlNES RITA C
P 0 BOX 891
SOLANA BEACH CA
92075
MACRI ROBERT J&PATRICIA A
523 MERIDIAN WAY CARLSBAD CA
92009
HABER GEORGE M&PEGGY L
7039 WHITEWATER ST
CARLSBAD CA
92009
BRUTON DANIEL 9
7040 WHITEWATER ST
CARLSBAD CA
92009
LE THAO 0
7073 LEEWARD ST CARLSBAD CA
92009
ORSATTI PETER&PATRICIA
REVOCABL
7070 LEEWARD ST
CARLSBAD CA
92009
TRANG DUC V REVOCABLE TRUST
06-
7527 MAGELLAN ST
CARLSBAD CA
92009
HECKER DEAN L
7535 MAGELLAN ST
CARLSBAD CA
92009
E
VAUGHN BRAD
7096 WHITEWATER ST
CARLSBAD CA
92009
STOJANOVIC ROBERT %SANDRA 0
520 RUDDER AVE
CARLSBAD CA
92009
CHENOWETH FAMILY 2004 TRUST'
04-
7035 WHITEWATER ST
CARLSBAD CA
92009
WENT2 FAMILY TRUST 10-11-96
7044 WHITEWATER ST
CARLSBAD CA
92009
FERGUSON LlAM P&SANDRA L
7065 LEEWARD ST
CARLSBAD CA
92009
ANDREWS FAMILY TRUST 02-02-04
7074 LEEWARD ST
CARLSBAD CA
92009
55
, www.avery.com @ AERY@S160@ Jam Free Printing - Use Averya TEMPLATE 5160@ - 1-800-GO-AVERY
- LAKESHORE GARDENS PROPERTY TRANG CHAU H / DS
LP 504 RUDDER AVE COMMl -. 1891 5 NOROHOFF ST #S CARLSBAD CA PUBLIC
NORTHRIDGE CA 92009
91324
EASTON FAMILY TRUST 07-02-04
5458 CAMlNlTO VISTA LUJO
SAN DIEGO CA CARLSBAD CA
921 30 92009
FRITZ JEFFREY R SR
6954 SWEETWATER ST
SCHULZ JURGENdiLINDSEY LUTZ PATRICIA
7037 LEEWARD ST
CARLSBAD CA CARLSBAD CA
92009 92009
612 SAND SHELL AVE
NASIRPOUR ZAGROUS
7038 LEEWARD ST
CARLSBAD CA
92009
BURLESON TRAVIS&FLANAGAN
LYNN
11 57 VIA VERA CRUZ SAN MARCOS CA
92078
SCHREIBER DALE L&DONNA E TRS
7163 ARGONAUTA WAY CARLSBAD CA
92009
COMMI PUBLIC
000
VANDERLINDEN FAMILY TRUST 09-
19
523 RUDDER AVE
CARLSBAD CA
92009
SADIQ AL S M
504 DEW POINT AVE
CARLSBAD CA
92009
FABITO DANIEL M&NEDRA C
7041 LEEWARD ST
CARLSBAD CA
92009
CAllANEO JOSEPH C&JUDITH L
4530 E SHEA BLVD #lo0
PHOENIX AZ
85028
C NEGLIA BART&PEGGY M x REVOCABLE 1
7046 LEEWARD ST
CARLSBAD CA
92009
GUENETTE ERIC
7062 LEEWARD ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
MCGRATH GARY G&JAMI L 521 HALSING CT
CARLSBAD CA
92009
CHAPPEE FAMILY TRUST B 01-31-
89
654 N HIGHWAY 101
ENCINITAS CA
92024
RElSH PAMELA A
7327 SEAFARER PL
CARLSBAD CA
92009
BEAUCHAMP STACEE L TRUST 06-
08- 4158 ELM VIEW DR
ENCINO CA
91316
WANG FAMILY TRUST 08-19-99
4433 CONVOY ST #H
SAN DIEGO CA
921 11
KEATING-HUDSON DREW
R&SHIRLEY M
508 RUDDER AVE
CARLSBAD CA
92009
MILLER KEN C&JENNIf ER M
525 STERN WAY
CARLSBADCA
92009
TREFRYJACKWSR&CAROLA
7321 SEAFARER PL
CARLSBADCA
92009
MA" VlCKY C
SO6 DEW POINT AVE
CARLSBAD CA
92009
APPLEGATE EDWARD T&JO J
516 DEW POINT AVE CARLSBAD CA CARLSBAD CA
92009 92009
FEMRITE JASON A&JENNIFER S
518 DEW POINT AVE
Jam Free Printing
Use Avery@ TEMPLATE 5160@
KJK GROUP I L L C
* 3972 GEORGETOWN CT NW
WASHINGTON DC
20007
NORMAN GAIL L FAMILY TRUST 08-
1
7445 TRIBUL LN
CARLSBAD CA
92009
VARNl ADRIAN&KATHLEEN LIVING
04
513 KNOTS LN
CARLSBAD CA
92009
COLE GEORGE 517 HALSING CT CARLSBAD CA
92009
TAGUE ERIC G
527 WIND SOCK WAY CARLSBAD CA
92009
MACMILLAN CHRISTIAN&SONYA
P 0 BOX 400051
SAN DIEGO CA
921 40
LIN SENMAO&WU JIE
7364 SEAFARER PL
CARLSBAD CA
92009
ALCARAZ GREGORIO G&LUZ M G
7244 PONTO DR CARLSBAD CA
92009
- www.avery.com
1 -800-GO-AVERY - TAYLOR CHRISTOPHER
L&DEBORAH L
534 DEW POINT AVE
CARLSBAD CA
92009
POINSETTIA SHORES MASTER
HOMEOW
C/O ANDREW M KAPLAN
750 B ST #2100
SAN DIEGO CA
921 01
NA K TRS
@ AWRY@5160@
NARD1 JAMES&MIKEL DANA
536 DEW POINT AVE -. CARLSBAD CA
92009
921
WAVE CREST RESORTS II L L C
829 2ND ST
ENClNlTAS CA
92024
TROSIAN GERARD K&HELENE M
514 KNOTS LN
CARLSBAD CA
92009
STUCK1 DUANE B TRUST 10-03-01 ROBINSON CYNTHIA A P 0 BOX 660246 ARCADIA CA
91 066
CHEN LONG SHlUH
525 WIND SOCK WAY CARLSBAD CA
92009
92 1
POPP SUZAN T
701 GAGE DR SAN DIEGO CA
921 06
LOOS DAVID J&JACQUELYN R
516 RUDDER AVE CARLSBAD CA
92009
506 HALSING CT
CARLSBAD CA
' 92009
CAIN FAMILY REVOCABLE TRUST
07-
WOODLAND HILLS CA
91 364
20331 WELLS DR b
PRAVATO CHRISTOPHER 521 WIND SOCK WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009
ACACIA CREDIT FUND 5-A L L C
400 E VAN BUREN ST #650 PHOENIX AZ
85004
TRANSIT
PUBLIC
Jam Free Printing
Use,Avery@ TEMPLATE 5160@
.WILSON KEVIN
7349 SEAFARER PL
CARLSBAD CA
92009
JONES JEFFREY
FAMILY
2694 W CANYON
SAN DIEGO CA
921 23
T&SARAH S
AVE
ARNSTEIN DIANA D
7335 SEAFARER PL
CARLSBAD CA
92009
ESS REALTY II LTD PARTNERSHIP
260 W CREST ST #C ESCONDIDO CA
92025
FREEMAN LANCE
7067 WHITEWATER ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
www.avery.com 1 -800-GO-AVERY ,,
PALLEY MICHAEL H&JOAN F
7347 SEAFARER PL
CARLSBAD CA
92009
KAPAN CHRISTOPHER J&TAMARA
R -_ 7345 SEAFARER PL
CARLSBAD CA
92009
4-
MCLARTY MICHAEL R&CHERIE A
7337 SEAFARER PL
CARLSBAD CA
92009
NGUYEN KY D&LYNN B
4009 ARROYO SORRENTO RD SAN DIEGO CA
921 30
PONTO STORAGE INC
P 0 BOX 23 CARLSBAD CA
9201 8
RAMIREZ VICTOR E
7063 WHITEWATER ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
WILLIAMS NANCY A TRUST 06-1 1-94
2154 TWAIN AVE
CARLSBADCA OCEANSIDE CA 92008 92052
MORALLY JOHN P
P 0 BOX 5169
BECHTLOFF GEORGE A&CAROL A
7056 WHITEWATER ST
CARLSBAD CA CARLSBAD CA
92009 92009
IRWIN THOMAS D
7064 WHITEWATER ST
ZOUTENDYK DAVID&JENIFER
7072 WHITEWATER SI'
CARLSBAD CA CARLSBAD CA
92009 92009
OCONNELL WILLIAM C&DIANE B
7076 WHITEWATER ST
MCGUIRE MARC TRUST 01-05-93
7107 LEEWARD ST
CARLSBAD CA SAN DIEGO CA
92009 921 08
HOFMAN GREGORY J&DEBBIE R
2840 PIANTINO CIR
LARKIN LISA
7089 LEEWARD ST
CARLSBAD CA
92009
LEEPER W STEVEN&MARTHA A
REVOCA
7085 LEEWARD ST
CARLSBAD CA
92009
SABIN TRACY
7333 SEAFARER PL
CARLSBADCA
92009
ROUSH WILLIAM M&CYNTHIA J
7075 WHITEWATER ST
CARLSBADCA
92009
JACOBSON DANIEL C&JANET L 9920 BLOSSOM SPRINGS RD EL CAJON CA
92021
HUMPHREY FAMILY TRUST 06-21-99
7052 WHITEWATER ST
CARLSBAD CA
92009
GOMEZ JOSE JR&DANIELLE R
7068 WHITEWATER ST
CARLSBADCA
92009
Y
NGUYEN XUAN D
7099 LEEWARD ST
CARLSBAD CA
92009
NGUYEN TAP VAN&LUU LOAN KIM
7081 LEEWARD ST
CARLSBAD CA
92009
Jam Free Printing
UseAverym TEMPLATE 5160@ - www.avery.com
WHEELER BRYCE C FAMILY TRUST
06 P 0 BOX 686
CARLSBAD CA
9201 8
1 -800-GO-AVERY ;/- -
D
SCHREIBER DALE L&D
HARNETT MICHAEL K
7374 PORTAGE WAY
CARLSBADCA
92009
RYAN DAVID M&MELENDEZ LAURA
L
7372 PORTAGE WAY
CARLSBAD CA
92009
COHEN JONATHAN H&PINI
MARGUERIT
7368 PORTAGE WAY CARLSBAD CA
92009
PENCE BRIAN L&CHARLOTTE T
7370 PORTAGE WAY
CARLSBADCA
92009
SORCHY PAUL G&JULIE M
P 0 BOX 2352
LAKESIDE CA
92040
DONOHUE KATHLEEN E
7040 AVENIDA ENCINAS #lo4
CARLSBADCA
92009
COVINGTON STEVEN&ANGELA M 504 BLACKSTONE CT
DANVILLE CA
94506 ..
JANIK JILL 7363 PORTAGE WAY
CARLSBAD CA
92009
PALEN BARBARA A 7361 PORTAGE WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009
PUTRIS ALEXANDER C
7357 PORTAGE WAY
CARLSBAD CA
92009
SONEFELDT PAUL L&KAREN L
20535 LONGBAY DR
YORBA LINDA CA
92887
BOLHACK SCOTT M&PATRICIA C 5130 N CIRCULO SOBRIO
TUCSON AZ 8571 8
ALAMAR ANDREW S
507 RUDDER AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92009
SLADAVIC JOHN C&DOREEN D
513 HALSING CT CARLSBAD CA
92009
DETTMER NANCI C S
7258 PONTO DR
CARLSBAD CA
92009
829 2ND ST #A #I 01
WIGHTMAN JOSEPH&KAREN
505 KNOTS LN
CARLSBAD CA
92009
LOW KALMAN&DELMIRA 509 STERN WAY
CARLSBAD CA
92009
AMEEL FAMILY TRUST 10-1 1-03
509 HALSING CT
CARLSBAD CA
92009 yFo GREYSTONE HO dNC GRABEN FAMILY TRUST 04-10-90
6719 CAMINO DEL PRADO
CARLSBAD CA
92009
TRANSIT
Jam Free Printing Use Averye TEMPLATE 5160@
SCHMIDT AARON R&KRISTI L
7386 PORTAGE WAY
CARLSBADCA
92009
JANC JOEL&LISA
7382 PORTAGE WAY CARLSBAD CA
92009
KERWIN MARK&ANGELA 2000
TRUST 0
7393 PORTAGE WAY
CARLSBADCA
92009
RAMSEY SEAN P&LAURIE
7368 ESCALLONJA CT CARLSBAD CA
92009
HUANG QlUYlNG
7364 ESCALLONIA CT CARLSBAD CA
92009
SlEMlENOWSKl JOSEPH&IRINA
10561 SAND CRAB PL
SAN DIEGO CA
921 30
- www.avery.com
1-800-GO-AVERY, -
WOODS MICHAEL
7384 PORTAGE WAY
92009 CARLSBADCA -.
WEAKLEY JOHN M
7397 PORTAGE WAY
CARLSBAD CA
92009
JONES KENNETH CRAIG
7389 PORTAGE WAY
CARLSBAD CA
92009
COWAN DENNIS C&VALERIE J
7366 ESCALLONIA CT
CARLSBAD CA
92009
PETERS RICK C
7360 ESCALLONIA CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
SHAW JAMES J&BONNIE D
7348 ESCALLONIA CT CARLSBAD CA
92009
Sc CARLSBAD CA 92009
HENRY JOHN C&WONG DEBRA A
7342 ESCALLONIA CT
SALDANA ALFONSO&BEATRIZ JACKSON FAMILY REVOCABLE
FAMILY TRUST
7334 ESCALLONIA CT
CARLSBAD CA CARLSBADCA
92009 92009
7332 ESCALLONIA CT
LLOYD MICHAEL L&LISA C
626 LOWER SPRINGS RD
FALLBROOK CA
92028
MCLAUGHLIN MICHAEL T&DONNA
L 3TI WARHURST AVE 519 DEW POINT AVE
CARLSBAD CA 02777 92009
SALDIVAR LIVING TRUST 03-1 8-99
SWANSEA MA
DEPAGTER LIVING TRUST 04-23-92
-_ 7380 PORTAGE WAY
CARLSBAD CA
92009
LANE JANICE I
7362 ESCALLONIA CT
CARLSBAD CA
92009
CASAGR ANDE ALAN &JU LIA
7354 ESCALLONIA CT CARLSBAD CA
92009
CAPPOS JULIANNE E P 0 BOX 9404
RANCHO SANTA FE CA
92067
ALDRIDGE JOE W&DOLLY
13188 OPAL WAY REDDING CA
96003
155
KILCOYNE MICHAEL&DENISE
517 DEW POINT AVE
CARLSBAD CA
92009 , / I HALL ALBERT S&JEAN
505 DEW POINT AVE
CARLSBAD CA
92009
Jam Free Printing
Use.Avery@ TEMPLATE 5160@
. BISHOP MICHAEL&KENDRA
7086 LEEWARD ST
CARLSBAD CA
92009
www.avery.com 1-800-GO-AVERY '
SMITH MARK A&MURMAN-SMITH
CAROL
7094 LEEWARD ST
CARLSBAD CA
92009
a.
ADAMS JEFFREY T
7098 LEEWARD ST __
CARLSBAD CA
92009
HAINES MICHAEL W&WANDA L
7102 LEEWARD ST
CARLSBAD CA
92009
SMITH NOREEN A
7106 LEEWARD ST
CARLSBAD CA
92009
RAMIREZ VICTOR E&JUDY
P 0 BOX 1255
SOLANA BEACH CA
92075
HARTIGAN LORI
71 14 LEEWARD ST
CARLSBAD CA
92009
MASTRES MICHAEL S&LORI L 71 18 LEEWARD ST N
CARLSBADCA 7122 LEEWARD ST
92009 CARLSBAD CA
CONNOLLY PAULL W&STEPHANIE
92009
HICKMAN BRENDAN P
7126 LEEWARD ST
CARLSBAD CA
92009
LIPSEY ROBERT M
7130 LEEWARD ST CARLSBAD CA
92009
ATMORE MARGARET M TRUST 09-
09-0
12625 SAGECREST DR POWAY CA
92064
TOMBELAINE PATRICK 4% 533 ANCHORAGE AVE -r CT CARLSBAD CA
0436 92009
LEGGE DARRELL&WADDELL
STACY 535 ANCHORAGE AVE
CARLSBAD CA
92009
SINGER ELLIS E FAMILY TRUST 07-
539 ANCHORAGE AVE CARLSBAD CA
92009
RANGEL CHRISTOPHER M
537 ANCHORAGE AVE CARLSBAD CA
92009
SPENCER PAUL J&MARY E
549 ANCHORAGE AVE
CARLSBAD CA
92009
VANBEECK JOSEPH J&ANITA 551 ANCHORAGE AVE
CARLSBAD CA
92009
KING DON L JR
553 ANCHORAGE AVE
CARLSBAD CA
92009
MITCHELL TRUST 02-08-02
565 ANCHORAGE AVE
CARLSBAD CA
92009
DEVINE FAITH
571 ANCHORAGE AVE CARLSBAD CA
92009
SlNSHElMER KIMBERLY J
567 ANCHORAGE AVE CARLSBAD CA
92009
AIELLO NORMAN A&LORRI W
569 ANCHORAGE AVE
CARCSBAD CA
92009
MURRAY DAVID
7302 SPINNAKER ST
CARLSBAD CA
92009
GROS PAUL T&LESLIE K
7304 SPINNAKER ST
CARLSBAD CA
92009
MULLINS PATRICK&CHRISTINA
500 RUDDER AVE CARLSBAD CA
92009
OSTRIN RICHARD B&BARBARA L
7384 SEAFARER PL
CARLSBAD CA
92009
ZYBURA MATTHEW M&TAMMY K
7386 SEAFARER PL CARLSBAD CA
92009
AL13AV-09-008- 1 uoyhane-mmw
Jam Free Printing
Use Averye TEMPLATE 5160@ - www.avery.com - 1-800-GO-AWRY 1 . ~
. BOTTEMA ROBERT A&TAMORA L
7399 SEAFARER PL
CARLSBAD CA
92009
NICHOLSON ELISABETH J TRUST
04-
7397 SEAFARER PL
CARLSBAD CA
92009
.
- PINNOW JOHN M
1823 N SCREENLAND DR
BURBANK CA
91 505
TABER ROBIN D
5331 CANYON HILLS LN
SAN JOSE CA
951 38
KHAT161 SHlRlN
2605 LA GRAN VIA
CARLSBADCA
92009
WHITEHEAD RICHARD E C/O DEW MANUFACTURING
1970 PEACOCK BLVD
OCEANSIDE CA
92056
HAWKINS MICHAEL MKATHERINE
M
7311 SEAFARER PL
CARLSBAD CA
92009
GORDON ROBERT A JR
7309 SEAFARER PL
CARLSBAD CA
92009
CENTERS TWEED H
7303 SEAFARER PL
CARLSBAD CA
92009
MATHEWS FAMILY INTERVIVOS
REVOC
501 ANCHORAGE AVE
CARLSBADCA 92009
KNOWLES ARTHUR C&SHARON A
431 W FOOTHILL BLVD
ARCADIA CA
91 006
HALE ROBERT&PATRICIA REVOCABLE
505 ANCHORAGE AVE CARLSBAD CA
92009
LONNEGREN ROBERT C&ELAINE L
507 ANCHORAGE AVE CARLSBAD CA
92009
HENNING DONNA M
517 ANCHORAGE AVE
CARLSBAD CA
92009
WARDAS MARK A&IRENE
519 ANCHORAGE AVE
CARLSBAD CA
92009
OBRADOVICH ZDRAVKO
505 HALSING CT
CARLSBAD CA
92009
LAKESHORE GAR PERTY
NTO RD
828 2ND ST
SHEA HOMES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
10721 TREENA ST #200
SAN DIEGO CA
92131
ROSENBERG PHILLIP S&MARDI L
501 HALSING CT
CARLSBAD CA
92009
DlVlTA FAMILY SURVIVORS TRUST
0 7348 PORTAGE WAY
CARLSBAD CA
92009
COLANGELI LESLIE
524 STERN WAY CARLSBAD CA
92009
PORTER GREGORY A&VALENCIA B
7344 PORTAGE WAY CARLSBAD CA
92009
CAUDLE SHERRIE
7385 SEAFARER PL
CARLSBAD CA
92009
CHOl YOUNG ZIN&CHO-KYOUNG
REVOC
200 HARBOR DR #1102 SAN DIEGO CA
921 01
MAGAS DALLAS
CARLSBAD CA
92009
7379 SEAFARER, PL
@ AVERW 5160@ Jam Free Printing B www.avery.com
1 -800-GO-AVERY lJse.AveV@ TEMPLATE 5160@ -
, NAZARIAN TAMAR
31 776 VIA COYOTE
COT0 DE CAZA CA
92679
BECKER STUART 1993 TRUST 08-
19- 21 3 VIA TRlNlTA
APTOS CA
95003
829 2ND ST #A
YANEZ DUSTACIA LIVING TRUST
04-
7264 PONTO DR CARLSBAD CA
92009
RAZAVI ALI&MARY E
519 RUDDER AVE
CARLSBAD CA
92009
KIM SANG BO&NANCY S
525 HALSING CT
CARLSBAD CA
92009
FOWLER JOHN A&HIDEMI A
7373 SEAFARER PL
92009 CARLSBAD CA %
HART GUY&ANG
92
SAUNDERS SHERRI
503 RUDDER AVE
CARLSBAD CA
92009
REVIER RICHARD H&PATRICIA R
512 STERN WAY
CARLSBAD CA
92009
ADDISON PAUL W&LINDA J TRS 1175 SOLANA OR DEL MAR CA
9201 4
COMMI
ADLER STEVEN V&NANCI W
502 KNOTS LN CARLSBAD CA
92009
OFLAHERTY LOUISE
7394 ESCALLONIA CT
CARLSBAD CA
92009
BACHA MELODY
P 0 BOX 443 DEL MAR CA
9201 4
J TRUST 01-15-02 SCHOLZ PLACE REAL ESTATE
TRUST
P 0 BOX 12469
NEWPORT BEACH CA
92658
SCHULTE LANCE WKATHLEEN J
7386 ESCALLONIA CT
CARLSBAD CA SAN DIEGO CA
92009 921 31
LOAIZA FAMILY TRUST 11-1 8-01
10662 SUNSET RIDGE DR
ELLISON JAMES W&HIRATA
SHARON E __ 3804 OAKOALE ST
PASADENA CA
91 107
MIRON ROBERT J&TAYLOR
JOANNA 6
7357 SEAFARER PL
CARLSBADCA
92009
DARCANGELO LEONE B&DINITTO
ELME
518 KNOTS LN
CARLSBAD CA
92009
ENCI
GILSON FAMILY REVOCABLE TRUST 0
512 RUDDER AVE
CARLSBADCA
92009
KOCH KENNETH F&KATHRYN A
3939 MONROE ST
CARLSBADCA
92008
NA K TRS
KING CHRISTOPHER D&STACY M
7396 ESCALLONIA CT
CARLSBADCA
92009
ZERFING DAVID&6LACKBURN
LAURE E
2412 ENCHANTMENT CIR
HENDERSON NV
89074
WOOD RON
3750 RlVlERA DR #2
SAN DIEGO CA
921 09
Jam Free Printing
Use Averya TEMPLATE 5160@
. HAYES JOHN E&JO A
7372 ESCALLONIA CT
CARLSBAD CA
92009
0 www.avery.com
1-800-GO-AVERY - @ AVERY@ 5160@
LE HA MINH&CAROLINE THANH-
TRUC -. 520 STERN WAY
CARLSBAD CA
92009
DlSEPlO DANIEL&RACHEL W
7374 ESCALLONIA CT
92009 CARLSBAD CA 4.
NERO CHRISTOPHER P&LYNN R
7097 WHITEWATER ST
CARLSBAD CA
92009
MEADOR JAMES W JRtkKAREN A
7104 WHITEWATER ST
CARLSBAD CA
92009
DABBERT FAMILY TRUST 11-03-94
10955 IRIS CANYON LN
LAS VEGAS NV
a9135
LARA DANIEL A&YVONNE A 2003
TRU
7069 LEEWARD ST
CARLSBAD CA
92009
GANZ FAMILY TRUST 12-07-01
7057 LEEWARD ST CARLSBAD CA
92009
WEBER MARK E
7042 LEEWARD ST
CARLSBADCA
92009
YORK RICHARD C&MARY B
9820 E THOMPSON PEAK PKWY
#612 SCOTTSDALE AZ
85255
LAMBERT FAMILY TRUST 05-16-96
1769 CANNES DR THOUSAND OAKS CA
91 362
SHADY MICHAEL
7539 REEVE RD
CARLSBAD CA
92009
ORDAS DALE E&RUTH H
REVOCABLE T
7325 SEAFARER PL
CARLSBADCA
92009
GALL0 MICHAEL W&PAMELA B
LIVING
P 0 BOX 231684
ENCINITAS CA
92023
PAlTERSON HELEN M
532 DEW POINT AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92009
GRIFFIN VICTORIA L
7531 MAGELLAN ST
CARLSBADCA 92009
MERKEL JAMES J&JULIA M 524 RUDDER AVE .d %d CARLSBAD CA OR 92009 I
33$
APPLESTEVENA&REBECCA 7358 SEAFARER PL
CARLSBAD CA
92009
KLEINERMAN RITA TR
7379 PORTAGE WAY
CARLSBAD CA
92009
HANSCOM ERIC
7395 PORTAGE WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009
BRADFORD WILLIAM C TRUST 09-
27-
5050 WESTGROVE DR
DALLAS TX
75248
MADDOX THOMAS €&DIANE A
511 RUDDER AVE CARLSBAD CA
92009
GRADY FRANK J&RENEE E
7358 ESCALLONIA CT CARLSBAD CA
92009
CHlU CHUNG-YEN&KEI-FENG
6995 SANDCASTLE DR
CARLSBAD CA
92009
BRONKHURST TIMOTHY E 503 DEW POINT AVE
CARLSBAD CA
92009
DEPIANO FAMILY 1997 TRUST
510 KNOTS LN
CARLSBAD CA
92009
VANMETER DON W&JOANNE C
516 STERN WAY
CARLSBAD CA
92009
LU GRACE
C/O DICK LOGAN AND FRIENDS
10731 TREENA ST #lo4
SAN DIEGO CA
92131
ALMEIDA ALEXANDER A
7071 WHITEWATER ST
CARLSBAD CA
92009
- www.avery.com ,
i 1-800-GO-AVERY' - Jam Free Printing
Use Avery@ TEMPLATE 5160@
. WRENN SUSAN K TRUST 08-29-03
7095 LEEWARD ST
CARLSBAD CA
92009
GOLDE AARON&N DIANE
7388 SEAFARER PL
CARLSBAD CA
92009
METH ALAN S&MARIANNE G
522 KNOTS LN
CARLSBAD CA
92009
KAHN&MARCUS FAMILY TRUST 07-
08-
7388 ESCALLONIA CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
STATE OF CALIF
SCHLONSKY KAREN J TRUST 06-
04-9 P 0 BOX 2725
CARLSBAD CA
9201 8
TRANG NHAN V
506 KNOTS LN
CARLSBAD CA
92009
WILLIAMS KEVIN F
7090 LEEWARD ST
92009 CARLSBAD CA -*
VANCLEVE WILLIAM&PATRICIA A
7301 SEAFARER PL
CARLSBAD CA 92009
BARONE SALVATORE A&DENISE A
7346 PORTAGE WAY
CARLSBAD CA
92009
THURM DANA P 0 BOX 965
SOLANA BEACH CA
92075
EIDSON RICHARD L&BONNY J
521 ANCHORAGE AVE CARLSBAD CA
92009
5780 FLEET
CARLS
@ AVERY@ 5160@
DYER CARMEL M
3336 E COLORADO BLVD
PASADENA CA
91107
SOCKS DAVID A
523 ANCHORAGE AVE
CARLSBAD CA
92009
FERRANTE MICHAEL&HEATHER
7367 SEAFARER PL
CARLSBAD CA
92009
ENFIELD FAMILY TRUST 05-07-04
538 DEW POINT AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92009
LOWE TERRY D&ALLICOTTI GINA M
7082 LEEWARD ST CARLSBADCA
92009
GELLER LARRY D REVOCABLE
LIVING
7361 SEAFARER PL CARLSBAD CA
92009
Jam Free Printing
Us? Averym TEMPLATE 5160@
BOB PERKINS
C/O LURAD INC.
146 GAMBEI LN
SEDONA AZ 86336-71 19
PAUL W. & LINDA J. ADDISON
I1 75 SOLANA DR
DELMAR CA 92014
KENNETH F & KATHRYN A KOCH
1314 CHUPAROSA WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92008 *
ESS REALTY LTD PARTNERSHIP
1050 WEST gTH AVE
ESCONDIDO CA 92025
JOANNE WILLIAMS
PET GROOMING
7250 PONTO DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
- www.avery.com
1 -800-GO-AVERY -
BILL HOFMAN
HOFMAN PLANNING ASSOC
STE 150
5900 PASTEUR CT
CARLSBAD CA 29008
GREGORIO G. & LUZ M.G. ALCARAZ
7244 PONTO DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
GRABEN
6719 CAMINO DEL PRADO
NANCI C.S. DETTMER
7258 PONTO DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
JAMES SHERLOCK
STILLMAN HEATING & AIR COND.
7200 PONTO DR CARLSBAD CA 92009
CANNON ROAD LLC
1745 ROCKY RD
FULLERTON CA 92831
MARK LEIDER
461 MAWMAN AVE
LAKEBLUFF IL 60044
WAVE CREST
MR. BILL CANEPA
1400 OCEAN AVE
DEL MAR CA 92014
CADEPTOFPARKS&REC
STE 200
9609 NAPLES ST
SANDIEGO CA 92121
JERRY GRABEN JOSE CORONADO GRABEN'S MIRROR RESILVERING HERNANDEZ UPHOLSTERY
7248 PONTO DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
7248 PONTO DR
PALOMAR BEACH RESORTS LLC
829 2ND ST, #A
ENCINITAS CA 92024
CHAPPEE FAMILY TRUST B
854 N. HIGHWAY 101
ENCINITAS CA 92024
MEHRAN MAZDYASHNI
3335 LOWEER RIDGE RD
SAN DIEGO CA 92130
SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC
ATTN: MR. RICHARD FARMAN
101 ASH ST
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
EUSTACIA YANEZ
13762 SIMSHAW AVE
SYLMAR CA 91342
S EACREST KENNELS
7250 PONTO DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
MARCUS BASHORE
BASHONRE CABINETS
7238 PONTO DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
PAUL & LINDA ADDISON
1 175 SOLANA DR
DEL MAR CA 92014
JOHN & CARYL FISCHER
6630 SUNSET CIRCLE
RIVERSIDE CA 92505
NORTH COUNTY TRANSIT DlST
ATTN: MS. KAREN KING
1810 MISSION AVE
OCEANSIDE CA 92054
DALE & DONNA SCHREIBER
71 63 ARGONAUTA WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009
Jam Free Printing
Use Averye TEMPLATE 5160@
. STATE OF CA LIF. PARKS & REC.
ATTN: MS. RONILEE CLARK
PO BOX 942896
SACRAMENTO CA 94296
MORRIS YANEZ
PO BOX 2321 15
ENClNlTAS CA 92023
MIKE HOWES
HOWES, WEILER & ASSOC
STE 250 OFFICE #22 2382 FARADAY AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
DAN DENNIS
7250 PONTO DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009 '
DIANA STANFILL
457 NAIAD STREET
ENClNlTAS CA 92024
ROB WAGNER
925 ROSEMARY AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92009
LANCE SHULTE
7386 ESCALLONIA COURT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
- www.avery.com
1 -800-GO-AVERY -
KENNETH & SOPHIE WANG
4433 CONVOY ST, STE. H
SAN DIEGO CA 92111
TIMOTHY STRIPE
GRAND PACIFIC RESORTS
STE 200
5900 PASTEUR CT
CARLSBAD CA 92008
KENNETH & SOPHIE WANG
6188 CARDENO DR
LAJOLLA CA 92037
ELEANOR DIXON
#127
701 KETTNER BLVD SANDIEGO CA 92101
STEVEHARVEY
LOT MANAGEMENT
STE B
7200 PONTO DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
LOUS TASCHNER
ATTORNEY AT LAW
#B
322 N NEVADA ST
OCEANSIDE CA 92054-2812
ILDA SHIBE
77 THICKET
IRVINE CA 92614
WEST DEVELOPMENT INC.
PO BOX 8617
RANCHO SANTA FE CA 92067
PRESIDENT, TERRAMAR ASSOC.
PO BOX 860
CARLSBAD CA 9201 8-0860
JIM WAGGAMAN
7204 PONTO DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
DR. TOM KELLER
6929 CATAMARAN DR.
CARLSBAD CA 92009
STEVE APPLE
635 S. HIGHWAY 101
SOLANABEACH CA 92075
DALE ORDAS
108A
300 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
DENNIS CUNNINGHAM
CUN N IN G HAM CONSULT IN G
PO BOX 130552 CARLSBAD, CA 92013-0552
DON CONNORS
BATlQUlTOS LAGOON FOUND.
921 BEGONIA CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009-4807
Jam Free Printing
Use Avery* TEMPLATE 5160*
www.avery.com
1-800-GO-AVERY
GRACE RICHARD T STOFF JEFF L & CAROLYN S HINESLEY CHARLES D &
UNIT 5 STE 104 BARBARA J RE
640 W SOLANA CIR 7040 AVENIDA ENCINAS 5103 DELANY CT
SOLANABEACH CA 92075 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92008
CROWLEY PEGGY
PO BOX 9640 PO BOX 20125 7061 WHEATLEY ST
RANCHO SANTA FE CA 92067 SEDONA AZ 86341 SAN DIEGO CA 92111
FREl LARRY F & SHERMANE S NGUYEN NGOC L
MACLEAN NANCY B
27086 TUBE ROSE ST
MURRIETA CA 92562
MALANGONE GARY & REENA
PO BOX 936
RIDGEFIELD CT 06877-8936 848 NO RAINBOW BLVD
TRAVIS PATTI
SANDSURF PMB 621
LAS VEGAS NV 891 07-1 103
DWAYNE BRECHTEL TORRES DAVID P REVOCABLE AVDEEF ROBERT A & SHAFER- WORDEN WILLIAMS APC LIVING AVDEEF M STE 102 6776 LONICERA ST 1 1040 S 3RD ST 462 STEVENS AVE CARLSBAD CA 92009 JACKSONVILLE OR 97530-9338 SOLANABEACH CA 92075
Ponto Beachfront Village Vision PlanPonto Beachfront Village Vision PlanSan Pacifico COA ConcernsSan Pacifico COA Concerns••San Pacifico COA San Pacifico COA 454 single family homes 454 single family homes overlooking Ponto Area overlooking Ponto Area & the Ocean& the Ocean••Ocean views & breeze Ocean views & breeze will be blockedwill be blocked••Traffic Volume will be Traffic Volume will be substantially increased substantially increased making traffic signal at making traffic signal at Avenida Encinas and Avenida Encinas and Portage Way/Marlin Portage Way/Marlin Lane essential Lane essential
Traffic Signal Avenida Encinas & Traffic Signal Avenida Encinas & Portage Way/Marlin LanePortage Way/Marlin Lane••••Project will cause substantial increase to existing traffic loadProject will cause substantial increase to existing traffic loadon on Avenida EncinasAvenida Encinas••Traffic Signal feasibility study ordered by City Council Traffic Signal feasibility study ordered by City Council 7/20/04 did not consider increased traffic load from Ponto 7/20/04 did not consider increased traffic load from Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan Beachfront Village Vision Plan
Vision Plan Traffic ForecastVision Plan Traffic Forecast
Preservation of Environmental QualityPreservation of Environmental Quality••Building heights should Building heights should be limited to preserve be limited to preserve the oceanthe ocean--viewview••Building heights should Building heights should be measured from be measured from current grade levelcurrent grade level••Parking structures Parking structures should be undergroundshould be underground••Power/Communications Power/Communications lines put undergroundlines put underground••Space between buildings Space between buildings to allow breeze through to allow breeze through