HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-07-19; City Council; 18213; Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan10
AB# 18,213
MTG. 7/19/05
CITY OF CARLSBAD - AGENDA BILL
TITLE:
PONTO BEACHFRONT VILLAGE VISION PLAN
GPA 05-04/LCPA 05-011DI 05-01
DEPT. HD.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
This item is a continuation of the Public Hearing held on June 28, 2005 to consider the Ponto
Beachfront Village Vision Plan (DI 05-01) and related actions, included approval of the Mitigated
Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, a General Plan
amendment (GPA 05-04), and a Local Costal Program amendment (LCPA 05-01).
The City Council is asked to provide direction to Staff on how to proceed with action on the
subject Ponto Plan and environmental review based on the public comments received to date.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
On June 28, 2005, the City Council received a staff presentation on the Ponto Beachfront Village
Vision Plan and was asked to hold a public hearing to obtain community feedback on the Plan
and related actions which include approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program, a General Plan amendment (GPA 05-04) and a Local Coastal
Program Amendment (LCPA 05-01).
As noted in the presentation to the City Council, 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 bicycle-oriented area with a strong sense of place, village atmosphere and
unique character of design.
The City Council considered the Plan at their meeting on June 28, 2005 and then held a public
hearing on the item. At the public hearing, a total of thirty-six (36) interested persons spoke and
expressed their opinions about both the Plan and the related environmental review. Several of the
speakers presented written reports and/or correspondence at the meeting which provided
additional information on questions and comments related to the Plan. The City Council had also
received over 440 e-mail correspondences on the item. The City Council requested that staff
summarize the comments and questions received and respond to them. The item was continued
to July 19, 2005 in order to give staff time to prepare the requested report and return it to the
Council for consideration.
The report on the public comments and/or questions received on the Ponto Plan and the related
Mitigated Negative Declaration is attached as Exhibit 1 for review and consideration. Also,
attached is the original Agenda Bill and related resolutions recommended for adoption.
As was evident during the public hearing, the environmental review is the primary issue of
concern for many of the speakers and correspondents. The public requested that the City
Council complete an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the project before any action is taken
on the Ponto Plan itself. While staff continues to believe that the Mitigated Negative Declaration
was the appropriate environmental review document at the time it was prepared for the Ponto
Plan based on available information, the additional information submitted during the public
hearing, the scope of the evidence and the differing expert opinions has caused staff to change
its recommendation and support the preparation of an EIR for the Plan.
I
Page 2 of AB # 18,213
Although staff is recommending that the City Council take no action on the Ponto Plan and return
it to staff for completion of an EIR for the project, staff would like to request feedback on the draft
Plan to determine if there are any additional issues that should be considered and included in the
environmental analysis. For example, if the Council would like staff to consider changes to
development standards (such as height) as part of the Plan, it would be helpful to incorporate this
issue into the environmental analysis at this time.
Action Options for the Citv Council
Staff believes that there are several options for action by the City Council at this time. The options
are set forth below for consideration:
1. Return the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan to staff for completion of an EIR, and
authorize staff to proceed with the appropriate actions to obtain the environmental
consultant services with the understanding that the City and/or Redevelopment Agency will
fund preparation of the EIR.
2. Return the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan to staff to coordinate the completion of an
EIR, and request that the property owners/developers in the area be responsible for
contracting for and funding preparation of the EIR. The City could not require the property
owners/developers to do this, but a request could be made for them to do so. If the
property owners/developers are not willing, staff would return to the Council for further
direction.
3. Deny the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan. This action requires no environmental
review. This would mean that the Plan would not be adopted. Each individual
development application would then need to be considered separately and appropriate
environmental review for each project will be completed at the time of project application
review.
FISCAL IMPACT:
It is anticipated that the cost for an EIR will be approximately $150,000 to $200,000. If the City
Council instructs staff to move forward to prepare the EIR with the understanding that the City
and/or Redevelopment Agency will fund it, staff will return with a request for contract approval and
an appropriation of the funding.
EXHIBITS:
1. Staff Report to City Manager on response to comments and questions from public hearing
on the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan.
2. Original agenda bill and approving resolutions for the adoption of the Ponto Beachfront
Village Vision Plan and related actions, dated June 28, 2005.
3 L-
July 8,2005
TO: CITY MANAGER
FROM: HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM PUBLIC ON PONTO PLAN
The following report represents a summary of public comments and/or questions received on the
Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan and the related Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND).
The comments and/or questions were received in several forms. A total of 442 e-mails and
written correspondence were received prior to, during and/or immediately following the public
hearing on June 28, 2005. In addition, a total of thirty-six (36) people spoke during the public
testimony portion of the public hearing held on June 28th. Per the City Council’s request, staff
has summarized the public input and provided responses to the issues andor questions raised on
the Plan and the MND. The hearing was continued to July 19,2005 to consider the responses to
the questions/comments received by the City.
Prior to and immediately following the public hearing, the City received seven (7) e-mails and
one (1) written letter from Carlsbad residents and/or other interested parties that support the
Ponto Plan. Several others voiced general support for the Plan but had questions or concerns. In
the comments received during the public hearing, the City received support for the Plan and its
MND from representatives of the Chamber of Commerce, Batiquitos Lagoon Foundation, and
the Convention and Visitors Bureau (both Carlsbad and North County). The remaining e-mails,
written correspondence and verbal comments were focused on opposition to the Plan as currently
presented and/or the MND. The primary request was for the City to complete an Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) before taking action on the Plan. In addition to the request for an EIR, there
were some additional comments, suggestions and requests that are outlined below with staff
responses.
Comments and/or Ouestions on the Ponto Plan
1. Ponto Beach is a favorite and special place for many, and should remain so.
Staff agrees with this statement and believes that the proposed Ponto Plan recognizes the special
nature of the area. The intent of the Ponto Plan is to guide commercial and residential
development and to ensure the inclusion of special people places and public amenities like trails
and pathways, while also protecting access to the natural resources such as the beach, ocean and
lagoon for both residents and visitors to enjoy. Our goal was sustainability of the area from an
economic, social and environmental standpoint.
2. The Ponto Plan will not create a village feel. It is too dense or intense. The
development needs to be toned down.
Staff believes that the Ponto Plan does create a village feel which is more urban in nature. If we
look to the Villages of Carlsbad, Encinitas or Del Mar, we see more intensity or density of
development than other parts of the Cities. We believe that the concentration of restaurants and
shops will appeal to both residents and visitors and offer many “people places” such as plazas
and a community-based nature and art center. The vision is for an active pedestrian- and bicycle-
oriented area with a strong sense of place and a unique California Coastal Architectural
Character.
3. The Plan provides no benefit to residents in the area. It will bring too many people
to the beach and residents won’t be able to enjoy it.
While Staff understands the desire to limit development and leave properties vacant in the area,
we do believe that the proposed Plan provides benefit to local residents in a variety of ways.
First, the restaurants and services will be available to residents. For many, these will be within
walking distance of their homes. There will also be a community trail that will protect views to
the lagoon and ocean. A Wetland Interpretive Park and Boardwalk Trail is proposed. There is
also a community facility in the form of a Nature and Arts Center. Public trails and pathways
have been included for pedestrians and bicyclists. In addition, there will be a new linear park on
the west side of Carlsbad Boulevard which will provide benches and picnic tables for residents to
enjoy. There will be 104 new public parking spaces on the west side of Carlsbad Boulevard, and
a pedestrian underpass (under Carlsbad Boulevard) to assist residents in safely accessing the
beach from the east side of Carlsbad Boulevard.
4. The area should stay as open space.
As noted above, Staff understands the desire for vacant lots to remain vacant. However, it should
be noted that none of the properties in the area are currently zoned for open space or habitat
management. 98% of the properties are privately owned and currently zoned for commercial
andor residential development The property owners are not required to develop their properties
as a result of approval of the Ponto Plan. The property owners may choose not to develop.
However, if they choose to develop, the Ponto Plan would allow for a coordinated approach to
that development and allows the City to be proactive in guiding the development and design as
well as obtaining public amenities.
5. Will parking be paid or unpaid? Will Beach parking be provided?
The Ponto Plan is a conceptual document and does not define the operational characteristics of
each project. Therefore, at this time, Staff is unable to indicate whether or not parking will be
paid or unpaid. Staff does, however, intend to request that developers provide additional beach
parking within their developments to supplement the 104 public parking spaces to be created on
the west side of Carlsbad Boulevard.
6. How can the City add development in the area when they are not able to manage
current code enforcement issues, like RVs that are parking overnight on public
streets?
The Police Department responds to all complaints in a priority manner. Every effort is made by
the Police to respond in as timely manner as staffing and callhornplaint load will permit.
7. Restaurants in the area should have maximum views. Plan is not clear as to whether
or not the restaurants in the area will have views.
Every effort has been made within the conceptual site layouts within the Plan to locate
restaurants where they will have maximum views of the ocean, lagoon andor other scenic areas
(ie., Wetland Interpretative Park). However, since the site layouts in the Plan are not final and
were provided for illustrative purposes only, this is a project specific issue that will need to be
addressed as applications are submitted for development. As part of building orientation and site
design guidelines set forth within the Plan, developments are encouraged to preserve views to the
ocean or other scenic areas. These views are to be enjoyed by the public.
8. Adjacent residential neighborhood is not allowed to be gated. People will park in the
residential neighborhood and impact it.
Gated communities are often a subject of much debate. Private property owners often want to
restrict access while others (such as the Coastal Commission) want to create a more open area to
enhance access. If additional public parking is provided within the area, it is staffs hope that the
need to park in surrounding/adjacent neighborhoods will diminish. Currently there is little public
parking provided within the area. As a result, visitors to the beach and the State campground
park wherever they can find parking, even if this may be illegal in some cases.
9. Interpretive Wetland Park is not in the appropriate location. It is not near the
wetland.
The proposed Wetland Interpretive Park sits in the low-lying open space area in the center of the
project area because it exhibits wetland characteristics, and is being protected as such through
the park. There are no other wetlands located within the developable area of the Ponto Plan. The
Plan states that buffer areas must be maintained between jurisdictional wetlands and water and
any development. The Plan notes that this buffer is typically 100 feet, and that any impacts to
jurisdictional waters will need to be avoided. The individual development applications will need
to comply with any required buffers.
10. Existing residents in the area need to be accommodated by the Plan.
Existing property owners within the Ponto Plan area were consulted as to what they would like to
do on their property. The live-work neighborhood was created to allow existing property owners
with businesses to maintain their residence and/or businesses if so desired. Several of the
existing businesses (such as the pet kennel) do not own the property upon which they are
operating. If their property owner decides to sell the property or develop it in a manner which
does not allow the business to remain, this is a private transaction which does not involve the
City. The property owners have all indicated that they generally support or "can live with" the
plan. There are some property owners, however, that have decided to sell their property.
11. Parking should be provided on the east side of Carlsbad Boulevard to allow more
pedestrian amenities on the west side.
Due to safety concerns for people crossing Carlsbad Boulevard, initial plans to provide parking
on the east side of Carlsbad Boulevard were eliminated. Parking on the west side allows for safe
access to the linear park, the campground and the beach. Walkways for pedestrians are provided
as part of the linear park. In addition, public parking will be encouraged within the private
development parking structures on the east side of Carlsbad Boulevard. People parking in these
structures will be encouraged to cross under Carlsbad Boulevard or at Avenida Encinas or the
new Beach Way intersection.
12. The parking should be provided underground to eliminate blight and allow more
space for public uses.
Every effort will be made to encourage developers to build parking underground wherever
feasible. However, detailed studies will be required with each project to ensure that parking can
be built underground without concern for flooding due to the location of water tables. If
underground parking is feasible for a project, it will be strongly encouraged for development.
This specific language can be added to the Plan if so desired to share this intent.
13. Setbacks are inadequate to compensate for erosion on the bluff top.
The Ponto Plan has proposed no change to setback requirements for development along the bluff
top. When a project is actually proposed, this issue can be addressed at that time.
14. Beachfront Resort should be a public park or residential. If it is a resort, it needs to
be more low key (one story). 300 hotel rooms are too many for the resort.
The proposed project is set forth in the approved Poinsettia Shores Master Plan (1993). An
Environmental Impact Report was completed and adopted for the Master Plan with this resort
use. The site layout and design for the project, however, has not been approved and still requires
permits. This is the reason it was included in the Ponto Plan. The Ponto Plan requires the
property owner to focus more on the public amenities within the project and to provide a public
trail around the project to protect public views of the ocean and lagoon. It also requires
development of the hotel to include views of the ocean and lagoon, and for the hotel to include
public uses.
15. Does traffic analysis discuss signage to allow reasonable access to the
developments?
The Ponto Plan itself discusses “Wayfinding” signage for the area developments. As noted
within the Plan, appropriately designed and located directional signage will help both drivers and
pedestrians to find their way in the Ponto Beachfront Village, while also reinforcing its image
and identity. The program includes: “vehicular-scaled signs directing drivers, as well as
pedestrian and bicyclists to parking areas, businesses and amenities”.
16.The Plan needs to be more sensitive to the residents of Encinitas who use Ponto
Beach. The proposed development will take up parking that surrounding neighbors
currently use for the Beach.
As noted above, the Plan proposes to add public parking which is not currently provided within
the area. Currently, visitors park wherever they can find space, sometimes illegally. The goal of
the Plan is to provide formal public parking which will enhance beach access and accommodate
the needs of beach visitors. The goal is to also provide services and products that will appeal to
beach visitors as well as residents. Staff believes that food service, beach-related retail items and
other related services and products will be very beneficial to beach visitors from both Carlsbad
and surrounding cities.
17.The Plan needs to include undeveloped land. Too much time was spent on
development rather than open space and its management.
In developing the Vision Plan, a basic assumption was made that development would occur on
the privately owned properties within the Ponto area. As noted above, 98% of the property is
privately owned and zoned for commercial and/or residential development. The City’s goal in
development of the Ponto Plan is to provide a coordinated approach to the development with a
goal of providing people places, open plazas and other public amenities while also providing
services and products that will appeal to both visitors and residents.
18. The Plan needs more “warm and fuzzy” in it. Too much commercial development.
Staff believes that special attention was given to creating an environment within the Ponto Area
that would be inviting and treat the area in a special way. The commercial development can
provide for special places for people to connect and enjoy their surroundings. The goal is to
create services for residents such as great places to eat, a nice place to sit and have a cup of
coffee, and fun places for children and adults to interact. Staff believes this can create a very
“warm and fuzzy” place if done properly.
19. The Plan is an inadequate Specific Plan. It doesn’t meet State Law for a Specific
Plan.
The City considered both a Master Plan and Specific Plan for the Ponto area, and deliberately
chose to do neither. The reason for this decision is primarily the 98% private and multiple
property ownership in the area. Staff did not believe that a Master Plan or Specific Plan could be
effective if prepared by the City because the property ownerships were a moving target and
could significantly change over time. Staff did not have specific development proposals from any
of the property owners. Therefore, the feeling was that these could also change over time. Staff
felt that it would be best for the City to simply take a “guiding” role through development of its
Vision for the area. With the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan, the City sets forth its guide
for the development and design of the area properties but does not approve a specific project at
this time.
20. The State Parks Staff has not signed off on the Ponto Plan as indicated by City Staff.
Staff has not indicated at any time that State Parks Staff has “signed off’ on the Ponto Plan. Staff
has indicated that we met with State Parks Staff and shared the Vision Plan with them and
discussed their concerns. The State Parks Staff did express concerns about the impacts that more
people on the beach would have to their security and maintenance costs. Staff has shared this
concern from State Parks in various forums. State Parks Staff did indicate to City Staff that they
believe new opportunities for commercial development in the Ponto Area can compliment the
existing campground to provide benefit to its customers. The State Parks Master Plan assumes
that the area around the existing campground will become increasingly urban. Staff believes that
the Ponto Plan supports the purpose of the State Parks to make coast state beaches “available to
the people for their benefit and enjoyment forever.”
21. There was not adequate notice to the general public about the Ponto Plan. City
needs to do better to provide more information on a broader basis.
The City has been working for over two years on the Ponto Vision Plan. There were public
actions on the project to initiate it, and then efforts were made to share the proposed Plan with as
many people as possible over the past one (1) year. There have been a variety of newspaper
articles on the proposed plan as well as a community video that was shown on television several
times. Staff had a public workshop in August, 2004 which was noticed in the local newspaper.
All interested persons were encouraged to attend to obtain information about the Plan and to
share comments, questions and concerns. Proactive efforts were also made to meet with local
Homeowner Associations, business groups and service organizations to share the Plan. Although
staff understands that we need to continue to improve our outreach methods, staff does believe
that a good faith effort was made to “get the word out’’ on the Plan. However, it should be noted
that staff believes the efforts of the opposition groups did appear to be more effective in getting
people to take notice of the Plan. Staff intends to learn fiom their practices to improve our
outreach efforts in the future.
22. The City needs to reconsider the need for a traffic signal in the San Pacific0
residential neighborhood with information from Ponto Plan Traffic Analysis.
The traffic analysis information was shared and reviewed by the City’s Public Works
Department.
23. The area is not blighted, and should be left as it is.
Only a portion (approximately 12 acres) of the developable area (approximately 50 acres), is
included within the South Carlsbad Coastal Redevelopment Area. This is the area which is
already developed with a mix of industrial (wood pile, storage facility, etc) and residential uses.
The vacant portions of land are not located within the Redevelopment Area, and are not
considered blighted. The developed portions were determined to meet the State definition of
economically and physically blighted properties for redevelopment purposes. Several of the
property owners in the redevelopment area indicated an interest in redeveloping their sites but
needed help fiom the redevelopment agency to ensure a coordinated approach. Blight refers to
not only a visual consideration, but includes lack of infrastructure (such as sewer), small lots
with multiple ownerships, and non-conforming land uses. These are all conditions with the
developed portion of Ponto.
24. Plan is on a fast track and it needs to slow down.
The City first began consideration of a vision for the Ponto Area in 2000, when the
redevelopment plan was adopted for the South Carlsbad Coastal Redevelopment Area. At that
time, a land use strategy was determined to be necessary for the area to guide development. In
2002, the City initiated development of the Land Use Strategy for the Ponto Area. The Plan itself
has been in the development stage for over 2 years. In addition, the zoning and general plan
designations which allow for both commercial and/or residential development in the area have
been in place for at least 10 years. Staff does not believe that the Plan has been “fast tracked”. It
was actually slowed down in August of 2004 to allow for additional public outreach to residents
in the area.
25. Coastal Commission will want a park in the area.
In meeting with Coastal Commission staff, there was no indication given to City Staff that the
Coastal Commission wanted a park in the area. The proposed Plan was presented to the
Commission staff. They indicated at that time that they liked the range of lodging types and
diversity of tourist-related facilities. They were enthusiastic about the pathways linking the beach
to the development areas. They did indicate that any impacts to jurisdictional waters must be
carefully scrutinized. In addition, they wanted to see the City increase the amount and
availability of public parking for beach visitors. Staff believes we have addressed the expressed
desires of the Coastal Commission staff as of this date. However, similar to the State Parks staff,
we have made no indication that the Coastal Commission as approved or “signed off’ on the
Plan. The Commission will not take formal action on the Plan until the City submits an
application to them for amendment of the Local Coastal Program.
26. The trails and open space included in the Plan are good. But, there are concerns
about the restaurants and retail - too much.
An effort was made to provide an appropriate balance of retail as well as restaurants in the area.
This was done to provide shopping and dining opportunities for residents as well as visitors.
However, as indicated previously, the site plans provided in the Ponto Plan are for illustration
purposes only. The amount of retail and number of restaurants could differ from that noted in the
studies for the Plan.
27. The City should allow development only in the areas already developed.
The vacant properties within the area currently have approvals which will permit commercial
and/or residential development. Although no specific projects have yet been proposed by the
property owners, the current owners purchased the properties with the understanding that they
could be developed. If the current property owners were willing to sell, they could potentially be
purchased and allowed to remain undeveloped.
28. No restrooms, trash cans included within the Plan.
All of the private development will include restrooms and trash cans. It is also anticipated that
the public areas, specifically the linear park, will include trash cans. A public restroom could also
be constructed as part of the community facility - Nature and Art Center. This could be easily
accessed by beach visitors.
29. The existing crime levels in Carlsbad should be examined before more development
is allowed. The proposed development could cause more crime.
The Police Department regularly tracks crime rates in the City and responds appropriately to
increasing trends.
30. The proposed 35 foot height limit is unreasonable. The height of buildings needs to
be limited within the Plan. A recommendation has been made to limit the height of
buildings to 30 feet from existing grade.
City staff has proposed no changes in existing development standards within the Ponto Plan.
Development within the area is currently permitted to obtain a height of 35 feet from final grade.
Staff believes that a limit to 30 .feet from existing grade could result in an undesirable quality of
commercial and/or residential development within the area. Staff is recommending that the
height limit remain as it is with the understanding that every effort will be made to include
varying height limits within projects to add diversity and visual interest. This would mean that
some roof heights would be lower than the permitted 35 feet.
31. The City needs to focus on quality of life rather than economics.
As mentioned previously, a sustainable community must address the social, environmental and
economic conditions of an area. The Ponto Plan does not focus simply on economics. It does
consider the social as well as environmental aspects of development.
32. The proposed design guidelines do not have a Village feel. They will not provide for
a human scale. The development is out of character with the area.
Village is a term that is often used to define an area of concentrated and mixed land uses. It
means that you will have residential incorporated into shopping areas and other commercial uses.
The design guidelines are intended to focus on this mix of uses and encourage an informal,
California coastal style of architecture and ambience. Some of the desired features include
varying roof heights, stepping back third stories to reduce impact, use of small parts and accents,
and pedestrian-oriented details to demonstrate a more human scale. Franchise architecture with
corporate signature designs is not allowed by the Ponto Plan.
33. Residents should have a say in development for the area.
The purpose of the public meetings and hearings is to allow the residents to voice their opinion
about development in the area. The Ponto Plan has received mixed reviews to date. There are
residents that have indicated their support for the Plan, and others have opposed it. The desires of
residents, property owners, business owners, community representatives as well as outside
regulatory agencies (such as the Coastal Commission) have been taken into consideration in
developing the Ponto Plan. While it is true that staff has not proposed to leave the vacant areas
undeveloped as part of the Plan, we do believe that the variety of land uses and the various
public amenities will be beneficial to residents as well as visitors to the area.
34.The Vision Plan contemplates a taking of private property by the City for the
benefit of a private developer.
This is not true. The Vision Plan makes no reference to the City taking private property for
private development purposes, and no intent has been expressed to do so through development of
the Plan.
35. Why can’t the hotel at the north end be replaced by residential to be more
compatible with the Hanover Colony Beach residential development?
When the Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan was submitted to the Coastal Commission for
approval, the Commission required the noted property to be set-aside for tourist-serving
commercial uses (which would include a hotel, restaurants, or other commercial development).
The Commission would not approve residential development for this site. This approval (final in
1998) was then incorporated into the Ponto Vision Plan.
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
As mentioned above, the majority of comments received on the Plan focus on the environmental
review that was completed for the project. Many of the speakers at the public hearing and
persons forwarding e-mails to the City believe that the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration
was not the appropriate environmental review for the project and have requested (or demanded)
that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) be completed for the project before action is taken
by the City Council. Following is a list of reasons provided by the speakers and other interested
parties:
1. MND does not look at big picture; did not go far enough in analysis of impacts.
2. Traffic, noise and pollution were not adequately studied or addressed in Ponto Plan; no
traffic studies on weekends during the summer.
3. Negativehgnificant impact on the beach.
4. Only need fair argument test to beat the MND in court.
5. Pair of gnatcatchers recently observed on the Beachfiont Resort site.
6. CEQA Law requires an EIR.
7. Need to look at development alternatives - more opedpark space, move development
away from residential.
8. Abundant evidence of impacts.
9. Traffic analysis did not look at impacts of converting hotel site on north end to a
commercial center.
10. Clearer vision will be attained with an EIR.
1 1. Long term negative impact for residents.
12. Plan too detailed not to do EIR.
13. Water and sewer usage needs to be analyzed.
14. Too much litter will be produced.
15. Industrial run-off needs to be addressed.
16. Food sources need to be addressed.
17. Environmental is being piecemealed.
18. Disagreement among experts on the environmental impacts (traffic, noise and biological)
19. The level of detail for the environmental review must match the level of detail in the
20. Aesthetics, water quality, recreation, traffic, noise and biological should have been noted
of the project - two studies submitted for Council review.
Ponto Plan.
as significant impacts.
Staff Response to Reauest for EIR:
As noted above, numerous comments were presented at the City Council public hearing
regarding the issue of preparing an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) in conjunction with the
Ponto Village Vision Plan rather than adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration as proposed by
staff and the Planning Commission. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires
the city to prepare an EIR if the city determines that there is substantial evidence that the project
(in this case, the Vision Plan) will have a significant impact on the environment. However,
CEQA also permits the city to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration in lieu of preparing an
EIR if potentially significant impacts identified by the city or the public are mitigated or reduced
prior to approval of the project to a level that clearly no significant impacts would occur.
Pursuant to CEQA and the city’s Environmental Protection Ordinance, staff conducted an
environmental impact assessment to determine if the Vision Plan could have any potentially
significant impact on the environment. In evaluating the significance of an environmental impact
of the project, the city must consider direct impacts caused by the project as well as reasonably
foreseeable indirect impacts. A direct impact is one which is caused by and immediately related
to the project. An indirect impact is one that is not immediately related to the project but which is
caused indirectly or as a byproduct of the project. According to CEQA, an indirect impact is to
be considered only if it is a reasonably foreseeable impact caused by the project. An impact
which is speculative is not reasonably foreseeable The Vision Plan is intended to provide
general guidance for future development in the Ponto area but it does not approve or entitle any
specific development proposal at this time. The environmental impact assessment identified that
future development in conformance with the Vision Plan may have reasonably foreseeable,
potentially significant impacts to agricultural resources,
noise and traffic. Mitigation measures were developed
biological resources, cultural resources,
for the identified impacts and the Plan
was conditioned such that all potentially significant impacts were mitigated to below a level of
significance. The mitigation measures would be required and complied with on every future
development project proposed under the guidance of the Vision Plan. Each future development
proposal will be required to go through its own separate, public approval process and
environmental review. If at that time other foreseeable environmental impacts are identified,
additional mitigation may be required of the individual development proposal or the proposal
may necessitate the preparation of an EIR.
The Planning Department issued a Notice of Intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration
(MND) for the project on March 18, 2005. The Public Notice for comments 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. It was also published in the newspaper
and sent to the State Clearinghouse for required circulation. During the 30-day public review
period (March lgth to April 17th), two comment letters were received identifylng concerns with
future development in the area and information provided in the environmental impact assessment
prepared by the city. These letters were from North County Transit District and the Native
American Heritage Commission. At the request of Worden Williams, the attorney representing
residents of Hanover Beach Colony, the comment period was extended to April 22,2005. During
this extended period, Worden Williams submitted the third comment letter on the MND
expressing concerns with the proposed development in the Ponto Area. No specific request was
made for the preparation of an EIR during the required review period on the MND.
During the Planning Commission public hearing on the Vision Plan and the Mitigated Negative
Declaration, a number of people spoke about the environmental impacts associated with future
development under the guidance of the Plan but neither staff nor the Planning Commission felt
that substantial evidence had been submitted or presented which would require the preparation of
an EIR. The standard set by CEQA is that there must be substantial evidence presented to the
city that the project (the Vision Plan) may have a significant effect on the environment in order
to require the preparation of an EIR. Accordingly, the Planning Cornmission recommended the
adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration to the City Council.
At the City Council public hearing on the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan, many more
individuals spoke and written information was submitted regarding potentially significant
environmental impacts associated with the approval of the Plan. In addition, technical
information and analysis was submitted which differed from the city's information included in
the original environmental assessment. The focus of this additional input was for the city to
prepare an EIR rather than adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration. Again, the general
standard of CEQA is that if there is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record, that a
project may have a significant effect on the environment, the city must prepare an' EIR before
considering the project. There are several provisions contained in Section 15064 of CEQA which
a city should use in deciding whether a project may have a significant environmental impact and
whether there is a need to prepare an EIR. The applicable provisions of this section are as
follows:
The determination of whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment
calls for careful judgment on the part of the public agency involved, based to the extent
possible on scientific and factual data;
In determining whether an effect will be adverse or beneficial, the lead agency shall
consider views held by members of the public in all areas affected as expressed in the
whole record before the lead agency;
If a lead agency is presented with a fair argument that a project may have a significant
effect on the environment, the lead agency shall prepare an EIR even though it may also
be presented with other substantial evidence that the project will not have a significant
effect;
The existence of public controversy over the environmental effects of a project will not
require preparation of an EIR if there is no substantial evidence before the agency that the
project may have a significant effect on the environment;
Argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, or evidence that is clearly
inaccurate or erroneous, or evidence that is not credible, shall not constitute substantial
evidence. Substantial evidence shall include facts, reasonable assumptions predicated
upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts; and
Where it is not clear whether there is substantial evidence that a project may have a
significant effect on the environment, the lead agency shall be guided by the following
principle: If there is disagreement among expert opinion supported by facts over the
significance of an effect on the environment, the lead agency shall treat the effect as
significant and shall prepare an EIR.
The decision before the City Council is whether substantial information and factual evidence has
been presented to the Council that the approval of the Vision Plan may have significant impacts
on the environment and, therefore, it is necessary to prepare an EIR before approval of the Plan
is considered. Staff believes that prior to the City Council public hearing on the Vision Plan,
substantial evidence had not been presented to warrant the preparation of an EIR. Now, however,
based on the amount of information, the scope of evidence and, the differing expert analysis
presented at the Council hearing and the provisions of CEQA identified above, staff believes that
CEQA requires the preparation of an EIR. Therefore staff is now recommending that the City
Council not adopt the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration as previously recommended by
staff and the Planning Commission and that the preparation of an EIR be required.
ODtions for Action bv the City Council
There are several options available to the City Council for consideration:
1) Return the Ponto Beachfiont Village Vision Plan to staff for completion of an EIR, and
authorize staff to proceed with the appropriate actions to obtain the environmental
consultant services with the understanding that the City and/or Redevelopment Agency
will fund preparation of the EIR; or,
2) Return the Ponto Beachfiont Village Vision Plan to staff to coordinate the completion of
an EIR, and request that the property owners in the area be responsible for contracting for
and funding preparation of the EIR. The City could not require the developers to do this,
but a request could be made to them to do so. If the property owners are not willing to
contract for and/or fhd the EIR, staff would return to the Council for further direction; or
3) Deny the Village Beachfiont Village Vision Plan. This action requires no environmental
review. This would mean that the Plan would not be adopted. Each individual
development application would then need to be considered separately and appropriate
environmental review for each project will be completed at the time of project application
review.
EXHIBIT 2
AGENDA BILL AND RESOLUTIONS
JUNE 28,2005
11 CITY OF CARLSBAD - AGENDA BILL
Project application(s)
Mitigated Negative Declaration
General Plan Amendment
GPA 05-04
Local Coastal Program Amendment
LCPA 05-01
Ponto Beachfront Village
Vision Plan - DI 05-01
MTG. 6/28/05
Administrative Reviewed by and To be Reviewed -
Approvals Final at Planning Final at Council
Commission
X
X
X
X
DEPT.HSG&REDEV/ - PLN
PONTO BEACHFRONT VILLAGE VISION PLAN
GPA 05-041LCPA 05-011DI 05-01
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 I1 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
clesign 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
3eachfront Village Vision Plan.
The General Plan Amendment (GPA 05-04) would amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan
3y referencing the Plan and including the Ponto Beachfront Village area as an area of “Special
’lanning Considerations”. This will allow the city to utilize the Plan as a guide in reviewing future
jevelopment proposals in the area.
The Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA 05-01) would amend the text of the Mello II and
Nest Batiquitos Lagoon/Sammis Properties Segments of the Local Coastal Program, by adding
-eferences 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
)e amended such that in the Beachfront Resort character area the community trail and the
)edestrian/bicycle bridge over the railroad are “required” rather than “encouraged”. Amended text
I
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 transportation/traffc. 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,
3. Location Map
4.
GPA 05-04, and LCPA 05-01
2. City Council Resolution No. 2005-21 2 , DI 05-01
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@ci.carlsbad.ca.us
.?
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 BATIQU ITOS LAGOO N/SAMM I S PROPERTI ES
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
Mitigated Negative D
mending to the City
public hearing as prescribed by law to
5884, 5885 and 5886
and Reporting Program, General
Plan Amendment and
and arguments, if any, of all perso o be heard, the City Council considered all
follows:
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. d
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 mission for the approval
of the General Plan Amendme Commission Resolution
No. 5885 is hereby accepted, ved with GPA
Batch No. 2 of 2005, comprise
5. That t
Lagoon/Sammis Properties
approved as shown in Planni
and incorporated herein by reference.
6. That th ffective until it is I Commission’s approved by the California
approval becomes effective.
Council of the
, 2005, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAl N:
CLAUDE A. LEWIS, Mayor
ATTEST:
LORRAINE M. WOOD,
(SEAL)
x
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 2
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
mending to the City
ring to consider said
nning Commission;
sidering all testimony
ouncil considered all
e Mitigated Negative
bad, California, does
VI hereby resolve as follows:
1. That the above recitations dre true and correct.
2. That the City Council approves the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan
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 a regular meeting of the City
Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the f day
, 2005, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAl N:
CLAUDE A. LEWIS, Mayor
ATTEST:
LORRAINE M. WOOD, City Clerk
(SEAL)
of
1
“EXHIBIT A”
to
City Council Resolution No. 2005-212
Amended Text
Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan
Chapter 1, Page 15 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 sheukl 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 reauired Pperimeter trail &aJ links to the regional trail system and shall provides a
crossing over the railroad tracks.
The reauired 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 reauired 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 Beachfiont 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 +jwqwsd shall be provided. The bridge would be located at the
southeast comer of the Beachfiont 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 &aJ s.lxwl4 be integrated into the development.
EXHIBIT 3
SITE
PONTO BEACHFRONT VILLAGE
VISION PLAN
GPA O5-04/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 COMMISSION 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, and
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors
relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows:
It
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
That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
That based on the evidence presented at the public ,,caring, the Planning
Commission hereby RECOMMENDS ADOPTION of the Mitigated Negative
Declaration and the, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program according
to Exhibit ‘WD,” 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 EL4 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
-2- I2 PC RES0 NO. 5884
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. AI1 mitigation measures
identified within a project-specific noise impact analysis will be
required to reduce impacts to a level less than significant and
consistent with noise standards given in the City of Carlsbad Noise
Element.
Transportation/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 -
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 of the Planning
C mission 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:
DON NEU
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 Batiquitos Lagoon and south of Ponto
PONTO BEACHFRONT VILLAGE VISION PLAN
CASE NO: GPA 05-04LCPA 05-01
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 Beachfiont Village Vision Plan which has been prepared to guide fbture
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 (EM Part 2) identified potentially significant effects on the environment, and
the City of Carlsbad finds as follows:
IXI
0
0
Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not
be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached
sheet have been added to the project.
The proposed project MAY have “potentially significant impact(s)” on the environment, but at
least one potentially significant impact 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document
pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based
on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. (Mitigated Negative Declaration applies
only to the effects that remained to be addressed).
Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL
NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been
analyzed adequately in an earlier ENVIRONMENTAL, IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated
pursuant to that earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the
proposed project. Therefore, nothing fkrther is required.
A copy of the initial study (EL4 Part 2) documenting reasons to support the Negative Declaration is on
file in the Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008.
ADOPTED:
ATTEST:
, pursuant to Planning Commission Resolution No.
DON NEU
Assistant Planning Director
1635 Faraday Avenue 0 Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 0 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us
- City of Carlsbad
NOTICE OF IIVTENT TO ADOPT A - .. -
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CASE NAME:
PROJECT LOCATION:
Ponto Beacbnt Village Vision Plan
Ponto Beachfiont Village kea generallv located between Carlsbad
Boulevard and the Sau Diego Northern Railroad, north of
Baticluitos La.goon and south of Ponto Road
CASE NO: GPA 05-04LCPA 05-01
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the
Mello II and West BatiquitodSammis Properties segments of the city’s Local Coastal Program to
include refkences to the Ponto Beacbfront Village Vision Plan which has been prepared to ,&de
future development in the Ponto Beachficont Village Area.
PROPOSED DETEFWJNATION: The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental
review of the above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the
California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of
Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the initial study (EIA Part 2) did not identify 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) documeuting reasons to support the proposed Negative
Declaration is on file in the Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, Califonria
92008. Comments kom 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 flanning Commission and City Council. Additional
public notices will be issued when those public hearings are scheduled. If you have any
questions, please call Gary Barberio in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4606.
PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD March 18,2005 through April 17,2005
PUBLISH DATE March 18,2005
/b
1635 Faraday Avenue 9 Carlsbad, CA 92008-731 4 - (760) 6024600 FAX (760) 602-8559 s www.(&#q@a&a.us @
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: GPA 05-04. LCPA 05-01
DATJ?: 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: Citv of Carlsbad. 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad,
CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER GW T. Barberio - (760) 602-4606
PROJECT LOCATION South of Poinsettia Lane (west of Carlsbad Boulevard) and south of Pont6 Road (east of Carlsbad Boulevard), north of Batiauitos Lagoon. east of South Carlsbad
State Beach & Cammound, and west of the San DiePo Northern Railroad (APNs 214-160-04, -
216-010-01. -02. -03. -04. -05: and 216-140-17, -18)
05, -06. -10. -11. -13, -19, -20. -21. -24. -25. -27, -29. -34, -35. -36, 24: 214-170-11: 214-590-04;
PROJECT SPONSOR’S NAME AND ADDRESS: Deborah Fountain, Director, Citv of Carlsbad
Deuartment of Housing and Redevelopment. 2965 Roosevelt Street. Suite B. Carlsbad. CA
92008 (760) 434-2935
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION RMH (Medium-High Residential (8-15 ddac); T-R
fTraveVRecreation Commercial): UA (Unplanned Area): and C (Communitv Commercial)
ZONING: CT (Commercial Tourist): CT-O/RD-M-0 (Commercial Tourist - Oualified
DeveloDment OverladResidential Density - Multiple - Oualified Development Overlay: PC planned Communitv): and RD-M - 0 (Residential Densitv - Multiule - Oualified Development
OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (i.e., permits, financing
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, Beachfkont Resort, Townhouse Neighborhood,
Village Hotel, Live-Work Neighborhood, and Garden Hotel); provides a detailed description of
the intent for each area, lists its permitted uses, addresses parking needs and commuriity amenities, and has design guidelines for each area’s architectural design, building orientation, and
site design; establishes a circulation system that provides for vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle .
uses, and connections both within the Ponto area and to adjacent land uses; dkignates gateway
types, locations, and design concepts; designates specific plant palettes for landscaping uses; suggests wayfinding program elements, street furniture styles, and incorporation of public art; and
provides design guidelines for pedestrian plazas and courtyards, landscaping, parking lots,
parking structures, and commercial signs. Subsequent implementation of the Ponto Vision Plan
by individual developers would require the appropriate City of Carlsbad discretionary permits; permits under the jurisdiction of other agencies, such as the California Coastal Commission, Army Corps of Engineers, and California Department of Fish and Game; and environmental
review, including any required technical studies.
-
The Ponto area is located south of the Hanover Beach Colony residential development south of Poinsettia Lane, east of the South Carlsbad State Beach and Campground, north of the Batiquitos
Lagaon 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 KI Segment of the
Local Coastal Program.
-
2
r.
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.
17 Aesthetics 0 Geology/Soils Noise -
[XI Agricultural Resources
0 Air Quality c] HydrologyNater Quality 0 Public Services a Biological Resources 0 Land Use and Planning c] Recreation
’ [3 HazarddHazardous Materials 0 Population and Housing
a Cultural Resources 0 Mineral Resources Transportatioflrafc
0 Utilities & Service Systems UMandatory Findings of
. Significance
3
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
IXI
0
0
- I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. -
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not
be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have
been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a sigmficant 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 sigmficant 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 simcant effect on the environment, there WXL
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 NEGATNE DECLARATION
pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, nothing further is required.
n
Date
/
3/8/or
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
mact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical,
biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information .
to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration, or
to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
-
-
A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported
by an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A ‘No Impact’’ answer is
adequately supported if the referenced 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-speciflc factors as well as general standards.
“Less Than Siplicant 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.
“Potentiahy Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation
meas$res has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Sigdicant Impact.”
The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly
explain how they reduce the effect to a less than sigdicant level.
“Potentially Sigmficant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is sigruficantly
adverse.
Based on an “EM-Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant adverse effect on the
environment, but potentially siwcant adverse effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards &d @) have been avoided or
mitigated pursuant to that earIier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation
measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a
supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior
environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no‘ additional environmental
document is required.
When “Potentially Significant Impact“ is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR
if the significant adverse effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable
standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” has been made
pursuant to that earlier EIR.
A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or
any of its aspects may cause a significant adverse effect on the environment.
If there are one or more potentially significant adverse effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there
are mitigation measures to clearly reduce adverse impacts to less than significant, and those mitigation
measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the appropriate “Potentially
SigDlficant 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 “Potentially Sigdicant Impact” is checked, and including but not limited to
the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant 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 Overriding
Considerations” for the significant adverse impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3)
proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the adverse impact to less than significant; or (4) through the .
EM-Part 11 analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect,
or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significa% effect to below a
level of sigdicance.
.
-
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussing
mitigation for impacts, which would otherwise be determined significant.
6 Rev. 07/03/02 22
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?
0
O
0 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 - (h determining
whether &acts to agricultural resources are significant
enviroxkxntal effects, lead agencies may refer to the
California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site
Assessment Model-I997 prepared by the California
Department of Conservation as an optional model to use
in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.) Would the project:
Poten tially
Sigdicant Unless Less Than
Mitigation Significant - Incorporated Impact
El
0 --w
5
No Impact
0..
0
17
CI OB Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Fdand, 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?
0 0 UIXI Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or
a Williamson Act contract?
Involve other changes in .&e existing environment, Ixl no which due to their location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland to non-agricuhwal use?
KlI. AIR QUALITY - (Where available, the significance
criteria established by the applicable air quality
management or air pollution control district may be relied
upon to make the following determinations.) Would the
project:
0 0 UIXI
0 OB
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contriiute
substantiaIly to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
7 Rev. 07/03/02 9 3
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Potentidly Unless Sigdificant Mitigation Impact Incorporated
0
Less Than Significant Impact No
Impact
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)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations? 0 0 Ixl
IXI e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? 0-
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
0 0 a) Have.a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species
idehied 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?
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?
0 IXI 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 mars4
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal,
filing, hydrological intenuption, 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?
0 e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
0 f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan?
0 0 0 g) Impact tributary areas that are environmentally
sensitive?
Rev. 07/03/02 24 8
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
Potentially
. Significant Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact
0
0
0
0
!XI
IXI
IXI
5
1x1
5
IXI
. No Impact
Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in 0 15064.5?
0 1x1 -. -
0 IXI CI Cause a substantial adverse change in the signifi-
cance of an archeological resource pursuant to 0 15064.5?
0 IXI Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?
0
IXI 0 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:
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 othm
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Dilrision of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
CI El i.
.. U.
... 111.
iv.
0 Strong seismic ground shaking?
0 Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
17
0 0
Landslides?
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?
0 d) Be located on expansive soils, as defined ia Table 18 - 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1997), creating
substantial risks to life or property?
Rev. 07/03/02 4 5- 9
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal
systems where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater?
w. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -
Would the project:
Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
Create a sigmkant hazard to the public or
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
Est hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or
environment?
For a project within an airport land use plan, or
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would
the project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area?
For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project result in a safety hazard, for people
residing or working in the project area?
Impair implementation of or physically interfere with
an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plpn?
Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury or death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized
areas or where residences are intermixed with
wildlands?
WI. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the
project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements?
Potentia!ly Significant
Impact
0
cl
0
a
cl
cl
0
0
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated
0
0
CI
cl
0
El
17
Less Than
Significant No Impact
Ix1
IXI
IXI
[XI
IXI ...
10 016 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant . No
Impact -Impact -
cl CI b) 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)?
0
0
Ian
BCI
c) Impacts to groundwater quality? cl
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-
site? . '
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, or substantially increase
the flow rate or amount (volume) of surface runoff in
a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-
site?
e)
0
CI
CI 0 Ixl. 0 9 Create or contriiute runoff water, which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stomwater drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff?
g) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 0
0
BO CI
cl CIIXI h) 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?
0 i) Place within 100-year flood hazard area. structures,
which would impede or redirect flood flows?
0 j) Expose people or structures to a signrficant risk of
loss injury or death involving flooding, including
flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
k) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 0
1) Increased erosion (sediment) into receiving surface
waters. 0
171 m) 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)?
11 Rev. 07!03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Unless Less Than
Mitigation Significant Incorporated Impact
Potentially Significant Impact No
.hpact
0
0
n) Changes to receiving water quality (marine, fresh or wetland waters) during or following compuction?
0) Increase in any pollutant to an already impaired water body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section
303(d) list?
0 Ixi cl
cl
IXI cl 0 p) The exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of
beneficial uses?
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? 0 IXI
ixI o 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? 0 IXI 0
X. MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of future value to the region
and the residents of the State? I
0 0 IXI
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site delineated
on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land
use plan?
0 0 IXI
XI. NOISE - Would the project result in:
0
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general
plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of
other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise
levels?
IXI 0
IXI 0 0
0
0
0 c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
IXI 0
0 d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
IXI 0
Rev. 07/03/02 28 12
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
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?
f) 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?
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
extensidn of roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Di&lace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
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?
Potentially
Significant
Potentialty Unless Significant Mitigation
Impact Incorpor&ed
0 CI
17 0
0 0
0
0
0
Less Than Significant Impact
0
CI
0
No
-.Impact . .
..
IXI
0
[XI
0 Ixlo
0 Ixlo
IXIO
CI Ixlo
23 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). PotentiaIIy
Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
CI UBI 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. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC - Would the project:
Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the
street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in
either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to
capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections)?
Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level
of service standard established by the county
congestion management agency for designated roads
or highways?
Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including
either an increase in traffic levels or a change in
location that results in substantial safety risks?
Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incornpatilde 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)?
0
0
I7
0
0
IXI
IXI
nu
on
XVI. UTILlTIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS - Would the
project:
0 0 Ixl 0
IXICI
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which would
cause sigdicant environmental effects?
0 cl BIU c) 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?
0 0 la0 d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or
are new or expanded entitlements needed?
14 Rev. 07/03/02 30
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
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?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
XVII. MUYDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment substantially reduce the
witat 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?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (‘‘Cm-
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
c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
XVLZI. EARLIER ANALYSES
Potentidy Significant Impact
0
0
CI
Potentially Significant Unless
Mitigation Incorporated o
(7
o
0
El
I7
Less Than Significant No
bpact
0
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or
more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section
15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Idenm earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects ffom the above checklist were within the
scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards,
and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier
analysis.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are “Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,”
describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined fiom the earlier document
and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
15 Rev. Q7IQ3lQ2
PROJECT DESCRIPTTONlENVXRONMENTAL SETTING
Environmental SettindSite Descriution
The Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan area is an approximately 130-acre7 relatively narrow strip-of land,
approximately 1/8 mile wide and 1-112 miles long, located between Carlsbad Boulevard and the San Diego
Northern Railroad tracks and right-of-way. Portions of the plan area extend north to Poinsettia Lane and south to La
Costa Avenue. Under the Ponto Beacaont Village Vision Plan, the area considered viable for fhture development
consists of approximately 50 acres. This development area is generally defined with a northern limit at the existing .
intersection of Ponto Drive with Carlsbad Boulevard, and a southern limit at the Batiquitos Lagom.
.
-
The project site is currently vacant, with the exception of a cluster of single-family residences, some of which have
onsite small-scale, light-industrial type businesses. Surrounding land uses include the Hanover Beach Colony
residential neighborhood to the north, the San Diego Northern Railroad tracks and right-of-way and the San Pacific0
residential neighborhood to the east, Batiquitos Lagoon to the south and the South Carlsbad State Beach and
Campground to the west.
The project site is located on a westerly sloping series of well-defined coastal terraces above the Pacific Ocean.
Onsite elevations across the study area for the project range fiom 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 amsl
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 excdlent 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 scxub, freshwater marsh, maritime succulent scrub, disturbed southern coastal
bluff scrub, and disturbed coastal sage scrub. In addition, the site supports five U.S. by 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; SoiIs 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
from engineered Nls associated with the railroad and area roadway improvements, as well as dredging operations
within the Batiquitos Lagoon.
Regulatory Setting
The Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan area has the following General Plan land use designations:
UA - Unplanned Area
TWC - TraveYRecreation Commercial/Community Commercial
RMH - Residential Medium High (8-15 dwelling unitdacre) RM"R - A dual designation indicating that with fiuther 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-Q/RD-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 32
South Carlsbad Coastal Redevelopment Area ..
A portion of the property is within the South Carlsbad Coastal Redevelopment Area (SCCRA) and subject to the
Redevelopment Pennit process, which is administered by the City’s Housing and Redeveiopment Department.
Local Coastal Program
The Ponto Beacwont 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. -
Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan (SP 21 0)
The Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan directs development of a 92-acre transit oriented residential development
community located primarily north of the Ponto Beachfiont Village Vision Plan area. Approximately 1.5 acres of
the Ponto Vision Plan Area is also included within the specific plan area. This area is referred to as Planning kea I
in the Specific Plan. It is located in the northwest comer of the Ponto Village Vision Plan, adjacent to Carlsbad
Boulevard and Ponto Road. Per the Specific Plan, the land use for the 1.5-acre area is intended for commercial uses
that serve the traveling public and beach visitors.
Poinsettia Shores Mater Plan (MP I75(c))
The Poinsett6Shores Master Plan area (PSMP), amended May 12, 1994, includes approximately 23.5 acres that are
also included within the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan. The Poinsettia Shores Master Plan Area is broken
down into 17 Planning Areas, three of which are located within the +ision plan boundaries: Areas F, G and H. These
areas feature travel service/commercial use, open space and an unplanned area.
Local Facilities Management Plans (WW)
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 Beachfront Village Vision Plan. Future development proposals within the Ponto Beachfront Village area may
be required to propose General Plan and Local Coastal Program land use reclassifications and city-wide and Local
Coastal Program zone changes that will be evaluated as part of the discretionary approval process. The Ponto
Beachfront Village Vision Plan is integded 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.
17 33
The City has identified the following goals for the Ponto BeacEont Vision Plan:
Establish the Southern Coastal Gateway to the City.
Accommodate a balanced and cohesive mix of local and tourist serving commercial, medium- and high-density
residential, mixed use, live work, and open space land use opportunities that are economically viable and support
the implementation of these goals.
Provide site design guidelines that require streetscenes and site plans to respect pedestrian kale and express a
cohesive and high quality architectural theme.
Establish a pattern of pedestrian a.d bicycle accessibility that links the planning areas internally as well as with
adjacent existing and planned pedestrian and bicycle facilities.
Provide expanded beach access.
Establish a mixed-use district that encourages local and tourist-oriented retail, commercial, recreational and
residential uses.
Require landscape architecture that celebrates the historic past and horticultural heritage of the City.
Ensure that public facilities and services meet the requirements of the Growth Management Plan.
Conform with the General Plan, Amended Zone 9 and 22 Local Facilities Management Plans, and applicable City
ordinances, regulations and policies.
The Ponto Beachlkont Village Vision Plan identifies key infrastructure deveIopment to be implemented through
fimre development proposals, City action, or a combination of the two. Key inhstructure improvements identified
in the plan include a realignment of Carlsbad Boulevard and relocating existing underground and overhead utilities
on the property.
I. AESTHETICS
Less than Significant Impact (a - d). Future development of the Ponto Village area will be consistent with the
design guidelines set forth in the Ponto BeacEont Village Vision Plan. Design guidelines are provided in the
Vision Plan to reduce potential substantial adverse effects resulting from future development of the site, and 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 development will also be
consistent with City policies pertaining to lighting requirements. The proposed project will therefore have a less than significant impact on any scenic vista or other scenic resource.
II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated (a and b no impact, c; Potentially Significant Unless
Mitigation Incorporated). The proposed amendments to the existing General Plan and Local Coastal Program will
not result in significant impacts to agricultural resources. However,.one individual property at the northern boundary within the Ponto Vision Plan Area is identified 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 (Policy 2-1).
This loss of agricultural land within the coastal zone would not be considered a sipficant impact as the Local
Coastal Program Mello II Segment agricultural conversion requirements would reduce impacts to less than
significant. Therefore, no significant impacts to agricultural resources would occur with the proposed amendments
to the General Plan and Local Coastal Program.
18
III. AIRQUALI"
Would the project:
a)
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 qrea for ozone (03) and a state non-attainment area for particulate matter less than or equal to
10 microns in diameter (PM10). The periodic violations of national Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) in the
San Diego Air Basin (SDAB), requires that a plan be developed outlining the pollution controls that will be
undertaken to improve air quality. In San Diego County, this attainment planning process is embodied in the
Regional Air Quality Strategies (RAQS) developed jointly by the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) and the San
Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG).
Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
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 Environmenpl Protection Agency (EPA) for approval. After considerable analysis and debate, particularly regarding airsheds with the worst smog problems, EPA approved the SIP in mid-1996.
Future development will relate to the SIP andor RAQS through the land use and growth assumptions that are
incorporated into the air quality planning document. These growth assumptions are based on each city7s and the
County's general plan. If a proposed project is consistent with its applicable General Plan, then the project
presumably has been anticipated with the regional air quality planning process. Such consistency would ensure that
the project would not have an adverse regional air quality impact.
Section 15125(B) of the State of California Environment Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines contains specific
reference to the need to evaluate any inconsistencies between the proposed project and the applicable air quality 'management plan. Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) are part of the MQS. 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, ifthe Ponto Vision Plan were not implemented. The analysis
determined that, based on the existing General Plan Land Use designations, build-out of the site would generate a
maximum of approximately 15,528 trips per day, which includes a maximum of approximately 616 a.m. peak hour
trips and approximately 1,452 p.m. peak hour trips. Please see Table 2 under the traffic analysis discussion in
Section XV of this document. Development under the Ponto Vision Plan would result in fewer total tTaMic 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 signifcant.
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?
No Impact. The proposed amendments to the General Plan and Local Coastal Program would not result in
significant impacts to air quality. Future development on the site would require preparation of an air quality
assessment on a project-specific basis. Development of the site would result in minimal short-term emissions
associated with grading and construction. Standard construction measures such as the use of properly maintained
equipment and watering the site for dust control would minimize emissions. Long-tern emissions associated with
vehicular travel of visitors and residents to and from the project site will be minimal. Although air pollutant
emissions would be associated with hture development of the site, they would likely comprise only an incremental
contribution to overall air basin quality readings, and would not likely contriiute substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation.
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project
region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
19
Less Than Significant Impact. The San Diego Air Basin is currently in a non-attainment zone for ozone and
suspended fine particulates. Future development of the site, with or without implementation of the Ponto Vision
Plan, would contn'bute to a cumulative net increase in emissions throughout the air basin However, the subject
property is located within the San Diego Air Basin, and as such, is located in an area where a RAQS plan is being
implemented. Implementation of the Ponto Vision Plan would not result in land uses that would conflict-with the
adopted SIP and RAQS responsible for managing air quality in the region. Future development of the site is
consistent with existing growth projections for the area will not conflict or obstruct implementation of these regional
plans. Therefore, potential cumulative air quality impacts resulting from implementation of the Ponto Vision Plan
are considered to be less than significant.
-
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
No Impact. The proposed amendments to the General Plan and Local Coastal Program would not directly result in
sigdicant air quality impacts. Ultimately, future development on the project site will be required to conform to the
applicable air quality management plan.
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
No Impact. The proposed amendments to the General Plan and Local Coastal Program would not directly result in
significant air quality impacts. No specific development plans have been proposed within the Vision Plan area at this
time. Future development proposals will be required to assess potential air quality impacts, including potential
impacts from odors as part of the discretionary approval process.
Iv. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
No impacts to biological resources would occur as a result of the proposed amendments to the General Plan or Local
Coastal Program. The following discussion is provided as a guide for future discretionary permits that may be
proposed as a result of implementing the Ponto Beachfront VilIage 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 Beachfi-ont Vision Plan area will generally be focused on
ppproximately 50 acres, away from most of the sensitive habitats. The findings of the report are summarized below,
-
\;yould 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, southem coastal salt marsh, 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 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 Beachfkont Village area will be required to comply with the mitigation
measures listed at the end of this section to ensure potential impacts to sensitive habitats, including
jurisdictional wetlands and waters, are reduced or avoided to the maximum extent possible.
Four sensitive plant species were observed onsite. These include one California Native Plant Society (CNPS)
List 1B species, Nuttal's lotus (Lotus nuttallianus); one CNPS List 2 species, California boxthorn (Lycium
calfomica); and, two CNPS List 4 species, southwestern spiny rush (Juncus acutus ssp. Leopoldii) and
woolly seablite (Suaeda tarifoolia). A complete listing of the plant species observed and species known to
occur m the area can be found in Attachment 3 of the Recon fiting Conditions Report, dated December 8,
2003. Impacts to sensitive plant species are considered sidcant. 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 3b
Two sensitive bird species were observed on-site: American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinur) and
California homed lark (Eremophilu alpestrb ucfiu). American peregrine falcon is state listed as endangered,
is a California fully protected species, and is a HMP covered specih California horned 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 (Panoquinu enurn), long billed curlew (1Vurnenius amm'cunus), and Belding's savannah sparrow (Passerculus sandwhichensis beldingz]. Future development
within the Ponto Beachfiont Village area will be required to comply with the mitigation measures listed at the
end of this section to ensure potential impacts to sensitive wildlife species are avoided or reduced to less than
significant. -
-
Mitigation
Prior to approval of any 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 hture development
projects:
A comprehensive, site-specific biological resource report must be prepared prior to environmental review
of any fbture projects proposed on the project site.
0 Development applications for future development shall conform to the City of Carlsbad's Habitat
Management Plan.
Consistent with setback and buffer requirements of the City of Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan, all
future development shall be sited at a proper distance &om designated open space areas such that brush
management areas would not @act sensitive wetlands, maritime succulent scrub, disturbed southern
coastal bluff scrub, and distuhed coastal sage scrub, or areas revegetated with native plants as part of a
mitigation program.
0
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian, aquatic or wetland habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local or regionll 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 Beacwont Village area which determined that a
total of 5.92 acres of wetlands and waters within the property fall under the United States Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) jurisdiction, and 6.15 'acres of California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG)
jurisdictional area occur onsite (refer to the Wetland Delineation Report for the Ponto Land Use Strategy
and Vision Project, December 8, 2003). The City of Carlsbad's jurisdiction for wetlands and waters
matches the jurisdiction of the USACE and CDFG. The City of Carlsbad jurisdictional areas within tTie
study area equal approximately 6.15 acres. This is the same area as the CDFG jurisdictional area onsite.
Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters
Wetland Determination Acres
Wetland 4.39
Non-wetland waters of the U.S. - 1.53
Total USACE 5.92
Wetlandriparian habitat 4.50
Streambed - 1.65
Total CDFG 6.15
USACE Jurisdiction
CDFG Jurisdiction
21 . 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. The-majority of
the jurisdictional wetlands and waters are located in the southern 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 Erom north to south on the east
side of Carlsbad Boulevard, from Ponto Drive to a culvert located approximately 572 feet to the south. The
drainage runs through vacant property to a concrete ditch which then connects to a drain that flows to the
Pacific Ocean. The drainage is ephemeral with surface flows occurring after rainfall:-The surface flows
most likely originate as runoff from Ponto Drive and surrounding lots. The USACE and CDFG have
jurisdiction over approximately 0.04-acre of the drainage. The CDFG has jurisdiction over an additional
0.05-acre of riparian vegetation (two willow trees) and the area between the banks of the drainage.
.
-
Impacts to jurisdictional waters are considered significant and should be avoided to the maximum extent
possible. JuriSdi~ti~~l 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 pennit from
USACE, a 401 Water Quality Certification fiom the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB),
and a 1601 Streambed Alteration Agreement from CDFG. The Ponto Beachfiont Village Vision Plan
(Chapter I, pages 6-7) states that any impacts to the on-site drainage should be addressed by on-site
mitigation consisting of an enhanced wetland area. The Vision Plan envisions the low-lying open space
area in the center of the site as an enhanced natural wetland with an interpretive trail. The elevated
boardwalk-style mil would offer numerous interpretive opportunities, such as identification signage of
native plant species, educational placards and signs and birdanimal 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, filing, hydrological interruption, or other means?
Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. Please see discussion in Section IV (b)
above.
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?
d)
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 fbture 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 f). The Ponto Vision Plan would
not conflict with any HCP, NCCP or other approved habitat conservation plan, or local policies or
ordinances protecting biological resources. To mitigate for potential impacts, future developments will be
22 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 the City’s General Plan and Local Coastal
Program Maps.
Impact tributary areas that are environmentally sensitive? g)
Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. Please see discussion in Section IV (b)
above.
-
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES
‘4 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 signiticant 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 archaeotogical resource pursuant to
Section4 50645?
Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The Cultural Resource Constraints
Study prepared for the Plan Area included research of previous work as well ai additional field surveys. A
light scatter of shell, several flakes and two stone tools were observed during the survey of the site; however, these resources were identified outside of the 50-acre future development area. Previous research
identified one site on the north side of Batiquitos Lagoon, west of the railroad tracks, on a point of land that
overlooks a habitat and revegetation area and the lagoon. However, the site does not indicate great age.
Because there may be a subsurface component, implementation of the following mitigation measure is
proposed:
Because there may be a subsurface component, all development projects proposed within the 50-acre
development area in the future shall be required to complete additional testing to establish condition,
content and research potential of significant cultural resources.
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. As stated above, because there may be a
subsurface component, paleontological resources may be located within the 50-acre future development
area. Therefore, implementation of the following mitigation measure is proposed
Because there may be a subsurface component, all development projects proposed within the 50-acre
development area in the future shall be required to complete additional testing to establish condition,
content and research potential of significant paleontological resources.
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The Ponto site is located within an area
of southern California that has revealed evidence of extensive prehistoric human occupation extending back
8,000 years. Resources associated with nearby Batiquitos Lagoon, the Pacific Ocean and the peninsular
foothills supported local inhabitants throughout this period. As paleontological deposits do not occur
uniformly, additional exploration is recommended for future projects proposed on the site. Because there
may be a subsurface component, implementation of the following mitigation measure is proposed
Because there may be a subsurface component, all development projects proposed within the 50-acre
development area in the future shall be required to complete additional testing to establish condition,
content and research potential of significant human remains.
23 39
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-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines an& Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
Less than Significant Impact. A project-specific Geotechnical Constraints and Opportunities study, dated
June 11,2003 study was prepared by Terracosta Consulting Engineering. Although there are no 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 from six major active fault zones could affect the
' site in the. event of an earthquake. However, no known active faults have been mapped on the site, nor were
any qbshed 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 shaking is considered
to be relatively low.
iv. Landslides?
Less than Significant' Impact. The geotechuical study indicates that landslides have reportedly occurred
along the coastal bluffs and within the southerly portion of the South Carlsbad State Beach campground.
The last reported landslide was in 1980, which occurred after intense rainfall. However, the area where
future development is planned is located across Carlsbad Boulevard, at a distance from the westerly bluff-
terminated edge of a series of well-defined coastal terraces. In addition, the easterly edge of the Carlsbad
Boulevard roadway embankment and the northerly edge of the Batiquitos Lagoon shoreline are made of the
erosion-resistant Santiago formation that at most, is anticipated to erode at a rate of less than one inch per
year. Impacts resulting from landslides are considered to be less than sigdicant.
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, 8s defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial risks to life or property?
Less than Significant Impact @, c, and d). The study area is generally designated as a Type C(b) coastal
bluff having a resistant geologic formation at the bottom and less resistant materials in the upper portions of
the bluff. The majority of the area where development will occur is generally designated as Quaternary
Terrace Deposits (Qt), consisting of moderately consolidated, poorly indurated clean sands, silty sands and
clayey sands. Portions of the site also support Land Derived Fill (Aaf,) and Hydraulic Fill (Qaf2) 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 weU-defined coastal terraces.
The geotechnical analysis determined that coastal erosion of the beach within the State Park boundaries
might reach one half foot per year, and even less if sand replenishment projects continue. The
approximately 1,000 feet of Carlsbad Boulevard roadway embankment that extends south of the State
Beach is not protected by the State Park's bluff top area; however, it is estimated that the beach may only
erode at the rate of one to two inches per year in this area, and even less if beach replenishment occurs. In
24
addition, the easterly edge of the Carlsbad Boulevard roadway embankment and the northerly edge of the
Batiquitos Lagoon shoreline are made of the erosion-resistant Santiago formation that at most, is
anticipated to erode at a rate of less than one inch per year. Impacts kill 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 he project site. No
sigmficant impacts will occur.
-
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
No Impact (a - h). The proposed amendments to the General Plan or Local Coastal Program will ultimately allow for a variety of future uses on the project site. Future land uses may require the transport,
use or disposal of hazardous materials as an aspect of daily operation. Oil andor other chemicals released
from delivery vehicles or the vehicles of residents or visitors, as well as those used for mechanical
equipment or for maintenance purposes or other purposes may be present on the site; however, the presence
.of such materials onsite is not anticipated to be substantial in quantity or to pose substantial risk to human
health or safety.
The project site is located approximately 2.5 miles southwest of the McClellan-Palomar Airport (a public
airport) and is not subject to the McClellan-Palomar Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP).
The proposed General Plan and Local Coastal Program amendments will not impair the implementation or physically interfere with any adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan and the site
is not located in an area where development would be threatened by wildland fires.
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 r,qorts 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 OY
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 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?
25 .
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration
of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the flow rate or amount (volume) of
surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
Less Than Significant Impact @, c, d and e). As stated above, potential future water quality impacts will
be analyzed when individual development plans are submitted. No hydrology or water quality mitigation is
required with the current land use action, however comprehensive hydrology and water quality reports will be
prepared prior to environmental review and approval of any future development projects.
The Ponto Vision Plan does not propose development that would significantly alter 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 ~tural water quality bio-swale to be constructed within the Wetland Interpretation Area,
located near the Carlsbad Boulevard overpass. All stormwater from the future development area will
ultimately drain into the existing 84-inch storm drain that currently collects flows from residential areas
north of Ponto for conveyance to Batiquitos Lagoon. The storm drain presently runs at an angle through the
Ponto site and will be relocated onto internal streets and will then run parallel to the northbound lanes of
Carlsbad Boulevard.
Create ‘or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm
watef drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
.
-
Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
Less than Significant Impact (f and g). Future development on the Ponto site will be required to maintain
peak runoff to predevelopment flows. Compliance with NPDES 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
Less than Significant Impact (I, m, n, o and p). Proposed hture 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 io ensure that pollutants loads are not
increased to the maximum extent practicable. Impacts to water +ty 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 idrastructure 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
sipficant.
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,
’
c) Confjict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?
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 Beachftont Village Plan Area. The Ponto Vision Plan proposes
the development of local and tourist-serving commercial, mixed-use, residential and recreational uses that
are compatible with existing surrounding development to the east, open spacehbitat connections in the
south, and the beach area to the west. The Ponto Beachftont Village Vision Plan provides a guide for
development of the area to ensure that hture land uses are compatible and consistent with &e 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 fbture 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 11 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 pIans 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 BeacEont 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 hture 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 prop-.
27 .(/3
x.
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 witbin the Vision Plan area. Of 17 planning areas included in the Master Plan, three are located
within the Vision Plan boundaries: areas F, G, and H. These areas feature travel service/commercial 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.
MINERAL RESOURCES
No Impact (a and b). There are no known mineral resources, of local importance or otherwise, on the
project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not resdt in the loss of availability of such resources.
XI. NOISE
Would the project result in:
Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local
genefal plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies?
and,
Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne vibration or
levels?
and,
A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
without the project? .
groundbourne noise
above levels existing
Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated (a, b, and c). The proposed General
Plan and Local Coastal Program amendments would not result in significant noise impacts. Future onsite
development within the Ponto Vision Plan area will be required to prepare a project-specific noise impact
analysis to assess potentid impacts resulting fiom the project, as well as cumulatively considerable noise
impacts. All mitigation measures identified within a project-specific noise impact analysis will be required
to reduce impacts to a level less than significant and consistent with noise standards given in the City of
Carlsbad Noise Element.
A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed amendments to the
existing General Plan and Local Coastal Program for the project would not result in a substantial tempore
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 wik 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
No Impact (e and f). The project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip and is more
than two miles to the southwest of the McClellan-Palomar Purport.. 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 residing 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 Beachfront Village Vision Plan is the
fist 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 plonto Beachfront Village Vision Plan envisions a mixed-use development including hotel and resort
uses, retail uses, a mixture of housing types and recreational opportunities.
The proposed project will ultimately allow for additional housing opportunities within the City of Carlsbad
with implementation of the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan. The City of Carlsbad operates an excess dwelling unit (DU) ‘bank” As land within the City is developed with less than the density allowed by the
General Plan, the excess units are “returned” to the DU bank, thereby limiting the planned number of
residential units. The provision of public facilities witbin the Zone 9 and 22 LFMPs, including parks,
libraries, fire protection and police protection services, as well as other services, have been planned to
accommodate the projected growth of these areas. As the facilities planning has already been completed
and residential units are accounted for in the overall ‘%a&,’’ the proposed change in land use will not create
an increase in units or development that is not anticipated, or create an unexpected demand for additional
future public sewices. Future development of the proposed residential units resulting &om 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 L.FMF’s. 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 e). 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 Beachf?ont 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
2CIV. 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 Beachfront ViIlage 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 naturelarts center.
Impacts to recreational resources will be less than significant.
-
XV. TRANSPORTATIOxN/TRAFFIC
No substantial impacts to transportation or traffic facilities would occur as a result of the proposed amendments to
the General Plyor Local Coastal Program. The following discussion is provided as a guide for future discretionary
permits that niay be proposed as a result of implementing the Ponto Beachfront ViIlage Vision Plan. To evaluate
potential traffic innpacts 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 Constraints Study,” September 3,
2004). The study assumed development of the site at maximum allowed buildout. The findings of the report are
summarized below.
Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of
the street system?
Potentially Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The Ponto Beachfront Village Vision
Plan consists of a mixture of compatible land uses including hotel and resort uses, live/work condominium
units, townhouses, apartments, office, retail and restaurants. To assess potential traffic impacts for the proposed project, a maximum buildout scenario was considered, although a less intensive development may
occur under the Vision Plan. Under the maximum buildout allowed, and applying SNAG trip generation
rates (see Table l), 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 Airport Road to the north, El Camino Real to the ea&
(with the exception of the Melrose DrivePalomar Airport Road and El Fuerte Streeflalomar Auport 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 Utilization (Icv) methodology, with the exception of Palomar Aqort
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 RoadMelrose Drive and Palomar Axport Roam1 Camino Real. The
Melrose Drive extension fiom 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 Aqort
Roadhielrose Drive and Palomar Airport RoadlEl Camino Real will be mitigated by this extension project
because the roadway extension will provide additional capacity for the roadway network in the area.
Overall, intersections within the study area operate at LOS C or better indicating more than 20 percent
30
available capacity. Therefore, the existing roadway network has sufficient capacity to meet the forecast
traffic demands of the proposed land use plan in the short term.
Additionally, a comparative analysis was also conducted to assess the number of trips that would be
generated by build-out of the project area under the existing General Plan land use designations, if the
Ponto Vision Plan were not to be implemented. Table 3 lists the traffic generation rates for the land uses
currently designated within the plan area. For the property within the plan area that does not have a land
use designation, a designation was assigned to the area consistent with the growth projections fkom the
Zone 9 Local Facilities Management Plan (LFMP). Table 4 provides a calculation of the traffic trips that
would be generated fkom the project area assuming build-out under the existing GenerakPlan designations.
Some of the areas within the plan have a split designation, that is, two separate designations over the same
area. For those areas, the traffic generation was calculated assuming build-out under both designations.
For example, Area B has a split designation of Residential Medium High Density and TraveVRecreation
Commercial. The calculations in Table 4 show what the total number of traffic trips would be assuming
build-out of each area under the existing land use designations. As such, the total number of trips for the
plan area is an approximate range between 12,708 and 15,408 trips per day. The totaI 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 desmied 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
daily,triis will generate less Mic than potential development under the existing General Plan land use
designations. The lowest range of daily trips calculated for the area under the existing General Plan
designations is 12,708 daily trips. The uses proposed in the Ponto Vision Plan would generate
approximately 301 fewer daily trips than uses allowed under the existing General Plan designations.
Therefore, in comparison of the two plan scenarios, the Ponto Vision Plan would generate fewer total
traffic trips than development permitted under existing General Plan land use designations. In comparing
the peak hour volumes in Tables 2 and 4, the Ponto Vision Plan generates 155 more trips in the Ah4 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 few= trips in the PM Peak Hour. As-discussed in
the analysis above, the traffic generated fiom the proposed Ponto Vision Plan does not significantly impact
the capacity of the existing roadway system. Therefore, potential impacts related to increased traffic
volumes are considered less than sigdicant.
31 47
TABLE 1
SWAG Trip Generation Rates Used for Ponto Vision Plan Area Proposed Land Uses
Area
Source - SNAG "Not So Brief Guide" - April 2002
AM Peak PM Peak
Land Use Units Amount ADT Total In Out Total In Out
TABLE 2 Ponto Vision Plan Area Forecast Traffic
Live/work - Condos
rooms 150 1,500 90 54 36 120 72 48
du 35 280 22 4 18 28 20 8 I I 1
I
I ksf I 6 I120 I17 1151 2 116) 3 112 I Pffice SDecialtv Retail I ksf, I 6 I 240 I 7 I4 I3 122111I11
Apartments du 62 372 30 6 24 33 23 10
Office ksf 16 320 45 40 4 42 8 33
Snecialtv Retail ksf 16 640 19 12 8 58 29 29
I ~ C IHotel f110+50 Time Share) I rooms I 160 I 1.600 1 96 I 58 I 38 I 128 I 77 I 51 I 1 D (Town homes (Condos) I du 1 112 I 896 I 72 I 14 I 57 1 90 I 63 1 27 I
1 E IResort (200+200 Timeshares) I rooms I 400 I 3.200 1 160 I 96 I 64 I 288 I 173 1 115 I
~ TOTAL 1 12,407 I 721 I 373 I 348 11,102) 644 1 458 I
32 Yf
RATES AM PM CITY SANDAG TRAFFIC
LAND USE GENERATION RATE UNITS Daily Total In Out Total In Out -
du 8 8% 20% 80% -10% 70% 30% RMH Residential Condominium or any
HIGH multi-family 6-20 DU/Acre RESIDENTIAL.
TRAVEURECREA Specialty Retail (also see below in
TION Unplanned Area)
COMMERCIAZ
T-R
Lodging - Resort Hotel acre 100 5% 60% 40% 7% 40% 60%
acre 300 6% 60% 40% , 8% 60% 40% Lodging - Hotel (w/ conference facilitiedrestaurant)
UAUNPLANNED
AREA*
T-WC
Tr aveVRecreatiin
Commercial / Specialty Retail ksf 40 3% 60% 40% 9% 50% 50%
community
Commercial
Specialty Retail acre 400 3% 60% 40% 9% 50% 50%
NC Neighborhood Neighborhood Shopping Center ksf 120 4% 60% 40% 10% 50% 50% Commercial
Sohe - SANDAG "Not So Brief Guide" - April 2002
'City land use pa Local Facilities Management Plan (LFMP) Zone 9
33 49
TABLE 4
Ponto Area Existing General Plan Land Use
Trip Generation
A
AM Peak PM Peak
GP Land Use Units Amount ADT Total In Out Total In Out --
A T-R Travemecreation Commercial2 ac 1.24 372 22 13 I 9 30 18 12
R34WT-R Residential Medium High OR I
TraveVRecreation Commercial
TraveVRecreati~nCommercial~ ac 2.15 860 26 15 10 77 39 1 39
RMHiT-R Residential Medium High OR
TraveVRecreation Commercial
TraveVRecreationC~mmercial~
RMH/T-R Residential Me&u High OR
TraveVRecreation Commercial
ac 1.52 608 18 11 7 55 27 27
I I TraveVRecreationC~mmercial~l ac 1 1.83 I 732 I 22 I 13 1 9 I 66 1 33 I 33 1
C
D7 Lk G
RMH Residential Medium High4 (2,24 ac) du 26 208 17 3 13 21 15 6
UA Unplanned Area
TraveVRecreationCommercial’ sf 58,000 2320 70 42 28 209 104 104
NCNeighborhoodComercial’ sf 61,000 7320 293 176 117 732 366 366
E
H
I
RMH Residential Medium High51 du 1 44 1 352 1 28 I 6 I23 1 35 1 25 1 11
T-R TraveliRecreation Commercial6 ac 11.6 1160 58 35 23 81 32 49 1
RMH Residential Medum High4 (1.93 ac) du 22 176 14 3 11 18 12 5
RWT-R Residential Medium High OR
Travemecreation Commercial
from12,708 566 290 275 1,205 628 577
to115,4081 607 I 340 I266 11,4401 730 I 711 I
’ See Figure 1 Ponto Vision Plan Areas
* Hotel w/ conference facilities
’ Specialty Retail
11.5 dwelling units/acre per Growth Management Control Point
Per LFMP Zone 9
Resort Hotel
NOTE: Shading is used in Areas with split General Plan land use designations, e.g., RMH/T-R, to depict the land
use designation that generates the lower ADT.
34
W L
I
0 e
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 mpacts 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 2Q30 conditions with
and without the proposed land uses included in the Ponto Beachfkont 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 wort Road / Paseo Del Norte;
Palomar Airport Road / El Camino Real;
Palomar Airport Road I El Fuerte;
Poinsettia Lane I Paseo Del Norte;
La Costa Avenue / Coast Highway 101 (City of Encinitas);
La Costa Avenue / Vulcan Avenue (City of Encinitas) (Unsignalized); and,
El Camino Real / La Costa Avenue.
’
These seven intersections are forecast to operate at “Failing” conditions with and without the maximum potential land use intensity included for the Ponto Vision Plan.
All roadway segments are forecast to operate at acceptable levels of service with and without the Ponto
Vision Plan.
The City of Carlsbad typically uses the Growth Management standards of LOS D for the peak hour and LOS C for off-peak as the significance criteria. A LOS below these levels is considered a significant impact
requiring mitigation.
The City of Carlsbad traffic study guidelines identify significant impacts if one of the following two criteria
are met:
Tne 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 in V/C ratio of more than 2%
(0.02) when compared to the no project condition.
Of the seven intersections forecast to operate deficiently by the year 2030, traffic from the Ponto Vision
Plan exceeds the above criteria at two intersections. The addition of project traffic at these two
intersections exceeds more than a 2% change when compared to the no project condition. Potential traffic
impacts to these two intersections are considered significant
o
o
Poinsettia Lane.! Paseo Del Norte
La Costa Avenue 1 Coast Highway 101 (City of Encinitas)
At the intersection of Poinsettia LaneRaseo 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 Beachtiont 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 52
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 amendmats 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 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:
-
0
0
0
,o
0
0
0
Palomar Aqort Road / Paseo Del Norte;
Palomar Wort Road / El Camino Real;
Palomar Axport Road / El Fuerte;
Poinsettia Lane / Paseo Del Nom;
La Costa Avenue / Coast Highway 101 (City of Encinitas);
La Costa Avenue / Vulcan Avenue (City of Encinitas) (Unsignalized); and,
El Camino Real / La Costa Avenue.
These seven intersections are forecast to operate at “Failing” conditions with and without the maximum
potential land use intensity included for the Ponto Vision Plan.
All roadway segments are forecast to operate at acceptable levels of service with and without the Ponto
Vision Plan.
The City of Carlsbad typically uses the Growth Management standards of LOS D for the peak hour and
LOS C for off-peak as the significance criteria. A LOS below these levels is considered a significant impact
requiring mitigation.
The City of Carlsbad traffic study guidelines identify significant impacts if one of the following two criteria
are met:
The addition of project-generated trips result in a change in operating conditions fiom acceptable to deficikt; 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 trafEc
impacts to these two intersections are considered sigdicant:
o
o
Poinsettia Lane / Paseo Del Norte
La Costa Avenue / Coast Highway 10 1 (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 BeacEont Village Vision Plan’s
development. Therefore, a fair share contribution towards improvements at this location would be sufficient
to mitigate the identifed 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 53
following lane geometry: one left-turn lane, two through lanes, and one right-turn lane. Restripe the
southbound approach to include one left-turn lane, one through lane, and dedicated one right-turn 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 IO1 -Corridor
Specific Plan, which generally covers the area bounded by the City limit line on the north, B
StreeV'Encinitas 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 &e Specific Plan be
implemented. The City of Enchitas 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 201 (Carlsbad Boulevard) Intersection: Widen the southbound
approach to include two left turn lanes and two through lanes. Widen the westbound approach to
include two left turn lanes and one right turn lane.
With construction of the recommended lane configurations, the level of service for the intersection will
improve fiom LOS D (am) and LOS E @.m) to LOS A (am) and LOS B @.a) at buildout under the
Specifid 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 mort Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses? d)
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 Mer facilitate
pedestrian movement between the Ponto Beachtlont Village and the State Beach and Campground. The
Ponto Beachfiont Village Vision Plan has been created to ensure that future development within the plan
area consists of compatible uses.
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
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.
f) 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.
9 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 fiom the Ponto BeacMont 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 development on the
site that is consistent with the Zone 9 and Zone 22 LFMPs prepared for the site. The Zone 9 and 22 LFMPs
were prepared with the intention that the Ponto area would be developed and facilities were planned and
designed to accommodate future development on the site. All public facilities, inclu-g water facilities,
wastewater treatment facilities and drainage facilities, have been planned and designed to accommodate the
growth projections for the City at build-out. Although fbture 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 wilI 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. . ’
xvD[. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantialIy 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 wiIdlife
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?
(ccCumulatively 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 potentiauy significant. The
impacts of the project have therefore not been found to be cumulatively considerable.
San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) projects regional growth for the greater San Diego
area, and local general plan land use policies are incorporated into SANDAG projections. Based upon
those projections, region-wide standards, including storm water quality control, air quality standards,
habitat conservation, congestion management standards, etc, are established to reduce the cumulative
impacts of development in the region. All of the City’s development standards and regulations are
consistent with the region-wide standards. The City’s standards and regulations, including grading
standards, water quality and drainage Standards, traffic standards, habitat and cultural resource protection
regulations, and public facility standards, ensure that development within the City will not result in a
significant cumulatively considerable impact.
38
There are two regional issues that development within the City of Carlsbad has the potential to have a
cumulatively considerable impact on. Those issues are air quality and regional circulation. As discussed
above, the project would contriiute to a cumulatively considerable 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 (Ranclao Santa Fe Rd, El
Camino Real and Palomar Axport Road) and two highway segments in Carlsbad as part of the regional
circulation system. The CMA has determined, based on the City’s growth projections in the General Plan,
that these designated roadways will function at acceptable levels of service in the short-term and at build-
out. The project is consistent with the City’s growth projections, and therefore, the cumulative impact fiom
the project to the regional circulation system is less than significant.
With regard to any other potential impact associated with the project, City standards and regulations will
ensure that development of the site will not result in a significant cumulatively considerable impact.
c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause the substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Less han 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 wiU 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
@act on human beings, either directly or indirectly.
39
XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSIS USED AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION
SOURCES
The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of Carlsbad Planning
Department located at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 92008 or the City of Carlsbad Housing and
Redevelopment Department located at 2965 Roosevelt Street, CarIsbad, California, 92008.
City of Carlsbad General Plan. September 16, 1994.
Cultural Resource Constraints Study of the Ponto Area Plan. Prepared by RECON (RECON Number 3482A). June 17,2003.
Environmental Impact Report for North 101 Corridor Specific Plan. City of Encinitas. 1997.
Existing Conditions Report PioIogical] 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. lune 11,2003.
Local Co&tal Program - MeUo 11 Segment. City of Carlsbad. 1996. Amended 2003.
Local Facilities Management Plan. Zone 9. September, 1993.
Local Facilities Management Plan. Zone 22. August 1, 1997.
North 101 Corridor Specific Plan. City of Encinitas. May 21,1997.
, Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan. November 27, 1998.
Poinsettia Shores Master Plan. October 20, 1993.
Ponto Beachftont ViUage Vision Plan (DRAFT). Prepared by RBF Consulting. July 2004.
Ponto Vision Plan - Traffic Constraints Study. Prepared by RBF Consulting. September 3,2004.
Redevelopment Plan - South Carlsbad Coastal Redevelopment Project. Prepared by Caflsbad Housing and
Redevelopment Commission. February 4,2000.
Wetland Delineation Report. Prepared by RECON. December 8,2003.
40 3-7
LIST OF MITIGATION MEASURES
Agricultural Resources
lmplementation of the following mitigation measures, at ?minimwri, shall apply to future development projects to
reduce impacts to agriculhaal resources to less than significant:
.
Prior to approval of any hture 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 future development within the Vision Plan area, a comprehensive, project-specific
biological resource analysis, including existing conditions, potential impacts, and a mitigation strategy will need to
be submitted and approved prior to project approval and any clearing, grubbing, or grading of the site. No impacts
would occur and no mitigation is required with the proposed General Plan and Local Coastal Program
amendments at this time. However, mitigation measures have been provided below as a guide to future
development of the site.
Implementation of the following mitigation measures, at a minimum, shall apply to future development projects:
0 A corhprehensive, site-specific biological resource report must be prepared prior to environmental review of
any fume projects proposed on the project site.
0 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 dutance fiom designated open space areas such that brush management
areas would not impact sensitive wetlands, marilime succulent scrub, disturbed southern coastal bluff scrub,
and disturbed coastal sage scrub or areas revegetated with native plants as part of a mitigation program. .
' 0 Impacts to the on-site drainage within the future development area should be mitigated for on-site through
preparation and implementation of a wetland enhancement plan.
Cultural Resources
The following mitigation measure is recommended to reduce impacts to cultural/paleontological resources to
less than significant:
Because there may be a subsurface component, all development project proposed within the 50-acre
development area in the future shall be required to complete additional testing to establish condition, content, and research potential of any sigdicant cultural or paIeontoIogica1 resources or human remains. .
Noise
The following mitigation measure is recommended to reduce noise impacts to less than si,gificant:
Future onsite development will require preparation of a project-specific noise analysis to identrfy 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.
Transportatioflraffic
Implementation of the following mitigation measure shall apply to future development projects to reduce
transportatiodtraffic impacts to less than sigmtlcant:
41
Future development projects shall contribute a fair share contribution to the following intersection
improvements:
e Poinsettia Lane / Paseo Del Norte: Widen the westbound approach to include the following lane geometry:
one left-turn lane, two through lanes, and one right turn lane. Restripe the southbound approach to include
one left turn lane, one through lane, and one right turn lane.
42
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOd MITIGATION MEASURES AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
43
,
.. W I- d
2 3
a a a
w 5
ez a
U U c. 0 0 u 01 01 a, .- .- .- e e 2 0,. n n
).I 0 01 'F z
0) c .- E
5 P>I mc
'(A
C B
1
'i .- E
I c
.- z c C Lu n
CI) C c c m
.-
h
3 .L 0 a .- .- e e a. n
dm
WCTD
April 6, 2005
Mr. Gary Barberio
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314
.. .
. /.
RE: Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan (GPA 05-04/LCPA 05-01}
Dear Mr. Barberio:
Thank you for.the 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 Carisbad 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
improvements.
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
- City of Carlsbad
April 26,2005
Kurt Luhrsen
Principal Planner
NCTD
810 Mission Avenue
Oceanside CA 92054-2825
SUBJECT RESPONSE TO COMMENTS - MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR GPA
05-041LCPA 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.
Ail 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 fowards all applications for specific development proposals to NCTD for review and comment. The
city also places a condition on all development proposals where NCTD determines the need for bus
stops which reads as follows:
"Developer shall provide bus stops to service this development at locations and with
reasonable facilities to the satisfaction of the North County Transit District and the Planning
Director. Said facilities shall be free from advertising and shall at a minimum include a bench and a pole for the bus stop sign. The facilities shall be designed to enhance or be
consistent with the basic architectural theme of the project."
Feel free to contact me at (760) 602-4606 if you have any questions or would like to further discuss
this matter.
Sincerely,
Principal Planner
GTB:ls
C: Deborah Fountain, Housing and Redevelopment Director File Copy
1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 0 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us
04/13/2005 16:03 FAX 916 857 5390 NAHC a 001/004
..
NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION
915 CAPltoL MA& ROOM 364 SACRAMENTO, CA 9561a
(916) 653462 (Bi6) 857-5300 -Fa
Mr. Gary Barbsrio City of Carlshad 1635 Faraday Ave. Carlsbad, CA 92008
Re: OPA WLCPA 05-01 - Ponto Beachfront Millage Vtion Plan
SCH# ZOO5031 073
Dear Mr. Barbub:
Thank you for the opporCunity to comment on the abov*mw\tiwred document The Commirrsion
was able to petform a record search of its Sacred Lands File tbr the project area. which failed to indicate the presenoe of NaWe Amaican wltural rtsames in tne immediate project area. The absence of specific dte information in the Sacred Lands File does not Indicat, the absence of cuultural resdl)rc65 in any project area. Other sources of cultural resources should also be contacted fix lnbmratim regarding known and recorded sites.
a pmject is undennay. Endosed is a Ikt of Native Amerlcans individualslorganizatlms that may hve
knowledge of cultural resources In the project area. The Commission makes no recommendation of a single individual or group over andher. Please contact all those listed; if they cannot supply you with
specffic inmation, they may be aNe tu reammend others with apecicic knowledge. By conbctlng all thdse Ikted, your organization will be bmtter able to mpond to dahns of failure to consult with the approprlata tribe or group. If you have not received a response within two weeks' time, we tscommend
that you follow-up with a telephone call to make sure that the informatlon was received.
archeobgical TCIBWTCBS. &d 79h ncisr should conei&r avoi@ce. as defined in Section 1- CEOAlims. hen sjslnificjjjw resourc~s muld be a ffectedbva_prdeclt pravisions should also be included for accidentally discwered archeological resources during construction per Calkmia Envimmental QuaW Act (CEQA), Public Res~urccs Code g15064.5 (0. Health and Safety Code 37050.5; and Public Resources Me 55097.98 mandate the process to bo followed in the went of an accidental diiety of any human remains in a kxstion other than a dedlcatsd cemetery and should be
included in all environmental documents. If you have any questions, please contact me at (916) 653-
6251 -
Early consultat&r~ with tribes in your area is the best wy to avoid unanticipated dii once
Lack of surface evidence of archeological regaurces does not predude the existma of
camicaub7J Program Ana
Cc: State Ckarlnghow
04/13/2005 16:03 FAX 916 657 5390 NAHC
Native Amerlcan Contacts San Diego County April 13,2005
a 002/004
Barona Group of the Capitan Grande
Rhonda Welch-Scalco, Chairperson
I095 Barona Road Diegueno Lakeside 3 CA 92040
sue@barona.org (61 9) 443-661 2
krona Group of the Capitan Grande
AITN: David Baron
1095 Barona Road Diegueno
(61 9) 443-661 2 Lakeside * CA 92040
Barona Group of the Capitan Grande
ATTN: EPASpecialist
1095 Barona Road Oiegueno Lakeside 1 CA 92040
-..-eL---A4b A.."
Kumeyaay Cultural Historic Committee
Ron Christman
56 Viejas Grade Road DieguenoKurneyaay
(61 9) 4454385 Alpine 9 CA 92001
Kumeyaay Cultural Repatriation Committee
Steve Banegas, Spokesperson
1095 6arona Road Dieg uenoMumyaay
(61 9) 443-661 2 (619) 443-0681 FAX
Lakeside 9 CA 92040
La Jolla Band of Mission Indians
ATTN: Rob Roy, Environmental Director
22000 Highway 76 Luiseno PaumaVdley CA 92061
laiolla-sherm@aoI.com and
- City of Carlsbad
April 26,2005
Carol Gaubatz
Program Analyst
Native American Heritage Commission 915 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. Gaub'atz:
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.
// GARY T. BARBER10
Principal Planner
GTB:bd
C: Deborah Fountain, Housing and Redevelopment Director
File Copy
1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us
Sent by: Worden,Williams,Richmond 1 858 755 5198; 04/18/2~05 15:02; #656; Page 2f3
April 18,2005
Via Facsimile and U .S. Mad
Gay Barberio
Planning Department
City of Car4bad 1635 Fardaay Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
Re; Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan
GPA 05-004
LCPA 05-01
Dear Mr. Barberio:
I understand that the comment period €or the Mitigated Negative Declaration for
the above Project closes today at 500 p.m. We were retained today by
homeowners near the Project who have concerns with regard to site access, traffic,
public parking, public trails, aesthetics, lighting, noise and other impacts that the
Project may or may not cause. However, given the short time frame, I am unable
to review or draft meaningful comments on the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
I therefore, object to the Mitigated Negative Declaration based on those issues, and
request that the comment period be extended until Friday, Aprii 22, so that I may
review the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Draft Vision Plan and comment
appropriately. If possible, I will send any comments prior to Friday so that you can
keep your Project on track for the May 4 Planning Commission hearing.
I )I I I\ 'I
Sent by: Worden,Williams,Richmond 1 050 755 5190; Q4/10/3W5 15:02; #%5%; Page 313
Gary Barberio
April 18,2005
Page 2
Please place this office on the mailing list to receive all public notices regarding the above
Project. Thank you, in advance, for your attention to this matter.
Vey truly yours,
WORDEN WIWS, APC
D. Wayne Bechtel
dwb{ij)wordenwitiiim.com
DWB:lg
cc: Client
Redevelopment Agency
\x. WORDEN WILLIAMS APC
Representing Public Agencies, Privute Entities, ond 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.
a For example, the Project envisions a community trail, but the language on
page 3-7 uses terms such as “should” instead of “shall.” The City has a
history of difficulty in getting developers to implement pedestrian paths
envisioned in guidance documents when there is no strong condition
AREAS OF PRACTICE
PUBLIC AGENCY
LAND USE AND
ENVIRONMENTAL
REAL ESTATE
PERSONAL INJURY
ESTATE PLANNING
AND ADMINISTRATION
CIVIL LITIGATION
ATTORNEYS
TRACY R. RICHMOND
0. WAYNE BRECHTEL
TERRY J. KILPATRICK
TERRY M. GIBES
MALINDA R. DICKENSON
MICHAEL 8. FURMAN, Lt.M.
Oi Counsel
D. DWIGHT WORDEN
Of Counsel
W. SCOTT WILLIAMS
Of Coufisel
OFFICE
462 STEVENS AVENUE
SUITE 102
SOLANA BEACH
CALIFORNIA
9?OZ
(5581 755-6604 TELEPHONE
I5581 755-5198 FACSIMILE
1 www.wordenwiliiains.com
Gay Barberio
April 22,2005
Page 2
requiring th path. Similarl! there are no specifi 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 impacts. However, the MND lacks any specific
analysis of potential traffic and parking impacts for the resort facility. Instead, the MND
includes general conclusions regarding overall traffic, purportedly, being lower than what
would occur under General Plan build out. In addition, the MND lacks any specific
studies identifying public and private view impacts across the hotel facility and no noise
study identifying potential impacts and mitigation measures that could be used to avoid
noise impacts to the adjacent community. Preliminary information indicates that the
Project will include a large hotel and parking structure that could significantly impact
local views. These, and other potential impacts of Project specific elements, must be
addressed adequately in the MND.
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 ii the public is at the mercy oi the generosity of each cieveioper, since tne 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/departrnent 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?
E\Clienk\Lipbw\iAters\Phnning Dept.002.Cornments.wpd
73
Gay Barberio
April 22,2005
Page 3
e The Plan does not discuss how the public will be involved in the decision making
process as specific Projects go foward. 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?
e 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 to address thcsr conce:-ns. Fcx the mcst part, the mitigation
involves site specific studies when specific developments are proposed. This appears to
be art improper deferral of mitigation.
e 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 ordoff 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.
e The traffic analysis done for the MND is also flawed because it incorporates traffic
assumptions for an area designated as “unplanned.” Specifically, the MND concludes
that traffic that would be generated by uses allowed under the current Plan would be
greater than those permitted by the Vision Plan. This assumption has absolutely no
basis with respect to the area designated as “unplanned.” Further, it is an improper
focus of an environmental analysis to measure against what could happen. The proper
reference for purposes of environmental review is current conditions and how those
would be mcjdified by the ptoposed Project.
e 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.
e 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\Lipbow\Letten\Planning Dept.002.Commenk.wpd
74
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 €or 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 WfLIlAMS, APC
D. Wayne Bkechtel
dwb@wordenwilliams.com
DWB:lg
cc: Clients
Debbie Fountain, Housing and Redevelopment Department
E\Clienk\Lipbow\Letten\Planning Dept.CG2.Comments.wpc.l
- 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.
1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad. CA 92008-7314 - (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 w.ci.carlsbad.ca.us
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
The Mitigated Negative Declaration proposes mitigation measures for the impacts that
are foreseeable at this time as a result of the approval of the Plan. The Mitigated
Negative Declaration analyzes traffic, parking, noise and view issues for a maximum
buildout scenario for the entire Plan area, based on the land uses proposed in the Plan.
No formal applications for specific development proposals have been submitted in the
Plan area at this time.
Same response as Number 1 and Number 2 above. As an example, the need for public
facilities, such as parks, is determined by the City's Growth Management Plan. The
Growth Management Plan does not identify the need for a park within the Plan area.
Poinsettia Park and Aviara Park provide the needed park facilities for the southwest
quadrant of the city. However, the Plan does propose a small wetland interpretive park
in the Plan area and all future development projects will be required to provide individual
open space and recreational amenities consistent with the standards contained in the
General Plan, the Local Coastal Program, the Zoning Ordinance, and/or any applicable
Specific Plan, Master Plan, etc.
Any change or amendment to the Plan would have to go through the same review and
adoption process by which the Plan is adopted. The Plan will be reviewed and approved
through noticed public hearings of the Planning Commission and the City Council.
The ultimate authority to interpret the Plan lies with the decision-making bodies
(Planning Commission 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.
..
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 Zone 9 Local Facilities Management
Plan and the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan. These are the best sources for estimating
future traffic generation for the “unplanned” areas within the Plan area. The traffic study
completed for the Plan did identify current traffic conditions as well as future traffic
generation based on the ultimate development of the area.
Comment noted. Most of the coastal areas in Carlsbad have a need for more parking
especially during the peak beach use seasons. One of the objectives of realigning
Carlsbad Boulevard along the Plan area is to increase public parking. All future
development projects in the Plan area will be required to provide parking in compliance
with the parking standards of the Zoning Ordinance. The Plan also encourages
pedestrian and bicycle oriented development, which serves to help to reduce any
potential future parking problem.
Comment noted. The issue of public restrooms was not raised at the public workshops
held during the development of the Plan. The City currently has no adopted standard for
requiring public restrooms with development. Future development proposals can be
evaluated with respect to the need to provide public restrooms as appropriate.
The Mitigated Negative Declaration proposes mitigation measures for impacts which are
foreseeable at this time as a result of approval of the Plan. It is not foreseeable without a
specific development proposal to determine if development in the area will affect public
views.
The need for public facilities, such as parks, is determined by the City’s Growth
Management Plan. The Growth Management Plan does not identify the need for a park
within the Plan area. Poinsettia Park and Aviara Park provide the needed park facilities
for the southwest quadrant of the city. However, the Plan does propose a small wetland
interpretive park in the Plan area and all future development projects will be required to
provide individual open space and recreational amenities consistent with the standards
contained in the General Plan, the Local Coastal Program, the Zoning Ordinance, andlor
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
72
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, CALIFORNIA, 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 DIEGO
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, PONT.0 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
WHEMAS, 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:
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:
Findinm:
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 ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 4th day of May, 2005, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Cardosa and Whitton
Commissioners Dominguez, Heineman and Montgomery
7 JEFFRE N. SEGALL, C uperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST: n
DON NEU
Assistant Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 5885 -3 -
Exi hi bit “A
May4,2005 - -
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 PLAN”G 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
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:
Findinm:
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.
...
...
PC RES0 NO. 5886 -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 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:
Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Cardosa and Whitton
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Commissioners Dominguez, Heineman and Montgomery
3 JEF RE N. SEGALL, airperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
h
DON NEU
Assistant Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 5886 -3 -
.. Exhibit “X”
May 4,2005
1.
LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT
PONTO BEACHFRONT VILLAGE VISION PLAN
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
LCPA 05-01
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 6.10 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:
‘IJ. Ponto Beachfront Villacae 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 GENERALLY 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 this item.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
A)
B)
That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
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:
Fin dings :
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.
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
2.
d
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 a 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:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Cardosa and Whitton
Commissioners Dominguez, Heineman and Montgomery
/7 3 JEFFRE N. SEGALL, Chai rson
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
ItemNo. @
P.C. AGENDA OF: May 4,2005
Application complete date: N/A
Project Planner: Debbie Fountain
Gary Barberio
Project Engineer: Bob Wojcik
SUBJECT: GPA 05-04LCPA 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
Beachfiont 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 Beachfront 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 Beachfront 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 Beachfiont 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 G
GPA 05-04/LCPA 05-01/DI 05-01 - PONTO BEACHFRONT VILLAGE VISION PLAN
May 4,2005
and design guidelines to direct future development in the area. 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 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 Beachfkont 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 11 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 fume proposals for development to use the guidelines contained in the Plan and it will
permit the city to review future 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
Beachfkont Village Area be added to this section of the Land Use Element to read as follows:
“3 - Ponto Beachfront Village Area
The Ponto Beachfi-ont 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 future development permits (site development plan, coastal
development permit, etc.) shall be reviewed by the city for conformance with the
Ponto Beachfkont Village Vision Plan.”
GPA 05-04/LCPA 05-01DI 05-01 - PONTO BEACHFRONT VILLAGE VISION PLAN
May 4,2005
Local Coastal Plan Amendment
The Ponto Beachfiont 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 Beachfi-ont 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 fiom 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 fhture 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 Beachfiont 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:
“J. Ponto Beachfront VillaPe 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 Beachfi-ont 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. 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 05-04/LCPA 05-01/DI 05-01 - PONTO BEACHFRONT VILLAGE VISION PLAN
May 4,2005
Page 4
Statement, desirable land uses, a proposed vehicular and pedestrian circulation
system and design guidelines to direct fbture 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 fbture
development permits (site development plan, coastal development permit, etc.)
shall be reviewed by the city for conformance with the Ponto Beachfront Village
Vision Plan.”
IV. ANALYSIS
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.
General Plan
Section II 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.l To create a
distinctive sense of place and
identity for each community and
neighborhood of the city through
the development and arrangement
of various land use components.
PLAN COMPLIANCE
PROPOSED USES 8z
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 city.
The Vision Plan encourages a mix
of land uses including
comerciaVretaiVvisitor-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.
COMPLY?
Yes
Yes
Yes
GPA 05-04/LCPA 05-01DI 05-01 - PONTO BEACHFRONT VILLAGE VISION PLAN
May 4,2005
Page 5
ELEMENT
Land Use
TABLE A - GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE CONTINUED I USE, CLASSIFICATION, 1
GOAL, OBJECTIVE, OR PROPOSED USES & COMPLY?
PROGRAM IMPROVEMENTS
The Vision Plan encourages a
mixture of residential, retail and
to provide both social and economic
benefits to the community.
Objective B.3 To provide for the
social and economic needs of the
community in conjunction with tourist-serving commercial in order Yes
permitted land uses.
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 Beachftont Village Vision Plan. The Local
Coastal Program 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 Beachfiont 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.
0 The Plan proposes extensive pedestrian and bicycle paths, linkage
across Carlsbad Boulevard to the State Beach and central plazas
and paseos.
Visitor-serving uses (hoteYmote1 and restaurant) should be established.
0 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 fiom South
Carlsbad State Beach.
0 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.
0 The Plan allows residential use in this portion of the area and
proposes a mixed-use commercial center along Carlsbad
Boulevard.
43
GPA 05-04LCPA 05-01DI 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.
8 The Plan allows for a beachfiont 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/pedestrian 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 Beachfkont 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 Beachfiont 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 comer of the Ponto Beachfkont
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 (EIA Part 11) prepared for these proposed actions indicated that future
development in conformance with the Ponto Beachfiont 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 transportatiodtrafc, 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.
44
GPA 05-04/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 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 (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 fiture 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 yj;psIT
3. GPA 05-04/LCPA 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 residentkourist 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 plan.
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, hoteVtransient 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, 7100 Whitewater Street, Carlsbad
Rosalie Skaff, 527 Meridian Way, Carlsbad
Mark O’Donnell, 7014 Leeward Street, Carlsbad
James Meador, 7104 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
developmenthransient 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 andlor 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
tourisffcomrnercial 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
serving/commercial 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 trafftc 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
lo 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
ACTION: 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
ACTION : 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
ABSENT:
._-. .. .-
July 18,2005
City of Cslsbad
City Council
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA. 92009
'-'*-.\'Y'.~lle!trif LO
Mayor
City Manager
City Attorney
c: City Council
City Clerk Attn; Mayor Lcwis and City Council Members
Re: Ponto l3eacbnt Village Vision Pla Meeting July 19, '05
I am a professional engineer and land development consultant with 4Q years experience
in the San Diego North County area. I am in support of the proposed Master Plan.
The Plan as proposed is a good one and recommend that thc Council consider the
Approval of the Plan.
Beachf+ont Village is for several property owners wb want to develop their projects.
The proposed Master Plan will provide guidance for hkvebphent of the Ponto area
The Plan as proposed will serve as guidance for the City Staffmembers when reviewing
The applications for permits to develop their properties.
The hotels, timeshare condos ,and shops will serve visitors and the community who
Enjoy the ocean fimt along thc coastal highway.
The Village Plan as proposed will improve the existing properties andahtimtce it's
Image and upgrade the Ponto area for the neighboring properties.
.........,.........
PONTO HISTORIC SOCIETY
P.O. BOX 7 Cerlsbad, CdMl8 92018-0001 Founded rm
18,2005 AGENDAITEM#J 0
c: Mayor CIW OF CARLSBAI) City Council City Council City Manager 1200 cat.Iehd village lur. City Attorney carbbad. cA92009 City Clerk
I I CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY CLERKS OFFICE
CQRLSgAD COASTRESORT, LLC
July 18,2005
Mayor Claude A.”Bud” Lewis
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad CA 92008
Via Fax: (760) 720-946 1
Phone: (416) 302-1507
Fax: (416) 944 1614 Email: Lony@mmpi.com
1300 Yonge Street, Suite 301
Toronto, Ontario. Canada
M4t 1x3
e: Mayor
City Council
City Manager
City Attorney
City Clerk
Re: Ponto Beachfiront Villaqe Vision Plan
Dear Mayor Lewis:
I am writing at the suggestion of Debbie Fountain to inform you that I fully support the
Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan, as it is consistent with my plans for the development
of Planning Areas G and H of the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan area. I look forward to sub-
mitting my resort project for planning and environmental review concurrent with the City’s
EIR process for the Vision Plan.
Yours truly,
Anthony D. Sharp
President
I ’ CITYOFCARLSBAD ’ I CITY CLERKS OFFICE
ALL RECEIVED
WAWCREST RESORTS II LLC
829 Second Street, Suite A
Encinitas, CA 9 %?iy 18,2005
Mayor Bud Lewis
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Dr.
Carlsbad, CA 92008
m - AGENDA ITEM #
Mayor C:
City Council
City Manager
City Attorney
City Clerk
Re: Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan
Honorable Mayor Lewis:
As a property owner and developer of a contemplated hotel project in the Ponto area, I
am writing this letter to voice my support of the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan.
The Vision Plan will be a useful tool to allow us and other future projects in the area to
develop in a more cohesive manner. The Vision Plan will provide an overarching theme
and development strategy that will benefit the area and the City as a whole.
I would like to reiterate an e-mail sent earlier to your staff regarding our project. In the
event the City Council decides to require an EIR for the Vision Plan, we would like to
have the option to pursue our own environmental review for our project. We are making
this request because we believe the process for the Ponto Vision Plan EIR may get
delayed due to the coordination needed for numerous property owners and the
complexity of issues. Our project is currently consistent with the general plan, zoning
designation and the proposed Vision Plan. We are furthest ahead in the entitlement
process of all properties and time is of the essence for the success of our project.
Thank you for your time and consideration on the matter.
Bill Canepa J
Cc: Matt Hall
Ann Kulchin
Mark Packard
Norine Sigafoose
c CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY CLERKS OFFICE
I hor&le Mayor tcu-is
City af Carlsbad
I200 Carlsbrtd Village Drive
Carisbad. CA 92008
SUBJECT: Palm Reachfront Village Visisrl Plan
Ihr Mlayor Lewis,
The purposc of This letter is to inform you that I;.EIovnanian I Iomes supports the Ponto
Beachfront VitIage Vision Plan.
K.Hovnanian k lorncs is currently in the process of securing ota.rmership of the property located
west of the railroad tracks aid within tho Poinsetlia Shares Master Plan (roughly half of the land
in the Master Plan). “The IanJ is currently owed by Kaim Poinsettia Corporation and includes
thc vacant land that is Iocarod both north atid south of Aalvenida Eminas. ‘ne cuncepkuat lanet
uses and develcrpmeril parameters contained in the Vision Plan appear to be acceptable to
K.Hovnanim and we arc tooking fimvard to processing our entitlenient documents through the
city in the near futurc:,
We undcrs tand that many cfe1zdtif.s regarding developmeat in this area must be addressed. nmely
the potential need to prepare ai EIR cavering &e errtire Vision Plan area. I would like to add
that we are not in opposition 10 the p~ttp~ation ofem EIR.
If you have any questions, plcase do nut hesitate TO catitact me.
Si nccrcl y, L-
cc. Mr. Matt EIalt
Ms. Ann Krilchin
h4r. Mark Packard
Ms. Nur.c.cn Sigafoos
CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY CLERK‘S OFFICE
420 STEVENS AVE., SUITE 130, SOLANA BEACH, CA 92075
TEL: (858) 847-9660 FAX: (SSS) 847-9664 khov.Com
2076 Sheridan Road
Encinitas, CA 92024
July 19,2005
The City of Carlsbad
Carlsbad, California 92009
RE: “Vision” Plan for the Ponto Area
Dear Mayor and City Council:
Thank you for this opportunity to comment.
The proposed “Vision” presented to the city tonight is a bogus
development - a development without a developer. This is an attempt to do
an end run around the planning and development laws of the State of
California.
perform this task, the development itself is not a good one. It is not the best
use of this property. A decent and proper city would be looking forward to
preserve public use of this property for its citizens as extensive parkland.
The land bordering Batiquitos Lagoon is the most beautifid open
space left for Carlsbad citizens to enjoy. I urge you to keep it for your
residents.
study of this area, and, if I am correct, your staff is now proposing to require
an environmental study - paid for by the citizens rather than by the
landowner as is usual - to just@ a development plan no one has requested!
is “make work.” Landowners have received a benefit that has been paid for
by the taxes of the residents. Your priorities are upside down.
As a development, it will bring light, noise, and excessive traffic and
pollution to a $55 Million investment in natural resources. In no way is this
kind of development acceptable on this property.
Besides the fact that it is not within the legal powers of the city to
Your staff has assumed there will be no need for an environmental
Staff has overstepped. Someone did not have enough to do. This plan
760-942-9897
The PONTO Beachfront The PONTO Beachfront VillageVillageVISION PLANVISION PLANGPA 05GPA 05--04/LCPA 0504/LCPA 05--01/DI 0501/DI 05--0101City Council PresentationJuly 19, 2005
Ponto Beachfront Village Vision PlanMix of Uses; Active Pedestrian & Bicycle–oriented area; SustainableStrong Sense of Place; Village; Unique Mix of Uses; Active Pedestrian & Bicycle–oriented area; SustainableStrong Sense of Place; Village; Unique
Public Feedback/Testimony
Ponto is a Special Place•Plan recognizes special nature of area.•Intent is to guide & direct to Protect.•Ensure special places & public amenities.•Sustainability –economic, social and environmental.
Village Feel•Concentrate & Integrate a Mix of Uses.•Appeal to residents & visitors.•Create warm & inviting People Places.
Focus on Residents•Development intensity•Open Space•Public Parking/Access•Code Enforcement•Security Gates
Community Amenities•Community Nature & Art Center•Wetland Park •Carlsbad Boulevard Underpass Trail•Community Resort Trail•Pedestrian/Bike Bridge over Railroad•Carlsbad Boulevard Pathways•Linear Park•Public Parking•Pedestrian Plazas & Pathways
Development Standards•Parking•Setbacks•Height•Human Scale Design
Beachfront Resort•Approved 1993.•Poinsettia Shores Master Plan.•Focus on community amenities.•Protect public views to lagoon & ocean.
WayfindingSignage•Directional & Monument Signage•Reinforce Image & Identity of area.•Public & Private Property
Land Use Strategy•Not a Specific Plan or Master Plan.•No specific projects approved.•Multiple ownerships; 98% private•Guide development.
State Parks Department•No “sign off” on Plan.•Concerns about increased security and maintenance costs.•Commercial development to compliment campground.•Support purpose to make coast state beaches available to the people.
Public Notice•2 year development.•Sharing the Vision for approx. 1 year.•Newspaper articles.•Community Video.•Community Workshops and Meetings.
What is Blight?•12 acres in redevelopment area.•Developed/Urbanized •Lack of infrastructure.•Small lots/multiple owners.•Non-conforming land uses.SCCRASCCRA
Coastal Commission•No “sign off” by Coastal Commission.•Presented to Staff.•Liked range of lodging types & diversity of tourist-related facilities.•Enthusiastic about links between development & beach.•More Public Parking for beach.
Condemnation of Property•No contemplation of private property takings.•No reference in Plan.•No intent expressed through Plan.
Garden Hotel•Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan.•Tourist-serving commercial use required by Coastal Commission in 1998.•Residential use not permitted.
Environmental Review•Studies Completed:–Comprehensive Traffic Analysis–Geotechnical Constraints & Opportunities–Biological Resource Survey–Wetland Delineation Report–Cultural Resources Survey–Economic Assessment of Development Potential
Environmental Review•Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared•Mitigation measures for: Traffic, Noise, Biology, Cultural Resources and Agriculture.•Public Review Period –3 letters of comment
Environmental Review•Planning Commission Hearing –May 4, 2005–Public Comment –No substantial evidence•Planning Commission recommended adoption of MND.
Environmental Review•City Council Hearing –June 28, 2005–Significant Public Comment–Technical Information & Analysis Submitted–Disagreement among Expert Opinion•Traffic•Noise •Biology
Environmental Review•Should the City prepare an EIR?–Section 15064 of CEQA Guidelines•Fair Argument•Substantial Evidence•Disagreement among Expert Opinions–EIR should be prepared.
Options for Action•Authorize staff to proceed with EIR with City to fund its preparation.•Request Property Owners to prepare and fund the EIR for the Vision Plan.•City and Property Owners jointly complete and fund the EIR for the Vision Plan and individual development projects.•Deny the PontoBeachfront Village Vision Plan.