HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-05-16; Planning Commission; ; GPA 07-02 - ENVISION CARLSBAD
The City of Carlsbad Planning Division
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Item No.
Application complete date: N/A
P.C. AGENDA OF: May 16, 2012 Project Planner: David de Cordova
Project Engineer: N/A
SUBJECT: GPA 07-02 – ENVISION CARLSBAD – Continued Planning Commission
discussion from the May 2, 2012 Planning Commission meeting on: 1) the
Envision Carlsbad Land Use Concepts Community Feedback report (previously
distributed to the Planning Commission and available at
www.carlsbadca.gov/envision) and 2) the Envision Carlsbad Citizens Committee
(EC3) recommendations on a draft preferred land use plan.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission: continue its review and discussion of the Envision Carlsbad
Land Use Concepts Community Feedback report and EC3 recommendations, and provide
feedback to staff that will guide the preparation of a draft preferred land use plan (Preferred
Plan).
II. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION TO THE MAY 2, 2012 REPORT TO THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
After listening to public comments and preliminary Planning Commission discussion at the May
2, 2012 meeting, staff thought it would be helpful to provide the Commission with some
supplemental information on a few items: 1) the draft Preferred Plan as it relates to citywide
open space; 2) Proposition “C” Open Space Committee property acquisition rankings; 3) high
density residential land use proposed on the draft preferred plan; and 4) Residential capacity
comparison among concept plans. This supplemental information is presented in Attachments 2-
5.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Staff report and attachments for May 2, 2012
2. Draft Preferred Plan with Open Space
3. Proposition “C” Open Space Committee and Property Acquisition Rankings
4. High Density Residential Land Use Category Refinements
5. Residential Capacity Comparison
6. Additional correspondence not previously distributed.
1
The City of Carlsbad Planning Division
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Item No.
Application complete date: N/A
P.C. AGENDA OF: May 2, 2012 Project Planner: Jennifer Jesser
Project Engineer: N/A
SUBJECT: GPA 07-02 – ENVISION CARLSBAD – Land Use Concepts Community
Feedback – Staff presentation and Planning Commission discussion on the
Envision Carlsbad Land Use Concepts Community Feedback report (attached to
this report and available at www.carlsbadca.gov/envision) and Envision Carlsbad
Citizens Committee (EC3) recommendations on a preferred land use plan.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission: 1) receive the staff presentation on the Envision Carlsbad Land
Use Concepts Community Feedback report and EC3 input on preferred land uses; and 2) discuss
the report and provide feedback to staff that will guide the preparation of a draft preferred land
use plan (Preferred Plan).
II. INTRODUCTION
The Envision Carlsbad Land Use Concepts Community Feedback report describes the
community feedback received on the city’s three proposed land use concepts – Concept A:
Centers, Concept B – Active Waterfront, and Concept C – Core Focus. The city presented the
three land use concepts to the community on the city website and at two community workshops
held on Jan. 31, 2012 at Poinsettia Elementary and Feb. 2, 2012 at the Carlsbad Senior Center.
Community members were able to comment on the land use concepts and indicate what they
liked and didn’t like about the concepts by filling out a feedback form at the workshops and
online.
Input from the Envision Carlsbad Citizens Committee (EC3) and Planning Commission will be
used to prepare a draft Preferred Plan that will be the foundation for the General Plan update.
The EC3 met on March 28 and April 17, 2012 to discuss the Envision Carlsbad Land Use
Concepts Community Feedback report. The EC3 made recommendations for land uses within
the focus areas identified on the land use concept maps; those recommendations have been
summarized in Attachment 2. A draft Preferred Plan reflecting the EC3’s recommendations will
be distributed to the Planning Commission separate from this report.
Attachments 3 and 4 include the minutes from the March 28 and April 17, 2012 EC3 meetings.
Attachment 5 includes copies of letters and emails received following the March 28, 2012 EC3
meeting. Letters and emails received prior to March 28 are included in the Envision Carlsbad
Land Use Concepts Community Feedback report (Attachment 1).
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS
Preparation of a Preferred Plan is Task 3 of Envision Carlsbad Phase 2, which consists of a
comprehensive update to the Carlsbad General Plan, Local Coastal Program and Zoning
4
GPA 07-02 - ENVISION CARLSBAD
May 2, 2012
PAGE 2
Ordinance. The Preferred Plan will likely reflect the land use options that are found to be most
desirable based on the feedback received on the three land use concepts mentioned above.
The three land use concepts were created to reflect the core values of the Carlsbad Community
Vision and input received from the EC3, Planning Commission and development community.
At three separate workshops, the EC3 (May 11, 2011), development community (June 8, 2011),
and Planning Commission (July 13, 2011) brainstormed alternative land uses for eleven focus
areas in the city. The eleven focus areas are areas where there is vacant or underutilized land,
and areas with the potential for redevelopment. These focus areas offer the greatest opportunity
to identify the types of land uses that will help to fulfill the Carlsbad Community Vision. A
report providing detailed information about the three land use concepts, as well as the Carlsbad
Community Vision, is available online at www.carlsbadca.gov/envision.
During this Planning Commission meeting, staff will present the community feedback received
on the three land use concepts and the EC3’s recommendations. Following the presentation,
staff requests that the Planning Commission receive public comment, discuss the information
and provide feedback that will guide staff in preparing the draft Preferred Plan that will be
presented to City Council for acceptance for purposes of updating the General Plan, Local
Coastal Program, and Zoning Ordinance.
V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The activities associated with Envision Carlsbad Phase 2 (public outreach, analysis, research,
and preparation of draft documents) will not involve or result in any disturbance to the
environment, and is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA). CEQA Section 15306 describes the following activities as being exempt from
environmental review:
“…basic data collection, research, experimental management, and resource evaluation
activities which do not result in a serious or major disturbance to an environmental
resource. These may be strictly for information gathering purposes, or as part of a study
leading to an action which a public agency has not yet approved, adopted, or funded.”
An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) will be prepared as part of Envision Carlsbad Phase 2,
which will analyze the environmental impact associated with the new General Plan, Local
Coastal Program and Zoning Ordinance. The EIR will be prepared consistent with CEQA. Prior
to city adoption of a new General Plan, Local Coastal Program, or Zoning Ordinance, the EIR
must be adopted by the City Council.
ATTACHMENT:
1. Envision Carlsbad Land Use Concepts Community Feedback Report
2. Summary of EC3 Land Use Concepts Recommendations
3. Minutes from the March 28, 2012 EC3 Meeting
4. Draft Minutes from the April 17, 2012 EC3 Meeting
5. Letters and emails received after March 28, 2012
Community
Feedback Report:
Land Use Concepts
March 2012
Envision Carlsbad
www.carlsbadca.gov/envision
City Staff
Lisa Hildabrand, City Manager
John Coates, Assistant City Manager
Gary Barberio, Community and Economic Development Director
Don Neu, City Planner
David de Cordova, Principal Planner (Project Manager)
Chris DeCerbo, Principal Planner
Jennifer Jesser, Senior Planner (Project Manager)
Jane Mobaldi, Assistant City Attorney
Kristina Ray, Communications Manager
Bryan Jones, Deputy Director, Traffic Engineer
Leticia Trevino-Reyes, Senior Office Specialist
City Council
Matt Hall, Mayor
Ann J. Kulchin, Mayor Pro Tem
Mark Packard, Council Member
Keith Blackburn, Council Member
Farrah Douglas, Council Member
Consultants
Dudek, Environmental Consultants
Fehr & Peers, Transportation Consultants
Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc., Economic and Fiscal Consultants
Envision Carlsbad Citizens’ Committee
EC3 Primary Member
Mike Howes
Fred Sandquist
Barbara Hamilton
Jim Farley
Jim Comstock
Hap L’Heureux
Gina McBride
Julie Baker
Eric Larson
Allen Sweet
Greg Nelson
Kirk Cowles
Diane Proulx
Robert Gates
Jeff Segall
John O’Reilly
Jeannie Sprague-Bentley
Sean Bentley
EC3 Alternate Member
Dr. Anne Spacie
–
–
–
Jack Cumming
Robert Nielsen
–
–
–
–
–
Guy Roney
Glen Etherington
–
–
Jim Bradley
Tina Schmidt
www.carlsbadca.gov/envision
Contents
1 Introduction........................................................................1
1.1 Envision Carlsbad ............................................................................1
1.2 This Report ......................................................................................1
2 Workshop Structure ...........................................................5
2.1 Schedule and Attendance ..............................................................5
2.2 Workshop Format ...........................................................................6
3 Feedback Results ................................................................7
3.1 Overall Land Use Concept Strategies .............................................7
3.2 Focus Areas ...................................................................................13
Appendix A: Feedback Form/Survey
Appendix B: Tabulated Feedback Form/
Survey Results and Comments
Appendix C: Letters
1
1.1 Envision Carlsbad
For more than two decades, Carlsbad has been
developing and changing based on the premise of
available land to accommodate a growing popula-
tion while maintaining an excellent quality of life.
Carlsbad’s basic guiding documents, such as the
General Plan, were created on that premise. Today,
however, with the city almost built-out, devel-
opment will occur primarily through infill and
redevelopment, which presents challenges to ensure
the protection and enhancement of Carlsbad’s
excellent quality of life.
The City Council, community leaders and city
staff are facing these challenges head-on and
initiated “Envision Carlsbad” to engage the entire
community in a process of envisioning and planning for the future. In January 2010, the Carlsbad City Council adopted the Carlsbad Community Vision representing the community’s most important values, priorities and aspirations for the future. The community’s vision guides the second phase of the Envision Carlsbad process, which entails an update of the city’s General Plan, Local Coastal Program and Zoning Ordinance.
Public participation lies at the heart of the Envision Carlsbad process. During each phase of the process, community members and stakeholders are being asked for ideas and input through a variety of methods, including:
• Public workshops and meetings;
• Envision Carlsbad Citizens’ Committee;
• Workshops with the City Council and Planning Commission;
• Project website at www.carlsbadca.gov/envision
• Newsletters, videos and media coverage; and
• Public opinion survey.
1.2 This Report
Land Use Concepts Community Feedback
This report describes the process and results of the community feedback on the Envision Carlsbad Land Use Concepts Report, which presented three proposed land use concepts for the city – Concept A: Centers, Concept B: Active Waterfront, and Concept C: Core Focus. The three concepts portray a range of land use possibilities in focus areas—areas with potential for change in the future—to guide achievement of the Carlsbad Community Vision. The input from community members and
stakeholders on the land use concepts, summa-
rized in this report, will help guide preparation of
a Preferred Plan, which will serve as the foundation
for the new General Plan.
Community Outreach
The community was invited to consider and
offer feedback on the proposed land use concepts
through review of information on the city’s website,
participation at one of two community workshops,
and completion of a feedback form at the workshops
or online. The community was informed about the
land use concepts, workshops and online survey
through the following means:
• A letter was mailed to all property owners who
own land where a land use designation change is
proposed by one of the land use concepts.
1Introduction
2
Envision Carlsbad
www.carlsbadca.gov/envision
• A flyer was posted in city facilities.
• A display ad was posted in the North County
Times on Jan. 29, Jan. 30 and Jan. 31.
• A legal ad was posted in the North County Times
on Jan. 24 and in The Coast News on Jan. 27.
• Information was distributed to more than 8,000
people through E-News.
• A news release was distributed to the media and
posted on the city’s website home page.
• A link to information about the workshops and survey was posted on the city’s home page events box.
• The workshop dates were posted on the city website events calendar.
• A video about Envision Carlsbad and the land use concepts was posted on the city home page and was featured in the city newsroom and YouTube Channel.
• Posters were distributed to the city libraries and the senior center.
• Information was distributed through city social media channels.
• Information was posted in text bulletins on the city’s cable channel.
Community Workshops
Two community workshops were held in late
January and February 2012 to engage the attention,
interest, and active involvement of the community,
and provide opportunities for feedback regarding
the overall land use concepts as well as for each
individual focus area. A presentation of the land
use concepts was followed by an “open house” with
large-size drawings on display, where participants
had the opportunity to ask questions one-on-one
with staff and consultants. The workshops were
well attended, with about 295 community members
participating. Workshop participants were given a
feedback form to complete and provide structured
feedback regarding their preferences and specific
changes they would like to see to the land use
concepts. The forms could be returned during the
meeting or at a later date.
Online Survey
The land use concepts report and the feedback form
were also provided online for three weeks to enable
community members who could not attend one of
the workshops to provide input.
3
Community Feedback Report: Land Use Concepts
Completed Feedback Forms/Surveys
Community members completed a total of 349 feedback forms/surveys, with 29 percent of responses completed in hardcopy, and 71 percent completed online.
Other Feedback
In addition to the community feedback received
through the completed feedback forms/survey,
numerous property owners and community
members submitted letters regarding the proposed
land use concepts. These letters are attached in
Appendix C.
Report Organization and Next Steps
The rest of this report is organized into sections
summarizing the land use concepts (Chapter
2), describing the workshop process (Chapter 3)
and the feedback received (Chapter 4). Appendix A includes the feedback form for reference, and Appendix B provides a detailed tabulation of all responses received.
The land use concepts evaluation process relies on technical analysis as well as public input. The Envision Carlsbad Citizens’ Committee (EC3) and decision-makers will review the technical informa-tion and public feedback in upcoming meetings, and provide direction toward a Preferred Plan. This direction will help guide the land use configuration of the Preferred Plan, based on the land use prefer-ences of the public. The Preferred Plan will create a framework within which new General Plan policies and programs can be developed. The Preferred Plan will also create a framework for individual elements of the General Plan to be developed, providing a bridge to detailed policy-making. A detailed work program may be found on the Envision Carlsbad website: www.carlsbadca.gov/envision.
4
Envision Carlsbad
www.carlsbadca.gov/envision
This page intentionally left blank.
5
2
2.1 Schedule and Attendance
The community workshops were held on Jan. 31,
2012 at Poinsettia Elementary School and Feb. 2,
2012 at the Carlsbad Senior Center. Both workshops
were held from 6:00 p.m. until 8:00 p.m., and had
similar content and structure. In all, approximately
295 community members attended the workshops.
Workshop Structure
6
Envision Carlsbad
www.carlsbadca.gov/envision
2.2 Workshop Format
In each workshop, project background and the land
use concepts and their implications were presented
by staff and consultants. Following the presentation,
an “open house” was held. Several “stations” with
large size display boards presented the community
vision, the land use concepts and their economic,
transportation, and environmental implications.
Each station was staffed by a city staff member
and/or consultant who were available to answer
questions one-on-one. Participants were encour-
aged to explore and review the information and
ask staff and consultants any questions they may
have had. Detailed feedback forms were provided to
each participant. Workshop participants were given
the option of completing the feedback form at the
workshop, completing it later and returning it to the
city, or completing the online survey. The survey
period closed on February 17, 2012.
7
3Feedback Results
This chapter summarizes the results of the feedback forms turned in by community members, the online survey, which included the same questions as in the feedback form, and the feedback received through letters. The feedback form/survey asked participants to state an overall preference, as well as preferences for each focus area. A copy of the feedback form is included in Appendix A for reference. The tabulated results from the completed feedback forms/surveys are included in Appendix B.
A total of 349 completed feedback forms/surveys were received and Table 1 presents a breakdown of where and how the feedback results were collected.
TABLE 1: SURVEY COLLECTION METHOD
COLLECTION METHOD NUMBER PERCENT
January 31 Workshop 41 12%
February 2 Workshop 24 7%
Mailed/Delivered to City 36 10%
Online Survey 248 71%
Total 349 100%
3.1 Overall Land Use Concept
Strategies
Description of Land Use Concept Strategies
The overall land use concept strategies are described here, including a map of each concept following the description of Concept C. More detailed informa-tion about each land use concept can be found in the Envision Carlsbad Land Use Concepts report, which is available online at www.carlsbadca.gov/
envision and was previously distributed to the Envision Carlsbad Citizens Committee members, Planning Commissioners, and City Council members.
Concept A: Centers
The Centers concept directs development to several
new neighborhood centers. The centers are placed
in strategic, visible locations along transit, and dis-
tributed to maximize accessibility from residential
neighborhoods.
Each center will include local shopping as a
pedestrian-oriented focus for the surrounding
neighborhood, accessible to local residents. High
and medium density housing, in addition to new
parks and open spaces, would surround the retail
centers or be integrated in mixed-use buildings.
A significant majority of the city’s future housing
needs will be accommodated in the centers,
enabling people to live close to shops and services
and along transit corridors. All centers will have
transit access—bus or rail—and pedestrian con-
nections between the centers and the surrounding
neighborhoods will be improved to enhance
walkability.
New centers will be located along El Camino Real,
Palomar Airport Road and adjacent to the Poin-
settia Coaster Station. Residential uses are located
along the eastern city limits, in proximity to local
shopping in adjacent cities. The Village and Barrio
will see increases in housing and amenities, while
the Power Plant will be redeveloped with hotels,
retail, and other non-residential uses. Quarry Creek
will include new housing as well as a new campus
and ample open space.
8
Envision Carlsbad
www.carlsbadca.gov/envision
Concept B: Active Waterfront
The Active Waterfront concept proposes to place greater development along the waterfront, enabling residences, hotels, and other uses to be close to the ocean. Residents and visitors will enjoy water-front dining, shopping, and lingering experience in clusters of restaurants, cafés, and smaller stores up and down the coast. The Power Plant area will be developed with a mix of hotel, and retail uses, as well as mixed use development adjacent to the east side of Interstate 5; community-accessible open spaces will be provided along Agua Hedionda Lagoon.
About half of the city’s new residential growth will be in the waterfront focus areas (Focus Areas 1, 8, and 9). Most of the other new residential growth will occur in the Plaza Camino Real Commer-cial Corridor, which includes mixed use, and Quarry Creek, which will have new residential uses. Palomar Corridor will continue to contain only employment uses.
Concept C: Core Focus
In this concept, new residential and commercial
uses will be placed at strategic locations at the edges
of Carlsbad’s employment core in the geographic
center of the city—enabling workers to live close to
jobs, and stores and restaurants to enjoy patronage
from both residents and workers. Although some
sites currently envisioned for employment uses will
be developed with residential and commercial uses,
there remains enough area to accommodate office
and industrial uses, ensuring enough capacity for
continued employment growth.
Just over a third of the new housing growth will be
in central Carlsbad, while the rest will be dispersed
at different locations. The Power Plant and southern
portion of Carlsbad Boulevard will primarily
accommodate hotel and visitor-serving commer-
cial uses and will provide access to the beach and
lagoon for the community.
9
Community Feedback Report: Land Use Concepts
10
Envision Carlsbad
www.carlsbadca.gov/envision
11
Community Feedback Report: Land Use Concepts
12
Envision Carlsbad
www.carlsbadca.gov/envision
Feedback Results on Overall Land Use
Concept Strategies
Feedback results from the feedback form/online survey regarding the overall land use concept strat-egies is provided in Table 2 and summarized as follows:
• Almost half of all respondents (44 percent) pre-ferred Concept B: Active Waterfront. Several respondents identified the waterfront as Carlsbad’s greatest resource, where Concept B: Active Waterfront offers the greatest opportu-nity to create a community destination along the ocean, enhance connections to the beach, and ensure continued economic growth. Many of those who chose Concept B: Active Waterfront expressed opposition to residential uses in the Palomar Corridor (Focus Area 7).
• Twenty two percent of respondents preferred Concept C: Core Focus. Some of the reasons include minimizing development along the coast and supporting Carlsbad’s vital core.
• Sixteen percent of respondents preferred Concept A: Centers. Some respondents iden-tified convenience, ability to get around, and access to services and stores as reasons why Concept A: Centers is preferred.
TABLE 2: OVERALL STRATEGY RESULTS
OPTIONS TOTAL JAN. 31WORKSHOP FEB. 2 WORKSHOP MAILED/DELIVERED ONLINE
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Concept A:
Centers
54 15%2 5%3 13%3 8%46 19%
Concept B:
Active
Waterfront
153 44%34 83%9 38%7 19%103 42%
Concept C:
Core Focus
77 22%2 5%3 13%16 44%56 23%
None 31 9%1 4%1 3%29 12%
Other 23 7%2 8%7 19%14 6%
Left Blank 11 3%3 7%6 25%2 6%
Total 349 100%41 100%24 100%36 100%248 100%
* Some percentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding.
• Sixteen percent of respondents chose none or other. Some of those respondents preferred a combination of concepts (elaborated upon in the focus area survey results) and some others preferred less development in general, and keeping more lands in open space. However, upon closer examination, only about three percent of respondents chose the lower density option for all the focus areas, indicating that there are some areas in the city that respondents found suitable for higher density development.
Preference for Concept B: Active Waterfront may have been amplified due to attendance by many at the Jan. 31 workshop who were concerned about the addition of high density residential in the neigh-borhood of Bressi Ranch (Palomar Corridor, Focus Area 7). However, even after subtracting out results of those who only answered B for Palomar Corridor (three respondents) or checked B for all the focus areas (20 respondents), totaling about seven percent of the total responses received, an overall preference for Concept B: Active Waterfront still holds.
13
Community Feedback Report: Land Use Concepts
Feedback received by letter regarding overall land use concept strategies is summarized below; copies of all letters received are attached in Appendix C.
• Letter from Robert Wilkinson, dated Feb. 6: expressed support for mixed-use development, supports a more active waterfront (Concept B) and creating destinations within the city. Mr. Wilkinson also indicated his feedback on the individual focus areas and this feedback has been included in the survey results for each focus area.
• Letter from Theresa Childs, faxed to the city on Feb. 7: does not like any of the strategies; sug-gests most of the high density housing be located along Palomar Airport Rd.
• Letter from Aviara Resort Associates, dated Feb. 8: requests that the city carefully consider how much more hotel inventory the city and surrounding communities can support. Other comments in the letter are summarized below under Aviara (Focus Area 10).
• Email from Richard and Bonnie Bethel, dated Feb 20: requests that the city not allow develop-ment on lands protected as open space and not add more commercial buildings until we reduce current vacancies. Note: staff replied to Mr. and Mrs. Bethel’s email and clarified that the land use concepts do not propose development of any area protected as open space.
3.2 Focus Areas
Northwest Coastal (Focus Area 1)
Description of Northwest Coastal (Focus
Area 1)
Concept A: Centers shows mixed use in the Village
that will extend into residential uses in the Barrio,
creating a connection between the higher density
residential and mixed uses. The Power Plant area
will have hotels/retail, other visitor serving com-
mercial uses, and open space.
Concept B: Active Waterfront shows mixed use in the
Village, along with infill high and medium density
residential development in the Barrio. The Power
Plant area will be an activity node with commercial,
hotels, mixed use (east of I-5) and open space.
Concept C: Core Focus also includes mixed use in
the Village and residential in the Barrio. The Power
Plant will have hotel and visitor services.
Feedback on Northwest Coastal (Focus Area 1)
Results from the feedback form/online survey
regarding Northwest Coastal (Focus Area 1) are
provided in Table 3 and summarized as follows:
• Thirty-eight percent of respondents prefer the
land use configuration in Concept B: Active
Waterfront for Northwest Coastal (Focus Area
1). Some of the reasons cited include better uti-
lization of the waterfront, greater access to the
beach, and mixed use at the Power Plant site.
Respondents were split in regards to the possi-
ble creation of a pier, with some in support and
others opposed.
• Concept C: Core Focus was chosen by 16 percent of respondents, with a few respondents stating that it was preferred because it resulted in less impact on the waterfront.
• Concept A: Centers was preferred by 14 percent of respondents, some of whom expressed their desire to see improvements in the Village and the Barrio and for neighborhoods that are accessible to public transportation and pedestrian-friendly.
14
Envision Carlsbad
www.carlsbadca.gov/envision
• Some respondents who chose Concept A: Centers and Concept C: Core Focus did not want to see residential use on the Power Plant site.
• Nineteen percent of respondents chose none or other. Reasons given included the desire for the Power Plant site to be designated for open space and less intensity in the Barrio.
TABLE 3: NORTHWEST COASTAL
(FOCUS AREA 1) RESULTS
OPTIONS NUMBER PERCENT
Concept A: Centers 49 14%
Concept B: Active
Waterfront
131 38%
Concept C: Core Focus 56 16%
None 46 13%
Other 22 6%
Left Blank 45 13%
Total 349 100%
* Percentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding.
Feedback received by letter regarding Northwest
Coastal (Focus Area 1) is summarized below; copies
of all letters received are attached in Appendix C.
• Email from Theresa Childs, faxed to the city
on Feb 7, and letter, dated Mar. 8, regarding the
Barrio: all of the concepts bring too many housing
units to the area. Suggests converting the city’s
public works depot at 405 Oak St. to an apartment
village. Open area of the Pine Street Park could
be used as a community garden. In 3300 block of
Madison St. either leave land use designation as is or mixed use, but not high density residential. Ms. Childs provided additional comments in her email and letter, attached in Appendix C.
• Letter from Fortuna Israel, MD, dated March 16, 2012 (owner): requests that the property at 3535 Harding St. be designated to allow for six residential units. Note: staff confirmed that this property is within the Barrio area and is currently designated for medium density resi-dential uses; and based on the size of the lot (.45 ac) only three dwellings would be permitted. The land use concepts do not propose changing the medium density designation.
Plaza Camino Real Corridor (Focus Area 2)
Description of Plaza Camino Real Corridor
(Focus Area 2)
Concept A: Centers shows mixed use and open space on the mall site, with commercial and mixed use east of El Camino Real.
Concept B: Active Waterfront shows mixed use, commercial, and open space on the mall site with high-density residential and commercial uses east of El Camino Real.
Concept C: Core Focus shows mixed use, com-mercial, and open space on the mall site with just commercial east of El Camino Real.
Feedback on Plaza Camino Real Corridor
(Focus Area 2)
Results from the feedback form/online survey
regarding Plaza Camino Real Corridor (Focus
Area 2) are provided in Table 4 and summarized as
follows:
• Thirty percent of respondents prefer Concept
B: Active Waterfront for Plaza Camino Real
Corridor (Focus Area 2). Most respondents sup-
ported the redevelopment of the area. Some saw
the area as an ideal location for higher density
residential uses, while others felt that higher
density residential uses will contribute to exist-
ing congestion.
• Concept C: Core Focus was preferred by 22
percent of respondents, some of whom liked that
the areas east of El Camino Real are designated
as commercial.
• Nineteen percent of respondents chose Concept
A: Centers. Some respondents expressed their
dislike of high density residential uses for the
area.
• Fifteen percent of respondents chose none or
other. A few of the reasons cited include the
desire for more open space and redevelopment
to include commercial uses only.
15
Community Feedback Report: Land Use Concepts
TABLE 4: PLAZA CAMINO REAL
(FOCUS AREA 2) RESULTS
OPTIONS NUMBER PERCENT
Concept A: Centers 65 19%
Concept B: Active
Waterfront
103 30%
Concept C: Core Focus 76 22%
None 39 11%
Other 15 4%
Left Blank 51 15%
Total 349 100%
* Percentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding.
Feedback received by letter regarding Plaza Camino Real Corridor (Focus Area 2) is summarized below; copies of all letters received are attached in Appendix C.
• Letter from Hughes Investments (owner/prop-erty manager), dated Feb. 3, regarding Carlsbad Plaza and Carlsbad Plaza South (commercial center located east of El Camino Real and south of Hwy. 78): expresses strong concerns about any plan that would redesignate the properties to any use other than what exists today, which allows for shopping centers. Opposes high density res-idential that would preclude a shopping center (as shown in Concept B: Active Waterfront).
Quarry Creek (Focus Area 3)
Description of Quarry Creek (Focus Area 3)
Concept A: Centers includes medium and high
density residential uses with an educational
campus, placing residents next to jobs and open
space with an extension of Marron Road.
Concept B: Active Waterfront includes medium and
high density residential uses at higher densities next
to open space with an extension of Marron Road.
Concept C: Core Focus includes medium and high
density residential uses next to open space with an
extension of Marron Road.
Feedback on Quarry Creek (Focus Area 3)
Results from the feedback form/online survey regarding Quarry Creek (Focus Area 3) are provided in Table 5 and summarized as follows:
• Twenty-six percent of respondents prefer Concept B: Active Waterfront for Quarry Creek (Focus Area 3). Some respondents who chose Concept B: Active Waterfront saw Quarry Creek as a good place for higher density residential, as the area is freeway accessible.
• Sixteen percent of respondents preferred Concept A: Centers. A few respondents liked the inclusion of a campus in the land use configuration.
• Sixteen percent of respondents preferred Concept C: Core Focus. Some respondents pre-ferred that it showed the least amount of high density residential.
• Thirty-two percent of respondents chose none or other. Reasons cited included the preference to see lower density housing and for most or all
of the area to be designated as open space. Some
other comments include concerns regarding the
extension of Marron Road on potential natural
resources.
TABLE 5: QUARRY CREEK
(FOCUS AREA 3) RESULTS
OPTIONS NUMBER PERCENT
Concept A: Centers 56 16%
Concept B: Active
Waterfront
89 26%
Concept C: Core Focus 56 16%
None 72 21%
Other 37 11%
Left Blank 39 11%
Total 349 100%
* Percentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding.
16
Envision Carlsbad
www.carlsbadca.gov/envision
Feedback received by letter regarding Quarry Creek (Focus Area 3) is summarized below; copies of all letters received are attached in Appendix C.
• Letter from The Corky McMillin Companies, dated Jan. 20: expressed concern that the pro-posed land use concepts do not reflect the pro-posed draft Quarry Creek Master Plan, which is currently being reviewed and processed by the city. The letter requests that the draft land use plan of the proposed Quarry Creek Master Plan be considered as an alternative land use concept. A graphic showing the draft Quarry Creek Master Plan land use plan is attached to the letter in Appendix C.
Marja Acres (Focus Area 4)
Description of Marja Acres (Focus Area 4)
Concept A: Centers shows commercial use along El
Camino Real, with high density residential behind.
Concept B: Active Waterfront and Concept C: Core
Focus both show commercial use along El Camino
Real, with medium density residential behind.
Feedback on Marja Acres (Focus Area 4)
Results from the feedback form/online survey regarding Marja Acres (Focus Area 4) are provided in Table 6 and summarized as follows:
• Fifty-three percent of respondents prefer Concept B: Active Waterfront/Concept C: Core Focus (which included the same land use con-figuration) for Marja Acres. Some of those who chose Concepts B/C preferred not to see high density residential in the area.
• Ten percent of respondents chose Concept A: Centers. Some of the respondents indicated that they saw the area as a good location for higher density residential as it is located along El Camino Real.
• Twenty-one percent of respondents chose none or other. Reasons cited include the preference to keep the area as open space or not to see any medium or high density in the area.
TABLE 6: MARJA ACRES
(FOCUS AREA 4) RESULTS
OPTIONS NUMBER PERCENT
Concept A: Centers 35 10%
Concept B: Active Waterfront/
Concept C: Core Focus
186 53%
None 55 16%
Other 18 5%
Left Blank 55 16%
Total 349 100%
* Percentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding.
Feedback received by letter regarding Marja Acres (Focus Area 4) is summarized below; copies of all letters received are attached in Appendix C.
• No letters were received regarding this focus area.
Sunny Creek Commercial (Focus Area 5)
Description of Sunny Creek Commercial
(Focus Area 5)
Concept A: Centers show commercial surrounded
by medium density residential use.
Concept B: Active Waterfront and Concept C: Core
Focus includes only commercial use.
Feedback on Sunny Creek Commercial (Focus
Area 5)
Results from the feedback form/online survey regarding Sunny Creek Commercial (Focus Area 5) are provided in Table 7 and summarized as follows:
• Thirty-six percent of respondents prefer Concept B: Active Waterfront/Concept C: Core Focus (which included the same land use con-figuration) for Sunny Creek Commercial (Focus Area 5). A few respondents who chose Concept B/C would like to see neighborhood serving commercial in the area such as a grocery store and restaurants.
17
Community Feedback Report: Land Use Concepts
• Twenty-nine percent of respondents chose Concept A: Centers. Some respondents liked having commercial and residential uses adjacent to each other.
• Nineteen percent of respondents chose none or other. Reasons cited included the preference to see the area as medium/low density residential without any commercial uses or to see the area as open space.
Table 7: SUNNY CReeK COMMeRCIal
(FOCUS aRea 5) ReSUlTS
OPTIONS NUMBER PERCENT
Concept A: Centers 101 29%
Concept B: Active Waterfront/
Concept C: Core Focus
126 36%
None 49 14%
Other 18 5%
Left Blank 55 16%
Total 349 100%
* Percentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding.
Feedback received by letter regarding Sunny
Creek Commercial (Focus Area 5) is summarized
below; copies of all letters received are attached in
Appendix C.
• No letters were received regarding this focus
area.
Mandana (Focus area 6)
Description of Mandana (Focus Area 6)
All three land use concepts show Mandana (Focus
Area 6) as very low density residential.
Feedback on Mandana (Focus Area 6)
Results from the feedback form/online survey
regarding Mandana (Focus Area 6) are provided in
Table 8 and summarized as follows:
• Fifty-two percent of respondents preferred the
very low density residential designation.
• Thirty-five percent of respondents chose none or other, where most would prefer to see the area designated as open space.
• A few respondents identified the area as a poten-tial site to accommodate quality low to medium density residential uses, while a few others indicated their preference to see continued agri-cultural use.
Table 8: MaNDaNa
(FOCUS aRea 6) ReSUlTS
OPTIONS NUMBER PERCENT
Concept A: Centers/
Concept B: Active Waterfront/
Concept C: Core Focus
180 52%
None 75 21%
Other 47 14%
Left Blank 47 14%
Total 349 100%
* Percentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding.
Feedback received by letter regarding Mandana (Focus Area 6) is summarized below; copies of all letters received are attached in Appendix C.
• Letters from Hofman Planning (one letter has no date the other is dated March 15, 2012): due to planning and environmental constraints, it is suggested that the low-medium density (RLM) designation would be more appropriate, which would allow for homes to be clustered on smaller lots than allowed by the very low density des-ignation. This would be more environmen-tally sensitive due to a reduced area of grading/development.
18
Envision Carlsbad
www.carlsbadca.gov/envision
Palomar Corridor (Focus Area 7)
Description of Palomar Corridor (Focus Area 7)
Concept A: Centers includes industrial and office uses, with a new high density residential neighbor-hood at the east end and new mixed use commercial uses along the southern part of the area.
Concept B: Active Waterfront maintains the area as industrial/office with some commercial uses allowed.
Concept C: Core Focus includes industrial/office with some high density residential and mixed use commercial uses around the periphery, placing people close to jobs and services.
Feedback on Palomar Corridor (Focus Area 7)
Results from the feedback form/online survey
regarding Palomar Corridor (Focus Area 7) are
provided in Table 9 and summarized as follows:
• Forty-five percent of respondents prefer Concept
B: Active Waterfront for the Palomar Corridor
(Focus Area 7). Some respondents were against
residential uses in the area and indicated that
industrial and office uses should continue.
• Twenty-three percent of respondents preferred
Concept C: Core Focus, with some of the reasons
being that it locates mixed use and housing along
corridors such as El Camino Real and Palomar
Airport Road, and support the overall concept
of locating housing near jobs.
• Eleven percent of respondents chose none or
other, with a few comments stating that the area
is already too congested.
• Eight percent of respondents preferred Concept
A: Centers. A few respondents liked that it
included some mixed use along the periphery of
the area.
TAble 9: PAlOMAR CORRIDOR
(FOCUS AReA 7) ReSUlTS
OPTIONS NUMBER PERCENT
Concept A: Centers 28 8%
Concept B: Active
Waterfront
156 45%
Concept C: Core Focus 82 23%
None 29 8%
Other 11 3%
Left Blank 43 12%
Total 349 100%
* Percentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding.
Feedback received by letter regarding Palomar Corridor (Focus Area 7) is summarized below; copies of all letters received are attached in Appendix C, unless otherwise stated.
• Petition dated January 2012, signed by approxi-mately 445 individuals, stating: “The citizens of South Carlsbad oppose the proposal to rezone the land off of El Fuerte and Gateway in the Master Planned Community of the Bressi Ranch Development. The city is proposing it be rezoned from industrial usage to residential/mixed usage for a high density apartment complex. This plan will not only impact Bressi Ranch residents but the neighboring La Costa Greens residents as well. We, the tax paying citizens, urge the city to deny this rezoning proposal and leave the land as originally intended. Please fill out and sign below if you are opposed to the aforementioned rezoning proposal.” Note: because the petition contains personal information of the signees, a copy of the petition is not attached; the petition is on file with the city.
• Letter from Kilroy Realty Corporation (owner), dated Jan. 23, regarding lots 4-5 and 7-8 of the Carlsbad Oaks Business Park (north of Faraday Ave and west of Melrose Dr): the letter suggests that the Office (O) land use designation would be appropriate for these parcels in order to allow medical office uses (the lots are currently desig-nated Planned Industrial (PI)). Note: Concept C: Core Focus proposes high density residential on lot 8, however, the other lots mentioned in the letter remain as Planned Industrial (PI) in all the land use concepts.
19
Community Feedback Report: Land Use Concepts
• Email/Letters from Isis Pharmaceuticals, Techbilt Construction Corporation and BMR Gazelle, dated Jan. 24, Jan. 26, Feb. 8 and Mar. 8, regarding lot 8 of Carlsbad Oaks North Business Park (map attached to Techbilt letter dated Jan 26): opposes changing the land use on the this site from Planned Industrial (PI) to high density residential. Residential would be incompatible with industrial uses in the area.
• Letter from Techbilt Construction Corporation, dated Jan. 26: requests that lot 1 of Carlsbad Oaks North (map attached to letter) be considered as a site for high density residential (currently des-ignated Planned Industrial (PI)). The land use concepts do not propose any land use change on this site.
• Letter from H.G. Fenton Company (owner), dated Jan. 27, regarding lots 12 and 15 of the Raceway business park (the lots at the city’s eastern boundary on the north and south sides of Lionshead Ave): supports changing the lots from Planned Industrial (PI) to high density residential.
• Email from Terri Mundy, dated Jan. 24, regard-ing the site at the southwest corner of Palomar Airport Rd and El Fuerte St: requests that the site not be changed from Planned Industrial (PI) to high density residential (as shown in Concept C: Core Focus).
• Email from Deborah and Gary Holmes, dated
Mar. 13, regarding the site at the southwest
corner of Palomar Airport Rd and El Fuerte St:
opposes changing the land use designation to
allow apartments.
• Letter from Carlsbad Gateway Center, dated
Mar. 14, regarding the Carlsbad Gateway Center:
wishes to retain Industrial (M-Q) zoning desig-
nation, does not want to be designated Planned
Industrial (P-M).
Southern Freeway Corridor (Focus Area 8)
Description of Southern Freeway Corridor
(Focus Area 8)
Concept A: Centers includes commercial and res-idential uses near Poinsettia Station, with freeway oriented commercial uses at the Palomar Airport Road freeway interchange and industrial/office uses along Avenida Encinas.
Concept B: Active Waterfront includes high density residential use near Poinsettia Station to create more residential opportunities in the area and support commercial and parks/open space activity along the coast.
Concept C: Core Focus includes medium density residential near the Poinsettia Station.
Feedback on Southern Freeway Corridor
(Focus Area 8)
Results from the feedback form/online survey
regarding Southern Freeway Corridor (Focus Area
8) are provided in Table 10 and summarized as
follows:
• Generally all three concepts found equivalent
level of support, with a slightly greater percent-
age of respondents preferring Concept B.
• Twenty-eight percent of respondents support
Concept B: Active Waterfront. Some respon-
dents support the location of high density
residential in close proximity to the Poinsettia
Station.
• Twenty-three percent of respondents support
Concept C: Core Focus as a means to provide
housing in the area but at lower densities.
• Twenty-one percent of respondents chose
Concept A: Centers. Some reasons cited for the
preference include minimal residential uses
near the train tracks, compared to the other two
land use concepts.
• Eleven percent of respondents chose none or
other, with a few respondents wanting to see less
intense development.
20
Envision Carlsbad
www.carlsbadca.gov/envision
TABLE 10: SOUTHERN FREEWAY CORRIDOR
(FOCUS AREA 8) RESULTS
OPTIONS NUMBER PERCENT
Concept A: Centers 73 21%
Concept B: Active
Waterfront
99 28%
Concept C: Core Focus 81 23%
None 33 9%
Other 8 2%
Left Blank 55 16%
Total 349 100%
* Percentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding.
Feedback received by letter regarding Southern Freeway Corridor (Focus Area 8) is summarized below; copies of all letters received are attached in Appendix C.
• No letters were received regarding this focus area.
Ponto/Southern Waterfront (Focus Area 9)
Description of Ponto/Southern Waterfront
(Focus Area 9)
Concept A: Centers show high density residen-
tial uses in close proximity to services and retail at
Ponto.
In Concept B: Active Waterfront, a waterfront park/
promenade is envisioned along the coastline with
activity nodes located along the waterfront which
will be accessible to neighborhoods to the east. Uses
include high density residential, mixed use, com-
mercial, and parks/open space.
Concept C: Core Focus shows mixed use at Ponto,
and park/open space areas.
Feedback on Ponto/Southern Waterfront
(Focus Area 9)
Results from the feedback form/online survey regarding Ponto/Southern Waterfront (Focus Area 9) are provided in Table 11 and summarized as follows:
• Forty-five percent of respondents chose Concept B: Active Waterfront for the Ponto/Southern Waterfront (Focus Area 9). Some respon-dents supported the configuration for creating a vibrant and exciting waterfront destination, with public access and passive open space as pri-orities in the area.
• Twenty-one percent of respondents preferred Concept C: Core Focus. Some of the reasons for this preference included limited development along the coast.
• Fifteen percent of respondents chose none or other. Some did not want to see any changes in the area, and preferred to see the continuation of overnight camping and lower density in Ponto.
• Five percent of respondents preferred Concept A: Centers. Similar to Concept C, some respon-dents chose this concept due to a preference for limited development along the coast.
TABLE 11: PONTO/SOUTHERN WATERFRONT
(FOCUS AREA 9) RESULTS
OPTIONS NUMBER PERCENT
Concept A: Centers 16 5%
Concept B: Active
Waterfront
157 45%
Concept C: Core Focus 74 21%
None 38 11%
Other 14 4%
Left Blank 50 14%
Total 349 100%
* Percentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding.
Feedback received by letter regarding Ponto/
Southern Waterfront (Focus Area 9) is summarized
below; copies of all letters received are attached in
Appendix C.
• Email from Andrew Rubin, dated Feb 6, regard-
ing the Ponto area: concerned that development
of the Ponto area will take over the last open
stretch of coastline in the city.
21
Community Feedback Report: Land Use Concepts
Aviara (Focus Area 10)
Description of Aviara (Focus Area 10)
Concept A: Centers includes low, medium and high density residential uses with open space.
Concept B: Active Waterfront includes low and medium density residential uses with open spaces.
Concept C: Core Focus shows low and medium density residential uses with open spaces and addi-tional commercial recreation uses.
Feedback on Aviara (Focus Area 10)
Results from the feedback form/online survey
regarding Aviara (Focus Area 10) are provided in
Table 12 and summarized as follows:
• Twenty-nine percent of respondents prefer
Concept C: Core Focus. Some respondents pre-
ferred it as it includes more areas designated as
lower density residential compared to the other
two land use concepts. Also, some respondents
liked the idea of having areas for recreation and
open space.
• Twenty-eight percent of respondents supported
Concept B: Active Waterfront for this area.
Some of these respondents wished to see higher
density residential in the area, to support the
construction of Poinsettia Lane.
• Fifteen percent of respondents chose none or
other, with a few respondents preferring the area
to remain the same or with a low density and
open space configuration.
• Ten percent of respondents preferred Concept
A: Centers. Like those who preferred Concept B,
some of these respondents wished to see higher
density residential in the area, to support the
construction of Poinsettia Lane.
TABLE 12: AVIARA (FOCUS AREA 10) RESULTS
OPTIONS NUMBER PERCENT
Concept A: Centers 36 10%
Concept B: Active
Waterfront
96 28%
Concept C: Core Focus 100 29%
None 35 10%
Other 18 5%
Left Blank 64 18%
Total 349 100%
* Percentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding.
Feedback received by letter regarding Aviara (Focus
Area 10) is summarized below; copies of all letters
received are attached in Appendix C.
• Letter from Aviara Resort Associates, dated Feb.
8, regarding the parcel located south of the Park
Hyatt Aviara Resort hotel: site is currently desig-
nated for commercial/recreation uses, however,
such uses have not been found to be financially
viable. Supportive of considering other land
uses for the site; most preferable is the medium
density residential shown in Concept C: Core
Focus. High density or low density residential
would also be supported.
South El Camino Real (Focus Area 11)
Description of South El Camino Real (Focus
Area 11)
Concept A: Centers includes mixed use, medium
and high density residential and commercial uses
along El Camino Real.
Concept B: Active Waterfront includes commercial
and high density residential uses along El Camino
Real.
Concept C: Core Focus includes mixed use and
commercial uses along El Camino Real.
22
Envision Carlsbad
www.carlsbadca.gov/envision
Feedback on South El Camino Real (Focus
Area 11)
Results from the feedback form/online survey regarding South El Camino Real (Focus Area 11) are provided in Table 13 and summarized as follows:
• Thirty-five percent of respondents prefer Concept C: Core Focus. Some of the reasons for this preference include that this concept does not provide distinct sites for high density resi-dential, and mixed use and commercial uses are seen as more compatible with adjacent single family uses.
• Eighteen percent of respondents chose Concept B: Active Waterfront. Some saw the area as a good location for high density residential.
• Fourteen percent of respondents chose Concept A: Centers. Like Concept B, some preferred high density residential in the area.
• Fourteen percent of respondents chose none or other, with some preferring less residential in the area and generally lower intensity develop-ment in the area.
Table 13: SOUTH el CaMINO Real
(FOCUS aRea 11) ReSUlTS
OPTIONS NUMBER PERCENT
Concept A: Centers 48 14%
Concept B: Active
Waterfront
62 18%
Concept C: Core Focus 123 35%
None 40 11%
Other 12 3%
Left Blank 64 18%
Total 349 100%
* Percentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding.
Feedback received by letter regarding South El
Camino Real (Focus Area 11) is summarized
below; copies of all letters received are attached in
Appendix C.
• No letters were received regarding this focus
area.
Other Feedback Regarding Sites Outside the Focus areas
Staff received a letter from Meta Housing Cor-
poration, dated Mar. 12, that pertains to a site not
identified in any of the focus areas. The site is
located in the northeast quadrant at the southeast
corner of Cannon Rd. and Wind Trail Way and is
currently designated Office (O). Meta Housing is
interested in developing a 100 unit senior housing
project on the site and has requested that the site be
considered as a potential high density residential
site.
Staff advised Meta Housing that the request would
require changing the land use designation from
office to high density residential and that units
would have to be withdrawn from the city’s excess
dwelling unit bank to enable this to happen.
However, the proposed land use concepts utilize the
majority of excess units available for the northeast
quadrant. As the Preferred Plan is developed, if suf-
ficient excess units are found to be available, the city
could consider changing this site to residential.
Appendix A: Feedback Form/Survey
1
The land use concepts presented at this workshop represent alternative strategies for accommodating future population and employment growth, while reflecting the core values identified in the Carlsbad Community Community Vision. The Vision is based upon nine core values that represent the qualities and character-istics of Carlsbad that community members aspire to protect, maintain, improve, change, or achieve in the future.
Land Use Concepts Feedback FormEnvision Carlsbad
• Small Town Feel, Beach Community Character,
and Connectedness
• Open Space and the Natural Environment
• Access to Recreation and Active, Healthy
Lifestyles
• The Local Economy, Business Diversity, and
Tourism
• Walking, Biking, Public Transportation, and
Connectivity
• Sustainability
• History, the Arts, and Cultural Resources
• High Quality Education and Community
Services
• Neighborhood Revitalization, Community
Design, and Livability
CARLSBAD COMMUNITY VISION CORE VALUES
www.carlsbadca.gov/envision
OVERALL STRATEGY OF CONCEPTS
CENTERS (A)ACTIVE WATERFRONT (B)CORE FOCUS (C)
This concept focuses on having walkable
neighborhoods where residents have ac-
cess to retail, services, and jobs. Neighbor-
hoods are focused on mixed-use areas with
supporting residential and commercial
uses within a ½ mile radius.
This concept focuses on how to activate the
waterfront area in order to create a desti-
nation that is accessible to the surrounding
community and citywide.
This concept focuses growth in the core
of the city by increasing employment and
housing opportunities; creating an area
where people can live, work, and shop;
and enhancing pedestrian, bike, and tran-
sit connections.
I like (check one): A B C NONE OTHER (please explain)
Why did you select this concept? How would you add to or change this concept?
2
Envision Carlsbad
CENTERS (A)ACTIVE WATERFRONT (B)CORE FOCUS (C)FOCUS AREA 1 NORTHWEST COASTALMixed use in the Village will extend into
residential uses in the Barrio, creating a
connection between higher density resi-
dential and mixed use. The Power Plant
area will have hotels/retail, other visitor
serving commercial, and open space.
Mixed use in the Village, along with infill
high and medium density development in
Barrio. The Power Plant area will be an activ-
ity node with commercial, hotels, residential
and open space.
The Power Plant will have hotel and visitor
services with mixed use in the Village and
residential in the Barrio.
I like (check one): A B C NONE OTHER (please explain)
Comment:FOCUS AREA 2 PLAZA CAMINO REAL Mixed use and open space on the mall site
with commercial and mixed use east of El
Camino Real.
Mixed use, commercial, and open space on
the mall site with high density residential
and commercial east of El Camino Real.
Mixed use, commercial, and open space on
the mall site with just commercial east of El
Camino Real.
I like (check one): A B C NONE OTHER (please explain)
Comment:
MAP LEGEND
Village Redevelopment Area Village Redevelopment Area Village Redevelopment Area
PROPOSED LAND USE CATEGORIES EXISTING LAND USE CATEGORIES BOUNDARIES
CIRCULATION
Land Use Concepts
FOCUS AREA 4 MARJA ACRESCommercial along El Camino Real with resi-
dential behind
Commercial along El Camino Real with me-
dium density residential behind.
Commercial along El Camino Real with me-
dium density residential behind.
I like (check one): A B C NONE OTHER (please explain)
Comment:FOCUS AREA 5 SUNNY CREEKCommercial surrounded by medium density
residential.
Commercial only.Commercial only.
I like (check one): A B C NONE OTHER (please explain)
Comment:FOCUS AREA 6 MANDANAVery low density residential.Very low density residential.Very low density residential.
I like (check one): A B C NONE OTHER (please explain)
Comment:
CENTERS (A)ACTIVE WATERFRONT (B)CORE FOCUS (C)FOCUS AREA 3 QUARRY CREEKMedium and high density residential uses
with campus, placing residents next to jobs
and open space with extension of Marron Rd.
Medium and high density residential uses at
higher densities next to open space with ex-
tension of Marron Road.
Medium and high density residential uses
next to open space with extension of Mar-
ron Road.
I like (check one): A B C NONE OTHER (please explain)
Comment:
MARRON RD
MARRON RD
MARRON RD
EL CA
M
I
N
O
R
E
A
L
EL CA
M
I
N
O
R
E
A
L
EL C
A
M
I
N
O
R
E
A
L
EL CA
M
I
N
O
R
E
A
L
EL CA
M
I
N
O
R
E
A
L
EL C
A
M
I
N
O
R
E
A
L
4
Envision Carlsbad
CENTERS (A)FOCUS AREA 7 PALOMAR CORRIDORIndustrial/Office, with a new high density residential neighborhood at east end and new mixed use commercial uses along
southern part of area.
ACTIVE WATERFRONT (B)
Industrial/Office with some commercial uses allowed.
CORE FOCUS (C)
Industrial/Office with some high density residential and mixed use commercial uses around the periphery placing people
close to jobs and services.
I like (check one): A B C NONE OTHER (please explain)
Comment:
5
Land Use Concepts
CENTERS (A)ACTIVE WATERFRONT (B)CORE FOCUS (C)FOCUS AREA 8 SOUTHERN FREEWAY CORRIDORCommercial and residential near Poinsettia
Station, with freeway oriented commercial
uses at Palomar freeway interchange. In-
dustrial/Office along Avenida Encinas.
High density residential use near Poinsettia
Station to create more residential opportu-
nities in area and support commercial and
parks/open space activity along the coast.
Medium Density Residential
I like (check one): A B C OTHER (please explain)
Comment:FOCUS AREA 9 PONTO/SOUTHERN WATERFRONTHigh density residential uses in close prox-
imity to services and retail at Ponto.
A Waterfront Park/Promenade is envisioned
along the coastline with activity nodes locat-
ed along the waterfront which will be acces-
sible to neighborhoods to the east.
Mixed use area with medium and high
density residential and commercial uses at
Ponto.
I like (check one): A B C OTHER (please explain)
Comment:
6
Envision Carlsbad
CENTERS (A)ACTIVE WATERFRONT (B)CORE FOCUS (C)FOCUS AREA 10 AVIARALow, medium and high density residential
uses with open space.
Low and medium density residential uses
with open space.
Low and medium density residential uses
with open space. Additional commercial
recreation uses.
I like (check one): A B C NONE OTHER (please explain)
Comment:FOCUS AREA 11 SOUTH EL CAMINO REALMixed use, medium and high density resi-
dential and commercial uses along El Cami-
no Real.
Commercial and high density residential uses
along El Camino Real.
Mixed Use and commercial uses along El
Camino Real.
I like (check one): A B C NONE OTHER (please explain)
Comment:EL CAMINO REALEL CAMINO REALOngoing community participation is essential as alternative strategies and trade-offs are evaluated
and implementing policies to accomplish the Vision are developed. Please continue to visit the website
www.carlsbadca.gov/envision for news and further participation and feedback opportunities.
ONGOING COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
Appendix B: Tabulated Feedback Form/Survey Results and Comments
Land Use Concepts
Survey Responses
Key:
A = Centers C = Core Focus O = Other
B = Active Waterfront N = None (blank) = no response
ID Overall Pref FA1 Pref FA2 Pref FA3 Pref FA4 Pref FA5 Pref
1 O N
2 B C A A BC A
3 O A O O A A
4 B B A C A A
5
6 B B B A A A
7 B B C O BC BC
8 A A B B BC A
9 B A
10 C N
11 A O B N BC BC
12 O N N N N
13 A B A A BC
14 O
15 N B B N BC A
16 B B B O BC A
17 B
18 C B B B BC BC
19 A
20 B
21 B B A B BC BC
22 N A A
23 C
24
25 B B C A BC A
26
27 B B C A BC BC
28 B O A B BC A
29 B B A BC BC
30 B B C C BC BC
31 B B B B BC BC
32 B B B B BC BC
33 B B B B BC BC
34 B C C A BC BC
35 B B A A BC BC
36 B B BC BC
37 B B B B BC BC
38 B B B B BC BC
39 B B B B BC BC
40 B B B B BC A
41 B
42 B N C C BC BC
43 B B B BC BC
44 B B B B BC BC
45 B B B B BC BC
46 B C C A A A
47 B B C A BC BC
Land Use Concepts
Survey Responses
Key:
A = Centers C = Core Focus O = Other
B = Active Waterfront N = None (blank) = no response
ID Overall Pref FA1 Pref FA2 Pref FA3 Pref FA4 Pref FA5 Pref
48 B B O B BC O
49 B B B
50 B B B
51 A B A A BC BC
52 A A B A BC BC
53 B N C B BC BC
54 B B B B BC BC
55 B B C B BC BC
56 B
57 B
58 B B B B BC BC
59 B B B N N BC
60 B B B B BC
61
62 B O O O O O
63 C N B O A A
64 C C A N O A
65 B
66 O O O O O O
67 C C
68 B O N N
69 A B A A BC A
70 C O A N BC O
71 C C C C BC A
72 A A A A A A
73 B O B O BC A
74
75 C C C C N BC
76 A C C A BC BC
77 B A A C BC A
78 B A A C BC A
79 C O
80 C N
81 O N N N N O
82 N
83 O O O O
84 O O
85 O O
86 C N
87 O O
88 O O C O BC A
89 C O
90 C O C O O BC
91 C A B O
92 C C O O
93 C O
94 B B C O BC BC
Land Use Concepts
Survey Responses
Key:
A = Centers C = Core Focus O = Other
B = Active Waterfront N = None (blank) = no response
ID Overall Pref FA1 Pref FA2 Pref FA3 Pref FA4 Pref FA5 Pref
95 O A
96 C C A O
97 C A B O
98 C B N C BC A
99 C B C N BC A
100 B O C N O BC
101 B O N N N BC
102 A B A A BC A
103 B A A B N N
104 B B B B A A
105 C
106 C C N N A N
107 O A O O A O
108 N N B B BC BC
109 C C C B BC BC
110 B B C A BC O
111 B B A O BC BC
112 C C B C A A
113 C C B C BC A
114 B B B B BC A
115 C C B C BC A
116 O C C B BC A
117 B B C A BC A
118 B B B B N BC
119 A A A A A A
120 O C C C A BC
121 B B A B BC A
122 A O O O BC A
123 A N A A A BC
124 A A
125 B B B B A N
126 C C C N BC A
127 B B B A N A
128 N N N N N N
129 C C C C BC BC
130 N N N O N N
131 B
132 C
133 B B C C BC BC
134 B N C N N BC
135 A A
136 C C N N N N
137 B B C B BC A
138 N N N N N N
139 A C C A BC BC
140 N N N N N N
141 A A C O BC A
Land Use Concepts
Survey Responses
Key:
A = Centers C = Core Focus O = Other
B = Active Waterfront N = None (blank) = no response
ID Overall Pref FA1 Pref FA2 Pref FA3 Pref FA4 Pref FA5 Pref
142 B B B B BC BC
143 B A B B BC A
144 B B B B BC BC
145 B B C B BC BC
146 B B A N N N
147 B A A A BC A
148 O N N N N N
149 N N C B BC N
150 N B B A BC A
151 C C A A BC A
152 N
153 A A A N BC N
154 B B A B BC BC
155 O N O N N N
156 B B B B BC BC
157 A A A A A A
158 A A B B A A
159 B B B B BC A
160 B B C O BC BC
161 A B O C BC A
162 O C C O N N
163 B B B B BC BC
164 C A A A A BC
165 N
166 C A A A BC A
167 B B B B BC BC
168 B B B B N BC
169 B A B B BC A
170 B C C B BC BC
171 B N A N N N
172 A B A B BC A
173 B B B C BC BC
174 N N N N N N
175 B B A A A A
176 B N N O O O
177 A A A B BC BC
178 B B B B BC BC
179 A A C O N A
180 B B C B BC BC
181 B B B B BC BC
182 A A B A BC A
183 B B B C BC A
184 A C A A BC A
185 C B C C BC N
186 C C C N BC BC
187 C C C C O BC
188 N N C C O N
Land Use Concepts
Survey Responses
Key:
A = Centers C = Core Focus O = Other
B = Active Waterfront N = None (blank) = no response
ID Overall Pref FA1 Pref FA2 Pref FA3 Pref FA4 Pref FA5 Pref
189 B C C C BC A
190 B B B B BC BC
191 B B B B BC BC
192 C C C C O BC
193 B B B A BC A
194 B B N N N BC
195 A C A N N N
196 N N N N N N
197 O O O O BC BC
198 B B A A BC BC
199 O O N A A A
200 B
201 C O C C N N
202 B B B A BC A
203 C B C N BC A
204 B B B B BC BC
205 A C B A BC BC
206 C B N N N N
207 A C A C BC A
208 A B A C A A
209 N C N N BC N
210 C C B N O A
211 C B B B A A
212 B A N N N N
213 A B B B BC BC
214 C N N N N BC
215 A A A A A A
216 B N N N N BC
217 B B B A BC BC
218 N N C B BC N
219 N O C N N BC
220 C C N N BC BC
221 B B B B BC BC
222 B B B C BC A
223 B N A
224 A A A A A A
225 A A C C BC BC
226 A A A A A A
227 B B B B BC BC
228 C O A N A A
229 N N N O O O
230 B B B B BC BC
231 A C A C BC N
232 B B B B BC BC
233 C
234 B B N N BC BC
235 B N N N BC N
Land Use Concepts
Survey Responses
Key:
A = Centers C = Core Focus O = Other
B = Active Waterfront N = None (blank) = no response
ID Overall Pref FA1 Pref FA2 Pref FA3 Pref FA4 Pref FA5 Pref
236 B
237 A B C C A BC
238 O N B B BC A
239 B B B A A BC
240 N A O B BC A
241 B A C B BC N
242 C A A C BC BC
243 C C O O O O
244 B B A C BC BC
245 A A A B BC A
246 B B A B N N
247 C
248 B B B C BC BC
249 B B C B BC BC
250 B B B B BC BC
251 N N N N N N
252 C C C C N O
253 C A O N O O
254 B B B B BC BC
255 O A C C BC A
256 O O A C BC O
257 B B B B BC BC
258 B N B A BC N
259 A N B C N A
260 C
261 A
262 O N B N N BC
263 A N C N BC BC
264 A A C C BC A
265 C C C B N N
266 C C B C N BC
267 B B B B BC BC
268 C N C N N N
269 B B A B BC BC
270 B B B N BC N
271 B B B N BC N
272 C C O N O O
273 N N A A N A
274 C O A N BC A
275 C C C C BC A
276 B
277 B C C N BC A
278 B N N N N N
279 B A C A BC BC
280 C A A N BC BC
281 B
282 N O A C BC A
Land Use Concepts
Survey Responses
Key:
A = Centers C = Core Focus O = Other
B = Active Waterfront N = None (blank) = no response
ID Overall Pref FA1 Pref FA2 Pref FA3 Pref FA4 Pref FA5 Pref
283 B B B A BC BC
284 N N C A N N
285 O A C C N N
286 N N N N N N
287 C C
288 B B B B BC BC
289 B B B B BC BC
290 N O C C N BC
291 A A A B BC A
292 B N A A BC BC
293 B B B N BC BC
294 C C C N BC A
295 C B B C A A
296 B C C B BC BC
297 A B A C BC A
298 B B C A BC A
299 B B C A O A
300 A C N N N N
301 B B N N N N
302 B B B A BC BC
303 N N N N N N
304 B A B A BC A
305 A B O B BC BC
306 O B O O O O
307 C
308 C C N A N BC
309 A N
310 N C C N BC A
311 C B C N BC BC
312 B A A B BC BC
313 N N N O N O
314 C N N N O BC
315 B B B C BC N
316 B B B B BC BC
317 A A A C BC A
318 A N N N N N
319 C C A N BC A
320 C B B C
321 C C C C BC BC
322 C C B C BC BC
323 C C C C BC BC
324 B B B B BC BC
325 B B B B BC BC
326 C C C C BC BC
327 A B N N N N
328 C
329 B B B B BC BC
Land Use Concepts
Survey Responses
Key:
A = Centers C = Core Focus O = Other
B = Active Waterfront N = None (blank) = no response
ID Overall Pref FA1 Pref FA2 Pref FA3 Pref FA4 Pref FA5 Pref
330 C N B C A A
331 N N N N A N
332 B A N N N N
333 A A A A A A
334 N B C B BC A
335 B B B N BC BC
336 B C A A BC A
337 A B B A BC A
338 A A A A A A
339 B B B C BC A
340 B B B B BC BC
341 A B A C BC A
342 B B A B BC BC
343 B B B B BC BC
344 B B B B BC A
345 B B B B BC A
346 A A C A A A
347 N N N N N N
348 C C B C BC BC
349 C C C C BC BC
Land Use Concepts
Survey Responses
Key:
A = Centers C = Core Focus O = Other
B = Active Waterfront N = None (blank) = no response
ID FA6 Pref FA7 Pref FA8 Pref FA9 Pref FA10 Pref FA11 Pref
1 B C C
2 ABC C C C C A
3 O A A B B O
4 ABC C B B A A
5 B
6 B A C C B
7 ABC B A B B C
8 A B B C A
9 N B A C C B
10
11 ABC C C B C A
12 N O N N C
13 ABC C B B C B
14
15 ABC B B B C C
16 ABC B B B C C
17 B B
18 O C A B C C
19 B
20
21 ABC B B B B B
22 ABC C B B A
23 C
24 B
25 ABC B B B C B
26 B
27 ABC B C O B C
28 O B A B O B
29 ABC B B B B C
30 ABC B B B B B
31 ABC B B B
32 ABC B A B B C
33 ABC B B B B B
34 ABC B A C O O
35 ABC B B B B B
36 B B B
37 ABC B B B B B
38 ABC B B B B B
39 ABC B B B B B
40 ABC B B B B B
41
42 ABC B C C C C
43 ABC B B B B B
44 ABC B B B B B
45 ABC B B B B B
46 O B A B B O
47 ABC B C C C C
Land Use Concepts
Survey Responses
Key:
A = Centers C = Core Focus O = Other
B = Active Waterfront N = None (blank) = no response
ID FA6 Pref FA7 Pref FA8 Pref FA9 Pref FA10 Pref FA11 Pref
48 ABC B
49 B B B B B
50 B B
51 A A C C A
52 B A B A C
53 ABC B B
54 ABC B B B B B
55 ABC B
56 B
57 B
58 ABC B B B
59 ABC B B B B B
60 ABC B B B O O
61 B
62 O B A O O O
63 O C B C A
64 ABC O C N
65
66 ABC O O O O O
67
68 O C B
69 O C C B A A
70 O C B A A N
71 ABC C B B B A
72 ABC A A A A A
73 O O B O O A
74 O C
75 ABC B A C C C
76 ABC B A B B C
77 ABC C B B C C
78 ABC C B B
79
80 O
81 N O C C C C
82
83 O O B C
84 O
85 N
86 N
87 O C
88 O C C C C O
89 O
90 O B A C C C
91 O C B C
92 O
93 O
94 O B C B B A
Land Use Concepts
Survey Responses
Key:
A = Centers C = Core Focus O = Other
B = Active Waterfront N = None (blank) = no response
ID FA6 Pref FA7 Pref FA8 Pref FA9 Pref FA10 Pref FA11 Pref
95 O C A
96 O C A B C A
97 O C A A
98 ABC B C B C C
99 ABC B C B C C
100 ABC B A C O C
101 N B A C B C
102 ABC A C B A A
103 N N N N N N
104 N C B B A A
105
106 N C C N O N
107 O C A B A C
108 ABC B C A C C
109 ABC C C B C C
110 ABC B C B B C
111 N O O B O B
112 ABC C A C C C
113 ABC C B B B A
114 ABC C B B B B
115 N C C B C C
116 ABC C B B B A
117 ABC B A B C C
118 N B B B N N
119 ABC C A C A A
120 N B C C B C
121 ABC B B B B B
122 ABC C B B C A
123 ABC C B B A A
124
125 ABC B A N B B
126 O C C C C C
127 N C B B B A
128 N O N O O N
129 N C C O C C
130 N N N O N N
131
132
133 ABC B C B B B
134 ABC B A C N C
135
136 N C C C C C
137 ABC B C B B B
138 N N N N N N
139 ABC A A N A A
140 N N N N N O
141 N C A C A A
Land Use Concepts
Survey Responses
Key:
A = Centers C = Core Focus O = Other
B = Active Waterfront N = None (blank) = no response
ID FA6 Pref FA7 Pref FA8 Pref FA9 Pref FA10 Pref FA11 Pref
142 ABC B A B C C
143 ABC B B B C C
144 ABC B B B B B
145 ABC B B B B C
146 N N N N C N
147 ABC C A C C C
148 N N N N N N
149 ABC B C B B C
150 ABC B B A C B
151 ABC C C C B C
152
153 N A A C B C
154 ABC B C B C C
155 O O A B C O
156 N B B B B B
157 O A A A A B
158 ABC C C C A B
159 ABC B B B B C
160 ABC B A B O C
161 ABC N C C C C
162 ABC B C N N C
163 ABC B B B B B
164 ABC C C B C C
165
166 ABC C A B A C
167 ABC C B B B B
168 N B N B B C
169 ABC B B B C C
170 ABC B A B N C
171 ABC N N N N N
172 ABC C C C B C
173 ABC B C B B C
174 N N N N N N
175 ABC B A C C C
176 O B O O N N
177 ABC C C B B A
178 ABC B B B B B
179 ABC C C B C B
180 N B B B A B
181 ABC B A B B C
182 ABC C B B A C
183 ABC B A B B C
184 ABC B A A C C
185 N C B C C C
186 ABC C C C C C
187 N C C C C C
188 N N C O O C
Land Use Concepts
Survey Responses
Key:
A = Centers C = Core Focus O = Other
B = Active Waterfront N = None (blank) = no response
ID FA6 Pref FA7 Pref FA8 Pref FA9 Pref FA10 Pref FA11 Pref
189 ABC B C C C B
190 ABC B B B B C
191 ABC B C B C C
192 ABC C C C C C
193 ABC B A B C B
194 N N N B N N
195 N
196 N N N C N N
197 O N N O A O
198 ABC B B B C C
199 N A A N B C
200
201 N B C C C C
202 ABC A C B C A
203 N C A B C C
204 ABC B
205 N B A B B A
206 N N B N N N
207 ABC A C B C C
208 ABC B B B A A
209 ABC B C C C C
210 O C C N A C
211 ABC C C C B A
212 N N N N N N
213 ABC B B B B B
214 ABC B A B A A
215 ABC A B A A A
216 ABC N N N N N
217 ABC C A B C C
218 N N C N B N
219 ABC B N C N N
220 O A B B B C
221 ABC B B C B C
222 N A B B B B
223
224 ABC C A B B A
225 N N A C C C
226 ABC B A N N A
227 ABC B A B B C
228 O C A C A A
229 ABC B O O O C
230 ABC B B B B C
231 ABC C C C C C
232 ABC B B B B C
233
234 ABC B B B B B
235 O B B B N N
Land Use Concepts
Survey Responses
Key:
A = Centers C = Core Focus O = Other
B = Active Waterfront N = None (blank) = no response
ID FA6 Pref FA7 Pref FA8 Pref FA9 Pref FA10 Pref FA11 Pref
236
237 ABC C B B A C
238 O B C C B C
239 ABC C B B C B
240 ABC A A C C B
241 N B A A B C
242 ABC B C C B C
243 O C B A O B
244 O C A B C B
245 ABC C C B C C
246 ABC B B B B C
247
248 ABC B C C C C
249 ABC B B B B B
250 ABC B B B C B
251 ABC N C N N N
252 ABC C C C C C
253 ABC B C C C C
254 O B B B B N
255 ABC A C O C C
256 ABC B C C C A
257 O B B B B B
258 N B C C A N
259 N A A C A A
260
261
262 ABC C N N A A
263 N C C C C A
264 O C B B C A
265 N A C C C C
266 ABC A
267 N N B B N B
268 N A N N N N
269 ABC B C A B C
270 ABC B B B B B
271 N B O B O N
272 N C B B C C
273 ABC A A N A C
274 N C N N C C
275 N A C C C C
276
277 N B N N A A
278 N B N C N N
279 O B B B B C
280 O B O C B C
281
282 ABC C C C C C
Land Use Concepts
Survey Responses
Key:
A = Centers C = Core Focus O = Other
B = Active Waterfront N = None (blank) = no response
ID FA6 Pref FA7 Pref FA8 Pref FA9 Pref FA10 Pref FA11 Pref
283 ABC B B B B B
284 ABC C A B B A
285 N N N N O O
286 N N N N N N
287
288 ABC B B B B B
289 ABC B B B B B
290 N N A N N N
291 ABC C B B C A
292 ABC B C C B N
293 ABC B N B B N
294 N B B C B A
295 ABC A B C B C
296 ABC B B B C C
297 ABC B C B B A
298 ABC B A B B B
299 N B A C C C
300 N N N N N N
301 N N N N N N
302 ABC B A C N B
303 N O N N N N
304 ABC B A C O C
305 N C A B C A
306 O C A B B C
307
308 N C B A C C
309
310 O N N N C N
311 ABC B A N C C
312 ABC B B B B C
313 N B A A A A
314 N B A C C C
315 ABC C B C C C
316 ABC B B B B B
317 O A B B A C
318 N C N B C N
319 ABC B C C C C
320
321 ABC C C C C C
322 N C C C C C
323 ABC B A B C C
324 ABC B B B B B
325 ABC B B B B B
326 O B C C C C
327 N N N N N N
328
329 ABC B B B C B
Land Use Concepts
Survey Responses
Key:
A = Centers C = Core Focus O = Other
B = Active Waterfront N = None (blank) = no response
ID FA6 Pref FA7 Pref FA8 Pref FA9 Pref FA10 Pref FA11 Pref
330 O C C C C A
331 N O O C O O
332 N N O O N N
333 ABC A A A N N
334 ABC C C B A C
335 N B N N N N
336 ABC B C B C C
337 ABC A A B C C
338 ABC A A A A A
339 ABC B B B B C
340 ABC B A B B B
341 ABC C C B C A
342 ABC C A B A C
343 ABC B B B B B
344 ABC C C B B C
345 ABC B B B B B
346 ABC A A N C A
347 N N N N N N
348 ABC C C B C B
349 ABC C C C C C
Land Use Concepts - Survey Comments
IDComment
Overall Concept
A Centers
1. Convenient, save time and gas money.
2. Environment (less driving)
3. Healthier (walking more)
4. People are closer to each other, feel less lonely.
8
Seems sensible and can incorporate pedestrian, bike and transit connections. The waterfront has
always been a destination. Some growth but not too high density with mixed use seems a good
concept.
11
Active waterfront is better - but more items under centers offer economic and living vitality.69
I like the Centers concept over the other two.72
Our residents are getting older, easier to get around, need access to services and stores.76
B Active Waterfront
Eleven areas at 7% of land.2
Want better connection to the beach. Living in the Carlsbad Barrio, despite being within three blocks of
the ocean the fence along the railroad tracks is an impenetrable barrier for one full mile to all
pedestrian or bicycle access.
4
I like the idea of an enhanced waterfront and downtown destination. I don't like the pier concept in the
waterfront plan. Downtown has access to freeway, coaster/rail center, bus, and
retail/commercial/restaurant opportunities. The waterfront is such a key oppportunity. Carlsbad is
unique because so much is accessible. Most are just lined with residential with little or no access. It is
great to drive/walk Carlsbad's coast.
7
It's luxury and one can enjoy the view by walking.9
Creating destination - using beaches more to the benefit of taxpayers - buy it from state and add
commercial beachfront activity.
16
Beach area is the attraction with walkway across railroad from Barrio to beach!!!20
Carlsbad's greatest resource it its waterfront. I like the development concept that protects and
improves access. A great improvement and benefit for residents and revenue generator for local jobs.
21
Let's enhance Carlsbad's biggest asset! Active waterfront is a no brainer for me! I'm happy with how
the Palomar Corridor looks with the concept. BTW: CONCEPT C SUCKS!
29
Focusing on the waterfront areas is GREAT. Keep the Palomar Corridor as-is - NO NEW HOUSING in this
area.
30
I feel strongly against the high density residential apartments in the Palomar Corridor. Our schools are
already suffering and bringing in hundreds of low income students will only drain our schools further.
There is already a disproportionate amount of low income apartments along El Camino and Alga in the
area.
32
Need to minimize high density residential in residential areas. Should be focused along the coast.34
No need for medium and high density development.36
The Village/coastline need to become a mecca for tourists and residents to ensure continued economic
growth and quality of life.
40
No major changes.46
I think we should maximize our most precious feature - the ocean! But I do not want the seaside to be
overdeveloped - and open, natural space should be preserved. I like the idea of the mixed use in the
powerplant area, but would prefer that the Ponto area remain as "natural" as possible to retain the
distinctive, beautiful and uncrowded Carlsbad beaches.
47
Land Use Concepts - Survey Comments
IDComment
Emphasis on oceanfront is a natural amenity that is highly underutilized, and lacks a real identity. Given
economic stimulus coupled with pushing growth to Carlsbad's greatest natural asset, this concept is
clearly most favorable.
48
Develop the waterfront areas.49
I think it keeps our small town beachy feel.50
We are original homeowners in Bressi Ranch and have lived here for six years. Please do not put
apartment buildings next to Trader Joes. This was NEVER part of the plan that we were shown when
we bought our house as part of our community. It would cause overcrowdings to our Poinsettia
Elementary School, more traffic and more work for our police and fire departments. I strongly disagree
to this. Please keep our neighborhood the way that it is and what was promised to us.
54
Because it makes more sense to have a high density area in a downtown location than in an area that is
already more industrial. I am here tonight because I heard that a parcel near Trader Joes (in Bressi) that
is zoned commercial will potentially change to high density zoning to put a 400 unit apartment
complex there. This is an outrage to me. There is no room at Poinsettia Elementary for that many new
students and traffic around this area is already too much. Please do NOT allow the re-zoning of this
parcel! There will be a huge uproar in this community if it happens.
55
The concept B best reflects the Carlsbad Community Vision Core Values: Access to recreation and
active, healthy lifestyles.
58
Best longterm concept. Waterfront is key for future (tourism, destination spot, companies locating
here…)
59
I work in Encinitas and feel that the core is the area near the water. Prices and density increase near
the water. Higher density in areas away from the water can/may decay. But near the ocean over time
prices will only go up. So let's plan appropriately. People who live steps to the beach are much happier
to pay more and live in cramped quarters. Concept B is a wonderful plan for the City!
60
Except eliminating medium and high density development.62
There are 512 homeowners and business owners who oppose Centers (A) and Core Focus (C). As
Carlsbad Constituents we TRUST that the Land Owner and Land Developer have not influenced the
decision making process in any way. The land is currently zoned for light industrial usage which
generates jobs for citizens and taxes for the city.
Concept (B) Active Waterfront is what Carlsbad needs and deserves.
65
The live-work areas (Bressi) are too highly densely populated. I am a realtor and people want land and
privacy.
68
Land Use Concepts - Survey Comments
IDComment
I believe Carlsbad can benefit from a more "active waterfront." To date we have not done enough to
develop our community's connection with the Pacific, it seems that we left it to the regional players.
We are a coastal town but you would know it from our past endeavours to reflect the Pacific as a part
of our community's identity.
Creating destinations within the city, we are a great city blessed with significant natural systems, a
coast line, major drainage systems that end in three lagoons, topography and natural habitats. We
have well laid out infrastructure, roads, utilities, etc. However, where are the public expressions of who
we are as a community? What expressions or landmarks do we have that express our identity over any
of the other communities that surround us? Don't try to say the community has not come forward
with these types of statements, we have and have been ignored. Also, every group of people benefits
from having a rallying point, a place, a location where you know you can meet and interact as a group
with common interest. On 9/11 people in Carlsbad had no where to go, they were left to wander and
wonder what just happened and where am I. This location becomes the center of gravity for the
community. That is the prime destination Carlsbad should be working on! A forum, a public plaza, a
square, a commons where it's prime purpose is for gathering and interacting. It would be best if this
public space is surrounded by civic buildings, and cultural venues and should have a strong and
symbiotic relationship wth the areas around it. The area around it should have a good mix of
commercial and residential uses providing all services. I can think of one location that best fulfills this
criteria, I am sure you can also. Of course in the selection of such an important destination alternative
sites must be considered and the ultimate site would come from what best meets performance criteria.
A comment was made on connectivity focusing on east/west non vehicular movement, that is a good
goal, bike routes that allow residents to travel from their neighborhoods to the coast should be
developed following the major drainage ways. This would limit the amount of topography that acts as
a barrier to many cyclists.
73
Big no on C - do not want apartments in Bressi Ranch area. TOTALLY AGAINST IT! Do not want any
apartments in the area. There are plenty in this area.
100
We are completely against any rezoning of the 18 acres in the Bressi Ranch area for apartments. It is
currently zoned for industrial use and needs to stay that way. There are way too many
apartments/condos in the area. Also, there is no way that type of high density housing will be SAFELY
supported in the Bressi shopping center.
101
C Core Focus
- Overall, I like the core focus the most of those three options as it appears to have the least impact on
open space and the environment.
- I'd like to see more focus on open space in general and I'd like to see the city acquire and preserve all
the open space properties recommended by the Open Space Committee.
- The Village H CF requirement should be removed on the new General Plan as it has already
functioned as a community facility/park for decades. It should all be preserved as open space.
- The Village H dog-walking trail must be open to the public at all times and must stay on the new
General Plan.
- Where are the trails on the new General Plan?
Please note: I was very disappointed there was no Q & A and no opportunity for community input or
discussion at this meeting. I didn't learn anything new.
10
Would the residents have a say about the airport? What would it take to stop the airport from
growing? Better yet, how can we remove the airport from Carlsbad?
23
It is "smart growth."63
Land Use Concepts - Survey Comments
IDComment
Less development along coast. None of the concepts discuss much in way of developing connectivity
with trails and bike routes. [Staff note: "Open Space and the Natural Environment," "Walking, Biking,
Public Transportation, and Connectivity," and "Sustainability" were circled from the Core Values
section.]
64
Because it respects the existing neighborhood retails in the PCR Corridor, especially those along El
Camino Real (Carlsbad Plaza and Carlsbad Plaza South). Changing these to other zoning designations,
HDR and MU, makes no sense and would create significant problems for the ownerships of those
centers going forward.
67
I do not see enough public (bus) transportation in ANY of the 11 areas. As residents age more bus
routes are essential, and not enough emphasis on this aspect of the future. [Staff note: "Public
Transportation" from the Core Values section was circled and underneath it was written, "Where?"]
70
Jobs and housing need to be in close proximity. All three conceps are valid. The waterfront promenade
for Focus Area 9 must be implemented no matter which overall concept is selected.
71
Open space acquisition, addition of trail systems.79
More open space. Preserve Village H.80
- More open space.
- Rezone Village H open space.
- More community gardens.
Thanks.
86
Supports a vital city core center focus concept enhancing tourism as well as resident accessibility.92
N None
Mixed preference active waterfront basically =15
It's hard to know what I prefer because you don't show what is currently in place, and the nature of the
proposed development.
82
O Other
We need better waterfront areas and use which is a separate issue from walkable neighborhoods.
[Concept A and B]
3
You missed a BUNCH of parcels. Where's the dedicated open space acquisition land?12
In general all the plans have some good ideas - I believe that high density housing would be
detrimental to the city and not congruent with Carlsbad's nine core community values.
66
Carlsbad residents value open space - we would like open areas preserved whenever possible. We
want to create more recreational opportunities such as hiking trails and access to water.
81
Can the overall strategy involve reviving existing village and community - re-assessing existing
buildouts and renovating. Keeping the core as "Retro to the city's origin" and style, specifically keep
"Village H" in a as is or Community Preserve - for future and current generational use.
83
I'd like you to preserve more open spaces, especially places like Village H. If possible, please rezone it
as open space, or consider using the community property as a community garden or something that
will be compatible with the dog-walking trail in the eucalyptus grove.
84
Most important, this new General Plan should REZONE ALL THE OPEN SPACE PROPERTIES listed on the
open space committee! List of open space list of properties for acquisition and preservation as open
space, particularly for properties like Village H. The current community facility zoning should be
removed and the property currently zoned for the CF should be rezoned as open space and trails.
Thank you.
85
Rezone Village H as open space.87
Village H and Quarry Creek are two very important open space properties that will continue to give
Carlsbad a sense of natural beauty that brought many Carlsbad residents to this area in the first place.
88
Land Use Concepts - Survey Comments
IDComment
The Centers chosen manipulate the result. Why not lift Carlsbad to achieve its full destiny? Buena Vista
Valley from the moutains to the sea is a single unified entity that overlaps into the Village - Barrio
area. Put the density in the Village and the pastoral into the Valley and we can have a balanced center
of forward thinking in the Northwest Quadrant.
107
Need to take good ideas from all 3. First option would be the Core Focus with some modifications,
since there are good concepts in the other plans that could be incorporated into the Core Focus.
It is important to provide housing close to jobs to provide the opportunity for future Carlsbad residents
to conveniently walk or or take public transportation to jobs and commercial to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions.
Regardless of which option is selected the Carlsbad Boulevard realignment and open space/parking
opportunities is very important to the future of the City. Leave the Ponto Area designations as shown
by the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan. Deviation from the uses shown in the plan would violate
the terms of the settlement agreement between the Cities of Carlsbad & Encinitas which could result in
litigation that could impede the development of that portion of Carlsbad for years. The southernmost
portion of the Ponto area as a Local Coastal Program designation that allows for the City to approve
the development of a resort on this site. Any change to that designation would create conflict with the
Coastal Commission. The property directly south of the Encina treatment plant should be changed to
high density residential to encourage the use of mass transit.
116
I like C but want to keep some open lands for all to enjoy, visually and experie We do need some
development to accommodate business for people to have employment and a place to live. BUT
everyone needs open spaces to renew the spirit and the air quality of our area. I would like more
consideration for open space.
120
Stop pretending our input matters. Why are you wasting more time and money on Envision Carlsbad-
this is a horse designed by a camel- the very idea that you can look 50 years into the future and by
some "central planning" model, anticipate best use of resources is invalid, by any measure of
practicality, or history, including right here in Carlsbad.
Lets just look at the mockery of "affordable housing" and the notion that the city should allow the
state and SANDAG to determine where and what homes should be built. How did that fair sharing
process work out for you? When the deadline came, you snuck a "solution" to build a ghetto at Quarry
Creek, to make your numbers.
Why not let the market decide whats affordable, and let consumers decide where to live? Hows that
real estate market thing working out so far?
How many years and dollars and staff time, including Chamber of Commerce time has been wasted on
the Village and for what? Painted some fire hydrants, renovated some storefronts...that are now
empty. I'd suggest you gracefully wrap this up, and get to work attracting business to Carlsbad, if you
possibly can imagine that concept.
You have business parks surrounding the only alternative airport in San Diego County, and its grossly
under-utilized because you cant find another 1000' worth of asphalt?
When all the Boomers are done aging gracefully in place, and have moved thru the fancy new nursing
homes being built for them, who will be buying those homes, to pay for the schools? You are going to
have aging McMansions empty or growing seedy, like the areas surrounding the Village have for
years... go look at Mira Mesa for the future, if you dont get your planners out of the way of consumers
and the natural best resource allocation of a free market.
155
Land Use Concepts - Survey Comments
IDComment
adequate Senior Low Income Housing carlsbad should be ashamed of the poor provision of housing for
it's Seniors with low income! this city already is too tourist focused,to geared to the young/rich- the
residents who are not rich go un noticed and un-cared about, the housing choices for us are deplorable!
197
They are all inclusive. All concept are lumped into each agenda.
Not seperate. Beach front Power Plant concept would increase overflow of parking 5 times. New
Residential, Hotel with 1 to 2 car for guest, staff for each property. Hotel, Resident,
Business,recreation, each would increase 10 fold in persons, building and parking.
The Pretine sea front area would vanish forever.
This is what creates the natural beauty of open space and the beach beauty.
Not the beauty of tax revenue.
199
A combination of A & B. Because Concept C rezones scarce and valuable land zoned Industrial to High
Density Residential. We need to encourange development of Industrial land in order to attract
businesses who would provide jobs for our citizens. We are nearly built out, and the re-zoning of
Industrial land is short-sighted. It's interesting that the City is assuming ownership of the NRG property,
when that assumption is far from reality. Planners need to anchor their plans in reality and not spend
their time and effort on a plan ( A portion of Concept B ) that will probably not come to pass and is a
huge reach.
238
Combination. My main concern with any of these concepts is area 9. This are needs to be a
combination of Active and Core...with more of Area 9 devoted to parks and open space and less to
commercial and mixed use. This is one of the last remaining areas of open space on our coast and
adjacent to a magnificent lagoon and beach. I strongly urge any plan to reconsider commercial use in
this area and focus more on open space and park use. See above statement re: Area 9. Less
development for this area; more open space and park so people can enjoy the lagoon the beach.
The city of Carlsbad has more than enough hotels and restaurants.
255
Combination of (A)centers and (C)core focus. I definitely do not want an active waterfront. It is active
enough at this point and I feel we want to maintain as much of a natural waterfront as possible. I think
a combination between centers(A) and Core focus(B) creates balance. I would prefer a park where the
power plant is located. I don't feel the city requires any further development of hotels, especially, on
the waterfront. It should be as natural as possible.
256
Less intensive development over-all, especially along the coast. Carlsbad has a shrinking open space
inventory, a substantial excess of building lots for Industrial /commercial and retail, and a hugh
inventory of vacant office and industrial. And how about the hotels - low room occupancy rates,
industry wide bankruptcies. More hotels - Condos - Time shares along the coast provide no benefit to
Carlsbad residents. Simply more tourist dollars and low paying jobs. Create an open space park at the
mouth of Agua Hedionda, across from the Campground and on the north side, east of coast hwy, and
above the mouth of the lagoon. It would be a spectacular site, and with public facilities - would be a
regional attraction.
262
Land Use Concepts - Survey Comments
IDComment
Stop developing new land. I would most prefer Concept C. However, as a life-long Carlsbad resident I
am continuously dismayed by horrible building practices that destroy every piece of available open
land. Carlsbad, like other North County communities is beautiful because it wasn't over developed and
contained preserved open space. I am HORRIFIED by the fact that Carlsbad would build along Ponto's
southern waterfront. There is not area like that left in San Diego and to pollute it with another set of
condos and commercial centers with the same coffee shops and retails stores that we see everywhere
else. Why not be unique, let it lay as is. At minimum build a park. Every time I see another piece of
that land gone it saddens me unlike anything. I don't want to see my home paved over.
Additionally, living off of La Costa Ave for 25 years, I have seen a one lane road transform to a two lane
parking lot. Stop building high density homes in La Costa! We can't accommodate explosive
population. Eliminate all building along Ponto South Beach. Make it a preserved/protected space. It is
one of the most beautiful areas in all of San Diego. You CAN'T build on it. I can't bear the thought of
standing on La Costa Avenue and 101 or being on the Jetty and see a mess of hotels and condos! It's
pristine as is! We have acres and acres of over-developed land, can't you leave one place untouched?
Don't allow any building in the La Costa Town Center off La Costa Avenue and El Camino Real. The area
is already too clogged. The rezoning of the center reeks of under the table deals by the owners who
are saddled with empty real-estate. Do not allow any high density housing in that area. The streets
also can't accommodate it.
I would also revamp the Palomar Airport corridor. Why keep building industrial parks when there are
plenty old ones with for-lease signs. Utilize and improve upon existing developed lands. Stop wasting
and plowing over every inch of open space
285
Focus Area 1 - Northwest Coastal
A Centers
All are very similar. Pass on the pier.52
Don't like pier idea.72
[On Concept B map, area circled around Commercial, Hotels, Residential, Open Space, and Pier by the
coast, with a question: "Open to the public? Or hotel guests only?"]
77
In order, I like Centers A) Active Waterfront (B Core Focus (C)103
The residential in the Barrio will help maintain the character of the Village. That could be combined
with the more intensive uses at the SDG&E site of option B.
119
A peri could add a lot of traffic. Sure is fun to walk to rubies in osier. Would need a shuttle/bus to
connect people from downtown Carlsbad and train station. Families like day trips on the train.
147
Don't waste time thinking the power plant area can be remade beautiful with that tower and huge
power lines emanating.
153
I think that C, which segregates tourist services, is unrealistic. There needs to be more interaction with
the town for economic success.
179
It would be great to extend rail trail all the way south to encinitas... it would reduce bike accidents,
street congestion and would create easy pedestrian/increase bike traffic from Village to Power Plant
development....and beyond.
212
The Centers plan seems to knit together the various elements of the village while leaving room for
development as well as open space.
224
A and B look rather similar in area of encroachment. They only vary slightly.240
Land Use Concepts - Survey Comments
IDComment
The concept of a mixed use downtown area is conducive to quality living for those who prefer to use
public transportation or walking. The future will be increased p. t. , it has to come, once we get our
heads screwed on right and figure out how.
The power plant complex can be a tremendous commercial attraction, it will take imaginative minds.
253
I am concerned about the residential at the power plant site under the waterfront concept. We should
keep it closer to the train station and mixed use in the Village
291
Improvements made in downtown, converting to mixed use, should be extended to the barrio 317
I think the mix between A) and B) would be very good... also, extending the rail trail all the way south
along the rail road tracks would link the similar ideas for each plan together.
332
B Active Waterfront
Again, greater access to the beach (i.e. along Chestnut) would provide the most significant spark to
spur development in the Carlsbad Barrio, where I live.
4
Adding more quality restaurants.18
Active waterfront is a no brainer for me.29
Like the activity center.49
Would like high density removed from plan. Like pier and waterfront.99
Once again the waterfront needs to be better utilized. The mixed us as in The Village is great!104
There should be some residential development at the NRG site (no timeshares)127
I like the idea of having a Pier in Carlsbad.160
Not sure what the best option is here but i know the Barrio needs to be safer before i frequent any
business developed near there. I simply wont go south of Cbad Village Dr, almost to Tamarack. So
maybe the housing is a priority there so as to improve safety? I like the power plant developmt into
hotel, retail (WITH underground parking please, like Whole Foods, Enc), and reataurants. This area
should serve the community-we like the ocean front dining and shopping (safely!).
161
Like the pier idea, and infill in the Barrio area 175
Active waterfront concept appears to allow for greatest access to a greater number of residents.
Prefer to have prime waterfront available to all to enjoy rather than just to hotel visitors.
180
We need a pier!217
I like B except I REALLY dislike the pier!! No pier!!234
I don't see much difference between the three of them. I like the idea of having our own pier.237
The idea of a pier in Carlsbad is a wonderful idea! It is about time we become a 'beach town' like other
cities up and down the coast!
244
the pier is a great idea!248
I like the pier!297
Lesser of 3 evils. I am NOT in favor of building up our coast, but I believe that this will take the
longest - as the power plant is involved.
299
Option B offers more park space in the power plant area. as it is, there is too much commercial space.305
I picked Active Waterfront (B) because it is the only concept that offered some MIXED USE near the
powerplant. I think residential areas should be mixed into all areas. I don't think a solely commercial
zones, particularly serving tourism is the way to go. More preserved open space would also be good.
Public access to the water is essential.
306
Land Use Concepts - Survey Comments
IDComment
add Comercial Recreation to Power Plant Pier area 315
a more residential use vs. totally visitor serving commercial use.320
Build a crossing at Chestut Ave... it will reduce vandelism from people cutting holes in the fence to
cross....
327
Open Space for a multi-use Park.334
LIke the pier idea 345
C Core Focus
Significant park/open space area w/o a pier (pier not a good idea).64
Construction of a pier as shown in Concept B is a worthy goal, but may be infeasible to implement due
to regulatory restrictions.
71
Leaves some of barrio intact. More open space. Mixed use allows for more interesting mix.106
Of those given, C has the least development. We do not want Carlsbad to be a mini Miami Beach.120
Piers require engineering dollars and a lot of long term committment to upkeep. That funding could be
used instead to attract an artistic colony of professionals that differentiates Carlsbad from Oceanside.
That type of upscale retail with an edgy design sensibility could carve a very separate identity from
other beach cities in North County. Del Mar and La Jolla lost this market when it opted out of the rail
transit station. Solana Beach has Cedros but it is aging now looking less attractive.
126
Don't ruin the beach with a pier - what a horrible idea!139
It seems like it has the leas impact on the coastal area.151
Would like to choose NONE....keep Carlsbad the way it is but if I had to choose one, this would be it.162
I don't want to see so much waterfront development as that will only erode the beach experience and
worsen traffic.
187
I want to keep the power plant area residential and with open public space like a park.189
I would like to maximize the open space buffer on Aqua Hedionda Lagoon and the maximize muli-use
redevlopment concepts in downtown areas.
207
It is very important to keep the VILLAGE's historical qualities, and not tear it down for higher density.
The VILLAGE is the Core of Carlsbad
209
A and C are virtually identical. No pier needed (B).210
Carlsbad needs to keep the "village" feel that includes old homes and "barrio" history. It would be sad
to see it all bulldozed down in the name of progress and redevelopment. Keep the old and mix in the
new. This is what makes Carlsbad unique. Look at Encinitas, San Clemente and Del Mar for ideas.
231
Don't dump on the barrio. Medium density everywhere is like north park in sd. It is bad.
Focus. It is better to have intense areas and then protected neighborhoods nearby. That is the best of
all worlds. Urban to Suburban with no yucky in between. That can all occur with the barrio considered
a suburban area.
There is no rail access to the power plant. too many cars too much parking - need a solution.
243
Who needs a pier which is an ongoing maintenance issue 294
It would be nice to continue the rail trail south to the power plant. I would create a great
pedestrian/bike path to the power plant with spectacular views... it would be well used.
300
Land Use Concepts - Survey Comments
IDComment
Unless I'm blind similarities are strong. The Village in all three seems nearly the same. The pier in
Waterfront is the most notable standout, but that positive element could be incorporated into either
of the other plans. Again, putting housing near the water is not conducive to good living. These
properties will turn into rentals after owners are exhausted with riffraff beach living and then rental
tenants will be there disrupting both residents and tourists lowering Carlsbad's reputation.
326
Concentration of the commercial use. Not supportive of high density development in the power plant
area as outlined in B.
348
N None
This is silly. What if power plant keeps their land? How about open space near beach on Concept C
[Staff note: instead of commercial use]
12
No real choices here. Important to leave public access to the beach for the "locals."63
It is impossible to determine the best plan unless you show us what is currently in place.81
Alternate traffic flow must be considered with an already high density traffic rate on coast highway.108
See previoius 128
No more hotels.130
there should not be any medium and high density housing plans, it brings congestion and the high
likelihood of increased criminal activity
134
just not interested in making a decision on this.138
more navel gazing. Just do what you want and stop pretending that citizens matter...155
We do NOT need any additional medium or high density housing.171
Return the power plant area to natural open space, preferably a protected nature preserve.188
See my prior discussion 196
No medium or high density residences.216
Do not develop the power plant area into more hotels and restaraunts. Increase the size of the park
area focusing on outdoor recreation and family bonding.
218
Too much money wasted. Open up Chestnut under the train tracks Encinitas has 3 pedestrian walk
ways in the works.
223
STOP WITH THE HIGH DENSITY.229
Again , you're assuming city ownership of the privately owned NRG property...last I checked, they don't
want to sell.
238
THE POWER PLANT STAYS RIGHT WHERE IT IS AND IT STAYS A POWER PLANT! IT'S A LANDMARK., it
identifies Carlsbad from miles away. And who wants to stay at a hotel or eat at a restaurant right next
to the sewage treatment plant?
251
Too much development!258
How are these really different? Why is the barrio going to high density residential uses? Are we not
going to maintain the integrity of the barrio?
No pier
259
See comments above.262
These concepts all seem to be the exact same.263
Land Use Concepts - Survey Comments
IDComment
No building near the coast!273
A is the closest to my choice....Just scale it down a bit...284
I don't see a difference between the three proposals in this area.309
I do not want to see the power plant area developed for hotel or retail.314
All sound too much the same from the perspective of a resident. Needs better translation from a
planner's perspective to a resident's perspective.
All assume redevelopment of the Power Plant, not something there is any clear path to achieving and
not a priority to me unless there is something more appealing to do with the land than presented.
318
The Barrio is packed with too many people as it is. Please build the high density family dwelling east of I
5 where there is the room and the roads, and/or you can build the roads. What the Barrio needs is to
be zoned for small businesses, 2 story buildings only for homes or apartments, row homes, lots of CA
palm trees. Please take out those ugly trees, except the eucalyptus trees. All high density housing east
of I 5. And please make Chestnut go through to the coast highway.
330
One option should have considered that the power plant people actually get to KEEP THEIR LAND!!!331
O Other
Density in Barrio is high enough as it is now! We do not want additional problems and enjoy the small
town atmosphere we try hard to maintain.
1
There is already enough high density/ medium density in this area. Adding to high density will cheapen
the area and create more traffic in an area that is short of open space and parking now. Let us be a
little more conservative and a lot wiser for our future. More density also means more young people
looking for something to do within their excess energy. Think smart is a good idea for al of us.
11
Barrio - Low commercial from Carlsbad Village Dr., on Roosevelt St, to Walnut St. - Non residential on
Roosevelt St.
14
I like all of these options. [Concept A, B and C]28
No medium and high density development.[Concept A also selected]62
To me less is better. Our open beach areas makes us unique. Our Barrio is quaint and charming and
dignified for its residents. Don't build a high density slum!
66
Choice B may be a pipe-dream. Power Plant won't move.70
Expand mix use into the Barrio, the current Village is in danger of sliding toward a residential
neighborhood, it needs a stronger efficiency a commercial village with mixed uses. The addition of a
pier is a great idea, late but good.
73
Prefer lower density.88
Should b mix with lots of open space and low density residential.90
No high density - Carlsbad is getting an undesirable reputation in San Diego County due to SO many
apartments.
100
Not sure. No high density.101
I like the Village and Barrio in A, but the power plant version in B. It is very important to retain the
strawberry fields and flower fields.
122
the Barrio has been neglected whild the Village is already over developed 197
Land Use Concepts - Survey Comments
IDComment
Need to work on existing dollars for facelift for existing residenal areas and business. Concentrate on
making areas that have tenament electrical overhead on housing areas. Looks very project housing in
the existing beach housing. Repair the Off & On Ramps into the City. This is the gateway of the Resort
town that looks like the Watts Riots. Work w/CalTrans & Business to lease a plaque of honor visible
signage of companies for there contribution.That revenue will create maintenance and JOBS.
199
active waterfront and more open space 201
No more medium and high density planning!219
My understanding is that the city doesn't own or control the power plant. Is anyone going to build a
hotel next to the power plant? Development of this area only makes sense if the power plant goes
away. Any development of this area would have to have major input form its owners and you haven't
given us any information on what, if anything, they have proposed.
228
No hotel or mixed us at power plant location. I prefer a park and trails.256
Perfer no hotels at power plant site 274
Not a whole lot of difference between the choices is there? You are dead set on maximizing medium
and high density uses as well as commercial use to the detriment of the quality of life in Carlsbad. Its
all about the city maximizing its revenue at the expense of the average citizens.
282
I dont think we need to develop the SDG&E plot with hotels and retail. Will create too much traffic
along the coast. Any pier built in this area could potentially have detrimental impact to the surf quality
from Tamarack to Turn Arounds.
290
Focus Area 2 - Plaza Camino Real Commercial Corridor
A Centers
Like the high mixed use area and yet retain some commercial use. Makes sense to include housing near
transportation (transit) center.
64
Plaza Camino Real is an eyesore currently. Vacant Robinson's needs to be filled. Outside of mall needs
upgrade.
70
Focus retail to the Village, mixed use in this are should focus on resident serving commercial.119
This seems most like the current land usage. I don't think high density housing proposed in plan B is
advisable in that location because of traffic.
151
The Westfield Mall is functionally obsolete & now caters to the lowest common denominator.
It really needs to be demolished & redeveloped
164
There's a small amount of commercial development with more open spaces.171
I'd like to maximize muli-use development and redevelopment in areas that are out-dated such as
Plaza Camino Real and I want to maximize open space at Quarry Creek (Buena Vista Creek) because its
adajcent to a CDFG Preserve. We don't have enough open space in Carlsbad and what we do have
(Calavera Hills) is slowly degrading from illegal trails and irresponsible residents leaving dog poop
behind. The City is not doing enough to maintain natural open space.
207
I would prefer to see no housing, regardless of density, built in Quarry Creek. This is best left as open
space.
I also suspect that the Plaza Camino Real mall is an endangered species. The centers plan appears to
recognize this in proposing mixed use development for this site.
228
The area is crowded enough with traffic. Why would you add high density residential to the mix. A
VERY BAD idea!
244
Land Use Concepts - Survey Comments
IDComment
I am roughly indifferent between the centers and the waterfront concept.
The core concept has commerical, but we also need people living around this site.
291
Mixed use is better. We already have too much commercial real estate.317
B Active Waterfront
Create a "river-walk" along the creek.13
Keep commercial at mall.52
High density makes sense along a major transportation corridor.63
Commercial with major anchor stores, if they continue to be viable, on the east end, mixed use on the
west, high density if it can be shown that traffic can be supported.
73
Mixing residential into the development is good planning.158
Keeps existing commercial intact while increasing med-high density housing in current underutilized
areas.
210
this would accommodate those working in San Marcos, Escondido, etc.248
Shopping needs to be updated in Plaza camino real area 258
keep the mall the way it is 315
There's room east of El Camino Real for high density housing.
There's no roads in the Barrio to accommodate high density housing. I mean we can't even ride our
bikes on Elm. We have to use Tamerack and that's a nightmare @ Tamerack and coast highway.
Chestnut must go through.
330
A great location for high density residential with commercial 345
I like the availability of potential high density residential close to the commercial and mixed use would
could benefit those working in that corridor.
348
C Core Focus
Don't like the idea of so much additional hi-density residential east of El Camino Real in that site.
Traffic already poor there.
7
Keeping the area west of El Camino commercial with some mixed use at most. No high density
residential! Traffic in that area is already horrible at certain hours of the day.
25
Because it respects the existing neighborhood retails in the PCR Corridor, especially those along El
Camino Real (Carlsbad Plaza and Carlsbad Plaza South). Changing these to other zoning designations,
HDR and MU, makes no sense and would create significant problems for the ownerships of those
centers going forward. Additionally, regarding Concept B, the Carlsbad Plaza site is a highly
inappropriate location for a high density residential zoning/land use, bounded on the north by the busy
Hwy 78, the west by Plaza Camino Real regional center, and the south by neighborhood commercial
uses. It also really does nothing to support the goal of the "Active Waterfront" concept.
67
No high density residential.100
HOPEFULLY NO STRIP MALLS!!!110
Not a big fan of more high density residential. Commercial is a jobs and revenue creator.117
This seems to have the least density 120
Land Use Concepts - Survey Comments
IDComment
I was here when the mall opened. The lifespan as a purely retail center is over. Occupancy is too low to
continue. Mixed use lofts/condos for new professionals will provide local construction jobs and
support infrastructure with taxes. The retail shopping brand identity should change now.
126
Appears to be more open, park space in this one.133
This area is already too congested, without adding high-density residential.179
Maintain commercial shopping focus of the area.180
The least of 3 evils.188
We definitely need to utilize the mall site.
This may be the best of the choices.
284
Let's keep the mall and the transit center 294
Lesser of 3 which has less density housing.299
Again very strong similarities and more hair splitting. Without very detailed definitions of commercial,
mixed use, etc. it is a bit difficult to be very definite with ideas because it is harder to determine what
the final settle out will be.
326
This is a good area for heigh-density housing.346
N None
You can't build on a creek dummy.12
We must protect Quarry Creek from development, and also protect family farms.81
No apartments.101
Needs to be connected open space and trails through this area that connects to the reserve to the
east. .
106
uh, I don't see much difference here 128
Make it all open space!130
Tear down the i sore and build a park 140
See my prior discussion on overrun population 196
Development in this area will be detrimental to biological and cultural resources. Protection should be
enlarged to protect the present biological area shown and certainly to connect to the area identified as
Quarry Creek.
209
no medium or high density residences.216
OPEN SPACE ONLY SINCE THERE IS SO LITTLE LEFT.229
Mixed use sounds great but in reality it's not viable. There's already way too much congestion in this
area. Adding more people in high density housing will make it worse.
251
No additional development here. Traffic is already terrible!314
Insufficient differentiation from the perspective of a resident. Residents don't use terms like high and
low density housing. How do the different concepts affect what stores may locate in the area? How do
the alternatives affect available services? How do the alternatives affect the cost of housing?
The map legend does not include indication of Trails, a key point highlighted in the Envision Carlsbad
process. How do I walk from the mall to the Village and or to Quarry Creek?
318
Land Use Concepts - Survey Comments
IDComment
do the traffic studies in Dec., when it is impossible to pass thru this area. We have a hotel coming on
near Jefferson - doesn't seem to have been taken into consideration.. Needs to be
331
Focus on Carlsbad Village/Coast!332
O Other
No mixed use; add hotel and convention center to Plaza Camino Real.3
Residential - mixed use is seemingly the best use that provides demand for a highly underutilized area
with a lifeless shopping center/mall. [Concept A and B]
48
No medium and high density development.62
This mall is an eyesore and a disgrace to the city - no high density housing please.66
The options are bought and paid for by developer contributions to Carlsbad Council elections and by
developer relationships with Carlsbad planners. This is wrong and it's corrupt.
107
The mall plans are ok, is there no plan for acquisition of open space at Quarry Creek or are we going to
be forced to lose this critical habitat?
122
Another Westfield Mall- are you serious? Where is the public transit? The Sprinter is too far away,
theres no connection and never going to be by bus, and if you are planning to build another barrio/low
income ghetto, then plan also to hire another 50 cops to police this new ghetto, and the nearby
schools that will be crushed by the crowding from 500 units. Then imagine the property tax losses from
the suburban flight thats already happening.
155
Redevelop the mall! We need it. No more housing pleas. It is already so impacted up in that area!161
millions were spent to research what to do with Buena Vista Lagoon, instead of just fixing it, now that
project is abandoned? Really, how ridiculous!
197
Not a area I'm interested in.240
Ok to develop PCR but leave quarry creek as open space!
PCR needs help. It should use the principles of new urbanism with a wide berth for the creek. Make it
the focal point.
Use up that hideous parking lot. Trees trees trees. (Native trees - sycamores in the valleys)
243
Westfield is dragging their feet. There are many ideas that could be tried to bolster sales at the mall.
The corridor along ECR is busy, no need for change.
253
Put the low-income housing in the Plaza area rather than the Quarry Creek area.272
Not enough open space. What happens to the waterfall?305
Choice A for the Plaza Camino Real BUT THE LESS DEVELOPMENT OF QUARRY CREEK THE BETTER. IT
SHOULD BE PRESERVED!!!
306
Focus Area 3 - Quarry Creek
A Centers
Like having campus.52
School site.72
Plan A allows for "campus" space. If that includes a school or library, I think that would be a good site
for both... especially with the adjacent high density housing that seems to be a given.
151
Land Use Concepts - Survey Comments
IDComment
Why so much residential next to 24 hour freeway noise?164
Least amount of density housing.299
B Active Waterfront
No need for medium and high density development.36
Good place to add high density housing.49
Prefer alternative B, but extension of Marron Road which is desirable may not be feasible due to
biological constraints.
116
This is a more appropriate area for high density housing and development to open space.180
I am not excited aboput the campus concept. I am roughly indifferent to the other two.291
Option B offers more park space in the power plant area. as it is, there is too much commercial space.305
keep our high density next to the freeway and other cities 342
C Core Focus
All three same words moved around. Or open space, park. [Lower left corner of Concept A map circled,
with "waterfall areas" written next to it.]
77
Want to ensure the most open space available for all 120
I like the fact that there is more low density in this plan.133
The less high density housing the better!161
I want as much of Quarry Creek as possible to remain as open space, including the sacred waterfall.187
Once again, the least offensive of the 3 "choices".188
I want to limit high density building in Carlsbad 189
We need to maximize the open space and minimize the effect of the developmetn on the open space. I
think this concept does that best the three to chose from. I'd rather this be completely open space or a
park for the nearby residents of apartments.
207
Open space is great if the money is available to develope into park for all residents to use.295
I prefer the idea here of converting more land to open space. We should maximize the natural
landscape of the quarry site.
317
Again much commonness. It would be very helpful ot have more input about the objectives that have
brought about all of these concepts so any comments would have a more concrete foundation.
326
With the residential concentration in Quarry Creek it is very important to have as much open space as
possible to allow safety for our children and other future generations. Carlsbad mus preserve the
natural, cultural and historic resources of this valley and save the sacred waterfall as a oublic space,
348
N None
Low density preferred.1
Quarry Creek was the #1 property recommended by the open space committee for purchase and
preservation as open space. It should ALL BE OPEN SPACE.
10
All of Quarry Creek should be saved. #1 City's open space list!12
Open space only - no residential. Falls are precious commodity for Carlsbad.15
Land Use Concepts - Survey Comments
IDComment
Vacant or underutilized are not "bad" concepts - leave this area for a natural site with walking paths,
perhaps. Let us appreciate the unique physical, historical, and environmental beauty.
22
Prefer Quarry Creek be set aside as open space - natural and protect Native American historical site.64
What kind of "campuses?" This area should not have HIGH DENSITY or even medium residential. Buena
Vista Creek wetlands is a sensitive environmental area.
70
Open space.80
We must protect the space so we can hike from the waterfall to the ocean.81
Make open space.86
No HIGH density.100
The entire panhandle needs to be open space.106
This area has the potential to really make substantial income for this region. The planning here is weak
for all three options. This is a waterfall. Nothing has been done for reclaimation of this important
environmental feature. How will the open space reflect how important water is to our people? This is a
missed opportunity. Housing...Yes, Density...OK I see nothing integrating the most critical and beautiful
potential of this area.
126
What about that waterfall? Looks like you've already given that one area of land to a developer.
Buddy of yours?
128
I am against medium and high density housing it is going to bring down the Carlsbad area 134
I prefer this land to remain open space and not developed at all 146
grade it flat- plant native plants, and leave it alone. Dont blow any more money here.155
Too much growth.171
See my prior discussion 196
We need to maximize the open space an local trails in and around calavera. We need to stop routing
roads and development through the remaining small open areas we have.
203
All of these place development adjacent to open space protected wildlife/natural and cultural
resources. How will these activities complement the proposed protected areas. These proposed plans
only help to develop/cement over and reduce the quality of life for present and future Carlsbad
residents.
209
Prefer no development of Quarry Creek. The panhandle at the very least should be used as natural
open space.
210
no medium and high density residences.216
no more medium and high density planning!219
Too much development of the creek area 220
I would prefer to see no housing, regardless of density, built in Quarry Creek. This is best left as open
space. The site has been devastated by extensive sand and rock extraction and is one of the least
attractive places in San Diego County!
228
What happens to the quarry? Is it no longer in business?251
Do we have a choice???253
Leave this natural open space 274
There is too much development in this area. This should be low density with lots of open space. This
will seriously impact College Ave
280
Land Use Concepts - Survey Comments
IDComment
Leave Quarry alone. This is sacred Native American grounds 294
Won't extending Marron Road ruin the already fragile lagoon ?310
Too much high density housing.311
Traffic is already bad. Do we really need more retail.314
Insufficient differentiation and language does not provide a meaningful way for a non-planner to
understand how the concepts vary one from another. Is there a difference in the percentage of open
space one vs the other?
Where is the connecting trail to Quarry Creek? Trails are not even on the map legend.
What is the dark blue area in the Centers concept?
What happened to Walmart, etc in the Active Waterfront and Core Focus concepts? Not clear.
318
I believe that all the options call for too much development for this area. I would like to see it
developed as a regional park with no residential development.
319
No option but med/hi density? What happened to the direction the planning commission gave staff
and the overpriced consultant to show an OPEN SPACE option??? Why is our own planning
commission not being listened to??
331
Focus on Carlsbad Village/Coast!332
O Other
No extension of Marron Road; high density housing near 78 and College.3
A or C. A if could attract educational institution. These seem very similar.7
All open space. Preserve Calavera and wet land expanded area.16
No medium and high density development.62
All of Quarry Creek left at natural open space - waterfall to waves trail. No Marron Rd.63
No high density residential please - as Ron Burgundy said "Keep it classy Carlsbad." Leave it as a quarry!66
B or C. But no high density.68
I don't know enough on this area to make a good judgement, I assume "campus" means education? If
so, that would be good.
73
Limit medium density housing to eastern portion of site, ie. Old Quarry site. No extension of Marron
Rd. Trail system/ open space around El Salto Falls and Buena Vista Creek Valley (western end).
79
While Quarry Creek must have some development - allow the process to preserve the creek, the El
Salto Falls in tact and minimize the Presence of new build.
83
Leave as open space.84
Rezone as open space as recommended by the Open Space Committee.85
Rezone as open space.87
Leave as open space.88
Need to preserve open space.89
Open space only. Negative impact on College Ave. if other than open space.90
Definitely preserve open space.91
Land Use Concepts - Survey Comments
IDComment
Open space.92
Open space.93
Keep area as open space. We need a wildlife corridor here.94
Ideal to remain open space.95
Open space.96
Need to preserve open space.97
It's the El Salto Waterfall and this is a disgraceful perversion of an intelligent planning process.107
they seem all the same. I think extending Marron road is a great idea 111
How about low density and we leave Marron Road as is?122
Expand Buena Vista Creek Ecological Reserve to cover this whole area. Houses should not be built next
to an Ecological Reserve!
130
What is the difference?141
Medium residential and high open spaces. Not a fan of increasing residential if we don't have the
schools or money in the district to run those schools.
160
Don't destroy this beautiful land! Carlsbad developers are getting GREADY!!!!!!!!!!!! $$ will ruin why
we all moved here to Carlsbad!
162
Stop developing!!!176
Any combination here would probably work, but I don't like the offices in A.179
no residential use here, preserve the lagoon instead!197
OPEN SPACE 229
Quarry Creek is OPEN SPACE. Do not connect Marron Road. You are destroying the last natural valley.
Don't do it.
243
QUARRY CREEK SHOULD BE ALMOST ENTIRELY OPEN SPACE. IT SHOULD BE PRESERVED.306
Focus Area 4 - Marja Acres
A Centers
El Camino is a natural main thoroughfare, and near center of city, and a natural place for commercial
development; however we need to preserve some of the open space we have. Future generations
need some places to enjoy our wonderful climate and clean air
120
I thought it was Maria Acres.125
There needs to be high density housing available near commercial areas to residents who are not in a
position to buy into medium or low density housing.
224
Somewhere market forces should be deciding whether we need high or medium density residential.295
Commercial is best land use next to El Camino Real. High density residential would place more
residents near jobs and transportation reducing overall impacts such as energy use and climate change.
338
BC Active Waterfront/Core Focus
Don't like the high density residential in A.7
No need for medium and high density development.36
Land Use Concepts - Survey Comments
IDComment
B ok.70
This option would be the most realistic and compatible with existing single family homes adjacent to
this site.
71
Mixed use with mid density level.73
Same exact words for all concepts.77
Traffic on El Camino Real can be bad enough already. There shouldn't be anything, commercial or
residential that's "high density" here and it'd be nice to leave some open space
110
This concept would be most compatible with the existing single family homes that surround the upper
portion of the site.
116
This is relatively close to an elementary school and high density doesn't seem like a good idea because
of that.
133
This one is very close to home for me (LITERALLY). I would NOT like to see high density housing in this
area, because it backs up to the back yards of existing low density residential homes! High density
housing would also impact one of Carlsbad's strongest/most stable elementary schools (Kelly) in a
negative way.
151
No high density housing!!!161
High density housing should not be located in these areas of the city.180
Limit Growth.......181
Having too much reisential is a hazard to the Aqua Hedionda creek and lagoon.231
good use of space for med density and commercial 238
I don't think we need high density areas near El Camino Real. The street is already congested.244
Should be more low density and open space 280
I do not like the idea of high density in this location.291
Traffic bad enough on ECR. Don't add high density housing 294
Active Waterfront (B)296
Not much of a difference in these options other than the density of the housing.. Prefer lower density
housing.
317
High density residential should be avoided at all costs. High density neighborhoods are the most
difficult to keep looking nice and they are ones that have the lowest standards of living and attract the
diversity into too tight of space which more rapidly makes that diversity divisive.
326
Medium density housing is appropriate for this area 345
N None
Should be kept in food production as citizens continue to state.12
B & C are same - B without commercial. No high density.68
What is currently there?81
No residentials for Carlsbad as it it makes the streets busy, schools crowded, and takes jobs away from
current residents, and devalues already low house prices.
118
High density or medium density? Like there's a choice here?128
No more houses!130
Land Use Concepts - Survey Comments
IDComment
Again, there are already enough people living in Carlsbad 134
I do not wish to see this area developed at all.146
Walmart, beer hall, movie theaters, gun range, anything to drive the elderly NIMBY nitwits wild with
rage. You arent going to be able to build anything but more old folks homes here, so why bother
asking?
155
Too much housing.171
This area is fine as it is.179
See my prior discussion 196
leave open space as is - to keep country feeling 201
no medium and high density residences.216
no more medium and high density planning!219
why does this area need to be developed?246
What does the property owner want to do with this land? Someone owns it I'm sure. Why don't you
ask them?
251
Where are the transportation hubs that were to be a part of high density housing?259
No development - remove the existing eyesore and leave open space.266
This is the best area of Carlsbad to maintain something of a country town...We need to be very careful
about adding too much more commercial with the vacancies that currently exist..
284
El camino real is far too congested as is.285
No development needed 290
Why ask for comment when the two are the same?
Need better interpretation for what this means to residents rather than just housing density
descriptors.
How many people would live in the area. Traffic implications? Access to parks and trails?
Where to people go for LEGAL off leash dog activity?
318
Focus on Carlsbad Village/Coast!332
O Other
No medium and high density development.62
Prefer to include either natural open space or community gardens.64
Less is better 66
Keep the open space core as it can best compliment the community - w/ minimal new build.83
Commercial, low density, and open space.90
LOW or medium only.100
Stop developing!!!176
I would prefer no development at all. I don't think it's necessary. The Council seems determined to
turn Carlsbad into nothing but street after street of housing developments.
187
Land Use Concepts - Survey Comments
IDComment
We choose open space instead of more over development.188
I would like Marja Acres to stay as is. I like the "Country Store" and Bobby's -- gives the area a small-
town feel.
192
Would prefer the housing portion to include as significant area for agriculture in the form of
community gardens.
210
PARKLAND 229
no info on this. Other than the soul of El Camino was destroyed by the endless development sprawl.
Try to get back the real sense of place. It is just ugly nowhere now. Cannon Road/scripps, etc is just
riverside/anaheim. yuck. bad job on your part.
243
Keep it the way it is. The small town feel will be lost. The property across the highway will be in the
development stage soon, that will lost as well.
253
Leave as open space 272
Is this really necessary? Both are non-winning situations.299
This seems like a very isolated commercial area that SHOULD NOT BE A FOCUS for development. It's
not in a walkable location or very connected to anything.
306
No development whatsoever in this area.314
Focus Area 5 - Sunny Creek Commercial
A Centers
High density housing adjacent to commercial neighborhood center.3
Include lower cost housing with services nearby.64
The residential should be high not medium density. This is an appropriate site for high density adjacent
to commercial, public transportation, and jobs.
71
All commercial not feasible.72
Mixed use.73
Same exact words for all concepts.77
Mixed use is more realistic for this site.116
This would be the housing trade off for me to not have high density at Marja Acres. Also I like the
walking to commercial idea of the Centers concept in certain areas. This seems like a good place to
have it. It also would "soften" the commercial development a little at that corner.
151
That area definitely needs some stores, and more low-med density housing too. It has too much of an
industrial feel. (when i said no more commercial earlier in one of my comments, i meant no more
industrial)
161
There needs to be a much larger buffer on Agua Hedionda Creek here - its severely degraded, supports
least Bell's vireo and needs to be protected from additional hydromodification, tresspassing etc. yet I
think people near open space that is well maintained is a good thing educationally.
207
It would help a lot if there is to be housing in this area that residential services be provided in the
commercial area to cut down on transportation impacts (air/CO2, noise pollution).
210
The concept of commercial and residential development together enables people to live and shop near
where they work which reduces traffic congestion.
224
qagain, good mix of medium density and future commercial 238
Land Use Concepts - Survey Comments
IDComment
Best of the worst?259
I believe we need housing by the commerical.291
Follow plan for mixed use.317
Best to distribute commercial along El Camino Real to reduce overall impacts.338
Need residential near business park.345
BC Active Waterfront/Core Focus
Prefer less of the medium and hi density concentration.7
No need for medium and high density development.36
i would think with the new high school there is going to be to much traffic on El Camino to put add new
residence
111
don't put people living near manufacturing.120
Sunny creek already has more than it's share of medium density housing in this area. Maintain a
commercial focus but be sure the center is right sized for the surrounding communities so as to limit
traffic problems and crime.
180
I don't want to see more houses.187
Need large scale commercial development. This area in town is underserved. Need a grocery story
immediately! Local large businesses located nearby are starved for places to eat and other services.
The nearby Island shopping center is a zoo weekedays.
266
Active Waterfront (B)296
Again no high density residential, it will destory the quality of life in Carlsbad and bring crime and
higher police costs.
326
its all about tax dollars on this site 342
N None
No commercial - this is residential now and should be kept with medium or low residential.68
This area should have commercial and mixed use option.106
Yup! Lots of choices on this one!128
No more commercial.130
GEt serious- who is going to drive into the middle of Carlsbad, on El Camino Real or College, to go
shopping at a grade B mall.
155
College area is over crowded currently.171
leave open space - no need for more commercial or residential 201
Reduced density is preferred. However these plans shows no open space or protected biolocial areas
especially along the creek, which is an important corridor for wildlife and cultural resources. How will
this proposed development contribute to the quality of life for present and future Carlsbad residents?
209
Too close too a natural wetland preserve. Bad for the ecology in the area.218
This should be commerical and park land. This has had a long history of farming land. There are already
enough homes with many foreclosures. We should preserve our land. If it is commercial, limit the size
of buildings for example no large Wal Mart or Target.
231
Land Use Concepts - Survey Comments
IDComment
why does this area need to be developed?246
Didn't there used to be pasture and horse stables here? I kind of like that.251
No commercial here 258
I guess A is the best choice because it has the combo of providing some residential, not just
commercial...This is another plus to Carlsbad.
284
Keep El Camino Real from becoming a parking lot.285
Commercial Use for recreation mostly, with some resurant, and small business is best due to
residential area all around. General Comercial Use will disturb adjacent homes and decrease property
values.
315
Hard to assess the benefits of one vs another for residents. Would need to know what commercial
services are needed by the broader geographic area as planned. Not sure how either alternative more
clearly fits the concepts.
318
This is a great site for hi density residential specifically low/mod. income and commercial.331
Focus on Carlsbad Village/Coast!332
O Other
[Respondent checked Concepts A & B]48
["Commercial only" circled on Concept B and C.]62
?66
How are Concepts B and C different?70
We need to protect the farming community in that area.81
No development -83
Open space - important for wildlife, habitat preservation, and recreation. VERY IMPORTANT TO
PRESERVE.
92
We don't need commercial in Sunny Creek except to provide incidental services to the residents there.107
Nothing? This intersection is already pretty busy and will get moreso when the new high school opens.
Can't it just be open space? It will get too congested if either commercial or more residential
110
Stop developing!!!176
I AM NOT FAMILIAR WITH THIS PARCEL 229
Focus don't just develop everything.243
It should remain open space.252
That property is owned by Walmart, it is the wrong place for big box. I would not be opposed to a
Walmart along Pal-air road, in a commercial area, like Loews going in by the airport.
253
I perfer commercial with medium or low density housing. We have enough housing in Carlsbad. It is
already over built
256
Leave as open space.272
Don't know this area well enough. Looks like more open space should be preserved along the
waterway. Open space is never a bad alternative!
306
Land Use Concepts - Survey Comments
IDComment
Focus Area 6 - Mandana
ABC Centers/Active Waterfront/Core Focus
This area needs to remain agricultural or natural open space.64
Ties in with Area 5, all commercial not feasible.72
All concepts the same.77
Very low.100
This area has always been exclusive and i guess it is good that it always will be. No choice here.151
Housing would be good there as long as there is good street access, NOT from Palomar.161
Low density residential use is the preferred use. Again, how does this development contribute to the
quality of life for present and future Carlsbad residents?
209
Hurrah for low density!!!284
Active Waterfront (B)296
N None
Keep it open.9
Where is the open space option the Planning Commission TOLD you to put in?12
What is currently there?81
Rezone as open space as recommended by the open space committee.85
Make open space.86
This is key link in the regional wildlife movement corridor- should be open space- or leave as is.106
Devalues homes, takes jobs away from residents, crowds our schools.118
not manufacturing activity near housing 120
WTF?128
Leave as open space undeveloped.180
I would prefer NO residential use.187
leave as is : OPEN SPACE 201
Not familiar with the area 258
What kind of commercial use are we talking about? Would like more detail 259
Leave s open space/wildlife corridors 274
Leave as is.285
Keep as agricultural or natural open space. I know there are deer and bobcats there which I would like
to save for my grand kids
294
Need better presentation for what goes on around this development. Trails, open space? For a
resident not planning to live in the specific area, what does this area offer in trade for development?
318
Once again the clear direction from the planning commission was ignored. This ag land should be
revegetated to create more natural and recreational lands. Fullfill the prop c promise buy it, restore it
and preserve it inperpetuity.
331
Land Use Concepts - Survey Comments
IDComment
Focus on Carlsbad Village/Coast!332
O Other
Medium density residential. Low density is a waste of space.3
Quality medium to low density.18
I think you messed this question up. All options indicate the same. I support low density commercial.28
["low density" was circled for each concept]46
No medium and high density development.62
Purchase as natural open space.63
Very low or low density residential.68
Same 69
Too much traffic will be generated along El Camino if all commercial goes in 5 and/or 4.70
Not enough information.73
Open space.80
Keep this area in an open space layout friendly to the wild life and the community.83
Leave as open space.84
Rezone as open space.87
Leave as open space.88
Preserve open SPACE!89
Open space. Negative impact on College Ave. if other than open space.90
Open space ideal.91
Open space - important for wildlife, habitat preservation, and recreation. VERY IMPORTANT TO
PRESERVE.
92
Open space.93
This continues to be open space.94
Beautiful for open space.95
Open space.96
Ideal for open space.97
No strong opinion. Why not let the property owner decide what is best?107
This should be very high end housing to uphold property values and create view property that will
sustain status. Medium density with some sensibility to traffic issues is preferable. More high design
and a little higher density with open space for support.
126
This is where you should have put the power plant. Too late.155
unfamiliar with area 157
Stop developing!!!176
this is a good place for more residential,
Sunny Creek is in the middle of just about nothing~
197
Land Use Concepts - Survey Comments
IDComment
Mandana should be used for natural open space since it has poor access now. If not, use as ag land to
preserve what little agricultural heritage is left in Carlsbad.
210
Convert to open space to make a big contiguous area.220
I prefer to see this area remain agricultural;. We need to retain farming, preferably organic farming in
Carlsbad. Very low density housing is a waste of good land.
228
This area is presently zoned for agricultural use and should continue to function as a wildlife corridor.235
not all that familiar with the area.238
don't build on everything.243
Medium density is a good idea.244
Prefer to leave as is, and see how the new high school will impact the area.254
This is presented in away that makes no sense to me. What are you asking?257
Convert to open space/park along with Lake Calaveras Reserve while obtaining land currently owned
by DF&G to create a large diverse ecosystem. Trails and recreation would be incorporated around the
new high school and central to all Carlsbad.
264
Active Waterfront (B)279
Should be open space - there is too much development in this area already 280
THERE IS NO CHOICE HERE!
THERE IS ONLY ONE IMAGE!
WHAT'S THE POINT OF THIS QUESTION?!
THE SURVEY IS FLAWED OR THERE ARE FORMATTING ERRORS.
306
Would like to see mixed use.317
When there is just one option there is little or no choice.326
Great place for high density housing.330
Focus Area 7 - Palomar Corridor
A Centers
Add mixed use to A as indicated [mixed use area at Faraday and El Camino Real sim to Concept C]3
Some people don't have a car, still can keep a job especially young people.8
I do not want the high-density housing across from Trader Joe's (Plan C).51
Ties in with Area 5, all commercial not feasible.72
I like the idea of having some mixed-use development as long as it provides park and pool amenities
for its residents so that Bressi Ranch isn't adversely affected. I also would like the children directed to
Kelly Elementary since their population is much lower than Poinsettia and our population will continue
to grow as the Bressi Estates and La Costa Greens are finished.
207
Need housing for employees of industrial park.295
Better to have mixed use, residential, on southern border of area and not in the noisy flight path where
people will complain of noise.
317
Land Use Concepts - Survey Comments
IDComment
Like the eastern neighborhood idea 346
B Active Waterfront
No apartment complex.6
Don't like the high density residential in this area. Don't change the Bressi Ranch parcel to residential
instead of commercial. Put a larger restaurant anchor with retail mix, to compliment the area. Provides
a place for business people to meet and dine, and after work opportunity for entertainment, etc. but
not residential. Let Bressi Master Plan mature. Poor idea for housing near Vista Palomar Park in
Concept A.
7
Keep low traffic.9
No apartment complex please.19
I DO NOT want the zoning change (for 400 units). We have too much traffic already. I live on Town
Garden Road! An accident is ready to happen. They go at 40+ miles per hour on this. It does not need
more TRAFFIC!! (Police would be writing tickets all day on Town Garden.)
24
Keeping the Palomar Corridor focusing on industrial/office use! (As it is now.)25
Strongly favor Concept B. I strongly oppose the particular rezoning on Concept C [Staff note: circled
high density residential area on Palomar Airport Rd] It (i.e. high density and low income housing) places
an undue burden on the Bressi Ranch Community. If the City Council approves this change I will work
vigorously to ensure that none of you is reelected.
26
Streets (i.e. Palomar) are crowded as-is as are schools!27
Waterfront adds the most residential opportunities without impacting existing core singe family
residence areas.
28
Absolutely NO high density at Palomar and Fuerte! We all bought at Bressi thinking there would be no
more residences added on…light industrial zoned! The traffic the high density would create here would
be horrendous. Concept A would be ok if no zoning change at Plaomar/Fuerte.
29
No new housing in this area.30
[Staff note: Concept B circled many times.]31
No high density residential!32
[Staff note: Concept B circled many times]33
Must eliminate any additional high density residential housing to protect: school overcrowding, our
single family residential values, traffic, etc.
34
No need for medium and high density development.36
Schools are over crowded already. Traffic is bad w/no parking in Bressi Village.39
[Staff note: on Concept A the high density residential area by Vista Palomar Park was circled] Landing
pattern gag! Concept B same so ok. [Staff note: commercial area in Concept C was circled and it looks
like it should be moved to same area in Concept B] Concept C, NO! Noise and airport lousy traffic
pattern.
46
I am against high density apartment complex being built in this area.47
Highly opposed to residential. Poor use given traffic impact, intensity of use disconnected with Bressi
Community and overwhelms our elementary schools. [Staff note: High density residential from
Concept C and mixed use from Concept A near Palomar Airport Road is circled]
48
Land Use Concepts - Survey Comments
IDComment
I'm not in favor of a change to the area across from Trader Joes on Palomar Airport being rezoned
because of impact on Bressi Ranch. However the core focus change in zoning at Faraday and El Camino
Real makes some space as well as a multi use change at Camino Vida Robles.
49
Like keeping area industrial near airport.52
[Staff note: "B" was checked multiple times]57
Best use for existing communities. [Staff note: the mixed use on Concept A and the high density
residential area on Concept C near Palomar Airport Road were crossed out]
58
Must not be anything other than office/industrial. Area already highly impacted. [Staff note: area near
Palomar Airport Road that has different uses in Concepts A and C was circled]
59
I adamantly disagree with A & C. B is the best choice or use the property near Trader Joe's at Bressi as
more retail stores. A & C would drive up student/teacher ratio even more, especially after the 50%
increase in this ratio at Poinsettia Elementary between 2010 and 2011 school year.
61
No residential - too much residential on Palomar Airport Road already.90
Residential should not be so close to airport.99
NO on C - please leave as is. Thank you~100
Please leave that area as originally zoned. The community is COMPLETELY against the proposed
rezoning and the idea of any type of apartments.
101
I live in Aviara and ALREADY people that work off Palomar Airport use Poinsettia and Aviara Parkway to
get to work so traffic is already getting bad, heavy and people driving very fast to get to or from work.
If any commercial, I would prefer to see more high tech but an important consideration will be how
traffic is handled as Palomar Airport already can't handle the load.
110
I chose this option because it did not add high density residential.117
WE are against zone changes from commercial to residemtial on El Fuerte and Palomar airport rd. Core
C cunstruction is a bad idea as it takes jobs away from current residents, devalues our homes, and
srowds our school.
Commercial property will bring in more business and jobs, and should be kept as is.
118
It is an AIRPORT, why put more housing near by 120
This is already such a busy corridor. Housing of any density seems inappropriate.133
No high density residential our schools are already filled!134
Bressi Village Shops, the local elementary schools and residential areas are already overcrowded.
Adding mixed use and high density residential buildings would only make the situation worse.
137
PLEASE DO NOT BUILD HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL OR MIXED USE ON THIS LAND. (see above
comments) CONCEPTS A AND C WOULD HAVE A DETRIMENTAL IMPACT ON THIS AREA! KEEP THE
PALOMAR CORRIDOR INDUSTRIAL/OFFICE or some COMMERCIAL TO expand THE ALREADY
DEVELOPED BRESSI CENTER. THIS AREA IS ALREADY VERY CROWDED AND ADDING THIS MANY UNITS
WOULD HAVE AN ABSOLUTELY TERRIBLE IMPACT ON THE COMMUNITY! POINSETTIA ELEMENTARY
ALREADY HAS A HIGH PERCENTAGE OF LOW INCOME FAMILIES due to already existing housing.
142
This area was originally zoned for commecial use. Bressi Ranch is already a medium/high density area.
Traffic from residents, as well as others utilizing the Bressi shopping area makes it quite busy. This area
does not need nor can it support additional high-density housing. Keep the area zoned for commercial
use only.
154
Absolutely NO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.160
absolutely no medium or high density zoning near bressi ranch 168
Land Use Concepts - Survey Comments
IDComment
Must minimize additional high density housing!169
I do not want the area north of Bressi Ranch between Gateway and Palomar Airport Road to be
changed to any type of residential or mixed use. Other than that the Core Focus plan makes since to
me with the addition of mixed use on El Camino and Faraday.
173
Stop developing!!!176
Maintain industrial/office focus for this corridor. Already lots of high density housing in this area.
Adding more would put disproportionate burden on surrounding communities.
180
It is so crowded in this area already, with 33 children is my daughter's 1st grade classroom,do NOT re-
zone to high-density residential here.
181
Absolutely no high density residential in this area. The schools are already overcrowded and traffic is
heavy with the new shopping center in the area. High density residential in this area would be a
disaster!
183
I feel strongly that a medium or high density multi family use near Bressi Ranch would overload the
school and local shopping.
198
DON'T PUT RESIDENTIAL NEAR ANY AIRPORT. IT WILL ALWAYS COME BACK TO BITE YOU.229
Please no new residential in this area!!!!!!230
Please do not spot zone in the Bressi Ranch area. No med/high density housing. Bressi Ranch/Village
and Poinsettia Elementary would be too greatly affected by this. Please keep zoned as Industrial/office
as originally planned for this area. Thank you!
232
Keep the Palomar Corridor clear of any adjacent residential use.235
Don't reduce the amount of land that is zoned for industrial....it's shortsighted to intentially reduce our
options for business growth.
238
Am against building high density area near Bressi Ranch. This area was built with inadequate parking
and room to accomate the present number of people.
249
High density residential would destroy the existing lifestyle in and around Bressi Ranch. This is also a
threat to Poinsettia Elementary not to mention the overcrowding that would result in the adjacent
shops and intersections! Please do not consider this Concept!
250
Pal-air road is a busy highway, it would be advantages to put some commercial venues along the way.
H.D.R. is, in my opinion, a bad idea.
253
Lesve it the way it is now.256
This is very confusing. I am not sure what is being presented or asked the way it is presented.257
No more residential or commercial, too busy already 258
Same reasons listed previously 277
Should not have residential - too much impact on Palamar airport road which is highly traveled already 280
Putting in high density housing is a nice idea in concept; however, will be a failure in the long term
future of Carlsbad. The shopping center in Bressi Ranch is already difficult to get in and out of with the
current traffic load. Adding high density housing across the street will cause more congestion along
Palomar Airport Road and safety hasards with people trying to walk/bike in that area.
283
This plan makes the most sense, this community is currently under employeed and to bring more
housing into the area is foolish. Also bringing the property values down of communities by introducing
high density housing is reckless.
293
Land Use Concepts - Survey Comments
IDComment
This is the best choice because it has thE least development near the airport. Core focus (C) is out of
the question because the vast majority of aircraft are on right traffic prior to landing and would fly
right over this area
294
I am anti-high/medium density housing so B looked like the best choice.299
Concept B retains the commercial/industrial character of Palomar Airport Road between I-5 and
Melrose. Departures from this should be only at the very edges such as commercial development near
Costco as in Concept C or high density housing next to Vista Palomar as in Concept A.
316
While I am strongly against the Waterfront concept as the one that is the least desirable, I have
selected it here because it is the only one with noe high density residential which is as much of a
negative as forcing large amount of residential into an active waterfront area.
326
I do not want to see any additional high density housing in this area, the traffic and accidents on
Palomar Airport Rd are already a problem, more apartments will only make it worse.
339
Do not put residential near the airport 345
C Core Focus
Mixed use - people can walk to work, help traffic.18
What is an "opportunity site?"70
Locate housing in close proximity to jobs.71
High density residential, mixed use and commercial make sense although the residential need to be
able to work at the jobs nearby (not commute down the congested 5 to SD!).
104
Why was the high density residential area on the eastern boundary deleted from this alternative- it
should be add to this option- or would this exceed GMP?
106
The City needs more high density housing near the job center of the City. The City needs to encourage
walkable development.
116
I think C allows for logical location of more high density housing (near potential jobs) in Carlsbad and I
think the mixed use and commercial areas are appropriately placed also.
151
Mixed use including residential is best placed along Palomar Airport Rd. Some of the Quarry Creek
housing elements should be shifted to this area, already developed and with a good circulation
element.
210
Don't take any of the habitat next to the creek. Redevelop sprawl into higher density.243
I also liked the high density housing on the east along Palomar Airport Rd. The waterfront concept
lacks many desired features for this area.
291
This option seems to make the existing commercial/industrial mass the most livable. This area really
needs more MULTI-MODAL transportation alternatives. It offers NO HUMAN SCALE in its buildings or
street network. It needs a lot of work.
306
Prefer Core has it seems to address housing, services for some people who may wish a self-contained
work/live lifestyle.
318
Great place for high density housing.330
High density residential close to industrial/office would be a welcomed focus for holding jobs in the
area. Additionally this could open up a east/west corridor for transportation usage for the housing,
office and mixed use properties. Smart planning should definately take safety buffer zones into
consideration.
348
Land Use Concepts - Survey Comments
IDComment
N None
I don't want to see any more development in this area.146
Not craz about any choice here. Keep industrial and high density housing to a very minimum!161
Palomar is currently over crowded and there is plenty of current office space available. No new
housing is needed.
171
this area is already highly congested and the schools are overcrowded as is!!!194
See my prior discussion. The traffic in this area is ridiculous at rush hour, ultra congested, and there is
no logical way to change that. Why anyone would want to congest it even more bogles my mind.There
needs to be some sanity here. Like stop trying to shove everything into Carlsbad because some
developer wants to put something in.
196
no medium and high density residences.216
This Area is already extremely congested. Adding more residential would be disasterous.218
Again, mixed use does not work, financially. Check out the records of where they've already tried this.251
It is already over populated! Traffic would be far worse and Poinsettia school would be impacted
negatively!!!
267
This area is far too congested and over developed. It's like an industrial version of what Del Mar did to
Carmel Valley. With so many vacant industrial parks, why create more? Leave it alone and start
creating more sensible solutions than suburban/rural sprawl.
285
You can't expect homeowners to like living near Palomar Airport if you plan to expand it --which I think
you will do. Why not turn PA rd into a freeway and put your business there?
310
Focus on Carlsbad Village/Coast!332
O Other
Concept A looks ok. Area on Concept C that is in purple, designated for mixed use, is valuable habitat
dummy.
12
Like mixed use along transit corridor.[A and C checked]64
Keep it classy and upscale - Do we really want to attract more illegal aliens by subsiding housing for
them?
66
Standard commercial - no; mixed use - yes; high density residential were best supported by
infrastructure.
73
What is the current zoning? What is currently there?81
Careful considerations to the Air Elements Noise Pollution for new families.83
all of Ok 111
Just make all industrial and call it good. I know of a lead acid battery plant that has to leave its toxic
waste site.
128
open the zoning and let the market tell you what works here. Stop wasting years and money noodling
over details that only discourage investors with more delays. Havent you learned the lesson of 25%
vacancy rates when the economy was good, and people were going to Vista and San Marcos to open
business- what do you think you can do now, in a recession.
155
Land Use Concepts - Survey Comments
IDComment
Rezoning part of Bressi Ranch for high density apartments at the corner of Palomar Airport and Fuerte
would be a very poor decision.
http://www.loudairport.com/
I live near corner of Poinsettia and El Camino and airport noise there is loud. I am consistently woken
up at 6 am or earlier by jet engines. I am much further away than Fuerte/Palomar This location is on
the flight path and presents additional risks in addition to noise probles.
303
Without seeing how these parcels are CURRENTLY zoned it is impossible to say how we would like to
see it changed. Read my lips - no net loss of natural lands. This silly map doesn't even show faraday
going thru, as it has for a couple years. Your opportunity sites are remnants of what is left of OUR
OPEN SPACES. shame on you.
331
Focus Area 8 - Southern Freeway Corridor
A Centers
I don't know that residential high density next to the train tracks is most desirable.7
Easy access to freeway and core transportation without adding high density to core single family
residential areas.
28
Here you have commuters and structure- why is there even any debate about where to allow small
business to locate- its here and/or around the airport, period. Just get going and stop asking citizens to
tell the pros what to do!
155
More residential making it more of a center with support from commercial 259
I am anti-density housing so this seemed like the best choice.299
I chose A since it was the only one which discussed clustering uses next to Pointsettia station. The
increased use of the station should be a focus for this area. Getting people to use the station w/o
getting in an auto should be a priority for this area.
306
tax dollars 342
It's such a weird area. Can you actually get people to live there?346
B Active Waterfront
Everyone wants to live near the ocean!29
No need for medium and high density development.36
Good place for activity in combination with high density housing makes sense.49
[a question mark was placed next to "Palomar freeway interchange"]70
Residential should be located in close proximity to the Poinsettia Station.71
High density residential near the train station - yes.73
Property south of Encina should be high density due to its location close to the transit station and the
adjacent existing commercial site that needs more residents to become economically viable.
116
This again is more appropriate location for high density housing with access to commercial and
commuting resources.
180
We need to keep open some active parks and open space along coast hwy for residents and visitors to
use at will.
222
This is confusing the way it is presented. I am not sure what is being asked.257
Land Use Concepts - Survey Comments
IDComment
People taking the train, this is ideal.283
I like the high density by the train station.291
Maximizes use of rail corridor. Putting some residential near the train station would improve
commutes for employees working downtown.
317
Need more residential near the beaches 345
C Core Focus
Minimizes commercial development along coast.64
Be sure to consider any opportunities for open spaces and parks.81
This option includes added parkland and less intense use- leaves some of waterfront for residents who
don't live right along the coast.
106
Again, traffic is already a major concern in this area 110
C has the least impact on Coastal development.151
We could use more housing in this area, but NOT HIGH DENSITY!!!! Please please please! I truly think
the med density housing adds value and desirability to our city, while high density detracts. This area
would get too impacted. No high density housing here! Please, NO high density housing here! Besides,
there already is a high density housing
Complex right there. More single fam homes, and NOT industrial/please!!!
161
Minimizes commercial development (including too many hotels) along the coastline.210
Any of these would be fine, but we like C the best.211
Not for everyone, but if people want to live near a train/bus station for ease of transportation, we
whould have that as an option. Private demand for the space will drive development though.
238
You might get a few people riding the train...if it goes where they need to go. Otherwise they're going
to get in their car and drive. It's the American way.
251
If I were living in that area, and I had to make a choice, it would be (c)253
There is plenty of commercial development nearby. Additional commercial development will detract
from existing and planned residential development.
319
Far and away Core is the best here. Beach living without the intermix of retail and commercial keeps
that standard of living up higher. Carlsbad will be forever stuck with the pathetic location of its second
train station and it is a mistake to try and fit it with any other efforts, just build a huge parking lot and
don't try and fix the blunder.
326
Hopefully a mdium density plan would not have the very tall high risers blocking views and making
housing, although near the ocean and transportation, reasonably affordable.
348
N None
What is zoning now? No commercial, high density residential, or medium density residential uses for
the area by the train station.
12
I'll let you decide 128
Plenty of current housing and commercial is available.171
palomar airport road highly congested as is!!!194
already over packed 197
Land Use Concepts - Survey Comments
IDComment
no medium and high density residences.216
no more medium and high density planning!219
NOTHING to the west of the existing rd 274
You've already overbuilt and ruined this area. Stop already. We do not need another hotel there to
ruin the last bit of natural beach we have in Carlsbad. Again, the residents have no yards for their kids
to play in so they go to the beach to sit/stand elbow to elbow with the tourists you insist on drawing
into town? We don't have the nice white sand beaches you paint in on the brochures --let Oceanside
build the hotels. Quality of life is good!
310
Does not translate well for resident evaluation. I find the short text descriptions not tied to what I see
in colors on the maps. For example, "Centers" seems to have more green than "Active Waterfront" If
there is really more Active Waterfront, what is it?
318
O Other
Less is best.66
all are OK 111
Stop developing!!!176
OPEN SPACE ONLY. PARKLAND?229
open space and commercial/industrial - no residential 280
again what is missing is EXISTING zoning.331
Focus on Carlsbad Village/Coast!332
Focus Area 9 - Ponto/Southern Waterfront
A Centers
Boy you really lost the soul of the coast here. The plantings are foreign and look like some subdivision
in LA. Where are the saltbush and lemonade berries? Don't just fill it with suburban junk. focus and
bring back the true coast (hint: Palms don't belong here).
243
B Active Waterfront
Concept B makes for a vibrant and exciting waterfront destination.7
Please keep Vision Plan concept for Ponto.17
Spreads out the housing and avoids a small area that gets impacted so greatly.28
Make sure commercial areas are on WEST SIDE OF COAST HIGHWAY.32
No need for medium and high density development.36
Not sure we can afford promenade.52
Fantastic! We jus need to make sure that there's SOME (?) parking somewhere so people can get there
and then walk around.
60
Limit high density residential - Do not build tall buildings to block existing views. Keep beaches open to
public and create parking.
68
Carlsbad Boulevard Realignment is important to Carlsbad's future. Maintain the land uses in Ponto as
addressed in the Vision Plan.
71
Land Use Concepts - Survey Comments
IDComment
Green space and open waterfront.98
Open space and waterfront promenade.99
This looks great! A waterfront park/promenade south of The Village. Although what will happen to the
Campgrounds?
104
HOPEFULLY NOT "high intensity" residential or commercial 110
Active waterfront will greatly benefit the City. The designations within the Ponto area should reflect
those discussed by the Vision Plan and addressed in the settlement between Carlsbad & Vista to avoid
potential legal challenges.
116
Beach and tourist- Carlsbad has the safest and cleanest beaches already-
BUT- hey, why NOT you could install a bunch of tacky red roofed strip malls, anchored by more banks
going out of business, so you can have more dry cleaning and pedicure shops, tho, as clearly we need
more of those here.
155
Why is the new hotel so ugly?164
Yes, improve the waterfront experience with parklike setting, bike and walking paths, etc. Would make
this a very desirable location for residents and tourists.
180
We don't have enough open space in this city - this concept includes the most open space.207
Plan B is excellent 235
YES, lets have something like 'the strand' (LA area) along our coastline!244
This is confusing as presented. I don't understand what is being asked.257
The additional things along the waterfront are great!291
Public access and passive open space should be a priority for this area.306
Prefer leaving waterfront area for walking and promenade which is only depicted in plan B 317
But is the Active Waterfront Concept really hotel-centric? No mention of hotels.318
I like the waterfront promenade concept. Unsure where the Carlsbad Blvd would be re-routed from
this plan? It would be nice to have some nice resturants on the waters edge. We need some better
venues for tourist and residents.
348
C Core Focus
Open space by the beach.81
Open spaces and parks. No high density.100
Open spaces would be nice.101
No more people, it will ruin Carlsbad.134
C would be my first choice and A would be my second, because they have the least impact on the
natural aspect of our Carlsbad coastline.
151
I would like to see very limited development of this area. The beaches are one of the reasons Carlsbad
is so special.
187
PLEASE don't develop this area to death. It's one of the last nice areas by the beach.192
This is the only logical area for growth since it is open, and is the logical growth area.196
We do not need a "promenade" on the coast. This is why we have a beach.231
Land Use Concepts - Survey Comments
IDComment
better to have more open space...shouldn't develop your "node" idea....those concepts have a habit of
allowing commercial fill between them.
238
Let's not get too crowded down there.248
I do not like Concept B in this circumstance. Leave this area as open park space. If I want a busy coastal
area with a pier/park, I will drive up to Oceanside.
263
Prefer no development along the sourthern Carlsbad coast. Instead, lets celebrate the opportunity we
have to enjoy the beauty of the natural coastline. Please stop pushing this development at Ponto!!!
265
Perserves State park and recreation area
less cost to develope
315
Core again because of no high density residential. However with no high density residential it would be
perfect to use the visitor serving features of the Waterfront plan to take advantage of Carlsbad's coast
line as a visitor draw and attraction.
326
Please leave this area open and beautiful, and not turn it into another LA strip mall jungle. Sincerely...330
what is missing is existing zoning to compare to. the less development the better. We need more
parking at our beaches, not more development.
331
N None
Leave undeveloped as in last General Plan.12
Prefer very little coastal development along this section.64
The relationship between small mount of added open space and increases in density is not clear- how
many uints added and how many sq feet of commercial- can't select with limited information.
106
I don't want to see this area developed.146
Parks and open spaces are always good.171
Too much development along this stretch of coastline. Leave it as is with minimal changes. Definitely
NOT Active Waterfront - we do not need to look like Newport Beach!
210
no medium and high density residences.216
Overdevelopment would gretaly affect the water quality in the area. Again, we don't need more strip
malls and residential areas.
218
Aren't there campgrounds along here? What happens to those? Some restaurants would be nice but
mostly, we like it the way it is.
251
Keep off the coast!273
No envelopment less than 100 metes east of beach 274
ABSOLUTELY LEAVE THIS ALONE! For the life of me I beg you to reconsider this area. DO NOT DO
THIS! Let this area be the beautiful, pristine coastline it currently is. It's already quickly vanishing all
over California and already being swallowed up around Ponto with high density, ugly condos. South
Ponto is a gem. Don't exploit and destroy it!! PLEASE! I've spent my whole life on this beach, don't do
this. You'll never get this place back.
285
LEAVE PONTO ALONE!!!! NO DEVELOPMENT NEEDED!!! This is what makes Carlsbad special.290
Again, this is the last bit of natural beach that we have in Carlsbad. Leave it alone for the residents and
nature. Build hotels in the village and in Oceanside. It's bad enough the Hilton was allowed. The Ponto
storage area is prettier than the track homes. Leave something in Carlsbad natural. We do not have
the wide beaches to support your tourist vision. Put greed aside and look at quality of life. Picture a
high tide on a 4th of July. Send someone out to measure the beach. Let's get real
310
Land Use Concepts - Survey Comments
IDComment
Do not want to see the area developed to the extent that is proposed. It should be an area for the
citizens of Carlsbad to enjoy and not visitors.
311
I HATE the idea of a promenade at Ponto and I strongly dislike the idea of creating "shopping"
opportunities. This is a beach area - it's about the sand and the sea, not gift shops. I think the council is
highly misguided in trying to over-architect the beach experience. I also firmly believe that we're going
to end up with a lot of empty hotel rooms. We're killing a beautiful beach for some promise of money.
Sure, we could use some better parking but PLEASE don't sell our most precious resource
346
O Other
No high density. [Staff note: under Concept B "high density residential, mixed use" was crossed out.]62
Less is best - fresh air please.66
I like the idea of a second promenade, look how popular the seawall area is (we need to upgrade the
bluff tops in this area the State is inept) I would support a redesign that continues to have overnight
camping but retires the bluff edge to a public walk; visitor serving commercial - yes; and mixed use at
the south end - yes.
73
Maintain SFR and open space adjacent to Batiquitos Lagoon North Shore Trail.74
Can't we just leave it the way it is? Can we keep the open space? Oh by the way, the gnarly trees along
the coast are a natural resources. They should be featured instead of hidden. In all sincerity, thanks
for taking care of them.
128
Would very much prefer this area to remain open space 129
Keep it all open space!130
Stop developing!!!176
Leave the waterfront alone.188
gear it all toward residents, not visitors 197
LOW DENSITY MIX USE WITH PARKS.229
Combintation Active waterfront...keep the waterfront park promenade concept and lose the mixed-
use visitor-serving commercial and residential. We do not need more visitor services in this City. We
need more services for the residents...beach parks, green belts, dog parks, walking trails. We do not
need more restaurants, hotels, shops to attract visitors to this area. We have downtown for that
purpose; Legoland, the Outlet mall, etc.
255
Focus on Carlsbad Village/Coast!332
Focus Area 10 - Aviara
A Centers
see above comment 197
No pink in the key! What is it? Includes areas of higher density housing in a part of the city that has
little of this. Good to have more parks.
210
No high density...more open space 259
Prefer larger recreation area with less commercial 317
B Active Waterfront
Land Use Concepts - Survey Comments
IDComment
No reason for low density uses; medium density here [two southern sites]3
I represent a specific property in Aviara. I will not choose to have any of this property "open space."5
Offers best fit for area and current use. Liked "C" better than "A."7
High density is needed to help fund the construction of the missing link of Poinsettia.71
The (?) parcel bisected by Poinsettia and its extension be designated to LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
ONLY!
76
Aviara lacks the ability to walk to shops and restaurants 110
The cost of constructing Poinsettia Lane is very high. Spreading the cost over additional units will make
it easier to get this much needed roadway.
116
I don't think this area needs more high density housing. There are already two or three developments
there, I believe. Since I don't know what the commercial recreation use would be, low density housing
would be my choice over the unknown.
151
There are already many areas open to commercial development in Carlsbad and this is an area which is
basically purely residential. The whole character of the neighborhood would be changed with
commercial development. It is one of the most beautiful areas in the city and would not be improved
by inserting commercial development.
224
The way this information is presented, unless you have intimate knowledge of this information for
each area, the average citizen can't adequately answer these questions.
257
C Core Focus
Need for a good large recreation center/ open gym (basketball, volleyball)18
Maximize open space.81
Mixing some light commercial and residential (no manufacturing to eliminate heavy trucking
access)will keep this area from looking like Irvine. We need a local brand identity. Snout housing is so
tired looking. We can do better with clean, environmental neighborhoods that harvest solar and use
water reclamation as a theme. Cutting edge design doesn't have to be high liability. Our lagoons and
ocean front deserve a real identity related to the regional character.
126
Just keep it in character with neighborhood- its one of the remaining affluent areas- you could screw it
up, if you wanted to "fix that".
155
Housing should be all low density 175
This seems to be the most balanced concept.207
I propose lower density housing around nearby schools that are already overcrowded.250
I like the idea of commercial space for restaurants, grocery shopping, etc near low/medium density
housing.
263
Seems like the definitions of "density" need to be more clearly defined - seems like there may be
different interpretations that could lead us down a bad road here.
265
What, exactly, is the pink areas 274
I think of this as a residential area and am trying to stay close to that.291
I am anti-density housing so this seemed like the best choice.299
Build more parks and maybe a huge pool.310
Land Use Concepts - Survey Comments
IDComment
Mild preference for Core reflects thought that commercial recreation adds more diversity to area
options. A bit hard to translate the subtleties of the different concepts into what it may mean for
residents.
318
Again core, it has the least dense housing layout but ads some commerical which is not close to the
residential. Mixing commercial and housing makes for a not so ideal residential environment.
326
With the schools and church's, Aviara Park, golf course and Park Hyatt, it would be ideal to minimize
any high density within this neighborhood that would create significant traffic and congestion. For the
residents this also creates more open space.
348
N None
Especially this area. NO more residential 134
No new housing needed, we are already suffering from overcrowding.171
Why change a previously thoughtout and logical plan.196
no medium and high density residences.216
no more medium and high density planning!219
What is a commercial recreation use?251
O Other
I do not support changes to this area at all.28
Prefer only vision that creates single family residences; not medium or high density residential.34
Aviara is currently way too suburban and could use some higher density/mixed uses. Everyone there
drives around in their cars with little sense of community.
60
No medium and high density development.62
Less is best.66
Need more information.73
Don't know.100
all are OK 111
Who really cares, it's an urban wasteland now.128
Open space and commercial recreation uses. WE DO NOT NEED MORE HOUSEING. As it is now we cant
sell the houses we have now in Carlsbad. Lets get more shops, malls, restaurants, parks and schools
and businesses for the Carlsbad residents that live here now.
160
Aviara is the perfect location for high density residential, strip malls, hotels, and other commercial over
development.
188
LOW DENSITY WITH OPEN SPACE 229
This is just souless sprawl that destroyed everything it was named for.243
Let Batiquitos Lagoon be as is.285
single family homes in place of high and medium density housing.304
Why does s. cbd get low density housing and n. cbd get's hi density? Not right folks, stick some hi
density down s. and more natural/ park lands, which you don't say whether they are existing or not.
331
Land Use Concepts - Survey Comments
IDComment
Focus Area 11 - South El Camino Real
A Centers
The shopping center at the SE corner of ECR and La Costa should be redeveloped as a mixture of
residential with a limited amount of mixed use. This has never been a successful commercial site.
71
Bingo!73
Scenario A is best for the SE corner of ECR and La Costa. A small amount of mixed use along with
residential makes the most sense at this site. The small vacant parcels near La Costa Resort should be
visitor serving.
116
again, where is transportation support for high density?259
Trying to stay close to the existing character.291
el camino real has the roads and the room for high density housing.330
I don't think mixed-use will work in these areas.346
B Active Waterfront
Spreading out the units.28
La Costa and El Camino good location for high density with little to none at this time.180
This is finally starting to make some sense, but how could you really change your opinion of the three
options, once you pick an intial selection. You can't go back and edit your choices. This survey really
sucks.
257
Great access to the 5 freeway for the High density housing.283
Residential within close proximity of mixed use already in place. Easy walking for potential residents
along El Camino and good access to public bus tranit.
348
C Core Focus
Don't like "B" - high density concentration here. "A" or "C" - "C" providing best opportunity here.7
Totally FLAWED process! Need green belt on Concept C around designated mixed/commercial use by
La Costa Ave.
12
There's plenty here already.87
No high density or medium density but very low density if any.100
Please, no more high density housing off or near El Camino Real/Poinsettia/Palomar Airport Rd.101
avoid any more "high density" along El Camino Real, traffic is bad enough now 110
El Camino Real seems best used for commercial and mixed use rather than high density residential.
The lighter mixed use on the NW corner of Aviara and El Camino seems more compatible with the
adjacent low density residential.
151
Must minimize high density residential here!169
Keep Aviara at El Camino Real totally commercial 175
This area is already congested. PLEASE don't build a bunch more homes/apts there!!!!192
Land Use Concepts - Survey Comments
IDComment
Seems to be the best balance.207
Like the mixed use component.210
This seemed like the best choice based upon what is there now. Besides, it is the option with least
amount of density housing.
299
More mixed use 317
Core again because it is the only one without high density residential and it has the most mixed use
with none of it next to residential, this is good.
326
N None
Already too much car traffic along this part of El Camino.70
Already too uch traffic on El Camino, and will be too conjested in the future.118
There is already too much traffic along El Camino in this area.146
No new housing needed! El camino real is already ridiculous!171
Stop developing!!!176
Why go back and redo something that is fine.196
no medium and high density residences.216
addtional development would be extremely harmful to the natural wetlands in the area.218
no more medium and high density planning 219
This land is already developed. Ask the property owners what they want to do with it.251
Too much traffic already exists on El Camino.254
This area should be kept residential 258
Isn't El Camino Blvd jammed up enough (with cars)? Maybe you should think about a trolley along El
Camino if you want to keep developing along this road.
310
Cannot translate the subtle differences in maps and descriptions in to why one fits a concept better
than another. Whatever logic is going on eludes me. Is this must the product of someone doing the
same thing three times and each ending up a bit different? How do differences actually map to the
concepts.
318
O Other
Change outdated center at La Costa and El Camino Real to high density residential. Aviara/El Camino
Real as mixed use as major commercial is nearby.
3
Same as focus Area 10.34
Tough getting coastal commission ok.46
Mixed use would be great. [Staff note: the triangular shaped area below La Costa Ave that's designated
as mixed use/commercial in Concept C is circled and the following is referring to this area.] That site
clearly fails as commercial use so let's do something different here.
60
No high density. [Staff note: an arrow is pointing to Concept C]62
Land Use Concepts - Survey Comments
IDComment
We do not want high density housing here! That's why we moved to Carlsbad - This is a great shopping
center the way it is!
66
El Camino has so much commercial development already.88
Sure as hell don't want High density housing here!140
Same as it already is- more malls, with coffee shops for soccer moms.155
11 197
This more seems like the owners of the La Costa Towne center are trying to rezone their mall and sell it
off to the highest bidder. La Costa Avenue has already become a parking lot after they expanded the
road. There simply isn't the room and infrastructure for this redevelopment. High density condos are
going up before Rancho Santa Fe Road and homes are spreading like wildfire in Elfin Forest. In
addition, you would absolutely lose the character of La Costa.
285
IF it's replacing open spaces - forget it.331
Appendix C: Letters
DYETT & BHATIA
Urban and Regional Planners
755 Sansome Street, Suite 400
San Francisco, California 94111
415 956 4300 415 956 7315
1
Summary of EC3 Land Use Concept Recommendations
Focus
Area Summary of EC3 Recommendations
1
Northwest
Coastal
Land Use Concept B with the following changes:
Show more open space on west side of power plant along Carlsbad Blvd.
No mixed use east of I-5 north of Cannon Rd.
The city should adopt a policy to establish pedestrian crossings over the railroad
at various locations, including Chestnut Ave.
2
Plaza
Camino Real
Commercial
Corridor
Land Use Concept B for sites west of El Camino Real
Land Use Concept C for sites east of El Camino Real
3
Quarry
Creek
Modify Concept C to reflect the proposed Quarry Creek Master Plan, as shown
below, with the following exception:
Eliminate the following area of medium density residential and designate
the area as open space; the units lost from this area should be relocated in
other developable areas on the site to the east.
ATTACHMENT 2
2
Focus
Area Summary of EC3 Recommendations
4
Marja Acres
Land Use Concept B/C; however, if more density is needed for Housing Element
purposes, Concept A is acceptable
5
Sunny Creek
Commercial
Land Use Concept A
6
Mandana
Leave as currently designated (very low density), as is shown on all three land
use concepts
Additional Information:
The Concept maps excluded the HMP constrained areas from the boundaries of
the very low density residential area. However, currently, the majority of the
site is designated very low density; the HMP constrained areas will be defined
and designated as open space at the time the area is proposed for development.
To accurately reflect the site’s current designation, the draft Preferred Plan now
shows the boundaries of the current very low density residential and open space
boundaries.
7
Palomar
Corridor
Land Use Concept B with the following changes:
Two parcels at eastern city boundary north of Palomar Airport Road – change
to high density residential (as shown in Concept A)
Carlsbad Oaks North Lot 1 (northwest corner of Faraday Ave. and El Fuerte
St.) – change to high density residential
Aviara Parkway Farms parcels – change to high density residential (located
south of Palomar Airport Road on the east and west sides of Aviara
Parkway). This site is shown as commercial on Concept C, along with
properties north of it.
Allow medical office uses on lots 4, 5, 7 and 8 of Carlsbad Oaks North (north
side of Faraday and just west of the city’s eastern boundary).
8
Southern
Freeway
Corridor
Land Use Concept A with the following exception:
The site south of the Encina Wastewater Authority (EWA) facility – leave as
currently designated until such time that the EWA board advises the city that
they would like to change the land use designation.
9
Ponto/
Southern
Waterfront
Land Use Concept B
Additional Information:
One of the commercial activity centers was removed to avoid a conflict with
existing open space for Encinas Creek.
3
Focus
Area Summary of EC3 Recommendations
10
Aviara
Aviara/Park Hyatt site – change to residential medium density at 6 dwelling
units/acre
Poinsettia Lane site – Land Use Concept A
Murphy properties - keep current residential density yield of the Murphy site but
provide an increased open space buffer near the lagoon
11
South El
Camino Real
El Camino Real/Alga commercial center – Land Use Concept B
La Costa Resort site – Land Use Concept B/C
Commercial center at the southeast corner of La Costa Ave. and El Camino Real
should remain as commercial
Envision Carlsbad Citizens Committee
Minutes
March 28, 2012
1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad
Room 173
Committee Present
Primary Members
Eric Larsen (Chair) Julie Baker Robert Gates
Mike Howes Hap L’Heureux Gina McBride
Diane Proulx Fred Sandquist Jeff Segall
Alternate Members
Guy Roney Tina Schmidt
Absent: Sean Bentley (Primary), Jim Bradley (Alternate), Jack Cumming (Alternate), Jim Comstock
(Primary), Kirk Cowles (Primary), Glen Etherington (Alternate), Jim Farley (Co-Chair) (Primary),
Barbara Hamilton (Primary), Chris Korogi (Alternate), Greg Nelson (Primary), Robert Nielsen
(Alternate), , Sean Sexton (Alternate), Dr. Anne Spacie (Alternate), Jeannie Sprague-Bentley
(Primary), Allen Sweet (Primary)
City of Carlsbad Staff
Gary Barberio – Community & Economic Development Director
Don Neu – City Planner
David de Cordova – Principal Planner
Chris DeCerbo – Principal Planner
Jennifer Jesser – Senior Planner
Leticia Treviño – Senior Office Specialist
Consultant
Rajeev Bhatia – Dyett & Bhatia
Committee Chairperson Larsen called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m.
1. Approve Minutes of the August 10, 2011 meeting
There was a motion and a second to that motion to approve the minutes from the August
10, 2011 meeting. Minutes were approved as submitted.
2. Meeting Process
Committee Chairperson Larsen explained the format of the meeting.
ATTACHMENT 3
March 28, 2012 Minutes
Page 2
3. Envision Carlsbad Status
Staff gave a brief presentation on the origins of the Envision Carlsbad program, its current
status, and where it is headed. Staff reported that public comment and EC3 feedback will
be included in a report that will go to Planning Commission.
4. Land Use Concepts Review/Recap
Consultant Rajeev Bhatia gave the Committee a recap of the land use concepts and
reported that the community participated by attending the Land Use Concept Workshops
and/or filling out a survey which was captured in the Land Use Concepts Feedback Report.
When asked how many committee and members of the audience participated, between 70
and 80% of the audience raised their hand.
5. Report on Community Feedback
Consultant gave the committee a presentation on the community feedback.
A committee member asked in general how does a site transition from being commercial to
becoming residential. Consultant responded that policies have not yet been written to support any
changes. The city is not going to shut down current projects. There can be changes in the future
and developers can be given incentives for making changes when there is a need. The intent is not
to create non-conformities.
A committee member asked how to define visitor serving commercial. Consultant and staff
responded that the difference is hotels are allowed in addition to restaurants and shops. The focus
may be more on serving the visitor versus serving the resident.
6. Public Comment
Geoff Reeslund: With Hughes Investments, the original developers and owner/manager of
Carlsbad Plaza at El Camino Real and Marron Road. He expressed support for the City’s attempts
to revitalize and re-energize the city through the new General Plan, supported the waterfront
concept that would enhance Carlsbad as a waterfront-oriented city. He stressed that the final
outcome should be a hybrid of the three concepts, in particular the Plaza Camino Real corridor and
the properties they own. Mr. Reeslund preferred that the existing core of sites remain the same
otherwise it would force local residents to move across the freeway to do their shopping. A mixed-
use or high density residential designation on their property doesn’t make sense. Such a
designation change could have potential legal and financial implication with lenders and tenants.
He requested that their site’s designation remain the same, recognizing Plaza Camino Real is a
different entity and Westfield is going to make some major changes.
Shawn Plaxco: A Bressi Ranch resident, he spoke about the potential rezoning of a property that
borders Palomar Airport Road, El Fuerte, and Gateway from a business park to a 450 unit
apartment complex. He wanted the committee to consider the effect of the change, citing
concerns over traffic and impact on schools, parks, streets, and central community.
ATTACHMENT 3
March 28, 2012 Minutes
Page 3
A committee member asked when there will be a meeting on State of California housing
requirements and to explain why this is even on the table in the first place. We have to take
housing units and find places for them in the city. It does not seem the general public truly
understands we have to find areas in the city to put housing units. The city has to comply with
Sacramento. If housing does not go in one area, it will go in another area.
Consultant and staff responded that Paper #2 does go over this. It deals not only with
demographic trends that are happening in the nation, state, and locally, but also the city’s housing
needs from a state standpoint and the projected changes and demographics in Carlsbad. Also, the
city’s housing needs have compared to the Growth Management Plan and Regional Housing Needs
Assessment (RHNA). The next Housing Element will be part of this General Plan update.
Nancy Ridgway: Lives in Focus Area 1 and is a homeowner in the Madison Area. She asked if the
city is looking at changing some of the zoning on some of the properties. There are about six prime
properties that the city keeps looking at. There are six homeowners that live near the park that
were supposed to have added trees by the Senior Center. She questioned if this is something they
do not have to worry about since it is more long-term planning. Nancy also questioned if the city is
going to be changing the zoning to mixed use with lofts on top and commercial on bottom.
Staff responded that in the existing adopted Housing Element, there is a program to consider and
look at potentially up-zoning certain properties in the Barrio. The existing Housing Element is to
potentially re-designate certain properties to higher density. Staff offered to discuss this one on
one with her.
Don Christiansen: Thanked the committee on their work. He was confused about proposed open
space and wanted to know how much of the 40% is actual natural open space. The city only has
one community garden with a four year waiting list. Taxpayers already paying and want space to
be put to use. He advocated for there to be at least one community garden in each quadrant.
The consultant responded that the 40% figure includes natural plus the recreational open space
together and that a breakdown can be obtained for him. Open space is discussed extensively in
the Open Space working paper (WP #3).
TJ Childs: lives on Madison. She stated that the city can be more creative than just putting housing
units in places that are traditionally single family homes. She suggested that we get rid of what she
calls the “Public Works depot” and use it for senior housing. There are a lot of infill lots located on
Jefferson, Harding, and Chestnut and they have high density housing. Maybe the city can buy lots
and partner so we can have a balance of single family housing. There is no push to help single
family homeowners in Barrio. This plan lacks any incentive for single family homeowners. Ms.
Childs stated she lives across from the park Nancy Ridgway mentioned. She hopes zoning does not
change, but if it does, she prefers mixed use.
Wendell Barnett: longtime resident and homeowner of manufactured home on Lanikai Lane
between Poinsettia and Palomar Airport Road. He wanted to know if the argument to raise density
along the coast is to allow for hotels to build up and be more attractive to investors. He had a
question on height limitations from Carlsbad and the Coastal Commission and wanted to know if
ATTACHMENT 3
March 28, 2012 Minutes
Page 4
residential hotel is residential or commercial. Mr. Barnett also questioned if the City will take over
the State Park.
Consultant responded that when talking about high density it is relative to Carlsbad’s standards
and that three to four floors would be the highest. There will not be major change between power
plant and state beach, maybe more parkland or a waterfront promenade. There might be some
swapping of land but the city would not take over the State Park.
A committee member said that it will be helpful to show on the maps where the coastal zone
actually is.
Austin Lynas: from Lanikai Lane Homeowners Association Mobile Home Park. Mr. Lynas said the
visitor-serving “coastal button” shown on the concept maps is located on their club house. The
consultant explained that the “button” is not a site specific destination but to indicate potential
visitor-serving opportunities in that area.
Michele Staples: Xana Way resident in Focus Area 7. Ms. Staples stated that the city’s Growth
Management Policy allocates residential use compliance and that each concept plan is compliant
with Growth Management Policy but not every combination would be. She wanted to know if we
are talking about Policy 43, and how would Growth Management policy be amended.
Consultant and staff responded that it just depends on where housing is placed. There is a
maximum number of housing units in each of the four quadrants in Carlsbad. We may use up the
housing capacity and cannot place additional housing in other areas. The goal is not to change the
Growth Management Ordinance in this process, but to comply with it. Proposition E created the
caps on housing allowances for the city and quadrants. It was voted by the people of Carlsbad and
can only be changed with another vote. Policy 43 is the accounting process to ensure the city does
not violate Prop E.
Margie Caruso: Ms. Caruso stated she has a couple hundred more petitions for Bressi Ranch La
Costa Greens area in opposition to the apartment complex. She said she understands the housing
process and that there has to be affordable housing. This area is already saturated and there is
only one elementary school that is overcrowded and underfunded. If that area is rezoned and
another developer takes it, the apartment complex can go to 530 and that is a concern. Right now
it is a safety issue. Ms. Caruso questioned if a traffic study has been done yet. People have said it is
a done deal and a waste of time to try to stop this apartment project from coming in. That area
already does have a lot of apartments.
Staff responded that there is no application so the city would not have done any traffic study.
After the workshops the city prepared a “Frequently Asked Questions” paper that was mailed and
is posted on the website. It answers a lot of the questions that are being asked.
A member of the public asked when would the zoning changes go into effect if the City adopts in
2013.
ATTACHMENT 3
March 28, 2012 Minutes
Page 5
Staff responded that once City Council adopts the new General Plan, then it would be in place. The
only exception, about 37% of the city is in the coastal zone and any changes proposed to land use
in the coastal zone also needs to be reviewed and adopted by the California Coastal Commission
This would occur after 2013. The designation on the map would change in 2013 and submitted
shortly thereafter to the coastal commission. The city has no control over when the land actually
changes use. It is up to the private property owner and when they choose to develop their vacant
land or redevelop their existing land. This would happen over time. The last General Plan was
adopted in 1994 and we still have vacant land.
Diane Nygaard: Ms. Nygaard said she appreciates the City has done extensive outreach, but
despite that, the average man on the street does not know about these 11 focus areas. There is
still a need for continuing outreach and education for the public. Open Space is a land use. She
said if the comments in the feedback report were to be tallied, the single area of comments rated
the highest was on open space, regardless of area concerned. There is a concern about
sustainability and there needs to be a balance between more density and open space. Natural
open space takes the least services and is lowest cost land use.
Sherry Alvarado: Has property in the Barrio. Ms. Alverado stated there is a stigma with the Barrio.
There should be a vote for people that live in the Barrio whether they want to keep the name “the
Barrio” or rename to something like “South Village” or “South Colony.” This area is becoming
involved with the Carlsbad Village Association.
A member of the audience responded that “barrio” means neighborhood in Spanish and it was
predominantly a relocation of the Hispanic community in that area. Right now it is very diverse. A
lot of new people have moved in but there are still some of the older people that live there and
consider it to be the Barrio. She conceded that there is a stigma because people seem to think
“Barrio” has a bad connotation.
Wendell Barnett: Lanikai shares with the Barrio an uncertainty about a future that is closer to the
current time than 2035. He said Lanikai has a stigma too because some people say Lanikai is a
glorified trailer park. His community is like the Barrio and people tend to be quieter.
Sean Plaxco: Stated he understands that the city has to comply with state requirements and it is
fine to build high density residential, but it should spread out more so the impact is not as big. A
450 unit complex is frightening.
Margie Caruso stated she understands an application for the apartment complex has not been
submitted but please do not rezone to allow for residential.
John Marshall: lives on Amber lane. Mr. Marshall said he was there to advocate for connection of
Poinsettia Lane and wanted to know if the 1995 General Plan lived up to expectations.
Staff responded that Poinsettia Lane is on the Circulation Element today but it is not scheduled by
the city to construct it. That will likely happen when the surrounding property and that missing link
develops. Alternatively, if traffic in the area approaches the Growth Management Plan
performance threshold, then the city would construct the road segment.
ATTACHMENT 3
March 28, 2012 Minutes
Page 6
Mark Rohrlick: Mr. Rohrlick stated there is a distinction between a General Plan Update and a
General Plan Amendment. If a project application came through to the city, it can go ahead of the
General Plan Update.
The Committee Chair responded that an applicant can come in and ask for a General Plan
Amendment to the old General Plan since the city does not have a moratorium on General Plan
Amendments during this process. Such an application would run separate and parallel to this
process.
A member of the public wanted to know the status of Chestnut going through to the beach.
Staff responded that the city does not have a project on the books to construct or fund anything.
This idea has been repeated by residents on both sides of the railroad tracks that they want
another access point to get to the waterfront.
The Committee Chair closed the public comment at 7:34 p.m. and paused for a recess.
7. EC3 discussion and guidance toward a preferred plan
The Committee Chair called the meeting back to order at 7:45 p.m.
Focus Area 1 Northwest Coastal:
A committee member asked how these three concepts address all the core values. These concepts
do not discuss arts and education. The Committee Chair responded that all concepts address core
values in different ways. It is the job of the committee to see if any of the concepts fail to meet
one of the core values. The consultant responded that when EC3 was shaping the concepts, they
discussed that land use plan will not do justice to several of the core values, specifically history and
culture and services and education that are not entirely land use-driven. Those values will be
addressed at a later stage.
A committee member was concerned about the people that did not respond to questions in the
survey. He wanted to know how many people actually live in the focus areas they were voting on.
The Committee Chair responded that the committee represents the public, including those that
did not respond, and there are committee members representing each quadrant.
A committee member said he is a big supporter of the Active Waterfront concept but wanted to
know how this concept changes if the Power Plant is built there.
A committee member questioned how appropriate a mixed-use land use at the power plant site
will be. He also stated that high density along the freeway in the Barrio is better than a little of
mixed-use.
A committee member stated a preference for Concept B (Active Waterfront), but if the Power
Plant is moved, then the preference is for more open space on the west side and access to the
public rather than residential or commercial. Beach focus is a huge asset to the community and if it
is restricted with hotels, commercial, or even residential, the general public is not allowed to use
ATTACHMENT 3
March 28, 2012 Minutes
Page 7
it. There was Committee consensus on this point. The consultant responded that the pier helps
create an active waterfront like the successful communities of Santa Monica or Newport Beach.
A committee member questioned the mixed use on east side of the freeway. She understood that
Cannon Road was the freeway entrance to the high occupancy vehicle lanes were going to go.
Staff responded that it is no longer in Caltrans’ freeway expansion proposal. Also, the 48 acres
owned by SDG&E was not part of Prop D, and is currently designated for commercial use.
A committee member stated the property designation should stay as tourist serving commercial
and leave out residential or industrial.
A committee member said the map should show the under/over pass connection to the water at
Chestnut. Staff responded that this would belong in the Circulation Element as a policy to pursue
that goal, or would be shown on the Trails Master Plan. There was a consensus with this.
A committee member wanted to know what the long-term prognosis of the strawberry fields is
from an agricultural standpoint. The Committee Chair responded that the price of water and
severe labor shortage has caused the operation to shrink this year. They do have a good position
to have one of the first strawberries in California, but it is leased land.
A committee member asked if power lines went away and land was unencumbered, what would
be appropriate use. Right now it seems like tourist serving commercial is ideal, but it would
probably not be the appropriate location for some kind of mixed use.
Committee consensus: Concept B but leave SDG&E site as currently designated for visitor-serving
commercial.
Focus Area 2 Plaza Camino Real Commercial Corridor
A committee member said they appreciate input of property owner but wanted to know if it
depends on how the zoning ordinance is written. He asked if ordinances can be crafted to allow for
the eventual changeover of the land without them being hurled into the short term by lenders.
The consultant responded that a site can stay as existing non-conforming use and can continue to
invest in it to an extent to keep it going.
The Committee Chair said he does not believe this is a logical place for people to live because of all
the traffic by the freeway. A committee member countered that with setbacks and buffers,
redevelopment may work. The consultant responded that the maps may be deceptive. Sites may
look closer to the freeway than they really are. This can be structured so the most sensitive uses
are not right next to the freeway, but this is more of a design and site plan issue.
A committee member said that Plaza Camino Real is finally doing something to update the mall
and we should not upset them. If they want to keep this site commercial, we should leave it. A
staff member said that the city owns the Plaza Camino Real parking lot. Also, any site designated
as commercial there can also be mixed use by right and choice.
ATTACHMENT 3
March 28, 2012 Minutes
Page 8
A committee member said mixed-use should be optional, let the market decide. A staff member
responded that this is how the zoning is now.
Committee consensus: Concept B with open space, mixed use to the west and commercial on the
Plaza Camino Real site; east side of El Camino Real to remain commercial.
Focus Area 3: Quarry Creek
Staff informed in the Committee that the existing Housing Element has identified this site for some
multi-family housing to accommodate for low and very low income housing needs. McMillan, who
is under contract to buy the property, has a master plan filed with the city. Their proposal calls for
660 dwelling units. The McMillan letter says none of concepts are consistent with what they are
proposing in their master plan, but B and C are more consistent. They are advocating for a slight
difference between B and C to reflect their master plan. A representative from McMillan said they
like Concept C the best. The consultant stated that Concept C has less high density and is the
closest to the McMillan plan.
A committee member suggested a version that would have the unit yield of Concept C but on a
smaller footprint, in order to achieve more open space. It was pointed out this would affect the
mix of housing types. After some discussion, the Committee agreed to the consultant’s suggestion
to revisit a modified version of concept B or C after they provided direction on all the focus areas.
Focus Area 4: Marja Acres
Committee consensus: Concept B/C since they are the same. More density could be added here if
there is a need for more housing.
Focus Area 5: Sunny Creek Commercial
A Committee member asked whether an education campus could be located here. Staff responded
that the City Council has a goal to pursue a higher education opportunity in the city. A specific site
does not need be designated for education, since a school could be permitted in a number of
zones now with a conditional use permit.
Committee consensus: Concept A.
Focus Area 6: Mandana
Staff said one of the main owner’s letter’s regarding a piece of this property is asking for a slightly
higher low density residential category to cluster as large lot single families outside of the
expanded HMP boundary as can be provided. The number of units would not change. This is more
of a design issue. A committee member expressed a desire for a General Plan policy statement
regarding grading keeping true to natural land forms.
Committee consensus: Concept A/B/C (i.e., same as existing designation).
ATTACHMENT 3
March 28, 2012 Minutes
Page 9
Focus Area 7: Palomar Corridor
A committee member said that at every site potential residents will have to drive to go to any
commercial services. Staff responded that there is a commercial site in Vista that is relatively close
for people to get to.
A committee member said there is a need to find places for more density even though nobody
wants it in their neighborhood.
A committee member suggested mixed use can be moved into Concept B at Camino Vida Roble to
bring a commercial feel to the neighborhood. The consultant stated that there needs to be a
couple thousand people to start generating some kind of demand for services. Spreading housing
sites around will not produce sufficient demand for services.
Committee consensus: Concept B modified to redesignate Carlsbad Oaks North Lot 1 and Raceway
Lots 12-15 high density residential, and designate properties along Camino Vida Roble to mixed-
use as shown in Concept “A”.
Focus Area 8: Southern Freeway Corridor
A committee member said it does not make sense to add commercial to the Encina Wastewater
Authority (EWA) site because there is not enough residential to support it. The consultant said that
the site is big enough to not need high density on the entire site. There may be edges next to the
freeway where the density may be more appropriate.
Staff said EWA owns most of the site and that the city owns a small portion of it. Also, the City of
Carlsbad is one of the five member agencies EWA. The city has not directly heard from the
authority but they are studying the long term uses for that site.
After some discussion of possible uses for the EWA site, the Committee Chair said the committee
is short on information since Encina has not been consulted yet. The Committee requested that
staff contact EWA about what their vision is for the property.
A committee member asked what would happen to concepts if Palomar Airport Road/Carlsbad
Blvd intersection were realigned. Staff responded that the size of the Manzano property would
grow. The city is currently in discussions with the state to exchange lands such that Carlsbad ends
up with all this land and the State ends up with more campground land.
Committee consensus: Concept A with direction to staff to contact EWA representatives regarding
their site.
Focus Area 9: Ponto/Southern Waterfront
Committee consensus: Concept B, with Ponto land uses consistent with the Ponto Vision Plan.
ATTACHMENT 3
March 28, 2012 Minutes
Page 10
Focus Area 10: Aviara
Park Hyatt Aviara site: the Committee Chair asked what the reality was for this site being
residential as in Concept B. It seems that Concept C is more realistic. Staff pointed out that a letter
from the property owner supports a change to medium density residential because they believe
commercial is not viable. Therefore, the property supports in order, either Concept A or B. After
some discussion, the Committee consensus was for low density residential (as shown in Concept
B), and requested that staff inform the property owner to give them an opportunity to respond to
the Committee.
Poinsettia site: the Committee Chair stated there should be an economic incentive to complete
Poinsettia Lane to connect east and west. Staff responded that it is in the City’s circulation
element to complete the road, but it is not scheduled for construction. Committee consensus:
keep the currently allowed density for this site (as shown in Concept A).
Murphy site: Committee consensus was for low density residential and open space as shown in
Concept C.
Focus Area 11: South El Camino Real
Committee consensus: La Costa Town Center should be left as currently designated for commercial
use (Local Shopping Center). This would allow some mixed use at the owner’s option. Keep La
Costa Resort parcels as currently designated (Travel/Recreation Commercial). For the commercial
sites at Aviara Parkway and El Camino Real, designate commercial as shown in Concept B.
8. Next Steps
The consultant explained the next steps for the committee. EC3 will next meet on April
17th or 19th. Staff will confirm the date and time.
9. Adjourn
The Committee Chairperson adjourned the meeting at 9:58 p.m.
ATTACHMENT 3
Envision Carlsbad Citizens Committee
Minutes
April 17, 2012 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad
Room 173
Committee Present
Primary Members
Eric Larsen (Chair) Julie Baker Jim Farley
Robert Gates Barbara Hamilton Mike Howes
Hap L’Heureux Gina McBride Diane Proulx
Fred Sandquist Jeff Segall Allen Sweet
Alternate Members
Jack Cumming Glen Etherington Tina Schmidt
Absent: Jim Bradley (Alternate), Jim Comstock (Primary), Kirk Cowles (Primary), Chris Korogi
(Alternate), Greg Nelson (Primary), Robert Nielsen (Alternate), Guy Roney (Alternate), Sean Sexton
(Alternate), Dr. Anne Spacie (Alternate), Jeannie Sprague-Bentley (Primary)
City of Carlsbad Staff
Gary Barberio – Community & Economic Development Director
Don Neu – City Planner
David de Cordova – Principal Planner
Chris DeCerbo – Principal Planner
Jennifer Jesser – Senior Planner
Leticia Treviño – Senior Office Specialist
Consultant
Rajeev Bhatia – Dyett & Bhatia
Committee Chairperson Larsen called the meeting to order at 6:04 p.m.
1. Approve Minutes of the March 28, 2012 meeting
There was a motion and a second to that motion to approve the minutes from the March
28, 2012 meeting. Minutes were approved as submitted.
2. New Information Resulting from March 28th EC3 Discussion
Consultant Rajeev Bhatia presented the draft preferred plan, summarized the EC3 Land Use
Concept recommendations, and provided information requested by the committee at their
March 28th meeting.
ATTACHMENT 4
April 17, 2012 Minutes
Page 2
A committee member asked whether the only housing in the area of Faraday (Focus Area
7) was in Vista. Staff responded yes.
A committee member asked about the Bressi site and how it is now reflected in the map.
Consultant confirmed that the Bressi site is designated industrial, no longer high density
residential.
3. Continued EC3 Discussion on Land Use Concepts and Guidance Toward a Preferred Plan
Public Comment
Shelley Hayes Caron: said that when Envision Carlsbad first started there was a lot of input
from the community and Planning Commission regarding the Buena Vista Valley. Now the
city has embraced the McMillan development and there is no alternative to preserve the
valley. The historic view from the Adobe will be irreversibly gone with the proposed
development. There will also be development on land that has never before been
disturbed. Over past 13 years, there has been a great effort to save the valley. The U.S. Fish
& Wildlife Service and Fish & Game put in $9.5 million dollars to buy half of the valley. The
land is now an ecological reserve. Ms. Caron spoke briefly about the history of the valley.
Ron Ashman: with Crew Engineering and Surveying. Representing Dale Schreiber, one of
the property owners in the Ponto area, his comments focused on the south end of Focus
Area 9. He believed the land use concepts presented are not same as the Ponto Beach
Vision Plan. He spoke of the numerous property constraints such as the railroad, sewer,
electrical, and gas lines that run through this area. The infrastructure needs of the area
deserve greater scrutiny. Mr. Ashman spoke of the need for flexible zoning and
development standards, and additional height.
De’Ann Weimer: as a representative of Friends of Aviara and a resident since 2000, would
prefer to keep current zoning and land use designation. She expressed concern about
density and land use throughout the city including road extensions. She suggested that the
Cannon and Marron road extensions be addressed as part of Envision Carlsbad. Ms.
Weimer also had concerns about Quarry Creek and would like to see high density moved to
different areas.
Andrew Rubin: Spoke of the beauty of the Carlsbad coast. Discussions should not be based
just on development that would turn the coast into one long strip mall. He preferred the
area remain as is and open. Mr. Rubin expressed concern about Aviara also becoming just
another strip mall, hotel, or commercial center. Traffic along El Camino Real and Highway
101 has increased. He was happy to see Focus Area 11 will remain commercial.
T.J. Childs: lives in Barrio. The preferred plan does not have substantive changes and the
residents have not been listened to. There is a lack of creativity. Carlsbad is lucky and has
open space, but focus is on development rather than assisting individual homeowners.
There needs to be a balance. She suggested incorporating apartments at the city’s public
April 17, 2012 Minutes
Page 3
works property. Encinitas has been working on their General Plan for two years and the
residents said they did not like it. Ms. Childs said that is where Carlsbad is heading.
Todd Galarneau: Representing the McMillan Companies, stated they are processing the
master plan for the Quarry Creek project. The committee does not have the luxury to look
at single issues but have to look and weigh issues such as affordable housing, preservation
of biological resources, etc. He repeated a comment made at the last meeting that 36% of
the city will be set aside as open space, but the current proposal in the Quarry Creek
Master Plan calls for 56% of the site to have natural open space. The proposed master plan
is fully consistent with Habitat Management Plan (HMP) and it increases the preserve by an
additional 11%. Only 30% of the site will be set aside for residential use. Having a range of
housing types with different price points can create a range of economic diversity, which is
always a good thing. This allows people to move up within their community.
Barbara Tice: lives in the Aviara area near the Batiquitos Lagoon. She cited this area as a
good example of how Carlsbad has preserved areas that many people appreciate. Tourists
do not come to Carlsbad to look at houses but for the natural resources. She referenced a
recent newspaper article in which residents ranked open space as the 2nd most important
item behind the economy. She expressed concern over what high density will do to this
area.
Kacey Cinciarelli: lives in northeast quadrant of Carlsbad. The updated General Plan should
do a better job to preserve what we have, the things that brought us here. She asked the
committee to not ignore a year and a half of work that the Open Space Committee put in
when they recommended Quarry Creek and Mandana should be acquired and preserved as
open space. The Quarry Creek area has a large ecological reserve and a historic adobe
nearby. One alternative that is being ignored is to leave the entire panhandle in open space
and concentrate housing elsewhere. She stated that one of the Planning Commissioners
wanted to see an open space alternative concept for Quarry Creek and Mandana. Instead,
the concepts contain density increases in each quadrant and none of the quality of life
improvements that make it acceptable.
Kerry Siekmann: resident of Terra Mar. Ms. Siekmann suggested there is an opportunity for
an education site in the northeast corner of Focus Area 7, since Carlsbad is a center of
biological technology and research. She also suggested that the Encina site could be a
convention center/hotel like the Sheraton, since it is along the coast.
Roy Sanchez: He stated he is against high density in the Barrio because of lack of parking.
At night there is no parking on Madison or Roosevelt Street so residents have to park two
blocks away. There are 141 units in that area, multiple people live in each unit, and
everyone has a car.
Gary Nessim: a member of Preserve Calavera. He stated that great efforts were made to
purchase the Sherman property. There is an opportunity to maintain a wildlife corridor
through Village H, Quarry Creek and Sherman, by pushing higher density to the east to
offset removing residential to the west. Mr. Nessim expressed disappointment that the
April 17, 2012 Minutes
Page 4
committee was not addressing the Village Redevelopment Area since it can absorb more
housing.
Heather Turner: representing the owners of the Aviara Resort. She expressed their
preference for medium density residential as opposed to the recommended plan for low
density because medium density ties better with the other structures that are already on
the resort.
Sherry Alvarado: thanked EC3 member L’Heureux for addressing a pedestrian crossing at
Chestnut.
Mary Anne Viney: representing Preserve Calavera. She stated that staff and the committee
have a challenge to represent community goals and retain character. Every time the
community gives input they always say they want more open space. After year and a half
the Citizens Open Space Committee said to preserve Quarry Creek and Mandana. The
Planning Commission said to include open space options for the two parcels. If the decision
is made to include development then minimize and cluster it to preserve as much open
space as possible.
Margie Caruso: She stated that the drive along Santa Cruz to San Francisco is a great
example of preserving coast. She appreciated that the Bressi Ranch community was heard
regarding Focus Area 7. Ms. Caruso asked what an opportunity site is. Consultant
responded that these are vacant and underutilized areas where new development can
happen. She then asked why there is not much development shown in the southeast
quadrant of Villages of La Costa. Staff responded that the area has been master planned
already and there are approved projects in place along with reserved open space.
Don Christiansen: asked the committee to be forward-thinking with preserving open space.
Regarding Focus Area 3, it is easy to imagine the way things used to be, but having homes
built there will take away the historic views. Mr. Christianson also advocated for a
community gardening program in the city.
Committee Discussion
Focus Area 1 Northwest Coastal
A committee member said at the last meeting he brought up having more open space on
the property west of tracks and less commercial and hotel. He clarified that his intent was
to have a greenbelt space along the power plant site’s Carlsbad Blvd frontage. There was
committee consensus to make that adjustment to the preferred plan.
A committee member stated that he would like there to be policy for multiple pedestrian
crossings along the railroad tracks, preferably underpasses because overpasses take more
space.
April 17, 2012 Minutes
Page 5
A committee member wanted to know what the plan is to move people with increased
density. Staff said tonight is just dealing with land use. One of nine core values was
enhancing transportation, which will be addressed in the circulation element. Some of the
higher density areas that are being proposed are considered because of their proximity to
public transportation.
A committee member asked about more specific planning for the Village. Staff replied that
since the Village Master Plan was recently updated, there is no need to reopen planning for
that area. The Chair reminded the committee that their previous direction was to rely on
the updated Village Master Plan.
Committee consensus: Concept B modified to add more open space along the Carlsbad
Boulevard frontage of the power plant site; consider a policy regarding multiple pedestrian
railroad crossings.
Focus Area 2: Plaza Camino Real Commercial Corridor
Committee consensus was for the preferred plan as presented.
Focus Area 3: Quarry Creek
A committee member asked whether the “panhandle” could be open space. Staff
responded that the panhandle is part of separate legal parcel that has development
potential. The Quarry Creek Master Plan is on file, and staff suggested that the Committee
allow the master plan and EIR process to work out the precise land uses.
A committee member suggested if the goal is to preserve as much open space as possible,
housing units should be moved next to Oceanside where housing already exists. Staff
replied there are a number of constraints on property including steep slopes.
Another committee member noted the lack of transportation serving the area. Staff
responded that the City Council recommended this site as a smart growth opportunity
area.
Additional committee discussion continued on whether to recommend preserving
additional open space to the west by redirecting housing density to the east.
Committee consensus: recommend keeping the overall proposed master plan yield of 656
units, but create more open space by redistributing the most-westerly residential area to
the other developable portions of the site.
Focus Area 4: Marja Acres
Committee consensus was for the preferred plan as presented.
April 17, 2012 Minutes
Page 6
Focus Area 5
Committee consensus was for the preferred plan as presented.
Focus Area 6: Mandana
Staff clarified that the land use shown reflects the EC3 direction from the last meeting for
very low density residential. A committee member asked if clustering of the housing was
precluded. Staff replied no.
Committee consensus was for the preferred plan as presented.
Focus Area 7: Palomar Corridor
A committee member thought having an education site was great idea. Staff responded
that one of the City Council’s six key focus areas is to attract higher education. The concept
for higher education has been recognized but a location has not been set. Staff noted that
schools can be located in an industrial area.
Staff asked if the committee foresees allowing medical offices along Faraday at Carlsbad
Oaks North where it is zoned as industrial. Committee consensus was yes.
Staff pointed out a letter submitted by Archstone regarding their interest in designating
property in Bressi Ranch for multi-family residential. The committee determined to keep
with their previous direction to leave the site for industrial use.
Staff explained a change to the land use concept, recommending removal of the mixed use
area at Palomar Airport Road at Camino Vida Roble, and adding multi-family residential at
Aviara Parkway just south of Palomar Airport Road. The committee concurred with the
recommendation.
Committee consensus was for the preferred plan as presented, with the modification to
allow medical office along Faraday at Carlsbad Oaks North.
Focus Area 8: Southern Freeway Corridor
In response to EC3’s request at their March meeting, staff informed the committee of a
discussion they had with Encina Wastewater Authority (EWA) staff. EWA is studying what
to do with the property but has not made any decisions yet. Therefore, staff recommended
leaving the existing planned industrial and office land use designations in place. The
committee concurred.
Committee consensus was for the preferred plan as presented.
April 17, 2012 Minutes
Page 7
Focus Area 9: Ponto/Southern Waterfront
Staff clarified that the preferred concept for Ponto reflects the adopted Ponto Vision Plan.
Also, the consultant clarified there is no proposal for development west of Carlsbad
Boulevard, but rather the plan calls for a waterfront promenade close to the ocean.
Committee consensus was for the preferred plan as presented.
Focus Area 10: Aviara
Regarding the Aviara Resort property, the Chair reminded the committee they
recommended low density use at their last meeting. The property owner requests a
medium density designation. One committee member stated that not even low density is
appropriate for this area. Another committee member stated that if the objective is to find
residential density in other areas, then it could be included here where the property owner
wants it. Staff clarified low density is 3.2 units/acre, and that medium density would be 6 or
12 units/acre.
The Chair said the overall density of the Murphy site should stay the same but intensify in
certain areas so there will be more open space closer to the lagoon.
Staff clarified that the Poinsettia site would remain low density residential but that the
housing would be clustered.
Committee consensus: Designate the Aviara Resort site to medium density residential at six
units/acre; keep residential density yield of the Murphy site but provide an increased open
space buffer near the lagoon; designate the Poinsettia site for low density residential as
presented.
Focus Area 11 South El Camino Real
Committee consensus was for the preferred plan as presented.
4. Next Steps
EC3’s recommendations will be presented to the Planning Commission, where they will go
through a similar review of the land use concepts and EC3 recommendations. After the
Planning Commission provides input, the draft preferred plan will be presented to the City
Council for their concurrence. Once the preferred plan is accepted, the process of updating
General Plan goals, policies and programs will begin.
Noting that the EC3’s work is now concluded, staff expressed their appreciation for all the
work the committee put in over the past few years.
April 17, 2012 Minutes
Page 8
5. Public Comment
Continued Public Comments
Sherry Alvarado advocated for referring to the Barrio area as “South Village”.
Mary Anne Viney suggested that SANDAG rejected Quarry Creek as potential smart growth
site.
A committee member asked how long the Planning Commission process will take. Staff said
Planning Commission meets twice a month and they will begin reviewing the plan at their
May 2nd meeting. The consultant clarified there will be more meetings with the Planning
Commission and City Council as the draft updates and EIR are prepared. Staff will keep
committee members informed of program updates through email.
6. Adjourn
The meeting was adjourned at 8:47 p.m.
ATTACHMENT 5
CAN N ON R DCOLLEGEBL
V
DTAMARACKAVECARLSBADVILLAGEDRCOA
S
T HW
Y
VISTA
WY
MARRONRD
E
L
C
AM
IN
O
R
E
A
L
CANNON
R
D
CARLSBAD BLVDEL
C
AMI
NOREALFAR
A
D
AYAVE
COLL E GE B L VD PA LOMAR AIRPORT RD
PALO MA R A IRPORT RD
PO IN SE T T IA L N
CAMINO V ID A ROBLE
ALGA RD
LAKE BLVD
ME
LR
O
SE
D
R
P O IN S E T T IA L N
MELROS
E
DRA
VI
ARAPKWY
AVIA
R
APKWY
OLIVENHAIN RD
LEUCADIA BLVD
LA C O S T A A VELACOSTAAVE
T A M ARACK
AVE
SHA D OWRID G E D R
RANC H O SANTAFERDCOAST HWYBUSINESSPAR
K
DRELCAMI
NOR
E
AL CAN N ON RD
RANCH O SA N TAFERD
SAN DIEGO NORTHERN RR
MCCLELLAN-PALOMARAIRPORT
Batiquitos Lag o o n
Pacific
Ocean
Agua
Hedionda Lagoon
BuenaVistaLagoon
CalaveraLake
SquiresReservoir
City ofOceanside
City of
Encinitas
City ofVista
City ofSan Marcos
AVENI
DAENCI
NASPASEO
DE
LNORTESYCAMOREAVE5
5
78
78
3
5
7
2
Ponto/SouthernWaterfront
SouthEl Camino Real
PalomarCorridor
MarjaAcres
PlazaCamino RealCommercialCorridor
4
NorthwestCoastal
QuarryCreek
SunnyCreekCommercial
6Mandana
Carlsbad BoulevardRealignment Concept
Commercial, HotelsOpen Space
Barrio
Village Area
Visitor-ServingCommercial
Mixed Use:Visitor-ServingCommercial,Residential
Waterfront Park/Promenade
Opportunity Site
Intensification(Intensity increaseson some sites)
Pier
1
11
10
9
8
Office
CommunityFacilities
MedicalOffices
Visitor-ServingCommercial
C
A
R
L
S
B
A
DB
L
VD0 1/2 1 21/4
MILES
May 8, 2012
ENVISION CARLSBAD
Draft Preferred Plan:
Open Space
Focus Area
City Limits
Village Area Boundary
Barrio Boundary
Airport Safety Zones
Boundaries
Very Low Density Residential
Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
Medium High Density Residential
High Density Residential
Village Mixed Use
Mixed Use
Visitor Commercial
Commercial
Industrial/Office
Employment Intensification
Community Facilities
Open Space
Activity Center
Subject to HMP Constraints
Proposed Land Uses
Train Station
Carlsbad Blvd Realignment Concept
Major Road
Planned Road
Railroad
Circulation
8
Open Space for Preservationof Natural Resources
Open Space for ManagedProduction of Resources
Open Space forOutdoor Recreation
Open Space for Aesthetic, Culturaland Education Purposes
Built-out and Non-opportunity Sites
Existing Citywide Open Space
Aviara
SouthernFreeway Corridor
Office
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 3
GPA 07-02 – ENVISION CARLSBAD
May 16, 2012
Proposition “C” Open Space Committee and Property Acquisition Rankings
In the City of Carlsbad, voters must approve capital projects of $1 million or more. In 2002,
Proposition C was passed, giving the City Council authority to spend a total of $35 million on
four projects, one of which was the acquisition of open space and trail linkages. The ballot
measure did not require the city to spend money on the four projects; it simply granted the City
Council authority to do so.
The Proposition C Open Space and Trails Ad Hoc Citizens Committee was formed by the City
Council in October 2005 to establish a prioritized list of potential property acquisitions
associated with the open space and trails linkage component of Proposition C. The committee
met from February 2006 through January 2007, reviewing pertinent open space and trails
documents and maps, touring open space areas within the city and engaging in discussions with
interested members of the public.
Open Space and Trails Committee Property Ranking Criteria
Criteria are ordered from highest value to lowest:
1. Land that contains certain plant and animal species of special interest
2. Land that easily connects to other preserve areas
3. Land that serves both open space and trail purposes
4. Land that provides trail linkages
5. Native habitat
6. Land that meets multiple open space priorities
7. Land within or adjacent to the HMP Focus Planning Area and preserve
8. Land with HMP priority habitat type (e.g. wetlands, riparian)
9. Archeological, cultural or paleontological resources
10. Scenic connectivity
11. Prospects for improving stream and lagoon water quality
12. Land that doesn't need habitat restoration
13. Land that possesses other unique or special circumstances
Property Rankings
The candidate properties are ranked in order below (highest to lowest). The City Council has
indicated that acquisition of any of these properties would require a willing seller.
1. South Coast Quarry area (just west of College Boulevard and south of Highway 78) (175
points)
2. Sherman property trail (immediately west of the quarry area) and Calavera Village H site
(Carlsbad Village Drive and Victoria Street) (173 points)
3. Sunny Creek properties (northeast of El Camino Real near College Avenue) and South
Agua Hedionda Lagoon properties (north and south of Cannon Road) (172 points)
4. Undeveloped county airport property (northeast corner of Palomar Airport Road and El
Camino Real) (170 points)
5. Carlsbad Unified School District's new high school site (east of Cannon Road and
College Boulevard intersection; note that only the future, undeveloped portion of this site
ATTACHMENT 3
was nominated); the Kato property and the Mandana property (both in the Sunny Creek
Road region on the eastern city limits) (168 points)
6. Lubliner property (east of El Camino Real near the future College Boulevard extension)
(156 points)
7. Rancho Carlsbad property (immediately east of the main Rancho Carlsbad development
along El Camino Real) (146 points)
8. Mitsuuchi property (southern city limits between El Camino Real and Tern Place (145
points)
9. Murphy Property (adjacent to the Mitsuuchi property) (143 points)
10. Poinsettia area vernal pools (along the railroad tracks south of Camino de las Ondas)
(102 points)
11. Brodiaea Preserve (Newton Drive, just off Faraday Avenue) (82 points)
12. State of California properties (northeast corner of Carlsbad Boulevard and Palomar
Airport Road) (78 points)
ATTACHMENT 3
ATTACHMENT 4
GPA 07-02 – ENVISION CARLSBAD
May 16, 2012
HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LAND USE
The draft Preferred Plan includes a “High Density Residential” land use category. The city’s current
high density designation (RH) allows residential development to build at a density between 15 to 23
dwelling units/acre. To comply with current Housing Element requirements, the city recently
established a minimum density of 20 dwelling units/acre in the RH designation.
As part of Envision Carlsbad, all elements of the General Plan, including the Housing Element will
be updated. Updating the Housing Element requires the city to demonstrate that it has a sufficient
number of sites at appropriate densities to accommodate the city’s share of the regional housing
need. Through the state and the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), an assessment
of the regional housing need was conducted (RHNA) and it was determined that Carlsbad’s RHNA
share for the next Housing Element cycle is 4,999 housing units, of which the city must
accommodate 1,605 units for very low and low income households and 1,062 units for moderate
income households.
To demonstrate that the city can accommodate its RHNA share, the California Department of
Housing and Community Development (HCD) prefers that the city have sites designated at densities
that are, according to HCD, high enough to result in housing affordable to the various income groups.
Typically, HCD considers sites designated at 30 dwelling units/acre or higher as sites that could
accommodate housing affordable to very low and low income households. Sites designated at 12
dwelling units/acre could accommodate housing affordable to moderate income households.
During the update effort for the currently adopted Housing Element (2005-2012), the challenge was
to identify enough sites at appropriate densities to accommodate the city’s RHNA share; to do so, the
current Housing Element already requires densities be increased on specified sites, such as Quarry
Creek and the Barrio.
For the next Housing Element update (2013-2020), the ability to identify sites to accommodate the
city’s new RHNA share will be even more challenging than it was during the last Housing Element
update. As the city continues to approach build out, developable residential land at higher densities
is becoming scarcer. Therefore, staff is recommending that a second high density residential land use
category be created that would allow a density range between 23 to 30 dwelling units/acre, with a
Growth Management Control Point (GMCP) of 25 dwelling units/acre, and with the ability to reach
up to 30 dwelling units/acre subject to the City Council’s Excess Dwelling Unit Policy (Policy 43).
Council Policy 43 allows increases in density above the GMCP, provided there are units available in
the Excess Dwelling Unit Bank and the development meets specified criteria, such as providing more
units affordable to lower income households than what is required by the city’s Inclusionary Housing
Ordinance.
The new high density residential land use category (23-30 dwelling units/acre) is recommended to
only apply to those sites identified as “High Density Residential” on the draft Preferred Plan,
excluding Focus Area 3 – Quarry Creek. The high density residential shown in Focus Area 3 –
Quarry Creek is recommended to be classified in the city’s current RH density range (15-23 dwelling
units/acre). Also, all sites outside the focus areas shown on the draft Preferred Plan, which are
currently designated RH, will remain within the 15 to 23 dwelling units/acre density range.
The current RH designation (15-23 dwelling units/acre) will need to be renamed to distinguish it
from the new higher RH (23-30 dwelling units/acre). Naming of the designations will be determined
at a later date.
ATTACHMENT 5
GPA 07-02 – ENVISION CARLSBAD
RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNIT AND POPULATION COMPARISON
May 16, 2012
Table A: RESIDENTIAL CAPACITY COMPARISON
NORTHWES NORTHEAST SOUTHWEST SOUTHEAST TOTAL
Growth Management Dwelling Unit Cap 15,370 9,042 12,859 17,328 54,599
Units at Full Capacity (Based on Existing
General Plan Growth Management Control
Point) 13,220 7,862 11,108 16,713 48,903
Units at Full Capacity (New)
Concept A: Centers 15,217 8,970 12,248 17,213 53,648
Concept B: Active Waterfront 15,163 8,815 12,376 17,187 53,541
Concept C: Core Focus 15,181 8,968 11,822 17,296 53,267
Draft Preferred Plan 14,747 8,892 11,551 16,713 51,903
Source: City of Carlsbad Planning Department, 2011; SANDAG, 2011; Dyett & Bhatia, 2012.
Table B: BUILDOUT POPULATION ESTIMATE COMPARISON
NORTHWEST NORTHEAST SOUTHWEST SOUTHEAST TOTAL
Growth Management Cap 38,490 22,643 32,202 43,394 136,729
Units at Full Capacity (Based on Existing General
Plan Growth Management Control Point) 33,106 19,688 27,817 41,854 122,465
Units at Full Capacity (New)
Concept A: Centers 38,107 22,463 30,672 43,106 134,348
Concept B: Active Waterfront 37,972 22,075 30,993 43,040 134,080
Concept C: Core Focus 38,017 22,458 29,605 43,314 133,394
Draft Preferred Plan 36,930 22,268 28,927 41,853 129,978
Note:
a. These population estimates assume a 5.5% vacancy rate and 2.65 persons per household as projected by the
SANDAG 2050 Regional Growth Forecast for 2040. By 2050, SANDAG estimates the number of persons per
household will increase from what it is today, which is 2.53 persons per household (2010 Census).
ATTACHMENT 5
Key Points:
A. Dwelling Units
1. The Draft Preferred Plan will result in 2,696 fewer dwelling units than could be achieved per
the city’s Growth Management Plan (54,599 dwelling units).
2. The Draft Preferred Plan will result in 3,000 more dwelling units than could be achieved per
the city’s existing General Plan. Of the 3,000 additional dwelling units:
a. Fifty-seven percent (1,717 units) are currently planned for in the city’s existing Housing
Element (2005-2012), and the Draft Preferred Plan will implement the Housing Element
programs that require the additional 1,717 units.
b. Forty-three percent (1,283 units) are additional units not currently planned in the General
Plan; of which 63 percent (810 units) are located within Focus Area 7 – Palomar Corridor.
These 1,283 units are needed to accommodate the city’s share of the regional housing need
(RHNA) for the new Housing Element (2012-2020).
B. Population
1. Based on the assumptions in Table B, above, the population estimate for the Draft Preferred
Plan is approximately 6,751 persons less than the estimated population that is possible per the
city’s Growth Management Plan.
2. The population estimate for the Draft Preferred Plan is approximately 7,513 persons more than
the estimated population that is possible per the city’s existing General Plan. Of the 7,513
persons:
a. Approximately 57 percent (4,300 persons) would result from the additional 1,717 units
currently planned for in the city’s existing Housing Element (2005-2012).
b. Approximately 43 percent (3,213 persons) would result from the additional 1,283 units not
currently planned in the General Plan, but are needed to accommodate the city’s RHNA
share for 2012-2020.
ATTACHMENT 6