Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-11-13; City Council; 19207 Part 2; Part 2- Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan EIR 05-05 GPA 05-04 LCPA 05-01 DI 05-01EXHIBIT 5 Planning Commission Minutes September 5,2007 Page 1 Minutes of: PLANNING COMMISSION Time of Meeting: 6:00 p.m. Date of Meeting: September 5, 2007 Place of Meeting: COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Baker called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Boddy led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Chairperson Baker, Commissioners Boddy, Cardosa, Dominguez, Douglas, Montgomery and Whitton. Absent: None. STAFF PRESENT: Don Neu, Planning Director Gary Barberio, Assistant Planning Director Sandra Holder, Community Development Director Michele Masterson, Senior Management Analyst Debbie Fountain, Housing and Redevelopment Director Christer Westman, Senior Planner David Hauser, Deputy City Engineer Bob Johnson, City Engineer John O'Donnell, Senior Civil Engineer Frank Jimeno, Associate Engineer APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Cardosa, and duly seconded, to approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of August 15, 2007. VOTE: 6-0-1 AYES: Chairperson Baker, Commissioner Cardosa, Commissioner Montgomery, Commissioner Douglas, Commissioner Whitton, and Commissioner Boddy NOES: None ABSTAIN: Commissioner Dominguez COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE ON ITEMS NOT LISTED IN THE AGENDA. None. Planning Commission Minutes September 5,2007 Page 2 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING 1. EIR 05-05/GPA 05-04/LCPA 05-01/PI 05-01 - PONTO BEACHFRONT VILLAGE VISION PLAN - Request for a recommendation for certification of a Program Environmental Impact Report, and recommendation of adoption of the Candidate Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; a request for a recommendation of approval for a General Plan Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment to incorporate the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan into the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Land Use Plans of the Mello II and West Batiquitos Lagoon/Sammis Properties Lagoon segments of the Local Coastal Program; and a discussion and recommendation to the City Council regarding the content of the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan. Resolutions No. 6338, 6339, 6340, 6341 Housing and Redevelopment Director, Debbie Fountain, and Senior Planner Christer Westman, gave a detailed presentation and stated they would be available to answer any questions. Chairperson Baker thanked staff for their presentations and asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Montgomery asked Ms. Fountain to discuss the research done to consider the linkage of the trail to the San Pacifico trail and any further linkages in the future. Ms. Fountain stated staff tried to look at the big picture with the Vision Plan, however, they realize there are some missing pieces with the trails. Staff did look at the possibility for future linkages to the trails and the coastal rail trail. Commissioner Montgomery stated there is a great emphasis on trails to the Batiquitos trails. Commissioner Montgomery inquired about the natural resources, specifically the beaches, and what improvements are proposed to allow more citizens to utilize the area of Ponto. Ms. Fountain stated there are quite a few ideas and visions for additional parking along the beach. Commissioner Douglas asked staff if there were any visuals of the recreation area/green space alternative, and what the difference is with the alternative to what is included in the Vision Plan. Mr. Westman stated that the southern most portion of the Vision Plan would be set aside as a public area to be used as a green space/recreational space. Commissioner Douglas inquired about the width of the proposed area. Mr. Westman responded that it would be the same width as the building setback which is. 45 feet. Commissioner Whitton asked what the trade off would be if the green space is included. Mr. Westman stated tradeoffs have not been identified and would be determined with a development project. Chairperson Baker followed up on the question and asked if the number of rooms would decrease with the alternative. Mr. Westman stated that the number of rooms would not decrease. Commissioner Dominguez asked about the standard setback for trails. Mr. Westman stated that this alternative is equal to the setback of 45 feet specifically for public access, trails are between a 12 and 20 foot easement. Commissioner Douglas asked if any individual owners would be required to do an EIR. Mr. Westman stated this EIR is a program EIR which allows individual property owners to tier off this, including an addendum or supplemental analysis. Commissioner Douglas inquired about traffic counts during the summer in the La Costa and Encinitas areas. Mr. Westman deferred to the traffic consultant. Dawn Wilson, RBF Consulting, stated all the nearby intersections were counted at various times between the months of July and August including week days and weekends. Commissioner Montgomery asked about beach access and parking including direct beach access through the campgrounds. Ms. Fountain stated staff did have several discussions with the State Parks regarding beach access through the campground however all the details have not been worked out and ID Planning Commission Minutes September 5,2007 Page 3 their staff seemed open to the idea. Commissioner Montgomery asked how much the Commission could encourage that to happen. Ms. Fountain stated staff could certainly bring those concerns and ideas to the State Parks. Commissioner Montgomery asked what the Commission can do to insure that Carlsbad residents have access to the parking along the beach. Ms. Fountain stated the Vision Plan incorporates many amenities that help not only residents of Carlsbad but also visitors to the area, such as public parking, restaurants, shops, etc. Ms. Fountain stated the entire goal was to discourage piecemeal developing and make it a more coordinated effort. Chairperson Baker asked what was originally intended for that area according to the General Plan. Mr. Westman stated there are existing zoning and general plan designations for the property. The majority is designated as Travel-Commercial. The individual owners could submit plans in a piece meal fashion if there is no Vision Plan. Chairperson Baker stated that if the Vision Plan is not approved there is potential for more traffic than if the plan is approved. Mr. Westman stated there would be potential for that. Chairperson Baker asked if the City could exact more public amenities with the Vision Plan as opposed to without the plan. Mr. Westman responded that was true and gave possibilities of what individual applicants could ask for if the Vision Plan is not adopted. Chairperson Baker asked if the Open Space Committee considered the vacant lot on the south end of the Vision Plan area. Commissioner Montgomery, who was a representative on the Open Space Committee, responded and stated it was not included. Chairperson Baker asked if there were any further questions of staff. Seeing none, she called for a 10 minute recess. Chairperson Baker called the meeting to order at 7:37 p.m. with all Commissioners present. Chairperson Baker opened public testimony on Item 1. Patricia Mehan, 7437 Magellan Street, stated she lives right on Avenida Encinas and expressed concern about the number of accidents on that street. She stated she would like to see an overhead walkway as. well as more open space and more parking. Sherman DeForest, 7437 Magellan Street, stated he is concerned with traffic and trails. He would like to see the proposed trail be part of a continuous trail and not be a stand-alone trail. Patrick Mullins, 500 Rudder Ave, asked the Commission to revise the plan to incorporate more public areas. Fred Sandquist, 6408 Crossbill Court, president of the Batiquitos Lagoon Foundation, stated his concerns about the buffering at the south end of project right up to the lagoon. He stated the 40 foot setback is important as is the trail connection. He commented that if the plan is implemented as it currently is put forth it will be a great asset to the City. Carmen Mojado, 1889 Sunset Drive, Vista, on behalf of the Mission Band of San Luis Rey Indians, stated there needs to be further consultation with the Native Indians groups because of the cultural resources on the sites. She stated more than one monitor would be necessary as well and a pre-excavation agreement prior to anything being done to the site. Commissioner Douglas asked how many monitors would be necessary. Ms. Mojado stated two or three might be necessary depending on the equipment on the site at the time, and there is usually one monitor per 2 pieces of equipment. IZI Planning Commission Minutes* September 5,2007 Page 4 Michael Burner, 7017 Leeward Street, Carlsbad, stated his concerns regarding parking and traffic as well as noise in the area. He stated that he would like to see a gate installed at the entrance to the Hanover Beach Colony neighborhood. Wayne Brechtel, representing Bob Lipsy, who lives at 7130 Leeward Street, commented that the mitigation measures imposed with this program EIR will impact future projects on the site. Those future projects will be subject only to those mitigation measures. He stated that he would like to make sure that no entrance to a hotel is across from Mr. Lipsy's residence, nor does he want driveways or service entrances across from any residential area. He referenced a three page letter he submitted to the Commission prior to the hearing. Greg Thomsen, 7155 Linden Terrace, expressed concerns regarding the EIR which he feels are lacking, including recreation and the overall visual environment. Bill Hofman, Hofman Planning and Engineering, 5900 Pasteur Court, Carlsbad, representing WaveCrest Resorts, stated he is in full support of the Vision Plan; however there are parts of the EIR he feels are of concern. First is with the realignment of Carlsbad Boulevard, Alternative 4, which has an impact on properties to the east. Secondly, the noise mitigation is of concern. He asked that additional mitigation measures be based on scientific evidence rather than gut instincts. Finally, he expressed concern about the landscape median at Ponto Drive. He asked the Commission to review the individual projects on a case by case basis. Chairperson Baker asked about the placement of the 40 foot setback. Mr. Hofman stated there is excess right-of-way of about 60 feet. Luis Saunders, 503 Rudder Ave, Carlsbad, asked the Commission to preserve the beaches, the lagoon and the overall feeling of Carlsbad. Peggy Crowley, 521 Stern Way, Carlsbad, stated her greatest concern is the 5 acre parcel on the eastern edge where the timeshare will be. She referenced a letter sent to Mr. Westman which outlined 10 major concerns. Nigel Oliver Frost of the Lone Star Fund, representing owner of the mixed use property/timeshare resort property, stated it will be a high end project and they will take all concerns into consideration. He fully supports the Vision Plan and the EIR. Commissioner Boddy asked if the property owner would dedicate any portion of the property to the City for public use. Mr. Frost commented that the public trail is in the proposed project. Commissioner Whitton asked if there would be more space dedicated for the green space. Mr. Frost stated there are no existing plans. Commissioner Whitton asked again if the resort is built in that space would the owners consider donating that extra space for open space. Mr. Frost stated he would consider it. Commissioner Douglas asked if there are any plans and what stage they are currently in. Mr. Frost stated it depends on what happens at this hearing. Commissioner Boddy inquired if his company acquired the property through foreclosure. He stated that was correct. Commissioner Boddy inquired what the purchase price was. Mr. Frost stated a $26 million bid was rejected during the foreclosure auction. He purchased for existing debt through the bank. George Murray, 2459 Torrejon Place, Carlsbad, commented that traffic is a main concern and asked the Commission to approve zoning that would reduce the density in the area. He stated the beach and open space are the public amenities. Kelsey Lundy, 7332 Binnacle Drive, Carlsbad, stated nothing has been said about how the project will impact the current residents of the neighboring communities. She would like to have more given to the residents of Carlsbad, a place for the community as well as visitors. There should be a greater focus on Planning Commission Minutes September 5,2007 Page 5 the restaurants and retail aspects of the plan and not the hotels, timeshares, condominiums. She commented that a walkway to the train station would be a great asset. She also stated that the plan should be modified to deal with the concerns raised at the hearing. Todd Cardiff, representing the Surfrider Foundation, stated a park would be a great asset in the southern parcel. He expressed concern regarding the fence currently surrounding the property. He stated that it should have a Coastal Development Permit or it should be removed. He further commented that the City should impose a left hand turn signal at Avenida Encinas and Carlsbad Boulevard. Chairperson Baker asked if there were any further comments from the public. Seeing none, she called fora 10 minute recess. Chairperson Baker called the meeting to order at 9:07 p.m. with all Commissioners present. Chairperson Baker asked staff to respond to the concerns raised by the speakers. Mr. Westman introduced Alex Jewell with RBF Consulting to address some of the issues raised by the speakers in regards to the EIR. Mr. Jewell indicated that in regards to the traffic along Avenida Encinas, traffic will be at Service Level A according to the studies. Cultural resources mitigation measures are in place as well as paleontological resources. He further stated that traffic going through Hanover Colony should not be an issue because there will be a signalized intersection at Carlsbad Boulevard and Ponto Drive. Because of that, traffic would flow through the signalized intersection rather than the neighborhood. Mr. Jewell also stated that there is parking on only one side of the street in Hanover Colony which should prevent visitors from parking in that neighborhood. Mr. Westman made comments regarding the truck routes, traffic on Avenida Encinas, changes to the Vision Plan and stated comments are still being accepted on the Vision Plan. Mr. Westman stated there are currently 11 property owners. In regards to modifying or adding mitigation measures the Commission has the ability to make modifications to the measures if it so chooses. Ms. Fountain stated that when this Vision Plan started, each property had a land use designation which, would allow development. The Vision Plan would allow for coordinated efforts on how the properties would be developed and how they would look to include public amenities, etc. The Planning Commission can make other recommendations if they feel there are some areas that are currently lacking. Commissioner Cardosa asked if each future project would need Planning Commission approval. Mr. Westman stated that each subsequent project will perform its own environmental review. Commissioner Cardosa inquired about the pre-excavation agreement and monitors needed on site. Mr. Westman stated those agreements have been done in the past and it allows the tribes access to any artifacts found. Mr. Neu referred to the mitigation measure concerning the number of monitors on site. Commissioner Cardosa asked about the wetland park location. Mr. Westman stated the park can only exist where there are wetlands. Commissioner Cardosa inquired about the fence on the site. Mr. Westman stated he has contacted the property owner and stated the owners have issues and concerns with liability, and they are in the process of getting a Coastal Development Permit. Commissioner Cardosa asked about the landscape setback of 40 feet. Mr. Westman stated there is a mitigation measure stating that a setback is required in order to buffer the residents from the proposed garden hotel. The distance will be determined through project review. Commissioner Cardosa asked if it was measured from face of curb. Mr. Westman stated it would be measured from the property line. Planning Commission Minuter September 5,2007 Page 6 Commissioner Douglas inquired about the parking for the mixed-use area being 3 stories or 5 stories and how many levels would not be seen. Ms. Fountain directed the Commission's attention to a slide showing the proposed parking structure. She stated the area is in a depressed area of the site however nothing has been designed yet and would have to be within the height requirements. Commissioner Douglas inquired what the height is between the street and the parking structure. Ms. Fountain estimated that it might be 15 to 20 feet. Commissioner Dominguez asked if it would be in the Commission's purview to say that to the greatest extent possible the structure be underground. Ms. Fountain stated that nothing has been done on the site so that it might be possible. Commissioner Dominguez asked if it could be worded to say that. Ms. Fountain stated that "to the greatest extent possible" could be added. Commissioner Douglas inquired about the bluff and any future erosion. Mr. Westman stated that at some point that would need to be taken care but currently it does not pose any threats. Chairperson Baker asked if there any further questions of staff. Commissioner Whitton asked about the hotel near Mr. Lipsy's property and if there will be landscape buffering included in the Vision Plan. Mr. Westman responded that the mitigation measure intent is to have a setback and tree buffering. Commissioner Boddy inquired about the impacts to the native habitat and nesting birds. Mr. Jewell responded stating that mitigation measures are in place. Commissioner Boddy asked what staff is using for mitigation measures for any effects that the hotel might have on neighboring nesting areas such as the lagoon. Mr. Jewell explained that the area on the southern part of the site is being preserved due to sensitive habitat. In regards to any nesting birds, the mitigation measure is to avoid disturbance during nesting periods. Commissioner Montgomery asked how much open space has to be purchased or mitigated off site. Mr. Westman stated there is a mitigation measure for offsite purchase of open space but the location is not specifc. Commissioner Montgomery stated he would like that it would be near the Batiquitos Lagoon area and those mitigation measures should be within the City of Carlsbad. Mr. Westman stated the mitigation, requirement is for habitat and there is a hierarchy starting with locations in Carlsbad. Commissioner Dominguez asked about noise levels and if that were applicable to the exterior noise levels for the hotels for deliveries. Mr. Westman stated projects will need to do separate noise studies. Chairperson Baker asked if those issues can be addressed when those individual projects come forward by placing conditions on them. Mr. Westman stated that would be correct with a Conditional Use Permit or Site Development Plan. Commissioner Dominguez asked about the recurring themes regarding the bluffs and the proposed uses for that area. Ms. Fountain stated those comments came up during the whole process. The Vision Plan takes into consideration what could happen to the greatest extent. Ms. Fountain stated it then becomes a policy decision. Chairperson Baker asked if there any further questions of staff. Chairperson Baker asked if the Commission wished to continue the meeting past 10:00 p.m. Commissioner Whitton stated he felt the Commission might be able to finish tonight. Commissioners Douglas, Boddy, Dominguez and Montgomery felt that they need to continue the matter. Commissioner Cardosa stated he felt it should be continued. Planning Commission Minutes September 5,2007 Page 7 Chairperson Baker stated the meeting would be continued. Mr. Neu stated that the item would be continued until the next regular meeting of September 19th. Mr. Neu further stated that the public testimony on the item has been closed and it would not be reopened. Commissioner Douglas asked if there will be briefings for this item before the next meeting. Mr. Neu stated there would be briefings on the new items but not on the continued item. MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Cardosa, and duly seconded, to continuing the meeting to the next regularly scheduled meeting of September 19th. VOTE: 7-0 AYES: Chairperson Baker, Commissioner Cardosa, Commissioner Montgomery, Commissioner Douglas, Commissioner Dominguez, Commissioner Whitton, Commissioner Boddy NOES: None COMMISSION COMMENTS None. PLANNING DIRECTOR COMMENTS None. CITY ATTORNEY COMMENTS None. ADJOURNMENT By proper motion, the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of September 5, 2007, was adjourned at 10:03 p.m. •£&r\ / (sM DON NEU Planning Director Bridget Desmarais Minutes Clerk Planning Commission Minutes September 19,2007 Page 1 Minutes of: PLANNING COMMISSION Time of Meeting: 6:00 p.m. Date of Meeting: September 19, 2007 Place of Meeting: COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Baker called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Dominguez led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Chairperson Baker, Commissioners Boddy, Cardosa, Dominguez, Douglas, Montgomery and Whitton. Absent: None. STAFF PRESENT: Don Neu, Planning Director Jane Mobaldi, Assistant City Attorney Gary Barberio, Assistant Planning Director Debbie Fountain, Housing and Redevelopment Director David Hauser, Deputy City Engineer Bob Johnson, City Engineer Christer Westman, Senior Planner Pam Drew, Associate Planner Barbara Kennedy, Associate Planner Frank Jimeno, Associate Engineer John O'Donnell, Senior Civil Engineer Michele Masterson, Senior Management Analyst Meghan Jacobson, Senior Office Specialist APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Cardosa, and duly seconded, to approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of September 5, 2007. VOTE: 7-0 AYES: Chairperson Baker, Commissioner Cardosa, Commissioner Montgomery, Commissioner Douglas, Commissioner Dominguez, Commissioner Whitton, Commissioner Boddy NOES: None ABSTAIN: None Chairperson Baker directed everyone's attention to the slide on the screen to review the procedures the Commission would be following during that evening's Public Hearing. Planning Commission Minutes September 19,2007 Page 2 PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA None. PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING Chairperson Baker opened the Public Hearing and asked Planning Director Don Neu to introduce the first item. PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING 2. CT 00-18x1/SDP 01-10x1/HDP 00-09x1/SUP 00-09x1 - CANTARINI RANCH and CT 00-21x1/HDP 00-12x1 - HOLLY SPRINGS - Request for approval of a retroactive two- year extension for: 1) a Tentative Tract Map (CT 00-18), Site Development Plan (SDP 01-10), Hillside Development Permit (HDP 00-09), and Special Use Permit (SUP 00-09) for Cantarini Ranch; and, 2) a Tentative Tract Map (CT 00-21) and Hillside Development Permit (HDP 00-12) for Holly Springs. The projects consist of a 105-lot single-family residential subdivision, associated open space lots, and an 80-unit mixed-rate apartment project for Cantarini Ranch and a 42-lot single-family residential subdivision and associated open space lots for Holly Springs. The projects are generally located north of El Camino Real and east of the intersection of College Boulevard and Cannon Road within Local Facilities Management Zone 15. Resolutions No. 6330, 6331, 6332, 6333, 6334,6335 3. CT 04-14(A) - TRAILS END - Request for an amendment to the conditions of approval for Tentative Map CT 04-14 to allow the purchase of affordable housing credits to satisfy the Inclusionary Housing Requirement for property generally located on the west side of Donna Drive and north of Carlsbad Village Drive within Local Facilities Management Zone 1. Resolution No. 6329 Mr. Neu stated Agenda Items 2 and 3 would normally be heard in a public hearing context; however, the projects appear to be minor and routine in nature with no outstanding issues and Staff recommends, approval. He recommended that the public hearing be opened and closed, and that the Commission proceed with a vote as a consent item, including the errata sheet, if any. Staff would be available to respond to questions if the Commission or someone from the public wished to pull the items. Chairperson Baker asked if any members of the Planning Commission wished to pull Agenda Items 2 or 3. Chairperson Baker asked if any member of the audience wished to address Agenda Items 2 or 3. Seeing none, she opened and closed public testimony. MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Cardosa, and duly seconded, that the Planning Commission approve Items 2 and 3. VOTE: 7-0 AYES: Chairperson Baker, Commissioner Cardosa, Commissioner Montgomery, Commissioner Douglas, Commissioner Dominguez, Commissioner Whitton, Commissioner Boddy NOES: None Planning Commission Minutes September 19,2007 Page 3 Chairperson Baker asked Mr. Neu to introduce the next item. 4. CT 06-09/PUD 06-07 - ATRIUM II OFFICE CONDOS - Request for approval of a Tentative Tract Map and Nonresidential Planned Development Permit to allow the conversion of an existing three-story office building into 24 airspace nonresidential condominiums located at 2710 Loker Avenue West within Local Facilities Management Zone 5. Resolutions No. 6336, 6337 Mr. Neu introduced Agenda Item 4 and stated the applicant was requesting a continuance to the meeting of October 17, 2007. MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Cardosa, and duly seconded, to continue CT 06-09 and PUD 06-07 until the regular meeting of October 17, 2007. VOTE: 7-0 AYES: Chairperson Baker, Commissioner Cardosa, Commissioner Montgomery, Commissioner Douglas, Commissioner Dominguez, Commissioner Whitton, Commissioner Boddy NOES: None Chairperson Baker asked Mr. Neu to introduce the next item. 1. EIR 05-OS/GPA 05-04/LCPA 05-01/PI 05-01 - PONTO BEACHFRONT VILLAGE VISION PLAN - Request for a recommendation for certification of a Program Environmental Impact Report, and recommendation of adoption of the Candidate Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; a request for a recommendation of approval for a General Plan Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment to incorporate the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan into the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Land Use Plans of the Mello II and West Batiquitos Lagoon/Sammis Properties Lagoon segments of the Local Coastal Program; and a discussion and recommendation to the City Council regarding the content of the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan. Resolutions No. 6338, 6339, 6340, 6341 Mr. Neu introduced Agenda Item 1. Chairperson Baker stated the item had been continued from the meeting of September 5, 2007. Because the Public Testimony portion of the hearing had been taken and closed during the previous meeting, the Commission would not be hearing any further public testimony. Senior Planner Christer Westman and Housing and Redevelopment Director Debbie Fountain presented the alternatives to the Commission and addressed the issues raised during public testimony from the previous meeting, and stated they would be available to answer any questions from the Commission. The Commission and staff discussed at length the following topics: the various road alignments, increased recreational/green space, undergrounding of parking structures, green buildings, trail access, noise mitigation measures, a linear park with active recreational amenities, offsite mitigation, and a restaurant with an ocean view for the beachfront resort. <•**: Planning Commission Minutes September 19, 2007 Page 4 The Commission came to agreement on the following items: 1. Road Alignment 2 2. Recommending the increased Recreational Amenities/Green Space Alternative (EIR Figure 6.6) and proposing a 75 foot bluff edge setback for the Beachfront Resort based on biological and view impacts. The Commission agreed to have that included as a mitigation measure as well. 3. Requiring undergrounding of parking structures unless technically or economically infeasible. 4. Including a policy statement regarding promoting the construction of green buildings 5. Trail references to read that beach access "shall" be done unless infeasible and to strongly encourage direct beach access from the bluff top park to the beach, through the campground, and to make connections to other trails such as over the railroad right-of- way. 6. Noise mitigation measure N-3b. 7. A Linear Park should be developed to include active recreational amenities. 8. Offsite biological mitigation to be within City limits and around Batiquitos Lagoon if feasible. 9. A restaurant with ocean views for the beachfront resort. MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Cardosa, and duly seconded, that the Planning Commission 1) ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 6338 RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION of EIR 05-05 and RECOMMENDING ADOPTION of the Candidate Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; 2) ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions No. 6339, 6340 and 6341 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of General Plan Amendment (GPA 05-04), Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA 05-01) and the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan (Dl 05- 01) based on the findings contained therein and to continue with Council to create and craft the language with the additional amendments, and to include that the Planning Commission is recommending Road Alignment 2, adopting the • increased Recreation/Green Space Alternative but modifying it to require a 75' setback from the bluff to protect species native to the Batiquitos Lagoon and habitat of the lagoon, that underground parking will be required unless shown to be technically and/or financially infeasible, that green building shall be encouraged to minimize green house gas emissions, that trail linkages shall be required and the City and developers will strongly encourage the State Campground to allow beach access from Highway 101, that the Planning Commission recommends adoption of noise mitigation measure N-3b as proposed, that the Planning Commission and City Council have an opportunity to review Linear Park active and passive proposed uses as well as the Parks and Recreation Committee if appropriate based on the recommended use, that offsite mitigation required. for environmental impacts be acquired in the Batiquitos Lagoon area as a first priority or within the jurisdiction of Carlsbad if feasible as secondary option, and the southern beachfront resort provide a restaurant with an ocean view. DISCUSSION Commissioner Whitton thanked staff for their work with the Vision Plan, and further commented the Vision Plan shows a great effort put forth. Commissioner Boddy also thanked staff for their work and feels the Vision Plan will be terrific. Planning Commission Minutes September 19,2007 Page 5 Commissioner Douglas commented the Ponto Area is a very special area to the citizens of Carlsbad and also thanked staff for their work on the Vision Plan. Commissioner Dominguez gave kudos to staff as well as to the Commission for the work that was put into the Vision Plan. Commissioner Montgomery thanked staff for their hard work. Commissioner Cardosa commended staff and the public for all the effort put into the Vision Plan. Chairperson Baker concurred with her fellow Commissioners and thanked everyone for the work done on the Vision Plan. VOTE: 7-0 AYES: Chairperson Baker, Commissioner Cardosa, Commissioner Montgomery, Commissioner Douglas, Commissioner Dominguez, Commissioner Whitton, Commissioner Boddy NOES: None COMMISSION COMMENTS None. PLANNING DIRECTOR COMMENTS Mr. Neu updated the Commission on previous projects that were heard by the City Council this past week including the Bressi Ranch Village Center and the Kelly/JRM Office Building project. CITY ATTORNEY COMMENTS None. ADJOURNMENT By proper motion, the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of September 19, 2007, was adjourned at 9:08 p.m. DON NEU Planning Director Bridget Desmarais Minutes Clerk 130 Jackson I DeMarco I Tidus Petersen I Peckenpaugh A LAW CORPORATION Direct Dial: 805.418.1908 Email: cbeam@jdtplaw.com Reply to: Irvine Office File No: 5863-44939 OCT 19 2007 CITY OF CARLSBADCITY CLERK'S OFFICE October 19,2007 VIA HAND DELIVERY & E-MAIL Honorable Mayor Claude A. "Bud" Lewis, and Members of City Council, Ann Kulchin Matt Hall Mark Packard Julie Nygaard Of the City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, California 92008 Re: Concerns of LSF Carlsbad Holdings, LLC Regarding Lack of Clarity in the Proposed Implementation of the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan as a Portion of the City's General Plan ("GP") and Local Coastal Plan ("LCP") and the Planning Commission's Recommendations Dear Mayor Lewis: Our client LSF Carlsbad Holdings, LLC ("LSF") is the owner of approximately 47% of the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan ("Vision Plan") area, including the Resort Hotel site, portions of the Mixed-Use site and the Townhome site. LSF has not submitted an application for development for any of the Vision Plan areas noted. They have, however, had extensive discussions with third parties who have significant expertise in the development of hotels, mixed-use sites and residential development. Their discussions have helped them to better understand the implementation issues we are bringing to the City Council's attention. LSF's goal is to work with the City to implement the Vision Plan. Their review and discussions with third parties regarding the Vision Plan have raised new concerns. The recent Recommendations of the City Planning Commission on October 19, 2007, have accentuated those concerns. The Vision Plan is intended to serve both as a General Plan Amendment ("GPA") and Local Coastal Plan Amendment ("LCPA"). As written, the Vision Plan provides little flexibility for change. Future disagreements regarding the application, implementation and requirements of the Vision Plan will delay both public and private projects within its boundaries. We believe these types of issues can be easily resolved at this present level of general planning. LSF is, and remains, supportive of the goals of the draft Vision Plan. The Vision Plan's general statement of Project Goals in Chapter 1.1 are appropriate for the area. However, other Irvine Office 2030 Main Street, Suite 1200 Irvine, California 92614 1949.752.8585 f 949.752.0597 Westlake Village Office 2815 Townsgate Road, Suite 200 Westlake Village, California 91361 1805.230.0023 f 805.230.0087 C www.jdtplaw.com Honorable Mayor Claude A. "Bud" Lewis, and October 19,2007 Page 2 portions of the Vision Plan and the recommendations of the Planning Commission appear to require site-specific land uses or establish requirements and conditions that have not been the subject of an appropriate level of analysis in terms of feasibility or necessity, nor have the requirements of CEQA, related to Program EIRs, been satisfied with respect to such features. LSF has had some discuss with the City Staff regarding these issues, and we feel the necessity of bringing them to the City Council's attention, hi the interest of brevity, our request is that the City Council open the public hearing on the Vision Plan on October 23, 2007, take public testimony, and continue the public hearing to a date certain to provide an opportunity for members of the public and affected property owners, such as LSF, to comment on any proposed modifications to the Vision Plan which the City Council or Staff may suggest. We would be pleased, and indeed request a further dialogue between the City Staff and LSF, to discuss our concerns. Our concerns include the following: 1. Vision Plan Objectives vs. Mandates The Vision Plan, is a proposed GPA and LCPA. Its application is not sufficiently clear at this time to recommend its adoption, since there are unanswered issues with respect to whether certain features of the Vision Plan are intended to be "mandatory"; or, are they merely illustrative concepts outlining potential "approaches" and "strategies" worthy of consideration to satisfy Vision Plan goals. This uncertainty may result in the need for numerous future GPAs and LCPAs, rather than moving on to implementation of the plan. 2. Environmental Review A Program EIR can be a useful environmental tool to preliminarily determine the overall impacts of a project and feasible project alternatives and mitigation measures. CEQA, however, clearly requires that certain types of City commitments, such as to land uses or particular facilities that may impact the environment, cannot be made until a later subsequent environmental review takes place, all of which is set forth in CEQA Guideline, §15186(c). CEQA's requirements, however, do not appear to have been met relating to several current "features" of the Vision Plan, for the reasons noted below. 3. Subterranean Parking Garages The City Planning Commission in their Resolution No. 6341, par. 2b, expressly requires the individual projects to provide subterranean garages, noting: "Parking garages shall be underground unless proven technically or financially infeasible." The excavation noise, dust generation, dump truck hauling, disruptions of traffic, etc. from the construction of subterranean garages have not been analyzed. Please note that the Honorable Mayor Claude A. "Bud" Lewis, and October 19,2007 Page 3 City's analysis does not consider the possibly prohibitive cost of such garages, which may be from $4-$6 million or more, or the basis for the City's determination of a required 216 parking spaces in the Mixed-Use area. No site-specific development plan has been submitted for this area. No clarifying language regarding the extent to which the City intends parking will be offered to the general public as beach parking is included. Such a requirement at this time, in our opinion, is at best premature prior to the submission of a site plan and the economic and engineering impact studies of its feasibility. An underground garage, in light of what is actually proposed for an area, may not be necessary. 4. Pedestrian Bridge Over the Railroad The Planning Commission, in its Resolution No. 6341, par. 2d, also states: 'Trails within the Ponto Beachfront Village shall be linked to the greater Carlsbad Citywide Trail System." The requirements of this recommendation are unclear. Note, however, that the Vision Plan provides a two-sentence reference to a bridge over the rail line to the east of southerly portion of the Resort Hotel site to a location adjacent to the San Pacifico neighborhood. Neither we nor the City know whether the railroad will consent to provide right of way, nor has any environmental review been prepared for such a pedestrian bridge, even though the limited space available for its location clearly suggests it will have significant impacts on the San Pacifico neighborhood. The condition does not suggest who should be responsible for this project or pay for it. It is not required for the development of the Hotel and, at best, may merely provide a "shortcut" from the San Pacifico area to the Resort Hotel site, which is anticipated to be ringed with the public trails. Approval of this as a concept, if it is intended to be required by the Vision Plan, would be mandated without the benefit of a CEQA analysis, which may identify multiple potential impacts, including those on the San Pacifico neighborhood and potentially those on the adjacent Batiquitos Lagoon's natural resources. We believe construction of this bridge will require acquisition of property at its easterly terminus through the City's use of eminent domain. 5. A 75 Foot Wide Public Park Along the Bluff The Planning Commission also recommended adoption of the "Increased Recreational Amenities/Greenspace [project] Alternative," fig. 6.6, of the Ponto Beachfront Village Final EIR and a related 75-foot setback for any development on the southerly portion of the Resort Hotel site for a public park use. Honorable Mayor Claude A. "Bud" Lewis, and October 19,2007 Page 4 At the Planning Commission hearing on September 5, 2007, a few members of the audience expressed their desire for a public park along the south edge of the resort site overlooking the lagoon. The existing Poinsettia Shores Master Plan has always recognized the environmentally sensitive nature of this area and required a 45' building setback with a trail open to the public. The Final EIR did not add an alternative addressing the establishment of a public park in this 45' setback to be maintained by the resort. There was discuss that public gatherings such as weddings could occur in this area, yet there was no discussion as to potential environmental impacts that would be created by encouraging large uncontrolled gatherings of people adjacent to sensitive habitat. Based on this added alternative, after public testimony was closed at the September 19, 2007 Planning Commission hearing the Commission voted to increase this public park to a minimum of 75' in width to provide more room for activities. The City has not undertaken the environmental review of this "Project Alternative" in compliance with CEQA, since the Alternative was added after the close of the Public Review Period and, to our knowledge, never circulated to natural resource agencies and certainly it was never circulated to LSF. The after-the-fact environmental review of the Project Alternative that was added to the Final EIR falls short of the kind of analysis that we believe the City Council should and must consider if this Alternative is to be adopted as part of the Vision Plan. I would be pleased to discuss the factual assumptions made in the EIR's analysis and why we believe they are faulty. This Alternative also fails to satisfy the criteria of a "feasible project alternative" under CEQA. See CEQA Guideline Section 15126.4. The Planning Commission in their actions of September 19, 2007, did not address how the City was going to pay for this park area. There is nothing showing that construction and maintenance of a "public park" can be a "mitigation measure," or that there is any legally required relationship between the Hotel's development and a park. 6. Utilities Relocation The Vision Plan, even though it has not received site plans for most areas, appears to require the implementation of "Utility Relocation" program in Section 4.5, including the removal and replacement of force sewer mains, a high pressure gas line (controlled by SDG&E), storm drains and dry utilities. LSF's perspective is that the removal and replacement of utilities generally and the relocation of a high pressure gas line may not be necessary or provide any clear benefit. At the very least, it appears that "requiring" relocations is a concept that is premature without analysis of potential site plans. The Vision Plan, however, contains a statement which LSF questions that the relocation will provide more "developable area" within the Vision Plan. Honorable Mayor Claude A. "Bud" Lewis, and October 19,2007 PageS LSF's Requests LSF is interested in the implementation of the Vision Plan and proceeding with Plans for the development of appropriate public and private amenities within it that could be impeded by the uncertainty of the Vision Plan's requirements. LSF asks: (1) that the City Council continue the public hearing on October 23, 2007 as requested, for the reasons stated; (2) that the City Council reject the Planning Commission's recommendations requiring underground parking and leave it merely one of several potential solutions to parking demands based on the facts of the application; (3) that the City clarify that no pedestrian bridge is required over the railroad east of the Resort Hotel site; (4) that the City Council reject the Increased Recreational Amenities/Greenspace Alternative due to the lack of adequate environmental review; (5) that the City Council defer decisions with respect to the Utility Relocation until sufficient facts are available to identify the benefits and to provide the basis for an equitable agreement with respect to cost sharing between the property owners; and (6) that the City consider clarifying language with respect to the matters approved or required by the Vision Plan as opposed to statements outlining how the Vision Plan Goals may be met, subject to the required analysis of any site plan and the related required environmental review. We offer these observations and objections in the spirit of anticipated cooperation with the City and a willingness to make specific recommendations with respect to changes in either the Vision Plan or the proposed Resolution approving the Vision Plan, LCP and Certification of the CEQA documents. We also request that our comments be included as part of the public testimony with respect to the hearing proposed for October 23, 2007. I remain, Very truly yours, Craig K. Beam CKB:cf Honorable Mayor Claude A. "Bud" Lewis, and October 19,2007 Page 6 cc: Mr. Nigel Oliver-Frost Mike Howes Stan Weiler City Clerk, Lorraine M. Wood City Attorney, Ron Ball Acting City Manager, Lisa Hildebrand Community Development Director, Sandy Holder 748072.2 ) At£s October 19,2007 Jackson I DeMarcol Tidus Petersen I Peckenpaugh A LAW CORPORATION Direct Dial: 805.418.19 )8 Email: Reply to: File No: Irvine Office 5863-44939 cbeam@idfclaw.cc6JTY CLERK'S OFFICE c: AGENDA ITrm # v Mayor City Council City Manager City Attorney City Clerk VIA HAM) DELIVERY & E-MAIL Honorable Mayor Claude A. "Bud" Lewis, and Members of City Council, Ann Kulchin Matt Hall Mark Packard Julie Nygaard Of the City of Carlsbad ~ 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, California 92008 Re: Concerns of LSF Carlsbad Holdings, LLC Regarding Lack of Clarity in the Proposed Implementation of the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan as a Portion of the City's General Plan ("GP") and Local Coastal Plan ("LCP") and the Planning Commission's Recommendations Dear Mayor Lewis: Our client LSF Carlsbad Holdings, LLC ("LSF") is the owner of approximately 47% of the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan ("Vision Plan") area, including the Resort Hotel site, portions of the Mixed-Use site and the Townhome site. LSF has not submitted an application for development for any of the Vision Plan areas noted. They have, however, had extensive discussions with third parties who have significant expertise in the development of hotels, mixed-use sites and residential development. Their discussions have helped them to better understand the implementation issues we are bringing to the City Council's attention. LSF's goal is to work with the City to implement the Vision Plan. Their review and discussions with third parties regarding the Vision Plan have raised new concerns. The recent Recommendations of the City Planning Commission on October 19, 2007, have accentuated those concerns. The Vision Plan is intended to serve both as a General Plan Amendment ("GPA") and Local Coastal Plan Amendment ("LCPA"). As written, the Vision Plan provides little flexibility for change. Future disagreements regarding the application, implementation and requirements of the Vision Plan will delay both public and private projects within its boundaries. We believe these types of issues can be easily resolved at this present level of general planning. LSF is, and remains, supportive of the goals of the draft Vision Plan. The Vision Plan's general statement of Project Goals in Chapter 1.1 are appropriate for the area. However, other Irvine Office 2030 Main Street, Suite 1200 Irvine, California 92614 1949.752.8585 f 949.752.0597 WesHake Village Office 2815 Townsgate Road, Suite 200 Westtake Village, California 91361 1805.230.0023 f 805.230.0087 www.jdtplaw.com Honorable Mayor Claude A. "Bud" Lewis, and October 19,2007 Page 2 portions of the Vision Plan and the recommendations of the Planning Commission appear to require site-specific land uses or establish requirements and conditions that have not been the subject of an appropriate level of analysis in terms of feasibility or necessity, nor have the requirements of CEQA, related to Program EIRs, been satisfied with respect to such features. LSF has had some discuss with the City Staff regarding these issues, and we feel the necessity of bringing them to the City Council's attention. In the interest of brevity, our request is that the City Council open the public hearing on the Vision Plan on October 23, 2007, take public testimony, and continue the public hearing to a date certain to provide an opportunity for members of the public and affected property owners, such as LSF, to comment on any proposed modifications to the Vision Plan which the City Council or Staff may suggest. We would be pleased, and indeed request a further dialogue between the City Staff and LSF, to discuss our concerns. Our concerns include the following: 1. Vision Plan Objectives vs. Mandates The Vision Plan, is a proposed GPA and LCPA. Its application is not sufficiently clear at this time to recommend its adoption, since there are unanswered issues with respect to whether certain features of the Vision Plan are intended to be "mandatory"; or, are they merely illustrative concepts outlining potential "approaches" and "strategies" worthy of consideration to satisfy Vision Plan goals. This uncertainty may result in the need for numerous future GPAs and LCPAs, rather than moving on to implementation of the plan. 2. Environmental Review A Program EIR can be a useful environmental tool to preliminarily determine the overall impacts of a project and feasible project alternatives and mitigation measures. CEQA, however, clearly requires that certain types of City commitments, such as to land uses or particular facilities that may impact the environment, cannot be made until a later subsequent environmental review takes place, all of which is set forth in CEQA Guideline, §15186(c). CEQA's requirements, however, do not appear to have been met relating to several current "features" of the Vision Plan, for the reasons noted below. 3. Subterranean Parking Garages The City Planning Commission in their Resolution No. 6341, par. 2b, expressly requires the individual projects to provide subterranean garages, noting: "Parking garages shall be underground unless proven technically or financially infeasible." The excavation noise, dust generation, dump truck hauling, disruptions of traffic, etc. from the construction of subterranean garages have not been analyzed. Please note that the Honorable Mayor Claude A. "Bud" Lewis, and October 19,2007 PageS City's analysis does not consider the possibly prohibitive cost of such garages, which may be from $4-$6 million or more, or the basis for the City's determination of a required 216 parking spaces in the Mixed-Use area. No site-specific development plan has been submitted for this area. No clarifying language regarding the extent to which the City intends parking will be offered to the general public as beach parking is included. Such a requirement at this time, in our opinion, is at best premature prior to the submission of a site plan and the economic and engineering impact studies of its feasibility. An underground garage, in light of what is actually proposed for an area, may not be necessary. 4. Pedestrian Bridge Over the Railroad The Planning Commission, in its Resolution No. 6341, par. 2d, also states: "Trails within the Ponto Beachfront Village shall be linked to the greater Carlsbad Citywide Trail System." The requirements of this recommendation are unclear. Note, however, that the Vision Plan provides a two-sentence reference to a bridge over the rail line to the east of southerly portion of the Resort Hotel site to a location adjacent to the San Pacifico neighborhood. Neither we nor the City know whether the railroad will consent to provide right of way, nor has any environmental review been prepared for such a pedestrian bridge, even though the limited space available for its location clearly suggests it will have significant impacts on the San Pacifico neighborhood. The condition does not suggest who should be responsible for this project or pay for it. It is not required for the development of the Hotel and, at best, may merely provide a "shortcut" from the San Pacifico area to the Resort Hotel site, which is anticipated to be ringed with the public trails. Approval of this as a concept, if it is intended to be required by the Vision Plan, would be mandated without the benefit of a CEQA analysis, which may identify multiple potential impacts, including those on the San Pacifico neighborhood and potentially those on the adjacent Batiquitos Lagoon's natural resources. We believe construction of this bridge will require acquisition of property at its easterly terminus through the City's use of eminent domain. 5. A 75 Foot Wide Public Park Alone the Bluff The Planning Commission also recommended adoption of the "Increased Recreational Amenities/Greenspace [project] Alternative," fig. 6.6, of the Ponto Beachfront Village Final EIR and a related 75-foot setback for any development on the southerly portion of the Resort Hotel site for a public park use. Honorable Mayor Claude A. "Bud" Lewis, and October 19,2007 Page 4 At the Planning Commission hearing on September 5, 2007, a few members of the audience expressed their desire for a public park along the south edge of the resort site overlooking the lagoon. The existing Poinsettia Shores Master Plan has always recognized the environmentally sensitive nature of this area and required a 45' building setback with a trail open to the public. The Final EIR did not add an alternative addressing the establishment of a public park in this 45' setback to be maintained by the resort. There was discuss that public gatherings such as weddings could occur in this area, yet there was no discussion as to potential environmental impacts that would be created by encouraging large uncontrolled gatherings of people adjacent to sensitive habitat Based on this added alternative, after public testimony was closed at the September 19, 2007 Planning Commission hearing the Commission voted to increase this public park to a minimum of 75' in width to provide more room for activities. The City has not undertaken the environmental review of this "Project Alternative" in compliance with CEQA, since the Alternative was added after the close of the Public Review Period and, to our knowledge, never circulated to natural resource agencies and certainly it was never circulated toLSF. The after-the-fact environmental review of the Project Alternative that was added to the Final EIR falls short of the kind of analysis that we believe the City Council should and must consider if this Alternative is to be adopted as part of the Vision Plan. I would be pleased to discuss the factual assumptions made in the EIR's analysis and why we believe they are faulty. This Alternative also fails to satisfy the criteria of a "feasible project alternative" under CEQA. See CEQA Guideline Section 15126.4. The Planning Commission in their actions of September 19, 2007, did not address how the City was going to pay for this park area. There is nothing showing that construction and maintenance of a "public park" can be a "mitigation measure," or that there is any legally required relationship between the Hotel's development and a park. 6. Utilities Relocation The Vision Plan, even though it has not received site plans for most areas, appears to require the implementation of "Utility Relocation" program in Section 4.5, including the removal and replacement of force sewer mains, a high pressure gas line (controlled by SDG&E), storm drains and dry utilities. LSF's perspective is that the removal and replacement of utilities generally and the relocation of a high pressure gas line may not be necessary or provide any clear benefit. At the very least, it appears that "requiring" relocations is a concept that is premature without analysis of potential site plans. The Vision Plan, however, contains a statement which LSF questions that the relocation will provide more "developable area" within the Vision Plan. Honorable Mayor Claude A. "Bud" Lewis, and October 19,2007 PageS LSF's Requests LSF is interested in the implementation of the Vision Plan and proceeding with Plans for the development of appropriate public and private amenities within it that could be impeded by the uncertainty of the Vision Plan's requirements. LSF asks: (1) that the City Council continue the public hearing on October 23, 2007 as requested, for the reasons stated; (2) that the City Council reject the Planning Commission's recommendations requiring underground parking and leave it merely one of several potential solutions to parking demands based on the facts of the application; (3) that the City clarify that no pedestrian bridge is required over the railroad east of the Resort Hotel site; (4) that the City Council reject the Increased Recreational Amenities/Greenspace Alternative due to the lack of adequate environmental review; (5) that the City Council defer decisions with respect to the Utility Relocation until sufficient facts are available to identify the benefits and to provide the basis for an equitable agreement with respect to cost sharing between the property owners; and (6) that the City consider clarifying language with respect to the matters approved or required by the Vision Plan as opposed to statements outlining how the Vision Plan Goals may be met, subject to the required analysis of any site plan and the related required environmental review. We offer these observations and objections in the spirit of anticipated cooperation with the City and a willingness to make specific recommendations with respect to changes in either the Vision Plan or the proposed Resolution approving the Vision Plan, LCP and Certification of the CEQA documents. We also request that our comments be included as part of the public testimony with respect to the hearing proposed for October 23,2007. I remain, Very truly yours, cX-***-? ^' Craig K. Beam CKB:cf Honorable Mayor Claude A. "Bud" Lewis, and October 19,2007 Page 6 cc: Mr. Nigel Oliver-Frost Mike Howes Stan Weiler City Clerk, Lorraine M. Wood City Attorney, Ron Ball Acting City Manager, Lisa Hildebrand Community Development Director, Sandy Holder 748072.2 111 „ NOV ] 3 2007 CITY OF CARLSBADCITY CLERK'S OFFICE Jackson I DeMarcol Tidus Petersen I Peckenpaugh A LAW CORPORATION ALL RECEIVED November 9,2007 Direct Dial: 805.418.1908 Email: cbeam@jdtplaw.com Reply to: Irvine Office File No: 5863-44939 iDAITEM*^ Mayor City Council City Manager City Attorney City Clerk VIA HAND DELIVERY & E-MAIL Honorable Mayor Claude A. "Bud" Lewis, and c. Members of City Council, AnnKulchin Matt Hall Mark Packard Julie Nygaard Of the City of Carlsbad HZZHHHII 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, California 92008 Re: Our Letter of October 19, 2007 regarding Lack of Clarity in the Proposed Implementation of the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan ("Vision Plan") and Related Matters Dear Mayor Lewis: In our prior correspondence on behalf of LSF Carlsbad Holdings, LLC ("LSF'), dated October 19, 2007 (attached for your convenience), we outlined various concerns regarding ambiguities in the Vision Plan's text or graphics and whether they are a "Statement of Objectives," which will guide the development of future site plans and implementing actions of the City versus "Mandates." We also expressed concern regarding the Carlsbad Planning Commission's proposed Conditions attached to its recommendation of adoption of the Vision Plan in its Resolution No. 6341, specifically with respect to recommendations for use of part of the Resort Hotel site as a public park, requirements that all parking be in underground garages, and various other features added to the Vision Plan at the Planning Commission hearing on September 19, 2007. It is unclear whether they are "mandatory requirements" for development of any area or "illustrative concepts." Although we are in general agreement with the stated Goals, Themes, and Land Uses contemplated by the Vision Plan, we are concerned mat the Plan fails to indicate what specific features, graphics or other descriptions are anticipated to be mandatory elements to be provided in any submitted site plan versus illustrative concepts that may or may not be reflected in a proposed site plan. Irvine Office 2030 Main Street, Suite 1200 Irvine, California 92614 1949.752.8585 f 949.752.0597 WesUake Village Office 2815 Townsgate Road, Suite 200 Westlake Village, California 91361 1805.230.0023 f 805.230.0087 www.jdtplaw.com "Honorable Mayor Claude A. "Bud" Lewis November 9,2007 Page 2 Following the City Council's continuance of the October 23, 2007 hearing, Mike Howes, Stan Wetter, and I met with Deborah Fountain, Gary Barberio and Christer Westman of the City Planning and Community Development staff on Wednesday, October 31, 2007. We had provided City staff with proposed text changes for discussion to two specific pages of the Vision Plan with respect to its "Intent and Background" (Chapter 1, page 1) and the "Plan Organization" (Chapter 1, page 3). We also provided City Staff with a "black line" that highlighted the changes being proposed to the original text. Although we recognize that staff is considering the issues raised, at this time we have still not received any feedback from them on the requests for clarification that we made on October 31,2007. City Staff, while expressing their willingness to work with representatives of LSF, have noted that at this time they have no authority to make any changes to clarify the implementation of the Vision Plan, since the Planning Commission has already made their recommendation to the City Council. We understand staffs position and request that the City Council hold the public hearing on November 13,2007, take public testimony, continue the Vision Plan hearing to a date certain and direct staff to work with LSF to provide the necessary text to clarify that this is a Vision Plan and various text and illustrations within the Plan are recommendations and not mandates. Following are a few examples of why we believe language needs to be added to the Vision Plan clarifying that it is a Vision Plan and not a Specific Plan: The Vision Plan in Chapter 4, "Implementation Program" in Section 4.1 expressly states "all projects in the Ponto Beachfront Village area must be consistent with this Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan and its land use strategy." Unfortunately, no definition is offered with respect to the "land use strategy" or what features or elements of the "Vision Plan" are to be consulted for purposes of making a "consistency" determination. We also concur with both the "Key Principles" and defined "Character Areas" of the Vision Plan, including the Mixed-Use area, Beachfront Resort, Townhouse neighborhood, etc. Unfortunately, a series of illustrations, which are not described as "Illustrative," are also present in this Chapter which depict features that may or may not be provided within a site plan and in many cases have not been studied or provided for hi either engineering or environmental analyses. Section 2.2 "Land Use," in addition to describing the Land Uses and Themes such as "Mixed-Use center," "Live-Work Neighborhood," "Beachfront Resort," also goes so far as to provide a very detailed statement of "Permitted Uses" that hi some cases appear to be zoning controls and may or may not be necessary to achieve the overall "theme" of the area in question. For example, the Beachfront Resort is noted as only being allowed "accessory uses . . . not to exceed a total of 1,000 square feet such as apparel and accessories, beauty and barber shops, dry cleaning, laundry pickup service, florist, novelty and/or souvenir stores, etc." The limitation of 1,000 square feet for stores within an "End Destination Resort" is a very specific "Honorable Mayor Claude A. "Bud" Lewis November 9, 2007 Page 3 limitation that is not appropriate in a Vision Plan. What happens if a high end resort project is proposed with 1,500 square feet of shops? Would that change be considered inconsistent with the specific requirements of the Vision Plan, necessitating a revision to the site plan or an amendment to the Vision Plan or General Plan? While we share the Planning Commission's recommendation that the City adopt the Vision Plan, we believe that they have also engaged in what amounts to "site planning" as it relates to specific areas of the Vision Plan without the benefit of the type of information required to determine whether or not their proposals are appropriate or feasible. We specifically object to the Planning Commission's recommendation that the City Council endorse the "Increased Recreational Amenities/Green Space Alternative" (Figure 6.6) of the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan Final Environmental Impact Report for public park purposes. This alternative was added to the EIR after the public review period had closed without any input from the Wildlife Agencies or general public. In addition, the Planning Commission went beyond the recommendation in the Increased Recreational Amenities/Green Space Alternative and recommended that a 75-foot wide public park be established along the edge of the bluff overlooking the lagoon. We believe that this concentration of the public in this area adjacent to known sensitive biological resources is an inappropriate land use for the area, especially where there is no means of policing public activities, and no public parking for the park use is anticipated on the Resort Hotel site. The extensive correspondence received by the City from natural resource agencies concerning the very same natural resources found in the Batiquitos Lagoon area highlights the sensitivity of mis area and the need for careful planning for the public trail that will circle the Resort Hotel site and provide public vistas over Batiquitos and the beach to the west of this area. It will be accomplished without a concentration of people, predictable in a public park, in an area which was to be a "buffer area." These are just a few areas where the Plan goes beyond being a Vision Plan and establishes specific development standards that are more appropriate for a Specific Plan or Site Development Plan. We are not asking that the City put the project on hold and reexamine every aspect of the Plan. We are merely requesting that some additional wording be added to a few sections of the Plan to clarify mat it is a Vision Plan, not a Specific Plan. In conclusion, we ask City Council to take three actions. First, reject the Planning Commission's conditions 2.b, d and h of Planning Commission Resolution No. 6341 as either inappropriate or providing an inappropriate level of detail, given the generalized nature of the Vision Plan and the lack of site specific planning for the areas so affected. Second, take public testimony on the Vision Plan and continue it to a date certain. Third, authorize City staff to meet with representatives of LSF, to attempt to clarify the portions of the Vision Plan which were intended to provide direct guidance for use in the consideration of site plans within the various "theme areas." "Honorable Mayor Claude A. "Bud" Lewis November 9,2007 Page 4 In order to provide further opportunity to comment, if our requests are honored, we request an opportunity to address the City Council, if only to endorse such language as we are able to prepare with the assistance of City staff to address these matters. I remain, Very truly yours, *.(_^Aj**4 "' Craig K. Beam CKB:cf cc: Mr. Nigel Oliver-Frost Mike Howes Stan Weiler Deborah Fountain Gary Barberio Christer Westman City Attorney, Ron Ball 752383.2 Batiquitos Lagoon Foundation Preserve, Protect, and Enhance November 13, 2007 The Honorable Claude A. "Bud" Lewis, Mayor, and City Council Members City Council City of Carlsbad ' City Manager 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive City Attorney Carlsbad CA 92008 City Clerk 8ECDLHDWLE NOV 1 3 2007 CITY OF CARLSBADCITY CLERK'S OFFICE u AGEN£AITEM# t *5" «__ Member Mayor & Citv Council • Subject: Agenda Item 5. AB #19,207 Concerning Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan Environmental Impact Report EIR 05-05 Dear Mayor Lewis and Council Members: The Batiquitos Lagoon Foundation (BLF) appreciates this opportunity to comment on EIR 05-05 for the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan. The BLF has been striving to preserve, protect and enhance the Batiquitos Lagoon and its environs since 1983. While we would prefer that the Ponto site remain as open space, we are also realistic and recognize the long-standing development rights granted by the City's General Plan, zoning ordinance and other adopted plans. Given that development will occur in this area, we support the City's effort to develop a vision plan and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that provide a unifying theme for future development, while protecting the environment to the maximum extent possible. Accordingly, the BLF supports the recommendation of Planning Commission Resolution No. 6338 and associated amendments, in addition to some other suggestions and recommendations also listed. The real challenge, however, is yet to come for the City and staff to stick with the plan and ensure that it is implemented as envisioned as each specific project moves forward. The supported Planning Commission amendments are: • That Carlsbad Boulevard Re-alignment Alternative 2 is the preferred alternative. • Parking garages shall be underground unless technically and financially infeasible. • Strongly encourage the use of "green" building techniques to reduce greenhouse emissions. • Require trails within the Ponto Beachfront Village to be connected to the City- wide trails system. , P. O. Box 130491 Carlsbad, California 92013-0491 - 760.931.0800 • www.batiquitosfoundation.org • Strongly encourage the State to allow trail connections through the Carlsbad State Beach Campground to the beach. • Require parks on public property to be reviewed by the Parks and Recreation Commission, Planning Commission, and/or City Council as appropriate. • A hotel on the Resort Hotel site shall include an ocean view restaurant. [The BLF accepts this, but would prefer that no hotel be built!] • Revise the Character Areas configuration to reflect the Increased Recreational Amenities/Green Space Alternative (Figure 6.6) in the EIR. • To certify the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) with the following amendments: Add a mitigation measure requiring a 75-foot building setback from the southern bluff edge on the Resort Hotel planning area [adjacent to Batiquitos Lagoon and the Least tern protection area]; Revise the description of Increased Recreational Amenities/Green Space Alternative (Figure 6.6) to reference a 75-foot wide setback area; and Revise mitigation measure N-3b as stated in Planning Commission Resolution No. 6338. Some additional comments and recommendations are included below. The BLF, over the years, has consistently strived to complete a trail from the east end of Batiquitos Lagoon and El Camino Real, through to the Pacific Ocean. Ponto Beachfront Village development offers the unique opportunity to complete a key segment of this system with a pedestrian bridge over the railroad tracks connecting with a properly set-backed trail across the southern area of the development site. Such a trail would serve as a buffer further protecting the lagoon. This trail would also offer the citizens of Carlsbad a very scenic experience and is consistent with the City's open space and associated habitat management plans, and the city-wide trails system. The BLF remains concerned with any development adjacent to a sensitive ecological area such as Batiquitos Lagoon. Stormwater runoff, water quality issues, and erosion present significant challenges as development proceeds. Light, noise, and air pollution, as well as traffic congestion need to be constantly monitored and managed. It is strongly recommend that the City be extremely vigilant and aggressive in seeing that any issues and problems are properly and promptly resolved. The Ponto Beachfront Vision Plan includes significant opportunities for environmental education. The BLF welcomes the opportunity to be a partner in exploring and helping to create what could be an outstanding coastal wetlands educational venue. I want to personally commend the Planning Commission for making a recommendation that 75-foot setbacks from the lagoon and wetland areas be the standard. This will provide significant mitigation for protecting sensitive habitats and protection for the wildlife and endangered species that inhabit that area. The Commission's interest in providing the citizens of Carlsbad with more trails and trail linkages for this project is also to be commended. Finally, construction itself presents very significant ecological challenges. The BLF intends to monitor this as the Vision Plan becomes a reality. The BLF commends the City and staff for developing this vision plan and in getting us to this key milestone. Thank you for this opportunity to comment and support it, and we look forward to working with the City to make it happen in an environmentally friendly way. Sincere! President Easy Peel Labels Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5160® CARLSBAD UNIF SCHOOL DIST 6225 EL CAMINO REAL CARLSBAD CA 92011 A Paper See Instruction Sheet j for Easy Peel Feature ^ SAN MARCOS SCHOOL DIST STE 250. 255 PICO AVE SAN MARCOS CA 92069 AVERY® 5160® ENCINITAS SCHOOL DIST 101 RANCHO SANTA FE RD ENCINITAS CA 92024 SAN DIEGUITO SCHOOL DIST 701 ENCINITAS BLVD ENCINITAS CA 92024 LEUCADIA WASTE WATER DIST TIM JOCHEN 1960 LA COSTA AVE CARLSBAD CA 92009 OLIVENHAIN WATER DIST 1966OLIVENHAINRD ENCINITAS CA 92024 CITY OF ENCINITAS 505 S VULCAN AVE ENCINITAS CA 92024 CITY OF SAN MARCOS 1 CIVIC CENTER DR SAN MARCOS CA 92069-2949 CITY OF OCEANSIDE 300 NORTH COAST HWY OCEANSIDE CA 92054 CITY OF VISTA 600 EUCALYPTUS AVE VISTA CA 92084 VALLECITOS WATER DIST 201 VALLECITOS DE ORO SAN MARCOS CA 92069 I.P.U.A. SCHOOL OF PUBLIC ADMIN AND URBAN STUDIES SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY SAN DIEGO CA 92182-4505 CALIF DEPT OF FISH & GAME 4949 VIEWRIDGE AVE SAN DIEGO CA 92123 REGIONAL WATER QUALITY STE 100 9174 SKY PARK CT SAN DIEGO CA 92123-4340 SD COUNTY PLANNING STEB 5201 RUFFIN RD SAN DIEGO CA 92123 LAFCO 1600 PACIFIC HWY SAN DIEGO CA 92101 AIR POLLUTION CNTRL DIST 10124 OLD GROVE RD SAN DIEGO CA 92131 SANDAG STE 800 401 B STREET SAN DIEGO CA 92101 U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE 6010 HIDDEN VALLEY RD CARLSBAD CA 92011 CA COASTAL COMMISSION STE 103 7575 METROPOLITAN DR SAN DIEGO CA 92108-4402 ATTN TEDANASIS SAN DIEGO COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY PO BOX 82776 SAN DIEGO CA 92138-2776 SCOTT MALLOY - BIASD STE 110 9201 SPECTRUM CENTER BLVD SAN DIEGO CA 92123-1407 CARLSBAD CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 5934 PRIESTLEY DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 CITY OF CARLSBAD RECREATION CITY OF CARLSBAD PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING DEPT- PROJECT ENGINEER CITY OF CARLSBAD PROJECT PLANNER 0/02/2007 Etiquettes faciles a peler Utilisez le gabarit AVERY® 5160®Sens de chargement Consultez la feuille d'instruction www.avery.com 1-800-GO-AVERY Easy Peel Labels Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5160® BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS 2800 COTTAGE WAY SACRAMENTO CA 95825 : A J^Feed Paper See Instruction Sheet j for Easy Peel Feature^ BUSINESS, TRANS & HSG AGENCY STE 2450 980 NINTH ST SACRAMENTO CA 95814 iAVERY®5ieo® ! CA COASTAL COMMISSION STE 103 7575 METROPOLITAN DR SAN DIEGO CA 921084402 CANNEL ISLANDS NATL PARK SUPERINTENDENT'S OFFICE 1901 SPINNAKER DR SAN GUENA VENTURA CA 93001 CITYOFENCINITAS 505 S VULCAN AVE ENCINITAS CA 92024 COASTAL CONSERVANCY STE 1100 1330 BROADWAY OAKLAND CA 94612 COUNTY OF SD SUPERVISOR RM335 1600 PACIFIC SAN DIEGO ca 92101 DEPT OF DEFENSE LOS ANGELES DIST ENG PO BOX 2711 LOS ANGELES CA 90053 DEPT OF ENERGY STE 350 901 MARKET ST SAN FRANCISCO CA 94103 DEPT OF ENERGY STE 400 611 RYAN PLZDR ARLINGTON TX 760114005 DEPT OF FISH & GAME ENVSERVDIV PO BOX 944246 SACRAMENTO CA 942442460 DEPT OF FOOD & AGRICULTURE AGRICULTURAL RESOURSES RM100 1220 N ST SACRAMENTO CA 95814 DEPT OF FORESTRY ENVCOORD PO BOX 944246 SACRAMENTO CA 942442460 DEPT OF HOUSING & URBAN DEV 600 HARRISON ST SAN FRANCISCO CA 94107 DEPT OF JUSTICE DEPTOFATTYGEN RM700 110 WEST AST SAN DIEGO CA 92101 DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION RM 5504 1120NST SACRAMENTO CA 95814 FED AVIATION ADMIN WESTERN REG PO BOX 92007 LOS ANGELES CA MARINE RESOURCES REG DR & G ENV SERVICES SPR STEJ 4665 LAMPSON AVE LOSALAMITOSCA 907205139 OFF OF PLANNING & RESEARCH OFF OF LOCAL GOVARRAIRS PO BOX 3044 SACRAMENTO CA 958123044 SAN FRANCISCO BAY CONSERV & DEV COM STE 2600 50 CALIFORNIA ST SAN FRANCISCO CA 941114704 SANDAG EXEC DIRECTOR STE 800 1STINTLPLZ401BST SAN DIEGO CA 92101 SD COUNTY PLANNING & LAND USE DEPT STE B-5 5201 RUFFIN RD SAN DIEGO CA 92123 SDGE 8315 CENTURY PARK CT SAN DIEGO CA 92123 STATE LANDS COMMISSION STE 1005 100 HOWE AVE SACRAMENTO CA 958258202 STATE LANDS COMMISSION STE100S 100 HOWE AVE SACRAMENTO CA 95825 US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEER STE 702 333 MARKET ST SAN FRANCISCO CA 941052197 US BUREAU OF LAND MGMT STE RM W 2800 COTTAGE WY SACRAMENTO CA 95825 US BUREAU OF RECLAMATION MID PACIFIC REG 2800 COTTAGE WY SACRAMENTO CA 95825 US FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICES 2800 COTTAGE WAY STE W-2605 SACRAMENTO CA 958251888 USDA RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPT 4169 430 GST DA VIS CA 95616 Etiquettes faciles a peler Utilisez le aabarit AVERY® 51 fin® Consultez la feuille www.avery.com Easy Peel Labels Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5160® A Paper See Instruction Sheet j for Easy Peel Feature^IAVERY®5160® WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD PO BOX 100 SACRAMENTO CA 95801 Etiquettes faciles a peler Utilisez le gabarit AVERY® 5160®Sens de chargement Consultez la feuille d'instruction www.avery.com .nn. AX/PRV Easy Peel Labels Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5160® MULLINS PATRICK&CHRISTINA 500 RUDDER AVE CARLSBAD CA 92011 ! A ^Feed Paper See Instruction Sheet ] for Easy Peel Feature ^ MATHEWS FAMILY TRUST 501 ANCHORAGE AVE CARLSBAD CA 92011 [AVERY®5160® ROSENBERG PHILLIP&MARDI 501 HALSING CT CARLSBAD CA 92011 HINESLEY CHARLES&BARBARA 501 STERN WAY CARLSBAD CA 92011 BEAUCHAMP STACEE 4158 ELM VIEW DR ENCINO CA 91316 ADLER STEVEN&NANCI 502 KNOTS LN CARLSBAD CA 92011 KNOWLES ARTHUR C&SHARON A 431 W FOOTHILL BLVD ARCADIA CA 91006 BRONKHURST TIMOTHY E 503 DEW POINT AVE CARLSBAD CA 92011 SAUNDERS SHERRI 503 RUDDER AVE CARLSBAD CA 92011 SADIQ AL S M 504 DEW POINT AVE CARLSBAD CA 92011 TRANG CHAU H 504 RUDDER AVE CARLSBAD CA 92011 HALE ROBERT&PATRICIA 505 ANCHORAGE AVE CARLSBAD CA 92011 HALL ALBERT&JEAN 505 DEW POINT AVE CARLSBAD CA 92011 OBRADOVICH ZDRAVKO 505 HALSING CT CARLSBAD CA 92011 WIGHTMAN JOSEPH&KAREN 505 KNOTS LN CARLSBAD CA 92011 BRADFORD WILLIAM C P 0 BOX 130144 CARLSBAD CA 92013 MANN VICKY 506 DEW POINT AVE CARLSBAD CA 92011 ROBINSON CYNTHIA A 506 HALSING CT CARLSBAD CA 92011 TRANG NHAN V 506 KNOTS LN CARLSBAD CA 92011 LONNEGREN FAMILY TRUST 507 ANCHORAGE AVE CARLSBAD CA 92011 SALDIVAR LIVING TRUST 377 WARHURST AVE SWANSEA MA 02777 ALAMAR ANDREW S 91-1028 HO OMA ALILI ST EWA BEACH HI 96706 KEATING-HUDSON DREW R&SHIRLEY M 508 RUDDER AVE CARLSBAD CA 92011 AMEEL FAMILY TRUST 509 HALSING CT CARLSBAD CA 92011 WHEELER BRYCE C FAMILY 509 KNOTS LN CARLSBAD CA 92011 LOW DELMIRA 509 STERN WAY CARLSBAD CA 92011 FLORE STEPHEN G&DANIELLE 510 HALSING CT CARLSBAD CA 92011 DEPIANO FAMILY 1997 TRUST 510 KNOTS LN CARLSBAD CA 92011 MADDOX THOMAS E&DIANE A 511 RUDDER AVE CARLSBAD CA 92011 GILSON FAMILY 512 RUDDER AVE CARLSBAD CA 92011 Etiquettes faciles a peler IItilkf>7 IP naharit AX/CRV® i;ifin® Consultez la feuille www.avery.com Easy Peel Labels Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5160® REVIER FAMILY TRUST 2252 IVORY PL CARLSBAD CA 92009 See Instruction Sheet ] for Easy Peel Feature ^ SLADAVIC JOHN C&DOREEN D 513 HALSING CT CARLSBAD CA 92011 iAVERY®5ieo® ! VARNI ADRIAN&KATHLEEN 513 KNOTS LN CARLSBAD CA 92011 NGUYEN KY D&LYNN B 4009 ARROYO SORRENTO RD SAN DIEGO CA 92130 TROSIAN GERARD K HELENS M TRS 514 KNOTS LN CARLSBAD CA 92011 CAIN FAMILY TRUST 20331 WELLS DR WOODLAND HILLS CA 91364 APPLEGATE EDWARD T&JO J 516 DEW POINT AVE CARLSBAD CA 92011 LOOS DAVID J&JACQUELYN R 516 RUDDER AVE CARLSBAD CA 92011 VANMETER DON W&JOANNE C 516 STERN WAY CARLSBAD CA 92011 HENNING DONNA M 517 ANCHORAGE AVE CARLSBAD CA 92011 SALMONSEN DANIEL R&CORA 517 DEW POINT AVE CARLSBAD CA 92011 COLE GEORGE W&JERRY 2422 DEERPARK DR SAN DIEGO CA 92110 NGUYEN KY D&LYNN B 4009 ARROYO SORRENTO RD SAN DIEGO CA 92130 LAMBERT FAMILY TRUST 1769 CANNES DR THOUSAND OAKS CA 91362 FEMRITE JASON A&JENNIFER 518 DEW POINT AVE CARLSBAD CA 92011 DARCANGELO LEONE B DINITTO ELMERINDA 518 KNOTS LN CARLSBAD CA 92011 WARDAS MARK A&IRENE 519 ANCHORAGE AVE CARLSBAD CA 92011 WILLARD BRETT E&NATALIE 519 DEW POINT AVE CARLSBAD CA 92011 RAZAVI ALI&MARY E 519 RUDDER AVE CARLSBAD CA 92011 KJK GROUP I L L C 3972 GEORGETOWN CT NW WASHINGTON DC 20007 STOJANOVIC ROBERT&SANDRA 520 RUDDER AVE CARLSBAD CA 92011 LE HA MINH CAROLINE THANH-TRUC 520 STERN WAY CARLSBAD CA 92011 EIDSON RICHARD L&BONNY J 521 ANCHORAGE AVE CARLSBAD CA 92011 LLOYD FAMILY TRUST 626 LOWER SPRINGS RD FALLBROOK CA 92028 MCGRATH GARY G&JAMI 521 HALSING CT CARLSBAD CA 92011 CROWLEY MICHAEL&PEGGY 521 STERN WAY CARLSBAD CA 92011 PRAVATO CHRISTOPHER 521 WIND SOCK WAY CARLSBAD CA 92011 GALLO MICHAEL W&PAMELA P O BOX 962 JULIAN CA 92036 METH FAMILY TRUST 10-20-99 522 KNOTS LN CARLSBAD CA 92011 SOCKS DAVID A 523 ANCHORAGE AVE CARLSBAD CA 92011 Etiquettes faciles a peler -> la nahai-it AV/CDV®rlo rharnamant Consultez la feuille www.avery.com Easy Peel Labels Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5160® MACLEAN NANCY B 39350 VIA MONTERO MURRIETA CA 92563 i •• J[Feed Paper See Instruction Sheet j for Easy Peel Feature ^ MACRI ROBERT J&PATRICIA A 523 MERIDIAN WAY CARLSBAD CA 92011 VANDERLINDEN FAMILY TRUST 1702 PLAYA VISTA SAN MARCOS CA 92078 MACMILLAN CHRISTIAN&SONYA P O BOX 400051 SAN DIEGO CA 92140 MERKEL JAMES J&JULIA M TRS 524 RUDDER AVE CARLSBAD CA 92011 COLANGELI LESLIE 524 STERN WAY CARLSBAD CA 92011 KIM SANG BO&NANCY S 525 HALSING CT CARLSBAD CA 92011 MILLER KENNETH&JENNIFER 525 STERN WAY CARLSBAD CA 92011 CHEN LONG SHIUH 525 WIND SOCK WAY CARLSBAD CA 92011 TAGUE ERIC G&JUDY 527 WIND SOCK WAY CARLSBAD CA 92011 PATTERSON HELEN M 532 DEW POINT AVE CARLSBAD CA 92011 TOMBELAINE PATRICK M 533 ANCHORAGE AVE CARLSBAD CA 92011 TAYLOR CHRISTOPHER DEBORAH L 534 DEW POINT AVE CARLSBAD CA 92011 LEGGE DARRELL WADDELL STACY 535 ANCHORAGE AVE CARLSBAD CA 92011 NARDI JAMES&MIKEL DANA 536 DEW POINT AVE CARLSBAD CA 92011 RANGEL CHRISTOPHER M 537 ANCHORAGE AVE CARLSBAD CA 92011 ENFIELD FAMILY TRUST 538 DEW POINT AVE CARLSBAD CA 92011 ESMAN ABED III&JTJLIE K 539 ANCHORAGE AVE CARLSBAD CA 92011 SPENCER PAUL J&MARY E 549 ANCHORAGE AVE CARLSBAD CA 92011 VANBEECK JOSEPH J&ANITA 551 ANCHORAGE AVE CARLSBAD CA 92011 KING DON JR&NGUYEN NGOC 553 ANCHORAGE AVE CARLSBAD CA 92011 DYER CARMEL M 3336 E COLORADO BLVD PASADENA CA 91107 MITCHELL FAMILY DECEDENTS 565 ANCHORAGE AVE CARLSBAD CA 92011 SINSHEIMER KIMBERLY J 567 ANCHORAGE AVE CARLSBAD CA 92011 AIELLO NORMAN A&LORRI W 569 ANCHORAGE AVE CARLSBAD CA 92011 DEVINE FAITH 571 ANCHORAGE AVE CARLSBAD CA 92011 LUTZ PATRICIA 612 SAND SHELL AVE CARLSBAD CA 92011 CATTANEO JOSEPH C&JUDITH L 4530 E SHEA BLVD #100 PHOENIX AZ 85028 CHENOWETH FAMILY TRUST 7035 WHITEWATER ST CARLSBAD CA 92011 WILLIAMS FAMILY TRUST 7036 WHITEWATER ST CARLSBAD CA 92011 Etiquettes faciles a peler litilkoz Ift naharit AVFRY® 51 fin®Sens de eharaement Consultez la feuille rl'inctrnrtinn www.avery.com Easy Peel Labels Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5160® SCHULZ JURGEN&LINDSEY 7037 LEEWARD ST CARLSBAD CA 92011 I A J^Feed Paper See Instruction Sheet j for Easy Peel Feature^ NASIRPOUR ZAGROUS 7038 LEEWARD ST CARLSBAD CA 92011 1AVERY®5160® FELLER MICHAEL 3522 W BOHL ST LAVEEN AZ 85339 BRUTON DANIEL J 7040 WHITEWATER ST CARLSBAD CA 92011 FABITO DANIEL M&NEDRA C 7041 LEEWARD ST CARLSBAD CA 92011 WEBER MARK E 7042 LEEWARD ST CARLSBAD CA 92011 DABBERT FAMILY TRUST 10955 IRIS CANYON LN LAS VEGAS NV 89135 WENTZ FAMILY TRUST 7044 WHITEWATER ST CARLSBAD CA 92011 NEGLIA BART&PEGGY M 3445 VIA MONTEVERDE ENCINITAS CA 92024 BOURIS INVESTMENTS 7047 WHITEWATER ST CARLSBAD CA 92011 BIRD FAMILY TRUST 04-12-02 1611 SHANGRI LA CT LAFAYETTE CA 94549 MORALLY JOHN P P 0 BOX 5169 OCEANSIDE CA 92052 NOVY CURTIS L&THERESA A P O BOX 673 RCHO SANTA FE CA 92067 FRITZ JEFFREY R 7053 LEEWARD ST CARLSBAD CA 92011 BURLESON TRAVIS FLANAGAN LYNN 6825 JADE LN CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARNEY CARRIE B 33370 TRAIL RANCH RD AGUA DULCE CA 91390 BECHTLOFF FAMILY TRUST 7056 WHITEWATER ST CARLSBAD CA 92011 GANZ FAMILY TRUST 12-07-01 7057 LEEWARD ST CARLSBAD CA 92011 COLLINS P DOUGLAS&KATHY A 7058 LEEWARD ST CARLSBAD CA 92011 JACOBSON EDWARD O&JODENE N 9920 BLOSSOM SPRINGS RD EL CAJON CA 92021 LU GRACE C/0 DICK LOGAN AND FRIENDS 10731 TREENA ST #104 SAN DIEGO CA 92131 EASTON TIM 5458 CAMINITO VISTA LUJO SAN DIEGO CA 92130 GUENETTE ERIC 7062 LEEWARD ST CARLSBAD CA 92011 RAMIREZ VICTOR E 7063 WHITEWATER ST CARLSBAD CA 92011 KAPNER LORNE D 7064 WHITEWATER ST CARLSBAD CA 92011 FERGUSON LIAM P&SANDRA L 7065 LEEWARD ST CARLSBAD CA 92011 ANDREWS VICKI G 2528 S ROOKWOOD DR CINCINNATI OH 45208 HAZELRIGG ARLENE 7067 WHITEWATER ST CARLSBAD CA 92011 WULFF RICHARD&GEMMA 305 BAYSWATER CT LAS VEGAS NV 89145 LARA DANIEL A&YVONNE A 7069 LEEWARD ST CARLSBAD CA 92011 Etiquettes faciles a peler Iltilic07 la naharit AX/CDV® C1CA®Cone rl« Consultez la feuille www.avery.com Easy Peel Labels Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5160® CLODFELTER WILLIAM G NANCY K 7070 LEEWARD ST CARLSBAD CA 92011 Paper See Instruction Sheet j for Easy Peel Feature ^ ALMEIDA ALEXANDER A 7071 WHITEWATER ST CARLSBAD CA 92011 ZOUTENDYK DAVID&JENIFER 7072 WHITEWATER ST CARLSBAD CA 92011 LE THAO D 7296 CIRCULO PAPAYO CARLSBAD CA 92009 ANDREWS FAMILY TRUST 7074 LEEWARD ST CARLSBAD CA 92011 ROUSH FAMILY TRUST 7075 WHITEWATER ST CARLSBAD CA 92011 OCONNELL TRUST 11-09-06 7076 WHITEWATER ST CARLSBAD CA 92011 SANDOW FAMILY 2005 TRUST 7077 LEEWARD ST CARLSBAD CA 92011 DUNN CRAIG&ANN 7078 LEEWARD ST CARLSBAD CA 92011 ZEISLER GWYNN D 7079 WHITEWATER ST CARLSBAD CA 92011 SCHOHL JOHN B&WENDY E 7080 WHITEWATER ST CARLSBAD CA 92011 NGUYEN TAP VAN LUU LOAN KIM 7081 LEEWARD ST CARLSBAD CA 92011 LOWE TERRY D&ALLICOTTI GINA M TRS 7082 LEEWARD ST CARLSBAD CA 92011 CHIEN DAVID DA-KWUN CHIANG HSING-HSING 7083 WHITEWATER ST CARLSBAD CA 92011 BRUMMETT GARY L 7084 WHITEWATER ST CARLSBAD CA 92011 LEEPER W STEVEN&MARTHA A 7085 LEEWARD ST CARLSBAD CA 92011 BISHOP MICHAEL&KENDRA 7086 LEEWARD ST CARLSBAD CA 92011 STONE ELISSA 2003 7087 WHITEWATER ST CARLSBAD CA 92011 HAINES RITA C 7088 WHITEWATER ST CARLSBAD CA 92011 LARKIN LISA 1006 SAGEBRUSH RD CARLSBAD CA 92011 WILLIAMS KEVIN F 7090 LEEWARD ST CARLSBAD CA 92011 SMITH MARK A MURMAN-SMITH CAROLINA 7094 LEEWARD ST CARLSBAD CA 92011 WRENN SUSAN K TRUST 7095 LEEWARD ST CARLSBAD CA 92011 VAUGHN BRAD 7096 WHITEWATER ST CARLSBAD CA 92011 NERO CHRISTOPHER P&LYNN R 7097 WHITEWATER ST CARLSBAD CA 92011 ADAMS JEFFREY T 7098 LEEWARD ST CARLSBAD CA 92011 NGUYEN XUAN D 7099 LEEWARD ST CARLSBAD CA 92011 THURM DANA P O BOX 965 SOLANA BEACH CA 92075 HALL PATRICIA A 7101 WHITEWATER ST CARLSBAD CA 92011 FARRELL FAMILY TRUST 13811 NOB AVE DEL MAR CA 92014 Etiquettes faciles a peler I Itilico? lo naharit AN/FRY® S1RH®Sens de eharaement Consultez la feuille H'inctriirtinn www.avery.com i.xnn.r;n.A\/pRv Easy Peel Labels Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5160® HOFRAN GREGORY J&DEBBIE R 2840 PIANTINO CIR SAN DIEGO CA 92108 Paper See Instruction Sheet j for Easy Peel Feature^ MEADOR JAMES W JR&KAREN A 7104 WHITEWATER ST CARLSBAD CA 92011 ^AVERY®5160® MERON FAMILY LIVING TRUST 7105 WHITEWATER ST CARLSBAD CA 92011 LOMBARDI CONCETTA 7106 LEEWARD ST CARLSBAD CA 92011 MCGUIRE MARC TRUST C/0 ROBBIE JOHNSON P 0 BOX 230850 ENCINITAS CA 92023 KERINS FAMILY TRUST 7108 WHITEWATER ST CARLSBAD CA 92011 RAMIREZ VICTOR E&JUDY P O BOX 1255 SOLANA BEACH CA 92075 VADNAIS PAUL J&CINDY 7111 LEEWARD ST CARLSBAD CA 92011 HARTIGAN LORI 7114 LEEWARD ST CARLSBAD CA 92011 MASTRES MICHAEL S&LORI 7118 LEEWARD ST CARLSBAD CA 92011 CONNOLLY PAULL W STEPHANIE N 7122 LEEWARD ST CARLSBAD CA 92011 HICKMAN BRENDAN P 7126 LEEWARD ST CARLSBAD CA 92011 LIPSEY ROBERT M 7130 LEEWARD ST CARLSBAD CA 92011 ATMORE MARGARET M TRUST P 0 BOX 33241 SAN DIEGO CA 92163 CHAPPEE FAMILY TRUST 654 N HIGHWAY 101 ENCINITAS CA 92024 LAKESHORE GARDENS PROPERTY 18915 NORDHOFF ST #5 NORTHRIDGE CA 91324 WAVE CREST RESORTS II LLC 828 2ND ST ENCINITAS CA 92024 ADDISON PAUL W&LINDA J TRS 1175 SOLANA DR DEL MAR CA 92014 ALCARAZ GREGORIO G&LUZ M G 7244 PONTO DR CARLSBAD CA 92011 GOLDEN DANIEL W 21360 CRESTWIND DR SAN MARCOS CA 92078 MCDANIEL FAMILY TRUST 14086 CAMINITO VISTANA SAN DIEGO CA 92130 YANEZ DUSTACIA TRUST 7264 PONTO DR CARLSBAD CA 92011 ESS REALTY II LP 260 W CREST ST #C ESCONDIDO CA 92025 SCHREIBER DALE&DONNA 7163 ARGONAUTA WAY CARLSBAD CA 92009 PONTO STORAGE INC P O BOX 23 CARLSBAD CA 92018 VANCLEVE WILLIAM&PATRICIA REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST 7301 SEAFARER PL CARLSBAD CA 92011 MURRAY DAVID 7302 SPINNAKER ST CARLSBAD CA 92011 Etiquettes faciles a peler lltilico-7 lo naharit AX/CDV®Ho Consultez la feuille www.avery.com Easy Peel Labels Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5160® CUTTER CHANTAL L P O BOX 163 WOODLAND HILLS CA 91365 See Instruction Sheet; for Easy Peel Feature ^ GROS PAUL T&LESLIE K 7304 SPINNAKER ST CARLSBAD CA 92011 [AVERY®5160® GORDON ROBERT A JR&PATTY 7309 SEAFARER PL CARLSBAD CA 92011 HAWKINS KATHERINE M REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST 7311 SEAFARER PL CARLSBAD CA 92011 WHITEHEAD RICHARD E 7313 SEAFARER PL CARLSBAD CA 92011 PINNOW JOHN M 1823 N SGREENLAND DR BURBANK CA 91505 LLOYD MICHAEL L&LISA 7321 SEAFARER PL CARLSBAD CA 92011 WAY DANIEL 7323 SEAFARER PL CARLSBAD CA 92011 ORDAS DALE E&RUTH H 7325 SEAFARER PL CARLSBAD CA 92011 ESMAN ASHLEY 1108 CHAMPIONSHIP RD OCEANSIDE CA 92057 JACKSON FAMILY TRUST 7332 ESCALLONIA CT CARLSBAD CA 92011 SABIN FAMILY TRUST 7333 SEAFARER PL CARLSBAD CA 92011 SALDANA ALFONSO&BEATRIZ 7334 ESCALLONIA CT CARLSBAD CA 92011 MACEY GERRIT B 34544 CALLE PORTOLA CAPISTRANO BEACH CA 92624 DALLERY FAMILY TRUST 7336 ESCALLONIA CT CARLSBAD CA 92011 MCLARTY MICHAEL R&CHERIE A 7337 SEAFARER PL CARLSBAD CA 92011 JONES JEFFREY T&SARAH S 2656 W CANYON AVE SAN DIEGO CA 92123 CHIU CHUNG-YEN&KEI-FENG 6995 SANDCASTLE DR CARLSBAD CA 92011 HENRY JOHN C&WONG DEBRA A 7342 ESCALLONIA CT CARLSBAD CA 92011 NGUYEN NGOC 7344 ESCALLONIA CT CARLSBAD CA 92011 ABRAHAMSEN JASON J&MICHELIN J 2918 N 67TH PL SCOTTSDALE AZ 85251 KAPAN CHRISTOPHER&TAMARA 7345 SEAFARER PL CARLSBAD CA 92011 BARONE SALVATORE&DENISE 7346 PORTAGE WAY CARLSBAD CA 92011 PALLEY MICHAEL H&JOAN F 320 NEBBIOLO CT EL DORADO HILLS CA 95762 SHAW JAMES J&BONNIE D 7348 ESCALLONIA CT CARLSBAD CA 92011 DIVITA FAMILY TRUST 7348 PORTAGE WAY CARLSBAD CA 92011 WILSON KEVIN 7349 SEAFARER PL CARLSBAD CA 92011 CAPPOS JULIANNE E P 0 BOX 9404 RANCHO SANTA FE CA 92067 CASAGRANDE ALAN&JULIA 7354 ESCALLONIA CT CARLSBAD CA 92011 PECK ANTHONY&MELODY 603 SEAGAZE DR #777 OCEANSIDE CA 92054 Etiquettes faciles a peler IP naharit AWCBV® Consultez la feuille www.avery.com Easy Peel Labels Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5160® i A j^Feed Paper See Instruction Sheet j for Easy Peel Feature ^ SIEMIENOWSKI JOSEPH&IRINA 10561 SAND CRAB PL SAN DIEGO CA 92130 PUTRIS ALEXANDER C 7357 PORTAGE WAY CARLSBAD CA 92011 IAVERY®5160® MIRON ROBERT J TAYLOR JOANNA B 7357 SEAFARER PL CARLSBAD CA 92011 GRADY FRANK J&RENEE E 7358 ESCALLONIA CT CARLSBAD CA 92011 APPLE STEVEN A&REBECCA 7358 SEAFARER PL CARLSBAD CA 92011 SONEFELDT PAUL L&KAREN L 20535 LONGBAY DR YORBA LINDA CA 92887 SWAN JUDITH D 1993 TRUST 213 VIA TRINITA APTOS CA 95003 PETERS RICK C 7360 ESCALLONIA CT CARLSBAD CA 92011 TURNBULL HOLLY C 7360 SEAFARER PL CARLSBAD CA 92011 PALEN BARBARA A 7361 PORTAGE WAY CARLSBAD CA 92011 GELLER LARRY D 7361 SEAFARER PL CARLSBAD CA 92011 LANE JANICE I 7362 ESCALLONIA CT CARLSBAD CA 92011 FARMER DOUGLAS G&GLORIA C 9123 SAWYER ST LOS ANGELES CA 90035 JANIK JILL 7363 PORTAGE WAY CARLSBAD CA 92011 HUANG QIUYING 7364 ESCALLONIA CT CARLSBAD CA 92011 LIN SENMAO&WU JIE 7364 SEAFARER PL CARLSBAD CA 92011 COWAN DENNIS C&VALERIE J 7366 ESCALLONIA CT CARLSBAD CA 92011 CRAMER FAMILY 7366 SEAFARER PL CARLSBAD CA 92011 FERRANTE MICHAEL&HEATHER 7367 SEAFARER PL CARLSBAD CA 92011 RADETZKY ALEXANDER&LILLIAN 23001 ASPAN ST LAKE FOREST CA 92630 COHEN JONATHAN H PINI MARGUERITE 7368 PORTAGE WAY CARLSBAD CA 92011 PENCE BRIAN L&CHARLOTTE T 7370 PORTAGE WAY CARLSBAD CA 92011 HAYES JOHN E&JO A 7372 ESCALLONIA CT CARLSBAD CA 92011 RYAN DAVID MELENDEZ LAURA L 7372 PORTAGE WAY CARLSBAD CA 92011 BLACK KATHLEEN E 9665 GRANITE RIDGE DR #400 SAN DIEGO CA 92123 FOWLER JOHN A&HIDEMI A 7373 SEAFARER PL CARLSBAD CA 92011 DISEPIO DANIEL&RACHEL W 7374 ESCALLONIA CT CARLSBAD CA 92011 HARNETT MICHAEL K 7374 PORTAGE WAY CARLSBAD CA 92011 COVINGTON STEVEN&ANGELA M 504 BLACKSTONE CT DANVILLE CA 94506 ELLISON JAMES W&SHARON E 3351 KILAUEA AVE HONOLULU HI 96816 Etiquettes faciles a peler Utilisez le qabarit AVERY® 5160®Sens de charqement Consultez la feuille H'inetriirtir»n www.avery.com Easy Peel Labels Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5160® CATLIN LANA K 3750 RIVIERA DR #2 SAN DIEGO CA 92109 I ^ j^Feed Paper See Instruction Sheet j for Easy Peel Feature ^ SORCHY PAUL G&JULIE M P 0 BOX 2352 LAKESIDE CA 92040 ^AVERY®5160® NAZARIAN TAMAR 31776 VIA COYOTE GOTO DE CAZA CA 92679 LOAIZA JACQUELINE 10662 SUNSET RIDGE DR SAN DIEGO CA 92131 KLEINERMAN RITA TR 7379 PORTAGE WAY CARLSBAD CA 92011 MAGAS DALLAS 7379 SEAFARER PL CARLSBAD CA 92011 DEPAGTER LIVING TRUST 7380 PORTAGE WAY CARLSBAD CA 92011 GREELY ZETTLER JR&PATRICIA 7382 ESCALLONIA CT CARLSBAD CA 92011 JANC JOEL&LISA 7382 PORTAGE WAY CARLSBAD CA 92011 ZERFING DAVID BLACKBURN LAURE E 2412 ENCHANTMENT CIR HENDERSON NV 89074 WOODS MICHAEL 7384 PORTAGE WAY CARLSBAD CA 92011 OSTRIN FAMILY TRUST 7384 SEAFARER PL CARLSBAD CA 92011 CAUDLE SHERRIE 7385 SEAFARER PL CARLSBAD CA 92011 SCHULTE LANCE B&KATHLEEN J 7386 ESCALLONIA CT CARLSBAD CA 92011 SCHMIDT AARON R&KRISTI L 7386 PORTAGE WAY CARLSBAD CA 92011 ZYBURA MATTHEW M&TAMMY K 7386 SEAFARER PL CARLSBAD CA 92011 CHOI YOUNG ZIN&CHO-KYOUNG 200 HARBOR DR #1102 SAN DIEGO CA 92101 KAHN&MARCUS FAMILY TRUST 7388 ESCALLONIA CT CARLSBAD CA 92011 GOLDE AARON&N DIANE 7388 SEAFARER PL CARLSBAD CA 92011 ODOM JOHN 7389 PORTAGE WAY CARLSBAD CA 92011 BACHA MELODY J TRUST P O BOX 443 DEL MAR CA 92014 SCHLONSKY KAREN J TRUST 6 VIA SANTA ELENA RANCHO MIRAGE CA 92270 JOHNSON JOHN ROBERT 7525 NAVIGATOR CIR CARLSBAD CA 92011 TRAVIS PATTI 7391 SEAFARER PL CARLSBAD CA 92011 KERWIN MARK&ANGELA 7393 PORTAGE WAY CARLSBAD CA 92011 TABER ROBIN D 4700 SILVER RANCH PL SAN JOSE CA 95138 OFLAHERTY LOUISE 7394 ESCALLONIA CT CARLSBAD CA 92011 HANSCOM ERIC 7395 PORTAGE WAY CARLSBAD CA 92011 KHATIBI SHIRIN 2605 LA GRAN VIA CARLSBAD CA 92009 KING FAMILY 2006 TRUST 7396 ESCALLONIA CT CARLSBAD CA 92011 Etiquettes faciles a peler i i+:i:<-n-» In «-,u-...:* AWCDV® cicn®Cane Consultez la feuille www.avery.com Easy Peel Labels Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5160® WEAKLEY JOHN M 7397 PORTAGE WAY CARLSBAD CA 92011 Paper See Instruction Sheet; for Easy Peel Feature ^ NICHOLSON ELISABETH J 7397 SEAFARER PL CARLSBAD CA 92011 _iAVERY®5ieo® DPT FAMILY LTD PTNSHP 6776 LONICERA ST CARLSBAD CA 92011 BOTTEMA ROBERT A&TAMORA L 7399 SEAFARER PL CARLSBAD CA 92011 BOLHACK FAMILY 5130 N CIRCULO SOBRIO TUCSON AZ 85718 NORMAN GAIL L 7445 TRIBUL LN CARLSBAD CA 92011 GEORGE JOHN H&TREVA C PMB 351 7040 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92011 TRANG DUG V 7527 MAGELLAN ST CARLSBAD CA 92011 GRIFFIN JOHN J&VICTORIA L 7531 MAGELLAN ST CARLSBAD CA 92011 HECKER DEAN L 7535 MAGELLAN ST CARLSBAD CA 92011 SHADY ELAINE 7539 REEVE RD CARLSBAD CA 92011 STUCKI DUANE B TRUST P O BOX 660246 ARCADIA CA 91066 Etiquettes faciles a peler Consultez la feuille www.avery.com AM3AV-OD-008-1 B| zaijnsuco ap sues ®AM3AV ALICE SYBRANDY 7460 CAPSTAN DR CARLSBAD CA 92011 KELSEY LUNDY 7332 BINNACLE DR CARLSBAD CA 92011 GEORGE MURRAY 2459 TORREJON PL CARLSBAD CA 92011 GREG THOMSEN 7155 LINDEN TERRACE CARLSBAD CA 92011 MICHAEL BURNER 7017 LEEWARD ST CARLSBAD CA 92011 SHERMAN DEFOREST 7437 MAGELLAN ST CARLSBAD CA 92011 PATRICIA MEEHAN 7437 MAGELLAN ST CARLSBAD CA 92011 TODD CARDIFF 1516 PLUM ST SAN DIEGO CA 92106 DALE ORDAS 7325 SEAFARER PL CARLSBAD CA 92011 RENATA BREISACHER MULRY P.O. BOX 130215 CARLSBAD,CA92013 JOYCE PAGE 6524 EASY ST CARLSBAD,CA92011 SAN DIEGO COUNTY ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOCIETY ONC P.O. BOX 81106 SAN DIEGO, CA 92138-1106 ROBERT MUELLER 624 BROOKSIDE CT CARLSBAD, CA 92011 CAROL A. TREFRY 7321 SEAFARER PL CARLSBAD,CA92011 MICHAEL R MCLARTY 7337 SEAFARER PL CARLSBAD, CA 92009 VICKY MANN 506 DEW POINT AVE CARLSBAD,CA92011 C. ANN MUELLER 624 BROOKSIDE CT CARLSBAD,CA92011 KEN GREENLEE 539 WIND SOCK WAY CARLSBAD,CA92011 ROSALIE AND ROY SKAFF 527 MERIDIAN WAY CARLSBAD,CA92011 KURT LUHRSEN NORTH COUNTY TRANSIT DIST 810 MISSION AVE OCEANSIDE, CA 92054-2825 TODD T. CARDIFF COAST LAW GROUP 169 SAXONY RD SUITE 204 ENCINITAS, CA 92024 TRISHA MIRANDA LEUCADIA WASTEWATER DIST 1960 LA COSTA AVE CARLSBAD, CA 92009 JULIE GENGO P.O. BOX 217 CARDIFF BY THE SEA, CA 92007 HERB PATTERSON 518SOUTHBRIDGECT ENCINITAS, CA 92024 ROBERT A. ROSENTHAL P. O. BOX 965 SOLANA BEACH, CA 92076 LIZ KRUIDENIER 3005 CADENCIA ST CARLSBAD, CA 92009 DANIEL DOWNING 6580 RED KNOT ST CARLSBAD,CA92011 RICHARD JABCZYNSKI 9610 WAPLES ST SAN DIEGO, CA 92121-2992 FRED SANDQUIST P. O. BOX 130491 CARLSBAD, CA 92015-0491 SHANNON KEITHLEY 8315 CENTURY PARK CT SAN DIEGO, CA 92123 jaaj Aseg joj jaded T ®(ms Sjaqei |aa<j Aseg AH3AV-O9-008-1 RUSSELL ROMO 1889 SUNSET DR VISTA, CA 92081 e| iuauia6jeip ap SUBS ®09LS T J3|3d e iueqe6 a| SUSAN BALDWIN 401 B STREET SUITE 800 SAN DIEGO, CA 92101-4231 COLIN HUNTERNER 2349 CARING A WAY #1 CARLSBAD, CA 92009 BARBARA & STEVE GETTING 529 STERN WAY CARLSBAD,CA92011 GARY POWELL 7405 NEPTUNE DR CARLSBAD,CA92011 HWY 101 MAIN STREET ASSOCIATION ATTN: PATRICIA BELL, PRESIDENT 320 NORTH COAST HIGHWAY 101 ENCINITAS, CA 92024 BILL REYNOLDS 734 LA MIRADA AVE ENCINITAS, CA 92024 STEVEN & LORI VARGA 134 WINDVANE LANE CARLSBAD, C A 92011 jadej paajT ®091S 31\ndlAI3i ®AJ3AV esn siaqei laaj Aseq November 13, 2007 8ECDIEDWLE NOV 1 3 2007 CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY CLERK'S OFFICE n\ y/ TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM : HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR RE: AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 - REVISIONS TO PONTO BEACHFRONT VILLAGE VISION PLAN AND RELATED EIR Staff will be recommending some language amendments to the proposed Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan (Introduction Section) to address issues raised after the Planning Commission hearing on said item. Also, mitigation measure T-l within the Ponto Vision Plan EIR is proposed by Staff to be amended to indicate an increase in the estimated cost for construction of improvements to La Costa Avenue. Copies of the recommended amendments are attached to this memorandum. ease contact me at x2935 if you have any questions regarding this matter. DEBBIE FOUNTAIN Housing and Redevelopment Director C: City Attorney Interim City Manager City Clerk Community Development Director CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION SECTION 1.1: INTENT & BACKGROUND The Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan is intended to provide guidance for development of the Ponto area, as directed by the City of Carlsbad's General Plan and the South Carlsbad Coastal Redevelopment Area Project Redevelopment Plan. The Plan sets forth a Vision of what Ponto could be; presents goals and objectives that support the Vision; and provides an implementation strategy and design guidelines for the projects that will implement the Vision. The Vision Plan is intended for use by prospective developers and their consultants, City of Carlsbad staff, and those performing design review on individual projects. The conceptual site plan contains a level of detail necessary to visually depict the desired land uses, circulation, and major design components; however, it is recognized that actual development site plans will change, which is acceptable if the goals and objectives of the Vision Plan are still achieved^ PROJECT GOALS & OBJECTIVES The City recognizes the importance of the Ponto area relative to the City of Carlsbad. Its prime coastal location at the City's south edge, across from a State Park beach campground and near new single-family neighborhoods, offers the opportunity for the Ponto area to become an integral and vibrant part of Carlsbad, providing amenities for both tourists and City residents. The City's Goals and Objectives for the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan are: o Establish the Southern Coastal Gateway to the City. o Accommodate a balanced and cohesive mix of local and tourist serving commercial, medium- and high-density residential, mixed use, live/work, and open space land use opportunities that are economically viable and support the implementation of these goals. o Provide site design guidelines that require street scenes and site plans to respect pedestrian scale and express a cohesive and high-quality architectural theme. o Establish a pattern of pedestrian and bicycle accessibility that links the planning areas internally as well as with adjacent existing and planned pedestrian and bicycle facilities. o Provide expanded beach access. o Establish a mixed use district that encourages local and tourist- oriented retail, commercial, recreational and residential uses. o Require landscape architecture that celebrates the historic past and horticultural heritage of the City. o Assure that public facilities and services meet the requirements of the Growth Management Plan. o Conform with the General Plan, Amended Zone 9 and 22 Local Facilities Management Plans (LFMP), applicable City ordinances, regulations and policies STUDY AREA The Ponto study area is an approximately 130-acre relatively narrow strip of land, approximately 1/8 mile wide and 1-1/2 miles long, located between Carlsbad Boulevard and tracks for the San Diego Northern Railroad. Portions of the Plan area extend north to Poinsettia Lane and south to La Costa Avenue. For purposes of this Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan, however, the area considered viable for future development is much smaller. It consists of approximately 50 acres, with its northern limit at Ponto Drive and its southern limit at the Batiquitos Lagoon (Figure 1.1). GENERAL PLAN The City of Carlsbad General Plan identifies Ponto as an area with special considerations ..---{Deleted: (as amended) and directs its development to be consistent with the goals, objectives and guidelines set forth within^the Ponto Vision and Land Use Strategy Plan (the Plan). Submittal of a Site _„--{ Deleted: conform to" Development Plan and other applicable discretionary permit applications ar^ required. ..- {Deleted; which will include review for consistency Twith the intent of this Ponto Beachfront —-—{ Deleted; conformancT Village Vision Plan and its Design Guidelines. The Plan's Design Guidelines supplement and are subject to existing regulatory controls, including the zoning standards adopted by the City of Carlsbad. The site plans are all illustrative and set forth guidelines and a vision. If the actual site plan for a specific development achieves the goals, objectives. guidelines and intent of the Vision Plan, it shall be consistent with this Plan. REDEVELOPMENT AREA PLAN As seen in Figure 1.2, a portion of the Ponto study area is within the South Carlsbad Coastal Redevelopment Area (SCCRA), which was established in July 2000. the SCCRA Redevelopment Plan gives the Carlsbad Housing and Redevelopment Commission the legal authority to use various powers to achieve the Redevelopment Plan's goals and objectives. A complete list of the original twelve goals for the Redevelopment Plan is found in Appendix 1-A of this document; however, the overall intent can be summarized as follows: o Strengthen and stimulate the economic base o Enhance commercial and recreation functions o Increase amenities to benefit the public o Increase and improve the affordable housing supply o Assure quality design in the area's development Development of the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan is the first step toward achieving the Redevelopment Area's overall intent. PLAN ORGANIZATION This Ponto Beachfront Vision Plan is organized into the following chapters: Chapter 1: Introduction This Chapter provides an overview of the Plan, including intent and purpose, Plan goals and objectives, background information on study area conditions, the planning process and public outreach activities, and how this Plan fits within the City of Carlsbad's regulatory environment. Chapter 2: Ponto Vision This Chapter defines the Vision for the Ponto area and presents the subarea land use themes, circulation patterns for vehicles, pedestrians, and bicycles, parking, streetscape and gateways, and desired Plan amenities. The site plans, including the specific land uses and development design, set forth within the Plan are illustrative and are provided as an example as to how the Vision for the area may be achieved. Alternate site plans may be consistent with the Plan if the goals and objectives and general intent of the Vision for the area are achieved. Chapter 3: Design Guidelines Design guidelines are provided for the subarea types: resort/hotel; mixed use/commercial; townhouse neighborhood and live/work areas. The guidelines address site planning factors, parking and circulation, architecture, landscaping, signage and public spaces/amenities. Chapter 4: Implementation Program This Chapter details the permit and entitlement process to develop individual properties within the Plan area and describes the general process phasing to implement various components of the Plan. Existing Plus Vision Plan Intersection Level of Service T-l: Impacts to the affected intersection shall be mitigated by implementation of the following improvements: La Costa Avenue / Vulcan Avenue: Install traffic signal with La Costa widening to facilitate intersection improvements. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, developers within the Ponto Area shall pay a pro-rata fair share contribution to the La Costa Avenue/Vulcan Avenue improvement. The pro-rata fair share contribution shall be paid to the City of Carlsbad City Engineer prior to the issuance of building permits. The pro-rata fair share contribution may be adjusted by the City of Carlsbad to reflect any changes in estimated construction and land costs (as described in Appendix G-2). The City of Carlsbad will retain the Ponto developers' allocated pro-rata fair share contribution until the City of Encinitas is required to collect said contributions. Developers with existing ADT credits within their Ponto property will be given offsets against their projected ADT's. This intersection is located within the jurisdiction of the City of Encinitas and the improvements to this intersection are already required mitigation as part of the City of Encinitas adopted North 101 Corridor Specific Plan and have been included in the City of Encinitas Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Future developers within the Ponto Beachfront Village shall be required to make a proportionate fair share contribution towards the improvements listed in Mitigation Measure T- 1. Based on cost estimates from the City of Carlsbad, the proposed road improvements associated with improving La Costa Avenue from Highway 101 through Vulcan Avenue, including the La Costa Avenue/Highway 101 and La Costa Avenue/Vulcan Avenue intersections, would cost approximately $,7 .352.505. This dollar amount is an estimate .,--{ Deleted; 5,335,000 based on current information. Annual adjustments shall be made as described in Appendix G-2. Calculations for the cost estimate are provided in Appendix G-2. As shown in Figures 5.6-8 and 5.6-9 the project would contribute 5,003 ADT to this intersection. IJie future development within the Vision Plan area shall contribute^ .' '" '''''''minimum gr^Vp'ercent (57603 AbT7i8j'6"OADT = 27%ybTiLe'to^'cost'or'^!,9857l76'' Deleted: Based on 2030 traffic volumes of 18,300 ADT, t -..... = ^.985.1761 This am^^ developments within the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan area based on the traffic ''--'"{ Peleted: s.33s.ooo they contribute to the intersection. '( Deleted: 1,440.450 \t\ji. ?, L\J\JI in LL inivio nrv/. 03// \V WORDEN WILLIAMS APC Representing Public Agencies. Private Entities, and Individuals November 9,2007 AGENDAITEM* « Mayor City Council City Manager City Attorney City Clerk Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 Re: Ponto Beachfront Vision Plan General Plan Amendment Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council: This letter is written on behalf of Bob Lipsey, a resident of the Hanover Beach Colony to the north of the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan area. Mr. Lipsey resides at 7130 Leeward Street, Carlsbad, California 92011. Mr. Lipsey's home, and several homes on each side of his, are in the unique position of directly facing property within the Draft Vision Plan area. Mr, Lipsey's home faces the property that is currently designated for the "Garden Hotel" in the Draft Vision Plan. We have provided several letters to the City detailing Mr. Lipsey's concerns regarding tile Ponto Vision Plan, which are incorporated by reference. While we appreciate that Staff has made some effort to address Mr. Lipsey's concerns, unfortunately at this point the efforts are not enough. The Ponto Vision Plan General Plan Amendment continues to provide a "concept" for the Hilton Garden Hotel that will result in significant land use conflicts.1 We urge the City Council to amend the Vision Plan to specifically require a different "concept" for the Garden Hotel. An Application for the Garden Hotel is currently on tile with the City. The application is for 215 hotel rooms, a conference facility, public $pa, restaurant, cafe" and 3 story parking garage. (SDP 05-14; RP 05-11; GDP 05-43.) If the Vision Plan is not amended, then the application will be processed without appropriate guidance to ensure that the land use conflicts are minimized. Copies of some site plan and elevation plan pages that have been submitted as part of the development application are attached to this letter as Exhibit A. As it stands, the application appears to meet the "concept" of the Vision Plan and demonstrates how the Vision Plan "concept" will result in significant land use impacts, and that the Vision Plan is without adequate standards to reduce the significant land use impacts of this application. AREAS Of PRACTICE PUBLIC AGENCY LAND US6 AND ENVIRONMENTAL REAL ESTATE PERSONAL INJURY ESTATf PLANNING AND ADMINISTRATION CIVIL LITIGATION BUSINESS ATTORNEYS TRACY R, RICHMOND D. WAYNE 8RECHTEL KEN A. CARIFFE TERRY M. GIBBS KRISTEN M<BRIDE KEITH A. LIKER D.OWIGHT WORDEN W.SCOTT WILLIAMS Of Counsel OFFICE 462 STEVENS AVENUE SUITE 102 SOLANA BEACH CALIFORNIA 92075 (858) 755-6604 TELEPHONE (656) 755-5198 FACSIMILE www.wordenwilliams.com IIVI\L/LI» HiLnnmo ni v/ UW. OJM r \v Honorable Mayor and City Council November 9,2007 Page 2 In addition, the EIR must identify the significant land use conflict and require appropriate mitigation. The currently proposed mitigation does not adequately reduce the significant land use impacts that will result from development of the Garden Hotel to below significance, Description Of The Garden Hotel Concept In The Vision Plan The Ponto Beachfront Vision Plan has decided that out of all of the uses that are consistent with the CT zone across from the Hanover Beach Colony, for some reason a hotel is the best use for this location. The Vision Plan proposes a 24-hour Hotel and Conference Facility.2 Permitted uses for this Garden Hotel are specified on Chapter 2, page 16. The Vision Plan states that the Hotel is intended to be a moderate-priced, full-service visitor hotel with a conference center, meeting facilities and a restaurant3 On page 11 of Chapter 2, the Vision Plan contemplates a rather large 24-hour facility, and provides the following specifics about what kind of hotel should be here. • it should be a 3 story hotel with a conference center. • its main entrance and hotel facades should be oriented toward the Hanover beach colony. • second and third stories should be stepped back. • it should continue the public trail along the east side of Carlsbad blvd. • it should have a 2 story parking garage for guests and employees it should be oriented to allow access to ocean views. • it should have a tied pool and patio it should have a restaurant. • it should have a unique community amenity. • the comer should be landscaped to serve as a gateway feature. The Significant Impacts That Will Result From The Garden Hotel Concept Fundamentally, the "concept" in the Vision Plan that this land be developed as a hotel and conference center will result in significant land use conflicts with the adjacent single family residential neighborhood. We have detailed these conflicts in our previous letters. We have pointed out why such a proposal conflicts with the General Plan policies. We renew all of these comments for the record. 2 The application on file does not specify the total square footage of the development, but indicates that the meeting rooms alone are over 12,000 square feet The EIR indicates that the Hotel would have 215 rooms in a 24,000 square foot facility. (DEER p. 5.5-7.) This number is not supported by the documents within the application file.3 The Vision Plan states that if the market does not support a hotel at this location, then "it is intended that neighborhood or visitor-serving commercial uses could be located here." (Chapter 2, pages 16-17.) ni \, ^ \v Honorable Mayor and City Council November 9,2007 Page 3 We believe that the Vision Plan should propose a different use for this area, one more in keeping with the original intent of the PoinsetUa Properties Specific Plan for commercial services such as restaurants or convenience stores, or even a public park that will serve the residents of Hanover Beach Colony and beach users. The EIR Has Failed To Identify The Significant Land Use Impacts The thresholds of significance set forth in the DEIR provide that "A significant land use impact would occur if the proposed project would: ... create incompatibilities of land use on-site or with adjacent uses ..." (DEIR, p. 5.11-9.) However, the Vision Plan EIR failed to identify that there is a significant land use conflict between the 24-hour Garden Hotel and Conference Center and the adjacent single family residential uses. Significant land use compatibility impacts include, among others, a 24- hour entry way and a service yard directly across from homes. (Exhibit A, p, 1.) The vehicular and pedestrian traffic, light and noise from this "zone of activity" would be continuous and completely alter the quiet residential characteristic of the neighborhood. The residential homes adjacent to the Hotel will become de /acto parts of a hotel resort enterprise whether they like it or not, If the residents wish to be part of a resort experience, they will be in luck. However, for those who wish to go home and get away from the commercial resort facility, there will be no escape. The FEIR must acknowledge that placement of the Garden Hotel as proposed would completely alter the character of his currently, quiet residential neighborhood and represents a significant impact, We raised this issue in our comment letter, and City Response L-7 stated "The City does not concur that the proposed project would result in an incompatible use." We believe the evidence does not support this statement First, at least one Planning Commissioner stated that they believed the conflict existed, but felt that they were limited to suggest other uses for the Vision Plan because of the CT zone. There is no requirement in any planning documents, or in the CT zone itself, that prohibits the City from changing the use in the Vision Plan to something other than a hotel. Because the Planning Commission believed they could not change the use, one planning commissioner suggested that a complete redesign of the Garden Hotel was needed. Staff assured the Commissioner that the Vision Plan was only a "Concept" and that the redesign should be deferred until the actual Garden Hotel Application comes before the Planning Commission. Given these findings of significant impacts, the FEIR must be amended to disclose the significant land use conflict that will occur as a result of the Garden Hotel. y.i\i\ii j.-jirm HVIVL/C.H niLLinmo nru nv. Q'J i i XV Honorable Mayor and City Council November 9,2007 Page 4 The EIR Has Failed To Mitigate The Impacts To Below Significance Despite the fact that the FEIR does not identify the land use conflict, the FEIR makes an attempt to mitigate the impacts by a series of mitigation measures in the noise section of the FEIR In fact, additional mitigation was added in the FEIR as a result of our comments on the DE1R. We appreciate the attempts to mitigate the impacts, and in a good faith effort we proposed language changes to the mitigation measures in order to address our concerns. However, our revised mitigation measures were not adopted by the Planning Commission, although one mitigation measure was modified by the Planning Commission. Unfortunately, the mitigation measures, as currently drafted, do not reduce the significant land use conflict to below significance. We urge the City Council to adopt the following changes and/or clarifying language: Mitigation Measure N-3a (Page 2-35) Prior to final discretionary development approval, property owners within the Ponto Area shall prepare a site-specific noise analysis to the satisfaction of the City Director of Planning, which demonstrates that mobile and stationary noise sources would not exceed maximum interior noise level criteria established for residential uses in the City General Plan and that maximum exterior noise levels have been mitigated to the maximum extent feasible for all existing and proposed residential uses within or adjacent to the Ponto Area. The acoustical reports shall also be prepared pursuant to the City of Carlsbad Noise Guictefines Manual, The analysis shall verify that existing apd proposed residences are adequately shielded and/or located at an adequate distance from mobile and stationary noise sources in order to comply with the City's noise standards. Individual developments shall, to the maximum extent feasible, implement site-planning techniques such as: • Increasing the distance between the noise source and the receiver, • Using non-noise sensitive structures such as garages to shield noise-sensitive areas; • Orienting buildings to shield outdoor spaces from a noise source; • Orienting non-noise generating uses toward existing adjacent residential uses; • Routing commercial truck traffic away from more noise-sensitive existing and proposed uses within and adjacent to the Ponto Area, • Individual developments shall incorporate architectural design strategies, which reduce the exposure of existing and proposed noise-sensitive spaces to stationary noise sources (i.e., placing bedrooms or balconies on the side of the house facing away from the noise sources). These design strategies shall be implemented based on recommendations of acoustical analysis for IIUIM/ Lll It 1 L L 1 niTIU fll V O'J I I Honorable Mayor and City Council November 9, 2007 PageS individual developments as required by the City'to comply with City noise standards; Individual developments shall incorporate noise barriers, walls, or other sound attenuation techniques, based on recommendations of acoustical analysis for individual developments as required by the City to protect existing and proposed residential uses and comply with City noise standards; and, Elements of building construction (i.e., walls, roof, ceiling, windows, and other penetrations) shall be modified as necessary to provide sound attenuation for existing and proposed residential uses. This may include sealing windows, installing thicker or double-glazed windows, locating doors on the opposite side of a building from the noise source, or installing solid core doors equipped with appropriate acoustical gaskets. Mitigation Measure N-3b -as modified bu the Planning Commission on 9/19/2QQ74 Through Site Plan review, and to the satisfaction of the final decision makers, the location of driveways, service areas and building entrances associated with hotel uses in the Tourist Commercial zone, to the greatest extent feasible, shall be located awav from existing residential uses and physically buffered with a combination of setbacks, landscaping, berms, and or walls to minimize mobile and stationary noise impacts on residential uses. Hotel operations are to be conducted so as not to intrude upon or impact adjacent residential uses. The Cifa will retain jurisdiction to work with the Hotel Operator to address neighbor complaints, if anv. and reduce land use incompatiblities. Mitigation Measure N-4a (Pace 2-36 though 2-37) Electrical and mechanical equipment (i.e., ventilation and air conditioning units) shall be located away from existing and proposed sensitive receptor areas. Additionally, the following considerations should be given prior to installation: proper selection and sizing of equipment, installation of equipment with proper acoustical 4 Mitigation Measure N-3b (FHR Page 2-36) Through Site Plan review, and to the satisfaction of the City Planning Director, the location of driveways, and service entrances, and entrances to the lobby and other principle public entrances associated with hotel uses within the Commercial Tourist (CT) zone shell be restricted to locations where such driveways and entrances access points are not directly across from existing residential uses. Hotel Operations are to be conducted so as not to intrude upon or imr uses. The Cifa will retain jurisdiction to work with fee Hotel Operator to address i if anv. and reduce land use incompatibilities. I1UV. J, £\I\J I J . 'J I r IYI HVJIWLU HILL 1HIYIO HIV/ Honorable Mayor and City Council November 9,2007 Page 6 shielding, and incorporation of the use of parapets into building design. Prior to final discretionary development approval, property owners within the Ponto Area shall prepare a subsequent site-specific noise analysis shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the City Director of Planning, which demonstrates that noise from electrical and mechanical equipment would not exceed maximum interior and exterior noise level criteria established for existing and proposed residential uses in the City General Plan and that maximum oxtorier-noiso levels havo been mitigated to the maximum oxtont feasible-. Mitigation Measure N-4b (Page 2^37) A bermed/landscaped buffer at least 50 feet in width shall be provided adjacent to the property boundary within areas zoned as Commercial-Tourist (CT) to distance future land uses from existing adjacent residential uses. Consistent with the City's Standard Conditions of Approval, the applicant shall submit, to the satisfaction of the City Planning Director, a Landscape Plan illustrating the buffer and the landscaping proposed. The Landscape Plan shall be consistent with the City's Landscape Design Manual. Adjacent landowners shall be provided with an opportunity to review and comment on the Landscape Plan prior to approval bv the j Mitigation Measure Via (new measure not in FEIR) All outdoor lighting proposed with development of lands adjacent to existing residences in the Commercial-Tourist (CT) zone shall be selectively placed and directed away from existing residences. Outdoor lighting proposed with development plans shall be reviewed and approved by. the__Citv as part of the application review process to reduce potential impacts relative to tight and dare. The internal circulation plan of the development plan will be reviewed to ensure that vehicle lighting is not consistently directed at adjacent residences. Implementation of the mitigation measures as described above would provide appropriate and enforceable standards to ensure the ultimate land use across from the Hanover Colony will, in feet, be designed in a manner that does not create incompatible land use impacts. They provide sufficient flexibility for an appropriate project, and at the same time, provide City staff with the tools necessary to implement enforceable and legally adequate mitigation measures. From a practical point of view, they would go a long way towards ensuring that the Council appropriately protects both the businesses and homes within the City. ivuv. ?. mvi j'.'jirm WWIM/CIV TTILLIMIVIO nrv> n\j. Q-J i i i. u VV/ Honorable Mayor and City Council W November 9,2007 Page 7 We respectfully request that the Council amend the Ponto Vision Plan, or in the alternative, implement the mitigation measure changes outlined above so that the Ponto Vision Plan can be something that is beneficial to the entire community. Very truly yours, WORDEN WILLIAMS, APC D. Wayne Brechtel dwb@woidenwilfiams.com DWBilg Enclosures cc: Client . « ' IVUY. 7. L \J\I I J . J I I HI IIWINU LIU H 1 L L 1 HHIiJ n I 11V, U J NUV.j:5onvi yyiiiiHivib NU.K. IU ,•8 B HILTON CABI5HAD BHACH RffiOKt ft SPA e Wo CD NUV. y. zuu/WILLIHIVIO . 03 // r. i 8G3 > i-i HILTON SBSOB.T ft SPA E m NUV.j:rjonvi nrv,. u j it i . i Z UJ I-Z§ li, O .£ EXHIBITS NUV. y. zuu/NllLlttlYlO I1U. O'J /r. o. Z'o Zo 303 X Z111o£<VI 0Iui s3 i«s 2f 6•o ±P4 I icsI 4 oo,e Q. g | o< G£ Ul fc XV AGENDA ITEM*. Mayorc: City Council City Manager City Attorney City Clerk A SEP 2007 Planning Department Carlsbad September 10, 2007 Christer Westman City of Carlsbad, Planning Department 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 RE: Ponto Vision Plan ' — Dear Mr. Westman: I have attended two of the meetings regarding the above subject, the first in 2004. I have never spoken or written regarding my opinions: ** The density of the plan is far too extreme; traffic and noise are the two biggest issues that I'm concerned about....regardless of any EIR "opinion" on the subject. ** Related to density is the issue of three-story structure's. There are no other structures in the area greater than two stories, and I think that three-story structures should NOT be allowed in the Plan. ** The "parkland" and parking for beachgoers and local residents is insufficient. If you've ever been in the area on a summer weekend you will understand that the area is already crowded with visitors. ** Parking structures in the area will be an eyesore. While my own view is unaffected, I think it is not in the best interest of the City to have the proposed parking structures above grade or otherwise visible in any way. While they might be necessary they must be underground. ** Any project that proposes exclusion of the public for any reason should not be allowed. A timeshare, if approved, must allow the public to use the streets, enjoy the views, and eat in the restaurants if they so choose. Some timeshares seek to make the grounds for "members only". I agree that the City should have a very nice "southern gateway". That gateway certainly is not a three-story timeshare, even if they agree to allow a 45 foot strip to be used by the public. Nor is that gateway merely a small sign that says "welcome"...a true welcome would be a beautiful park with underground parking, many trees and trails, a coffee shop and perhaps a couple of restaurants. I think you'll agree that you would feel much more welcomed by the City if that was available at our "southern gateway". Sincerely, William Bradford, 505 Stern Way cc: Bud Lewis & City Council members San Diego County Chapter P.O. Box 1511 SurfriAr Solana Beach, California 92075 Foundation, Phone <858>792-"40 Fax (858) 755-5627 San Diego Chapter ;v £ Delivered via email and first class mail .-fi**i*November,2007 ^o*r Honorable Mayor and City Council C/OChristerWestman w May°r Carlsbad Planning Department . CttyConnctt 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 RE: FEIR 05-05 (SCH # 2007031141) Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan Honorable Mayor and City Council, The San Diego Chapter of the Surfrider Foundation submits these additional comments on the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan. First of all, the vast majority of San Diego Chapter Surfrider Leadership will be unable to attend the City Council Meeting on November 13, 2007, due to a scheduling conflict. We request the City Council re-schedule the hearing for later in the month. The Vision Plan has been in the public process for over two years. A slight delay in a decision will not prejudice the public, the City or any developers. Surfrider has been involved in this issue from the very beginning and wishes to participate in what may be the final hearing on this matter. Secondly, we urge the City to use its executive and budgetary powers to purchase a portion of the Southern Parcel. This parcel is extremely valuable to the public as open space. People have been using the southern parcel as a vista point to check the surf, observe the lagoon and enjoy the parcel itself for decades. The fact that the parcel is currently fenced (without proper permits), demonstrates a certain hostility toward public access that should make the City Council wary of any unwritten assertions of public openness by the current owner. Furthermore, the southern parcel is fantastic habitat for birds and other endangered species. As previously photographed by biologists walking the site, the California Gnatcatcher utilizes the site. It is common to see birds of prey circling over the site in search for rodents, rabbits and other food sources. The City should purchase a portion of the site to ensure that an appropriate natural buffer will remain to protect wildlife and the adjacent lagoon. The Surfrider Foundation is a non-profit grassroots organization dedicated to the protection and preservation of our world's oceans, waves and beaches for all people through Conservation, Activism, Research and Education. Founded in 1984 by a handful of visionary surfers, the Surfrider Foundation now maintains over 52,000 members and 60 chapters across the United States and Puerto Rico, with international affiliates in Australia, Europe, Japan and Brazil. For an overview of the San Diego Chapter's current programs and events, log on to our website at www.surfridersd.org or send email to info@surfridersd.orz. ••City of Carlsbad RE: Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan November 2, 2007 Page 2 of 2 Another issue which is extremely important to our members is the configuration of Carlsbad Boulevard. In some of the configurations of the intersection of Carlsbad Boulevard and Avenida Encinas, there is a left turn lane with signal. It is very important to choose an alignment that provides a separate left turn lane. Currently, northbound surfers and others who wish to access Ponto Beach turn right on Avenida Encinas and make a U- Turn at Ponto Drive. Once a hotel and commercial space are developed on the southern portion of the Ponto Village Vision Plan, it will be impossible to make a U-Turn at Ponto Drive. A left turn lane and signal is critically important to the safety and convenience of northbound traffic attempting to get to Ponto Beach. Surfrider strongly disagrees with the response to comments that no mitigation is required for the change in traffic patterns at Carlsbad Boulevard and Avenida Encinas for people accessing Ponto Beach. While the current traffic pattern is not acceptable, the build-out of the Ponto Village Vision Plan will greatly hamper reasonable access to Ponto Beach from the South. Thus, the project itself is causing an adverse impact to traffic at the intersection of Avenida Encinas and Carlsbad Boulevard. CEQA requires mitigation measures to avoid or mitigate the adverse impacts caused by a project. In this case, the developers should be required to pay for the improvements to mitigate such impacts. Finally, the Surfrider Foundation wishes to thank the City Staff for their cooperation and assistance throughout this process. They have patiently answered our questions and responded promptly to our requests. While we may or may not agree on the final chosen alternative, we look forward to working further with the City to ensure that any development meets both the planning goals and the environmental goals of the Community of Carlsbad. Sincepaly, Julia Chunn air Surfrider Foundation San Diego Chapter T6dd Cardiff, Esq. Advisory Board The Surfrider Foundation is a non-profit grassroots organization dedicated to the protection and preservation of our world's oceans, waves and beaches for all people through Conservation, Activism, Research and Education. Founded in 1984 by a handful of visionary surfers, the Surfrider Foundation now maintains over 52,000 members and 60 chapters across the United States and Puerto Rico, with international affiliates in Australia, Europe, Japan and Brazil. For an overview of the San Diego Chapter's current programs and events, log on to our website at www. surfridersd. ore or send email to infotysurfridersd.ors. PROOF OF PUBLICATION (2010& 2011 C.C.P.) This space is for the County Clerk's Filing Stamp STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of San Diego I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid: I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to or interested in the above-entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of North County Times Formerly known as the Blade-Citizen and The Times-Advocate and which newspapers have been adjudicated newspapers of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of San Diego, State of California, for the City of Oceanside and the City of Escondido, Court Decree number 171349, for the County of San Diego, that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy (set in type not smaller than nonpariel), has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit: October! 3th, 2007 I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated at SAN MARCOS California This 15th, day of October, 2007 Signature Jane Allshouse NORTH COUNTY TIMES Legal Advertising Proof of Publication of NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you that theCity Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold apublic hearinq at the Council Chambers, 1200 Carls-bad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:00 p.m.on Tuesday, October 23, 2007, to consider a recom-mendation for certification of a Program Environmen-tal Impact Report and adoption of the CandidateFindings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Consider-ations, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Pro-gram; approval of a General Plan Amendment andLocal Coastal Program Amendment to incorporatethe Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan into theLand Use Element of the General Plan and the LandUse Plans of the Mellp II and West Batiquitos La-goon/Sammis Properties Lagoon segments of theLocal Coastal Program; and approval of the PontoBeachfront Village Vision Plan on property generallylocated between Carlsbad Boulevard and San DiegoNorthern Railroad, north of Batiquitos Lagoon andsouth of Ponto Road and more particularly described the areas known as the Ponto Beachfront VillageArea generally located between Carlsbad Boule-vard and the San Diego Northern Railroad, northof Batiquitos Lagoon and south of Ponto Road Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal arecordially invited to attend the public hearing. Copiesof the agenda bill will be available on and after Octo-ber 19, 2007. If you have any questions, please callChrister Westman in the Planning Department at(760) 602-4614. U V If you challenge the Environmental Impact Report,General Plan Amendment Local Coastal ProgramAmendment or Discussion Item in court, you may belimited to raising only those issues you or someoneelse raised at the public hearing described in this no-tice or in written correspondence delivered to the Cityof Carlsbad, Attn: City Clerk's Office, 1200 CarlsbadVillage Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008, at or prior to thepublic hearing. CASE FILE: EIR 05-05/GPA 05-04/LCPA 05-01/DI05-01 CASE NAME: PONTO BEACHFRONT VILLAGE VI-SION PLAN PUBLISH: October 13, 2007 NCT 2096740 CITY OF CARLSBADCITY COUNCIL \VWORDENWILLIAMS ARC Representing Public Agencies, Private Entities, and Individuals November 9, 2007 AREAS OF PRACTICE Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 Re: Ponto Beachfront Vision Plan General Plan Amendment Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council: This letter is written on behalf of Bob Lipsey, a resident of the Hanover Beach Colony to the north of the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan area. Mr. Lipsey resides at 7130 Leeward Street, Carlsbad, California 92011. Mr. Lipsey's home, and several homes on each side of his, are in the unique position of directly facing property within the Draft Vision Plan area. Mr. Lipsey's home faces the property that is currently designated for the "Garden Hotel" in the Draft Vision Plan. We have provided several letters to the City detailing Mr. Lipsey's concerns regarding the Ponto Vision Plan, which are incorporated by reference. While we appreciate that Staff has made some effort to address Mr. Lipsey's concerns, unfortunately at this point the efforts are not enough. The Ponto Vision Plan General Plan Amendment continues to provide a "concept" for the Hilton Garden Hotel that will result in significant land use conflicts.l We urge the City Council to amend the Vision Plan to specifically require a different "concept" for the Garden Hotel. An Application for the Garden Hotel is currently on file with the City. The application is for 215 hotel rooms, a conference facility, public spa, restaurant, cafe and 3 story parking garage. (SDP 05-14; RP 05-11; CDP 05-43.) If the Vision Plan is not amended, then the application will be processed without appropriate guidance to ensure that the land use conflicts are minimized. Copies of some site plan and elevation plan pages that have been submitted as part of the development application are attached to this letter as Exhibit A. As it stands, the application appears to meet the "concept" of the Vision Plan and demonstrates how the Vision Plan "concept" will result in significant land use impacts, and that the Vision Plan is without adequate standards to reduce the significant land use impacts of this application. REAL ESTATE PERSONAL INJURY CIVIL LITIGATION BUSINESS ATTORNEYS TRACY R. RICHMOND D.WAYNE BRECHTEL KEN A.CARIFFE TERRY M. GIBBS KRISTEN MCBRIDE KEITH A. LIKER OFFICE 462 STEVENS AVENUE SUITE 102 SOLANA BEACH CALIFORNIA 92075 (858! 755-6604 TF1FPHONF (858) 755-5198 FArsiMILt XV Honorable Mayor and City Council November 9, 2007 Page 2 In addition, the EIR must identify the significant land use conflict and require appropriate mitigation. The currently proposed mitigation does not adequately reduce the significant land use impacts that will result from development of the Garden Hotel to below significance. Description Of The Garden Hotel Concept In The Vision Plan The Ponto Beachfront Vision Plan has decided that out of all of the uses that are consistent with the CT zone across from the Hanover Beach Colony, for some reason a hotel is the best use for this location. The Vision Plan proposes a 24-hour Hotel and Conference Facility.2 Permitted uses for this Garden Hotel are specified on Chapter 2, page 16. The Vision Plan states that the Hotel is intended to be a moderate-priced, full-service visitor hotel with a conference center, meeting facilities and a restaurant.3 On page 11 of Chapter 2, the Vision Plan contemplates a rather large 24-hour facility, and provides the following specifics about what kind of hotel should be here. • it should be a 3 story hotel with a conference center. • its main entrance and hotel facades should be oriented toward the Hanover beach colony. • second and third stories should be stepped back. • it should continue the public trail along the east side of Carlsbad blvd. • it should have a 2 story parking garage for guests and employees it should be oriented to allow access to ocean views. • it should have a tied pool and patio it should have a restaurant. • it should have a unique community amenity. • the corner should be landscaped to serve as a gateway feature. The Significant Impacts That Will Result From The Garden Hotel Concept Fundamentally, the "concept" in the Vision Plan that this land be developed as a hotel and conference center will result in significant land use conflicts with the adjacent single family residential neighborhood. We have detailed these conflicts in our previous letters. We have pointed out why such a proposal conflicts with the General Plan policies. We renew all of these comments for the record. 2 The application on file does not specify the total square footage of the development, but indicates that the meeting rooms alone are over 12,000 square feet. The EIR indicates that the Hotel would have 215 rooms in a 24,000 square foot facility. (DEIR p. 5.5-7.) This number is not supported by the documents within the application file. 3 The Vision Plan states that if the market does not support a hotel at this location, then "it is intended that neighborhood or visitor-serving commercial uses could be located here." (Chapter 2, pages 16-17.) \v Honorable Mayor and City Council November 9, 2007 Page 3 We believe that the Vision Plan should propose a different use for this area, one more in keeping with the original intent of the Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan for commercial services such as restaurants or convenience stores, or even a public park that will serve the residents of Hanover Beach Colony and beach users. The EIR Has Failed To Identify The Significant Land Use Impacts The thresholds of significance set forth in the DEIR provide that "A significant land use impact would occur if the proposed project would: ... create incompatibilities of land use on-site or with adjacent uses . . ." (DEIR, p. 5.11-9.) However, the Vision Plan EIR failed to identify that there is a significant land use conflict between the 24-hour Garden Hotel and Conference Center and the adjacent single family residential uses. Significant land use compatibility impacts include, among others, a 24- hour entry way and a service yard directly across from homes. (Exhibit A, p. 1.) The vehicular and pedestrian traffic, light and noise from this "zone of activity" would be continuous and completely alter the quiet residential characteristic of the neighborhood. The residential homes adjacent to the Hotel will become de facto parts of a hotel resort enterprise whether they like it or not. If the residents wish to be part of a resort experience, they will be in luck. However, for those who wish to go home and get away from the commercial resort facility, there will be no escape. The FEIR must acknowledge that placement of the Garden Hotel as proposed would completely alter the character of his currently, quiet residential neighborhood and represents a significant impact. We raised this issue in our comment letter, and City Response L-7 stated "The City does not concur that the proposed project would result in an incompatible use." We believe the evidence does not support this statement. First, at least one Planning Commissioner stated that they believed the conflict existed, but felt that they were limited to suggest other uses for the Vision Plan because of the CT zone. There is no requirement in any planning documents, or in the CT zone itself, that prohibits the City from changing the use in the Vision Plan to something other than a hotel. Because the Planning Commission believed they could not change the use, one planning commissioner suggested that a complete redesign of the Garden Hotel was needed. Staff assured the Commissioner that the Vision Plan was only a "Concept" and that the redesign should be deferred until the actual Garden Hotel Application comes before the Planning Commission. Given these findings of significant impacts, the FEIR must be amended to disclose the significant land use conflict that will occur as a result of the Garden Hotel. \v Honorable Mayor and City Council November 9, 2007 Page 4 The EIR Has Failed To Mitigate The Impacts To Below Significance Despite the fact that the FEIR does not identify the land use conflict, the FEIR makes an attempt to mitigate the impacts by a series of mitigation measures in the noise section of the FEIR. In fact, additional mitigation was added in the FEIR as a result of our comments on the DEIR. We appreciate the attempts to mitigate the impacts, and in a good faith effort we proposed language changes to the mitigation measures in order to address our concerns. However, our revised mitigation measures were not adopted by the Planning Commission, although one mitigation measure was modified by the Planning Commission. Unfortunately, the mitigation measures, as currently drafted, do not reduce the significant land use conflict to below significance. We urge the City Council to adopt the following changes and/or clarifying language: Mitigation Measure N-3a (Page 2-35) Prior to final discretionary development approval, property owners within the Ponto Area shall prepare a site-specific noise analysis to the satisfaction of the City Director of Planning, which demonstrates that mobile and stationary noise sources would not exceed maximum interior noise level criteria established for residential uses in the City General Plan and that maximum exterior noise levels have been mitigated to the maximum extent feasible for all existing and proposed residential uses within or adjacent to the Ponto Area. The acoustical reports shall also be prepared pursuant to the City of Carlsbad Noise Guidelines Manual. The analysis shall verify that existing and proposed residences are adequately shielded and/or located at an adequate distance from mobile and stationary noise sources in order to comply with the City's noise standards. Individual developments shall, to the maximum extent feasible, implement site-planning techniques such as: • Increasing the distance between the noise source and the receiver; • Using non-noise sensitive structures such as garages to shield noise-sensitive areas; • Orienting buildings to shield outdoor spaces from a noise source; • Orienting non-noise generating uses toward existing adjacent residential uses; • Routing commercial truck traffic away from more noise-sensitive existing and proposed uses within and adjacent to the Ponto Area. • Individual developments shall incorporate architectural design strategies, which reduce the exposure of existing and proposed noise-sensitive spaces to stationary noise sources (i.e., placing bedrooms or balconies on the side of the house facing away from the noise sources). These design strategies shall be implemented based on recommendations of acoustical analysis for Honorable Mayor and City Council November 9, 2007 PageS individual developments as required by the City to comply with City noise standards; Individual developments shall incorporate noise barriers, walls, or other sound attenuation techniques, based on recommendations of acoustical analysis for individual developments as required by the City to protect existing and proposed residential uses and comply with City noise standards; and, Elements of building construction (i.e., walls, roof, ceiling, windows, and other penetrations) shall be modified as necessary to provide sound attenuation for existing and proposed residential uses. This may include sealing windows, installing thicker or double-glazed windows, locating doors on the opposite side of a building from the noise source, or installing solid core doors equipped with appropriate acoustical gaskets. Mitigation Measure N-3b -as modified by the Planning Commission on 9/19/20074 Through Site Plan review, and to the satisfaction of the final decision makers, the location of driveways, service areas and building entrances associated with hotel uses in the Tourist Commercial zone, to the greatest extent feasible, shall be located away from existing residential uses and physically buffered with a combination of setbacks, landscaping, berms, and or walls to minimize mobile and stationary noise impacts on residential uses. Hotel operations are to be conducted so as not to intrude upon or impact adjacent residential uses. The City will retain jurisdiction to work with the Hotel Operator to address neighbor complaints, if any, and reduce land use incompatiblities. Mitigation Measure N-4a (Page 2-36 though 2-37) Electrical and mechanical equipment (i.e., ventilation and air conditioning units) shall be located away from existing and proposed sensitive receptor areas. Additionally, the following considerations should be given prior to installation: proper selection and sizing of equipment, installation of equipment with proper acoustical 4 Mitigation Measure N-3b (FEIR Page 2-36) Through Site Plan review, and to the satisfaction of the City Planning Director, the location of driveways, and service entrances, and entrances to the lobby and other principle public entrances associated with hotel uses within the Commercial Tourist (CT) zone shall be restricted to locations where such driveways and entrances access points are not directly across from existing residential uses. Hotel Operations are to be conducted so as not to intrude upon or impact adjacent residential uses. The City will retain jurisdiction to work with the Hotel Operator to address neighbor complaints, if any, and reduce land use incompatibilities. Honorable Mayor and City Council November 9, 2007 Page 6 shielding, and incorporation of the use of parapets into building design. Prior to final discretionary development approval, property owners within the Ponto Area shall prepare a subsequent site-specific noise analysis shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the City Director of Planning, which demonstrates that noise from electrical and mechanical equipment would not exceed maximum interior and exterior noise level criteria established for existing and proposed residential uses in the City General Plan and that maximum exterior noise levels have been mitigated to the maximum extent feasible. Mitigation Measure N-4b (Page 2-37) A bermed/landscaped buffer at least 50 feet in width shall be provided adjacent to the property boundary within areas zoned as Commercial-Tourist (CT) to distance future land uses from existing adjacent residential uses. Consistent with the City's Standard Conditions of Approval, the applicant shall submit, to the satisfaction of the City Planning Director, a Landscape Plan illustrating the buffer and the landscaping proposed. The Landscape Plan shall be consistent with the City's Landscape Design Manual. Adjacent landowners shall be provided with an opportunity to review and comment on the Landscape Plan prior to approval by the City Planning Director. Mitigation Measure Via (new measure not in FEIR) All outdoor lighting proposed with development of lands adjacent to existing residences in the Commercial-Tourist (CT) zone shall be selectively placed and directed away from existing residences. Outdoor lighting proposed with development plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City as part of the application review process to reduce potential impacts relative to light and glare. The internal circulation plan of the development plan will be reviewed to ensure that vehicle lighting is not consistently directed at adjacent residences. Implementation of the mitigation measures as described above would provide appropriate and enforceable standards to ensure the ultimate land use across from the Hanover Colony will, in fact, be designed in a manner that does not create incompatible land use impacts. They provide sufficient flexibility for an appropriate project, and at the same time, provide City staff with the tools necessary to implement enforceable and legally adequate mitigation measures. From a practical point of view, they would go a long way towards ensuring that the Council appropriately protects both the businesses and homes within the City. Honorable Mayor and City Council November 9, 2007 Page? We respectfully request that the Council amend the Ponto Vision Plan, or in the alternative, implement the mitigation measure changes outlined above so that the Ponto Vision Plan can be something that is beneficial to the entire community. Very truly yours, WORDEN WILLIAMS, APC D. Wayne Brechtel dwb@ wordenwilliams. com DWB:lg Enclosures cc: Client CARLSBAD BOULEVARD EXHlBltA Page 1 of 3 MATCH _/ W-f EMTRy NORTH ELEVATION Scale 1/16" = I'-O" MATCH WEST ELEVATION. Scalel/16 " = I'-O" 0 16 32 48 HG H 1 U I. C L A Z 1 B B :::^PARTNERSSi N/ HnmaamrtoCaiurDrhtSat Ditto. CA. fimPh. <SSS) 376-3444Fan (SSS) 376-3515HILTON CARLSBAD BEACH RESORT & SPAa REVISIONS er DATE: SepU. 2005 SCALE AS NOTED SHEET-. A5.0 EXHIBIT A Page 2 of 3 SOUTH ELEVATION Scale 1/16" = I'-O" EAST ELEVATION Scale 1/16" = I'-O" 0 16 32 48 *-^.PARTNERSREVl OATS SIM SHft J i SB: |iIf » S ^ 1i 1pa 1 j 3ION" j S E: t T: A G «»«! ik S S!Siptgs& III Carlsbad, CaliforniaBY epl ]. 2005 S NOTED 5.1 EXHIBItA Page 3 of 3 rnx CD CITY OF CARLSBAD PONTO BEACHFRONT VILLA6E VISION PLAN Garden Hotel Taking advantage of views toward the ocean and beautiful landscaping and plazas, the three-story Garden Hotel provides both hotel lodging and a small conference facility. Main entrance and hotel facades oriented toward the street create an architectural edge and attractive view from neighboring residential streets. Second and third stories are stepped back. Landscaped corner creates serves as a gateway feature. Public trail continues along the east side of Carlsbad Boulevard. Two-story parking garage provides ample parking for guests and employees. Building is oriented to allow access to potential ocean views. A tiered pool and patio area offer views to the ocean. A restaurant is included as part of the Garden Hotel development An Augusta-style putting course provides a unique community amenity in an otherwise difficult to develop slope. CHAPTERS- PACE 11 CITY OF CARLSBAD PONTO BEACH FRONT VILLAGE VISION PLAN SECTION 4.4 PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION To implement individual projects, developers must »J« Obtain needed permits from City of Carlsbad for specific project implementation. »> Areas of private development that are under jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and California Department of Fish and Game will need to obtain permits from those agencies for identified jurisdictional impacts, including: D 401 Water Quality Certification D 404 Clean Water Act Permit D 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement (combines the previous 1601 and 1603) *t» Land in the City-owned right-of-way that is under jurisdiction of the above resource agencies, becomes vacated, and is used for private development will need to obtain the appropriate permits listed above in conjunction with future private development *J* Process projects through environmental review. The following pages list the Vision Plan's major character areas, the parcels included in each area, and a summary list of anticipated actions required to permit the land uses. The summary list is not intended to be inclusive of all actions that will be needed to proceed with development Developers are advised to meet with appropriate City departments in advance of initiating project design to determine which type of permits will be needed for a specific project GARDEN HOTEL Property APNs: 214-590-04; 214-160-19; 214-160-24 REGULATORY INFORMATION Existing GP Land Use: TR/C Travel / Recreation Commercial / Commercial (APN 214-590-04) RMH/T-R Residential Medium High/Travel / Recreation Commercial (214-160-19:214-160-24) Existing Zoning: CT Commercial Tourist Other Applicable Regulatory Documents: Poinsettia Shores Specific Plan (214-590-04) South Carlsbad Coastal Redevelopment Area Plan (214-160-19, -24) Local Coastal Program DEVELOPER ACTIONS TO IMPLEMENT PONTO BEACH FRONT VILLAGE VISION PLAN •J* Redevelopment Permit •I* Coastal Development Permit <» Environmental Review •> Improvements Agreement with City CHAPTER 4- PACE 5 View from Proposed Hotel Entrance 150 Feet From Bob Lipsey's Front Door View from Proposed Hotel Entrance .150 FeetFromBob Lipsey'sFront Door II ~~"t;(;.,,,..."" 1II"","""I"''''!!''''''' --C.I.l~" .\:.n en I0 '.~,. '~~'; ",."p"''''''."'.",,,,, , A2.1 :II ..Ij:!I-! .1.,..- Ii [>"3 .1 fik',a ''': fi:1 t0 5J.. ""'Ii S) .. i "'....IBY CITY OF CARLSBAD Garden Hotel PONTO BEACHFRONT VILLAGEVISION PLAN Taking advantage of views toward the ocean and beautiful landscaping and plazas,the three-story Garden Hotel provides both hotel lodging and a small conference facility. Landscaped corner creates serves as a gateway feature. Two-story parking garage .,provides ample parkingfor guests and employees. €. Main entrance and hotel facades oriented toward the street create an architectural edge and attractive view from neighboringresidentialstreets.Second and third stories are stepped back. Public trail continues along the east side of Carlsbad Boulevard. An Augusta-style putting course provides a unique community amenity in ,an otherwise difficultto developslope..._'-"~-~--.'--~-'C:---'--- CHAPTER 2 -PAGE 11 LONESTARPROPERTIES GARDEN HOTEL VILLAGE HOTEL )--c==~ ~--- LIVE-WORKNEIGHBORHOOI)-MIXEI)USECENTER PONTOBDCHFRONTVILLAGEVISIONPLAN.LONESTARHOLDINGS HowesWeller&Associates LAND USEPLANNING AND CONSULTATION IIOr YO$WE ~ExhibitA ------------- ------m____--------no- -' Wildlife Movement Corridors between Batiquitos Lagoon in Carlsbad and Upland Preserves in Encinitas in Southern California Christina Simokat,Biology Department,California State University San Marcos,333 South Twin Oaks Valley Road,San Marcos,CA 92096 USA.E-mail:csimokat@gmail.com Submitted June 22,2002 Abstract Wildlife movement corridors,defined as strips of land or structures through which wildlife moves from one preserved area to another across human development,have become popular conservation strategies,especially for roads which have high direct mortality (roadleil/).While created corridors' efficacy is debated,it is generally agreed that natural corridors should be preserved This study determines.through roadkill counts,that an unimproved section of La Costa Avenue at Batiquitos Lagoon in Carlsbad in southern California is used as a natural corridor,and that a section of the road improved with an underpass shows success in lessening roadkill frequency.Management suggestions based on these findings include the installation of further wildlife deflection measures on the unimproved sections of La Costa Avenue. Introduction There are a number of definitions of the term "corridor"in use in conservation biology today.For the purposes of this paper,wildlife movement corridors are described as strips of land or humanmade structures through which wildlife moves from one area of preserved land,across human development,to preserved land on the other side,for various purposes (Primack 2000,Simberloff 1992).Creating,restoring or enhancing corridors to mitigate human development has become a very popular conservation strategy.This strategy is based on the equilibrium theory of island biogeography which suggests that corridors may increase the number of species accessing an area (Macarthur and Wilson 1967)and animals'ability to disperse into new territory,potentially even recolonizing areas of local extinction (Beier 1995).Theoretically,increasing species abundance and species richness should increase biodiversity. Roads are one of the primary targets for mitigating measures because of the high direct mortality rates due to cars colliding with wildlife (roadkill),in addition to the short-and long-term indirect effects (Table I).Typical measures include culverts, underpasses and overpasses.Though the biological and economic efficacy of these man- made movement corridors has been debated,it is generally agreed on that natural movement corridors should be preserved and enhanced where possible (Simberloff 1992). 1 In this study,I have assessed the movement of wildlife across a section of La Costa Avenue in Carlsbad,California,between the upland areas to the south and the wetlands to the north.I have used roadkill as an indicator of what species are moving across this road and with what ftequency.This will address the questions:1)if wildlife are using this road as a natural,unimproved movement corridor and where;and 2)if there is a difference in species richness and abundance of roadkill between the unimproved corridor area and the area improved with an underpass.I will offer suggestions for management of the area based on these data. Methods Site Description The area chosen for this study is the 1.7 mile stretch of La Costa Avenue (LCA),a major four-lane east-west road which forms the boundary between the cities ofEncinitas to the south and Carlsbad to the north in southern California.The city of Carlsbad owns the entire road up to a right of way of approximately 1.5feet on the south side. The Batiquitos Lagoon,managed by the California Department ofFish and Game, lies to the north.and is a preserved southern coastal salt marsh which was the focus of one of the biggest enhancement projects in the world in the mid 1990's.Its 600 acres contains several vegetation communities including Pickleweed series salt marsh,coastal brackish marsh,southern foredunes,coastal sage scrub,southernmixed chaparral.It is' home to many species of migratory and non-migratory birds,some of which are endangered.such as the California least tern and the Belding's savannah sparrow (Marcus 1989).It is ringed on three sides by development,including most of the hilltops but excluding the canyons in the south,and the fourth side opens to the ocean through ftequent dredging. To the south of La Costa Avenue are upland hills and canyons composed of coastal sage scrub,which is habitat for the endangeredCalifornia coastal gnatcatcher,and southern mixed chaparral.The tops of most of these hills are developed and there is much development further south.however,a significant portion of this area is classified 2 by the city of Encinitas,and soon by the San Diego County Multiple Species Habitat Plan,as biological open space (Map 1).Those parcels have conservation easements,but there is still more land that the city ofEncinitas is trying to acquire (pers.comm.G. Barberio).These are the closest preserve areas to Batiquitos Lagoon,the next closest being the Box Canyon area which is separated from the lagoon by a significant amount of development. There are no houses on the north or south side of LCA which contact the street or have a driveway onto the street However,Saxony Drive,a two-lane ro~intersects LCA almost exactly in the middle (approximately 1.0 mile to the east,0.8 miles to the west)and has a fruit stand at the comer with LCA. This segment of LCA is bounded on the east by EI Camino Real,a major road with legal speed limits up to 55 mile per hour,and beyond that,by a golf course.To the west leA is bounded by freeway Interstate 5,though the road does continue on west. I chose this section of road for study because it is between two preserved areas, one being a water source,which makes wildlife movement likely,yet there are no mitigation improvements until the underpass at the far eastern end,at the comer of LCA and EI Camino Real where Encinitas Creek runs underneath LCA to Batiquitos Lagoon. The preserved lands to the south may be the primary source of wildlife moving into the lagoon,as the next closest open space is separated by development. Data CoUection Beginning in September of 2000,I performed twice monthly roadkill counts as close to the second and fourth Sunday as possible on La Costa Avenue from Interstate 5 (1-5)to EI Camino Real (ECR).The dates were chosen because the streets are swept every second and fourth Monday,so the greatest number ofroadkill should be present on the road just before the sweeping.I checked with the city of Carlsbad Public Works Department to confirm that they were not removing a significant number of animals (Table 2). For each data collection session,I walked both the north and south sides of LCA, looking in the ro~on the median,and off the road into the vegetation as well.The first 3 walk on September 17,2000 included baseline historic data which were indicated in the Condition column of the data record sheet (Exhibit 1)and were not counted again.I was the only data collector September 17,2000 through November 2001.Beginning December 15,2001,my assistant,Kellie Geldreich,also performed data collection walks, having been trained by me. The data sheets included species information,a description of the condition of the roadkill to help determine how old it was,and a written description of the location where each animal was found and.a map where each animal's location was also indicated (Exhibit 1). A GIS map was produced based on these written map data points (Map 2) depicting the trends of movement across LCA. Statistical Analysis Chi-square tests were performed to find the statistical significance of the following:1) the difference in abundance of individuals of the five most commonly found species, excluding (i)unidentified species,on the east or west side of Saxony (Table 3);2)the difference in abundance of individuals of all species between the east and west sides of Saxony;3)the difference in the average speciesrichness and average abundance of individuals of all species found in the east and west unimproved sections ofLCA versus the far east section improved by the underpass;and 4)the seasonal differences in the average species richness and average abundance of individuals of all species. The test between the improved and unimproved sections of LCA was done with the average of individuals found on the unimproved part of LCA versus the number of individuals on the improved section with an underpass.Only individuals within 100 yards of the midpoint of the underpass and each canyon,west and east,were considered to standardize the data.The canyons were chosen after looking at the mapped data points to determine the areas with the highest abundance of wildlife crossing (Map 2).This resulted in 19 individuals for the western section and 21 for the eastern,with an average of 20,and 4 for the improved section.Unidentified (i)species were considered as one species. 4 The statistical seasonal differences also used (i)as one species,and did not count 5 individuals of various species from the first two roadkill counts in September of 2000 because their very deteriorated condition made it obvious they were more than a month old,so the season they were killed could not be determined.There were two years of data available at the time of writing this paper (May 2002)for each season except summer,so an average was used in the calculations.Roadkill counts are continuing and summer data will be collected and statistics recalculated. Results There were a total of 62 individuals counted over the 21 months,and 8 species identified. There were 36 individuals found on LCA east of Saxony Drive and 26 individuals found on the west. There were 11 individuals of unconfirmed species.Of those unidentified,6 were small birds the size of a sparrow,1 duck of unknown species,1 hawk wing,1 snake,1 small or juvenile mammal of unknown species,and 1small coyote or adult fox.The unidentified (i)species were put in that classification for two reasons.Firstly,if they could not be clearly identified because of damage,the misidentification could skew results,such as in the case of the coyote/fox.Secondly,they were classified as (i)if it was unclear that they were roadkill and not prey that a bird had dropped. The opossum (Didelphis virginiana)had the largest number of individuals found overall,but there was no statistically significant difference between the number found on the east or west side (Table 3).The next 4 most frequently found species were rabbit (Sylvilagus audubonii).raccoon (Procyon lotor),skunk (Mephitis mephitis)and coyote (Canis latrans).Of those,skunks and raccoons were found significantly more on the east side (Table 3),skunks not actually found at all on the west,and they strongly corresponded with the eastern canyon on the south side of LCA (photo 1,Map 2). The numbers of coyote east vs.west were not statistically significant,though this may be due to the numbers being so small (Table 3).One unidentifiable individual categorized as (i)in late July 2001 was noted to be either a fox or a small coyote.If it is considered a juvenile coyote,which is possible as no foxes were seen in this study.then 5 the p-value moves very close to 0.10,and may become more significant with the roadkill counts for summer 2002. The numbers of rabbit east and west were not significant (Table 3)but Map 3 shows that most of the eastern rabbits were very close to the midpoint of Saxony Drive. Pigeon numbers were also not statistically significant,however,it is worth noting that only two were found and they were both at the underpass at the comer of EI Camino Real and LCA. Total individuals on the west side also corresponded strongly to an undeveloped hill and canyon area on the west side of LCA (photo 1,Map 2).However,there was no difference found in species abundance between the east and west sides ofLCA (0.25>p>0.10). The number of individuals found on the unimproved section ofLCA was very significantly higher than on the section improved with an underpass (0.005>p>0.001), however,there was no difference in species richness (0.25>p>0.10).Of the 4 individuals found on LCA above the underpass,2 were pigeons,1 was a mouse,and 1was a small unidentified mammal,possibly a mouse. Seasonal changes in species abundance and richness are not statistically significant (abundance 0.50>p>O.25and richness 0.99>p>0.975).The data points mapped with GIS (Map 2)show a strong correlation of wildlife movement with each of the Encinitas canyons to the east and west of Saxony Drive (photo 1). Conclusions The data clearly show that animals are moving across La Costa Avenue between the preserves in the south and the lagoon to the north.Map 3 shows a strong correlation of movement to the two canyons east and west of Saxony Drive on the south side.Further preservation of upland habitat on the south side of LCA would be warranted to maintain or increase species diversity in the lagoon.The difference in species use of the lands east and west of Saxony Drive indicate that both areas require preservation and may possibly be separate corridors.The cities of Carlsbad and Encinitas may not be aware of how 6 many anima1sare being hit and killed by cars in these corridors,evidenced by the city of Carlsbad's data on dead animal pick-ups (Table 2). The finding of 4 or possibly 5 coyotes on the west side is interesting,if not statistically significant,and maybe due to the fact that there is less new development disturbing their territories in the west than in the eastern section which has a new shopping mall and more recent housing tracts being built Coyotes are important for the ecosystem as predators of opossums,skunks and raccoons,helping regulate their populations. The most significant finding is the difference in numbers of roadkill between the unimproved and the improved sections of LCA.The underpass,which corresponds with Encinitas Creek,shows tracks and sign of many animals crossing (personal observation 2002).My field survey indicated opossum,rabbit,coyote,and raccoon.This underpass appears to be successful in preventing roadkill,and this conclusion is underlined by the quality of roadkill species found above it -only pigeons and mice,which are very well- adapted to city dwelling and may have larger numbers in general. While there was no statistical significance to the seasonal changes in total abundance or richness of roadkill,there are notable trends.There are no opossum seen in winter,though it is the most abundant animal most of the year (Table 4).These data are consistent with known behavior of opossum (Alden 1998),which indicates that these data are not random.In fall and winter (Table 4),there are no unidentified animals.This may be because the breeding season is ending in fall and there are more adults found,which are easier to identify since they are larger than juveniles.Also,there is a decreasing need beginning in fall for adults to be travelling large ranges in search of mates or extra food for babies. Management Suggestions The success of the Encinitas Creek underpass and these roadkill data demonstrating use ofLCA as a natural corridor indicate the need to make improvementsto the sections of LCA corresponding with the canyons which are the heaviest crossing points (Map 2). Given that LCA was widened only a few years ago,it is not economically feasible to 7 install more underpasses or culverts.However~given that 6 out of 8 species identified are nocturnal,experimentation with a less expensive alternative~such as Strieter-Lite wildlife deflectors,would be warranted. In addition to that,I would recommend signage making drivers aware that they are entering a wildlife preserve ar~because LCA has become a major road with thousands of drivers daily (Soper 2000)at speeds well in excess of legal speed limits.At thosespeedsdriverswillhavedecreasedvisibilityand decreasedabilityto stop~. increasing the likelihood of hitting and killing wildlife. Further Research There has been some research into road design to prevent collisions with deer and large animals (Spellerberg 1998).However~the general habits~movement and behavior of the particular species of smaller animals found in the lagoon and upland preserves need to be researched further to discover what corridor design will best prevent roadkill of these species.What is the best deflection device:fencing~underpass~reflectors,or some combination of these?Is it better to have medians,and should they be landscaped with native plants?Should road shoulders be landscaped to the curb for cover,or should they be cleared for better visibility? Of the 11unidentified species~6 were small birds about the size of a sparrow. John Martin of United States Department ofFish and Wildlife saw a pair of endangered California coastal gnatcatchers crossing low on this section ofLCA (pers.comm.J. Martin 2002).More research should be done to document bird use ofLCA as a corridor~ though rather than roadkill counts,direct observation during peak hours of traffic may discover patterns and direction of bird movement. Finally,roadkill counts and analysis would be useful prior to the building or widening of any ro~but especially those in or near preserves.Identifying natural wildlife crossings before construction would lead to biologically and economically more efficient mitigation. 8 References 1.Alden,P.[et al.]ed.1998.National Audubon Society Field Guide to California. Chanticleer Press,New York. 2.Barberio,G.2002.City Development Department,City ofEncinitas.Personal communication. 3.Beier,P.1995.Dispersal of juvenile cougars in fragmented habitat.Journal of wildlife Management 59(2). 4.MacArthur,R H.,and E.O.Wilson.1967.The Theory ofIsland Biogeography. Princeton University Press,Princeton,New Jersey. 5.Marcus,L.1989.The Coastal Wetlands of San Diego County.California State Coastal Conservancy publication. 6.Martin,J.2002.Wildlife biologist.U,S.Fish and Wildlife,Carlsbad,California field office.Personal communication. 7.Primack,R B.2000.A primer of conservation biology.Pages 207-219.Sinauer Associates,Sunderland,MA. 8.Simberloff,D.,J.Farr,J Cox,and D.M.Mehlman.1992.Movement corridors: conservation bargains or poor investments?Conservation Biology 6(4). 9.Soper,S.March 19,2000."Encinitas working on funding for 47 acres of open space."North County Times.Encinitas,California. 10.Spellerberg,I.F.1998.Ecological effects of roads and traffic:a literaturereview. Global Ecology and Biogeography Letters.7:317-333 9 Photo 1.Encinitas Canyons south of La Costa Avenue showingBatiquitos Lagoon in the foreground (courtesy of city of Encinitas). . ""!:III'~~CIa ~ _111- ~~ 10 Table 1.Summary of negative ecological effects of roads and other linear developments (Spellerberg 1998). Sbort-term effects .Direct loss of wildlife (roadkill)and their habitat .Immediate habitat ftagmentation (loss of feeding,watering or breeding areas) .Damage and direct loss of soil and flora.Increased run-ofI .Air and water pollution .Microclimactic changes Long-term effects.Continuing direct loss of wildlife (roadkill) .Greater habitat loss due to light and noise disturbance extending into undeveloped area.Developed road avoidanceby wildlife.Decreased reproductive success.Population ftagmentation possibly leading to inbreeding complications .Increased dispersal of non-native plants extending into undeveloped area leadingto further loss of habitat and wildlife.Funher increasedrun-on:air and water pollution .Decreased biodiversity Table 2.Total dead animal removals by City of Carls bad on La Costa Avenue within city limits ftom June 1994 to April 2001 (pers.comm.G.Jones.Public Works). Coyotes 1 Dogs 3Ducks1 Opossum 4 Raccoons5 Skunks 1 Unknown1 Total 16 11 Table 3.Roadkill frequencies east and west of Saxony Drive on La Costa Avenue sorted by species for September 2000 through May 2002.P-value column indicates amount of statistical significance of frequency when chi-square test performed,significance being demonstrated with P-value <0.05. Table 4.Seasonalchanges in roadkill ftequency of individuals and by species on La Costa Avenue ftom September 2000 to May 2002. 12 Speeies and East of West of Total Number Statistical p-value Code Saxony Drive Saxony Drive of Individuals 0 Opossum 7 8 15 0.50>p>O.25not (Sylvilagus significant audubonil) i 5 6 11 N/A Unidentified B Rabbit 4 5 9 0.50>p>O.25not (Sylvilagus significant audubonil) R Raccoon 7 1 8 0.05>pO.025 (Procyon significant lotor) S Skunk 7 0 7 0.025>p>0.01 (Mephitis significant mephitis) C Coyote 1 4 5 0.25>p>O.1Onot (Canis significant latrans) M 3 1 4 N/A MouselRat P Pigeon 2 0 2 0.25>p>O.1Onot significant W Weasel 0 1 1 N/A (Mustela frenata) Total 36 26 62 O.2S>p>O.10not si2nificant Speeies Spring (Mar-Summer (Jun-Fall (Sept-Nov)Winter (Dee- May)Aug)Feb) Opossum 3 6 6 -- Unidentified 7 1 --- Rabbit 6 -2 1 Raccoon 1 3 3 1 Skunk 2 -2 2 Coyote 1 --2 2 MouselRat --1 1 2 Pigeon --2 - Weasel 1 ----- Total 21 (2001 and 11 (2001only)18 (2000 and 7(Decoo, individuals 2002)2001)2001,2002) Total species 7 4 7 5