HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-01-11; Growth Management Citizens Committee; ; Committee BusinessCA Review ______
Meeting Date: Jan. 11, 2023
To: Growth Management Citizens Committee
Staff Contact: Eric Lardy, City Planner
Eric.Lardy@carlsbadca.gov
Sarah Lemons, Communication & Engagement
Sarah.Lemons@carlsbadca.gov
Subject
Committee Business
Recommended Action
Receive presentations and discuss the following topics:
• Open Space Standard. Participate in a committee discussion to determine direction
regarding the Open Space standard – keep as is, remove or update. See Exhibit 1 for a
summary of the committee’s previous discussion on the open space standard and staff’s
recommendation.
• Parks Standard. Participate in a committee discussion to determine direction regarding the
Parks standard – keep as is, remove or update. See Exhibit 2 for a summary of the
committee’s previous discussion on the parks standard and staff’s recommendation.
• Climate Action Plan. Receive a presentation from city staff on the Carlsbad Climate Action
Plan - what the city is doing around renewable energy, power, environmental sustainability,
etc.
• Local Electric Power Generation and Renewable Energy and Environmental
Sustainability/Climate Change. Participate in a committee discussion to determine direction
for the following topics: local electric power generation, renewable energy, and
environmental sustainability/climate change.
• Water Quality/Stormwater. Receive a brief presentation from city staff on stormwater
capture and water quality in Carlsbad. Participate in a committee discussion to determine
direction on the topic.
• Senior Commission Committee Member. Participate in a discussion on whether to recruit a
new member from the Senior Commission. Per the Committee Charter, at the next scheduled
meeting, the committee will consider whether to recommend that the Mayor and City
Council fill the vacated position. Both the primary and alternate member have resigned so
there is currently no Senior Commission representative.
Fiscal Analysis
This action has no fiscal impact.
Environmental Evaluation
In keeping with California Public Resources Code Section 21065, this action does not constitute a
“project” within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act in that it has no potential to
cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical
change in the environment. Therefore, it does not require environmental review.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT CITIZENS COMMITTEE @) Staff Report
Public Notification and Outreach
This item was noticed in keeping with the Ralph M. Brown Act and it was available for public
viewing and review at least 72 hours before the scheduled meeting date.
Exhibits
1. Open Space Standard – Summary of Previous Committee Discussion and Options
2. Parks Standard – Summary of Previous Committee Discussion and Options
Open Space - Discussed September 22, 2022
Fifteen percent of the total land area in the Local Facility Management Zone (LFMZ) exclusive of environmentally
constrained non-developable land must be set aside for permanent open space and must be available concurrent
with development.
Key Takeaways from Committee Discussion
on Standard Options for Consideration
• Perception of unequal distribution of open space
throughout the city
• Seems arbitrary that standard isn’t applicable in LFMZs
1-10 and 16.
• An equitable assessment of access to open space across
the whole city is important
• Update of Proposition C property list may be
warranted; new proposition for additional funding
could be proposed/passed
• The 15% standard doesn’t solve all open space needs
(trails, etc.)
• Suggestion to recommend another ballot initiative to
increase City Council’s spending limit without a vote
(update Prop H to reflect high cost of land)
• Some members commented requesting
acknowledgement of impact of sea level rise on the loss
of beaches
• City’s Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Analysis identifies
coastal areas vulnerable to sea level rise hazards, such
as state beaches. State beaches are designated as open
space but are not part of the open space required by
the 15% Growth Management Open Space Standard.
1. Keep standard in as exists Growth Management
Program.
Staff recommends that the Open Space Standard
remain as it is in the Growth Management Program.
Because of the challenges in securing vacant
available land for more open space than is currently
planned, options for a different open space standard
are limited and involve additional cost to the city.
2. Remove standard from Growth Management
Program.
3. Change standard (increase, decrease, modify
metric, etc.).
Notes or Resources
Approved minutes from the September 22, 2022 Growth Management Citizens Committee meeting.
PowerPoint presentation from the September 22, 2022 Growth Management Citizens Committee meeting.
Agenda packet (staff report for the Open Space Standard item begins on page 6) from the September 22, 2022
Growth Management Citizens Committee meeting.
The Mar. 13, 2007, City Council staff report and final committee report can be viewed here:
City Council Staff Report
Final Committee Report (part 1)
Final Committee Report (part 2)
Final Committee Report (part 3)
Annual Open Space Status Report for Fiscal Year 2021-22
General Plan Open Space, Conservation and Recreation Element
Nexus/Funding Sources
• Developer Contributions
• General Fund
Carlsbad -v-~
TOMORR W
Parks - Discussed September 22, 2022
3.0 acres of Community Park or Special Use Area per 1,000 population within the Park District [i.e., city quadrant].
must be scheduled for construction within a five-year period beginning at the time the need is first identified [when
it is first identified that a park district has a deficit of park acres]. The five-year period shall not commence prior to
August 22, 2017.
Key Takeaways from Committee Discussion
on Standard Options for Consideration
• Investigate idea of citywide fee to get money up
front, as in-lieu fees paid into the accounts over
time
• Consider prioritizing park projects based on 10-
minute walk to serve residents that don’t have
parks nearby to help address issues of equity
• Consider prioritizing areas without parks within a
10-minute walk
• Questions asked if Park standard was exempt from
some areas, like the Open Space standard.
Although parks are a form of open space, the park
standard is applicable in all areas of the city on a
quadrant (i.e., park district) basis. The Open
Space standard applies in Local Facility
Management Zones 11-15 and 17-25, but not
zones 1-10 and 16; this exemption is only to the
Open Space standard.
• Question asked if park in-lieu fees could be used
to fund park projects. Park in-lieu fees can be used
for new parks per Carlsbad Municipal Code
Section 20.44.090. As of Sept. 30, 2022, the
amount of collected park fees available to use in
each quadrant is: NW $2.5 Million, NE $4.3
Million, SW $584,000, and SE $1.7 Million. The
amount of available collected fees in each
quadrant is currently not sufficient to acquire
land, plan and construct a new city park, in
addition to the existing developed and planned
parks.
• Environmental justice was briefly discussed and
how it applies to the city; currently no areas in the
city designated as environmental justice areas
• Are we addressing what people want out of parks?
In planning for parks do we also look at what
people need? (this is the focus of the Parks &
Recreation Dept. Master Plan, which is currently
being updated)
• Concern when passive open spaces are counted as
park space
1. Keep standard in as exists Growth Management
Program.
Staff recommends that the Parks Standard remain as it is
in the Growth Management Program. Providing
substantially more acres of park land per 1,000
population cannot be guaranteed due to the challenges
in securing vacant land available for parks (i.e., land
which is not already otherwise designated for natural
open space, requisite housing, or allowable
commercial/industrial uses) as the city matures.
2. Remove standard from Growth Management Program.
3. Change standard (increase, decrease, modify metric,
etc.).
If the committee wants to pursue recommending an
increase to the park standard, the following is an option
for consideration:
Increase the park standard to 4 acres per 1000
population, with added flexibility on how the standard is
met:
• Apply the standard on a citywide, non-quadrant basis
(most cities surveyed – Oceanside, Encinitas, Vista,
San Marcos, Poway, Chula Vista, San Diego – apply
the park standard on a citywide basis)
• Count the acreage of other recreational resources
toward a “Park and Recreation” standard, such as
The Crossings at Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course, city-
controlled trails, city-controlled beaches, the city-
leased Agua Hedionda Lagoon inner basin, and the
recreation facilities constructed as a condition of the
city’s approval for private developments.
Carlsbad -v-~
TOMORR W
• The impact of the homeless on parks needs to be
addressed
• Equal spread of large Veterans Memorial Park
across four quadrants seems to inflate quadrant
acreage total beyond the NW
• Counting golf courses as recreation area raises
equity issues
• Explore an increase in standard (look at adjacent
cities)
• Consider moving away from only measuring
community parks and special use areas
• Broaden concept of a park (e.g., community park,
neighborhood park) for all
• Breakdown standards per thousand based on park
type
• Take macro approach – citywide
• Interest in “Tier 2” standard shared as part of
presentation that could be applied to certain types
of projects (such as General Plan Amendments)
• Look into using density transfers to create park
space (and proactively address state
mandates/new policies for housing)
• Concern that lagoon trails are not counted as park
recreation
• Impact of new parks on transportation standards
should be consistently applied (Veterans Memorial
Park downplayed transportation impacts while
overemphasizing new park access)
Notes or Resources
Approved minutes from the September 22,2022 Growth Management Citizens Committee meeting.
PowerPoint presentation from the September 22,2022 Growth Management Citizens Committee meeting.
Agenda packet (staff report for the Parks item begins on page 24) from the September 22, 2022 Growth
Management Citizens Committee meeting.
Carlsbad Parks & Recreation Department Master Plan Update: City of Carlsbad (carlsbadparksplan.com)
The Carlsbad Tourism Business Improvement District Annual Report for FY 2018-19 indicates that there were 3.59
million visitors to Carlsbad during the reporting period.
Parkscore for Carlsbad, CA – TPL
Nexus/Funding Sources
• CFD #1
• Public Facility Impact Fees
• Park Development Impact Fees
• Developer Contributions
• General Fund
From:Teri Swette
To:Growth Management Committee
Subject:Carlsbad Parks and Open Space meeting held on January 11
Date:Sunday, January 15, 2023 4:33:53 PM
Hello Carlsbad Citizens' Committee,
As a long time Carlsbad citizen (28 years) I have of watched this city
grow. The openness of the community is what makes this city so
attractive. It’s quite misleading to call school yards and parking lots
“open space”. Therefore, please seriously consider the following
suggestions. Any mistakes cannot be undone.
-Keep the 15% per LFMZ, but eliminate exemptions so all zones are
treated the same
-Inventory all vacant/underutilized land for potential open space
-Remove the exemption on the 11 LFMZ's and develop transition plans
to gradually increase open space so that each part of the city has an
equitable share of open space- as was promised in 1986.
As for the parks
- add a standard for accessible, neighborhood parks. Other cities have
.5 acres /1,000 residents —often above the 3
acre minimum requirement per state law.
- do not expand what gets counted towards the standard —instead only
count school yards at 1/2 their acres to reflect restrictions on use.
- require a transition plan to accommodate these changes over time to
allow time for park impact fees to be adjusted and other revenues
sources developed.
Thank you,
Teri Swette
6810 Vianda Court
Carlsbad, CA 92009
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and
know the content is safe.
From:Lance Schulte
To:Growth Management Committee; Michele Hardy; Council Internet Email; City Clerk; Kyle Lancaster; Eric Lardy;"Smith, Darren@Parks"; "Homer, Sean@Parks"; "Moran, Gina@Parks"; Boyle, Carrie@Coastal; "Prahler,Erin@Coastal"; "Ross, Toni@Coastal"; melanie@melanieforcarlsbad.com
Cc:info@peopleforponto.com
Subject:Public input to the 1-16-22 Carlsbad Tomorrow Growth Management Committee, and upcoming Carlsbad CityCouncil and Parks and Planning Commissions - LCPA and Growth Management-Parks Master Plan Updates - Parks& Open Space
Date:Monday, January 23, 2023 12:40:29 PM
Attachments:History of Open Space at Ponto - 2022-1-26.pdf
Dear Carlsbad Tomorrow Growth Management Committee, Carlsbad City Council, Parks and
Planning Commissions, , CA Coastal Commission and CA State Parks:
As the City has requested specific reference regarding public input, I ask you to please deliver to the
those address this email and attachment as public input for:
1. the CTGMC’s 1/26/22 meeting,
2. the next Carlsbad Council meeting,
3. the next Carlsbad Planning and Parks Commission meetings on the Parks Master Plan and
Growth Management Program Updates, Ponto Planning Area F and Site 18 land use changes,
and Local Coastal Program Amendments, and
4. as public input to the CCC on Carlsbad proposed Local Coastal Program, and
5. as public input to Carlsbad’s proposed Local Coastal Program Amendment.
At the 1-11-22 CTGMC meeting questions logically arouse about how Ponto/LFMP-9 was falsely
exempted from the Growth Management Open Space Standards in 1986 when the two adopted
reasons for that exemption were not true per the City’s Open Space map/data base, air-photos and
development records, and the requirements of the Growth Management Ordnance and Open Space
Standard. People for Ponto Carlsbad Citizens have been bringing this up to the City since 2017 when
we first had City data that showed the GM Open Space Standard exemption was incorrect. Attached
is some more detailed data that provides a History of Open Space at Ponto – 2022-1-26. There are
more details and interesting bits of information, but the attached provides the basics on the History
and also offers some critical historical context for the CTGMC, Carlsbad Commissions, City Council
and Carlsbad Citizens to consider. I hope this is helpful.
The History of Ponto Open Space and historical context fits into the ‘CTGMP Key Issues and
Suggestions – 2022-12-6’ file and email to you on 8/8/22 and 12/13/22 that provides a time-tested,
logical, legal, tax-payer saving approach to dealing with the missing Ponto Open Space and need for
a significant Coastal Park at Ponto to serve Ponto and South Carlsbad and relieve Coastal Park
pressures on North Carlsbad.
Please know People for Ponto Carlsbad Citizens deeply care and love Carlsbad. We bring the data
and requests to you because we care. You have received well over 5,000 People for Ponto petitions
regarding Ponto Park and Open Space. During the CTGMC meetings many have spoken and
summited in favor of the issues identified in the People for Ponto petitions. I may have missed it but
do not recall any Carlsbad citizen speak/submit to the CTGMC in opposition to what People for
Ponto Carlsbad Citizens have provided you. As representative of the Citizens of Carlsbad we ask you
honestly represent the Carlsbad Citizen desires so overwhelming expressed to you.
Thank you, and with Aloha Aina for Carlsbad,
Lance
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and
know the content is safe.
Page 1 of 20
History of the false exemption of the Growth Management Open Space Standard provided Ponto
developers in Local Facility Management Plan Zone 9 (LFMP-9):
The history of how required Growth Management Open Space (i.e. unconstrained/developable land)
that should have been dedicated Open Space was, and is now being proposed to be, inappropriately
converted to Residential land use by a Perpetuating a False Exemption of the Open Space Standard
provided Ponto Developers. This False Exemption needs correction and restitution. Ponto’s False
Exemption of the Open Space Standard and the ‘amendment shell-game’ GM Open Space history is a
critical warning sign to the Carlsbad Tomorrow Growth Management Committee, Planning Commission
and City Council. Ponto is a critical warning that a strong, accountable and accurate Open Space
Standard needs to be established for Carlsbad Tomorrow, AND a Growth Management Open Space
restitution plan needs to be established and funded that corrects the False Exemption for Ponto
Developers. If Ponto Developers were required like other similar developers at the time (Aviara and
Poinsettia Shores, “urbanizing La Costa Zones 11 & 12, etc.) to provide the required Growth
Management Open Space some of the critical Coastal Recreation and Coastal Park issues and extensive
Carlsbad Citizen needs/demands/desires at Ponto could likely have already been addressed.
How citizens found out about the False Exemption provided Ponto Developers:
In 2017 for the 1st time the city provided the GIS maps/data base accounting of Open Space in the City.
The City did this a part of settlement to a North County Advocates citizens’ lawsuit. The City Open Space
maps/data base allowed Carlsbad Citizens for the 1st time the ability to see and confirm what Open
Space was produced by Growth Management (GM). The City’s Open Space map/data based for Ponto
(LFMP-9) documented that about 30-acres of GM Open Space was missing (see; Carlsbad Official Public
Records Request - PRR 2017-164). As required by GM, and as Staff has said, to count as GM Open Space
it must be dedicated and ‘unconstrained/developable land’ to meet the GM Open Space Standard.
Being able to see for the 1st time the missing GM Open Space was one of the key awakenings that
started People for Ponto Carlsbad Citizens. Below is the City’s Open Space Map for LFMP-9, with notes.
We have the City’s parcel-based Open Space data base that confirms all the numerical data in the notes.
Page 2 of 20
City GIS map of Ponto’s (LFMP Zone 9)
Open Space:
Light green areas meet the City’s 15%
unconstrained Growth Management
Program Open Space Standard
Most Ponto Open Space (pink hatch &
blue [water] on map) is “Constrained”
and does not meet the Standard
Aviara - Zone 19, Ponto - Zone 9 and
Hanover/Poinsettia Shores – Zone 22
all developed around the same time
and had similar vacant lands.
City required Aviara - Zone 19 east of
Ponto to provide the 15% Standard
Open Space. Why not Ponto? Aviara
had the same lagoon waters.
City required Hanover & Poinsettia
Shores area Zone 22 just north of
Ponto to provide the 15% Standard
Open Space. Why not Ponto?
Why Ponto developers were never
required to comply with the 15%
Standard Open Space is subject to
current litigation
Below is City GIS data from this map
City GIS map data summary of the 15% Growth Management Standard Open Space at Ponto
472 Acres Total land in LFMP Zone 9 [Ponto]
(197 Acres) Constrained land excluded from GMP Open Space
275 Acres Unconstrained land in LFMP Zone 9 [Ponto]
X 15% GMP Minimum Unconstrained Open Space requirement
41 Acres GMP Minimum Unconstrained Open Space required
(11 Acres) GMP Open Space provided & mapped per City GIS data
30 Acres Missing Unconstrained Open Space needed in LFMP Zone 9 [Ponto] to meet the City’s
minimum GMP Open Space Standard per City’s GIS map & data
73% of the City’s minimum 15% required Open Space Standard is missing due to over
development of LFMP Zone 9 [Ponto]
• j ••-.•~•I ; , .... ~ ..
0 ••
·-···
Q)l:ltl$~C~ 0Patt(f$
~ 1~PreseM11cno1H.111nfl-c:J Lf'MZ980unclt't
O :t•WOO<J'~ c:Jcc,ens.,_~
0
MlliJs
g ,-~~ .•;;·';.,.-.-::~.;•.-' .....
N
A
O ,oo 200 300 .4(1(1
Page 3 of 20
So were did the missing GM Open Space go?
In early 1985 prior to the Ponto’s developer (SAMMIS) annexing Ponto into the City of Carlsbad, San
Diego County’s LAFCO (local agency formation commission) General Planned and pre-zoned, Ponto’s
Batiquitos Lagoon waters and the lagoon bluff slopes as Open Space. This Open Space was “Constrained
Open Space” – State jurisdictional waters, and steep slopes with Coastal Sage Scrub (CSS) habitat. These
already pre-zoned constrained/non-developable Open Spaces were accounted for as part of the City’s
25% pre-Growth Management Plan Open Space, and per Growth Management can’t be counted in
meeting the 15% Growth Management Open Space Standard. The pre-zoned Open Space is shown in
the City’s Open Space map and properly marked as “Preservation of Natural Resources” Open Space
land. This already pre-zoned Constrained (non-developable, aka ‘Preservation of Natural Resources’)
Open Space land at Ponto was documented in the proposed SAMMIS Batiquitos Lagoon Educational
Park (BLEP) Master Plan MP-175 as Areas N, O, and P in the Land Use Summary below.
On Oct, 1 1985 Carlsbad approved SAMIS’s Master Plan and EIR to develop Ponto. SAMIS’s BLEP Master
Plan MP-175. Following are BLEP MP-175’s General Plan & Land Use Summary maps:
GENERAL PLAN
TS/C
TRAVEL SERVICE COMNERCIAL
22.6 AC
BATIOUITOS LAGOON EDUCATIONAL PARK
: SAMMIS PROPERTIES
EXHIBIT 1-C
Page 4 of 20
The BLEP MP-175 did include a variety of GM compliant Open Space.
12.8 acre Recreation Commercial land use that was playfields and Coastal Recreation site for
MP-175 and South Carlsbad. This is a Critical GM Open Space that was never dedicated.
A minimum 30’ wide landscaped Open Space on both sides of Windrose Circle that circled the
Area P. Windrose Circle was bordered on each side by 30’ of landscaped Open Space.
Additional minimum 30’ wide landscaped setbacks between buildings in Area A
2.8 acres of private recreation open space for the maximum amount of residential units
45’ to 50’ landscaped setbacks from the Batiquitos Lagoon Bluff edge (this was later developed
with Residential land use in some areas of Ponto).
75’ landscaped separation between Areas C and D
70’ landscaped separation between Areas D and E
25’ landscaped setback along Avenida Encinas for Area E
30’ to 80’ landscape setback between Lakeshore Gardens and Area F
25’ landscaped setback along Avenida Encinas for Area F
50’ landscaped setback between Areas F and I
75’ landscaped separation between Areas G and H
50’ to 80’ landscape setback for Area I between Lakeshore Gardens and between Area F
• • , _, _r,;,;Y; : :,. ,· .. t~:.;,~•.:c:,w
•• ' 7 _. -·. ~ .
• ;•-:~,..-;•• ~---... ~ •-w
, -'0...A-.. :--....___ .
_ .. -. -~--. ....__,_ ·,··· ..
. -'.~ .... ' .......
~~if~~a?:;Y.2;;w::~/::~~~,.:::·~:-,
CONCEPTUAL LAND USE PLAN
CONCEPTUAL
LANO USE SUMMARY ~-.i:~
7,100
•l 1J.OI 1~1
-\t I .,.. I •"°°°I 4,,l I
tl
~~~l~l:'IT():p:~~N EDUCATIONAL PARK=~:~~
~-':\~M1~ ~~:::: :~m:m~ :' : ~ # u&~: .,,••••••••••••R ••••••••••••••••••••• --
EXHISIT 111-B
Page 5 of 20
So, prior to Ponto being annexed into the City of Carlsbad in the mid-1980’s and prior to Growth
Management the Batiquitos Lagoon and lagoons bluff slopes (constrained and unusable due to habitat
and slope constraints) were already pre-zoned Open Space and General Planned as Constrained Habitat
Open Space. This constrained Open Space did not and cannot meet the 15% GM Open Space Standard.
In 1986 Citizens voted for the City’s version of Growth Management that included at New Standard for
Useable Open Space. The new standard was that 15% of all unconstrained useable/developable land
within a Local Facility Management Zone was to be dedicated as Open Space. Once the vote was in the
City adopted the Growth Management Ordinance 21.90 of Carlsbad’s Municipal Code (City Council
Ordinance No. 9791. (Ord. 9829 § 1, 1987; Ord. 9808 § 1, 1986)).
In adopting the Growth Management Ordinance 21.90.010 the Council Clearly stated:
(b) The city council of the city has determined despite previous city council actions, including
but not limited to, amendments to the land use, housing, and parks and recreation elements of
the general plan, amendments to city council Policy No. 17, adoption of traffic impact fees, and
modification of park dedication and improvement requirements, that the demand for facilities
and improvements has outpaced the supply resulting in shortages in public facilities and
improvements, including, but not limited to, streets, parks, open space, schools, libraries,
drainage facilities and general governmental facilities. The city council has further determined
that these shortages are detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare of the citizens of
Carlsbad.
(c) This chapter is adopted to ensure the implementation of the policies stated in subsection
(a), to eliminate the shortages identified in subsection (b), to ensure that no development
occurs without providing for adequate facilities and improvements, …”
The Citizens and Council recognized that prior City plans were not adequate to address the current (and
future) needs for facilities. Upon adoption of the New Growth Management Standards certain facilities
were already below-Standard simply based on the existing development and population. Growth
Management required additional facilities simply to bring the then current development/population up
to the New Minimum Standards. I am personally familiar with 3 GM Standards in LFMP-6 (old La Costa)
that I worked on – Library, Fire, and Park where already below-Standard i.e. existing
development/population in Old La Costa required more facilities to meet the new Growth Management
Standards. We worked to provide these new facilities for the existing development/population (i.e. fix
the Standard deficits) and then to also plan even more additional facilities at a ratio that met the New
Standards for the additional future development in Old La Costa. I can provide you some interesting
stories on that.
I also recall working on the surrounding La Costa LRMP Zones 11 & 12 that Like Ponto/FMP-9 were
considered “Cat II: Urbanizing” yet Unlike Ponto/LFMP-9 LFMP Zone 11 & 12 were not falsely exempted
Page 6 of 20
for the GMP Open Space Standard and had to provide the GM Open Space Standard of 15% of the
unconstrained/developable lands as dedicated Useable Open Space.
The Citizens vote on Proposition E and the subsequent Growth Management Ordinance 21.90 are the
rules on which the Growth Management Plans (both Citywide and 25 Local Facility Plans) are required to
follow.
To create the Citywide and the Local plans (Zones 1-6) for the largely developed areas the City needed
to temporarily pause development activity to allow time for city staff to Draft the Growth Management
Plan (my work as a city planner at the time was re-directed to draft growth management plans). So the
Growth Management Ordinance 21.90.030, established a Temporary Development Moratorium to
pause development processing activity while the Growth Management Plan was being Drafted.
Following is that language of 21.90.030. Notes are shown as italicized text within [example]:
“21.90.030 General prohibition—Exceptions.
(a) Unless exempted by the provisions of this chapter, no application for any building
permit or development permit shall be accepted, processed or approved until a city-wide
facilities and improvements plan has been adopted and a local facilities management plan for
the applicable local facilities management zone has been submitted and approved according
to this chapter. [Clearly indicates the exemptions in 21.90.030 are only from the temporary
development moratorium created by 21.90.]
(b) No zone change, general plan amendment, master plan amendment or specific plan
amendment which would increase the residential density or development intensity established
by the general plan in effect on the effective date of this chapter shall be approved unless an
amendment to the citywide facilities management plan and the applicable local facilities
management plan has first been approved. [FYI, this provision of 21.90.030 has direct
implications with respect of currently City/developer proposed General Plan/Zoning
code/Local Coastal Program Amendments now being pursued by the City at Ponto Planning
Area F and Ponto Site 18. The City did not and has not yet amended the CFMP and LFMP-9 to
increase the City/developer proposed residential density or development intensity at Ponto]
(c) The classes of projects or permits listed in this subsection shall be exempt from the
provisions of subsection (a). Development permits and building permits for these projects
shall be subject to any fees established pursuant to the city-wide facilities and improvement
plan and any applicable local facilities management plan. [Then lists various exemptions from
the temporary development processing/building permit moratorium in 21.90. The BLEP MP’s
exemption from the temporary moratorium is (g)]
(g) The city council may authorize the processing of and decision making on building
permits and development permits for a project with a master plan approved before July 20,
1986, subject to the following restrictions [this only applies to the “approved before July 20,
1986” BLEP MP, and NOT to any subsequent Master Plan Amendment]:
Page 7 of 20
(1) The city council finds that the facilities and improvements required by the master plan
are sufficient to meet the needs created by the project and that the master plan developer
has agreed to install those facilities and improvements to the satisfaction of the city council.
[The Ponto developer needed to provide the 12.8 acre Recreation Commercial land use and
install the GM compliant Open Space required in the 1986 MP175 but did not]
(2) The master plan developer shall agree in writing that all facilities and improvement
requirements, including, but not limited to, the payment of fees established by the city-wide
facilities and management plan and the applicable local facilities management plan shall be
applicable to development within the master plan area and that the master plan developer
shall comply with those plans. [this required the LFMP-9/BLEP MP to have 1) already been
fully developed or 2) have already have dedicated 15% of the LFMP-9 as Growth Management
compliant Open Space (i.e. Unconstrained and developable) to qualify for the Open Space
exemption later falsely noted in the city-wide facilities and management plan. As clearly
documented the BLEP MP did not meet the requirements to qualify for Open Space Standard
Exemption in the city-wide facilities and management plan. The section also requires “all
facilities” (including Open Space) requirements in the Citywide Growth Management Standard
to apply to BLEP MP, not provide a means for a false exemption of the Open Space Standard]
(3) The master plan establishes an educational park and all uses within the park comprise
an integral part of the educational facility. [“all uses” including the 12.8 acre Recreation
Commercial land use and all the other GM compliant Open Spaces are an integral part.
However the 12.8 acre open space land use was never built and the BLEP MP GM compliant
Open Space never dedicated.]
(4) Building permits for the one hundred twenty-nine [129] unit residential portion of
Phase I of the project may be approved provided the applicant has provided written evidence
that an educational entity will occupy Phase I of the project which the city council finds is
satisfactory and consistent with the goals and intent of the approved master plan. [Clearly
indicates the 21.90.030 exemption is only for building permits for Phase I of the BLEP MP. Of the
129 units only the 75 unit Rosalena development applied for and received building permits under
this exemption. There are some very interesting issues related to this Rosalena Phase I
development relative to GM complaint Open Space along the bluff edge that can be expanded on
later if the CTGMC has questions.]
(5) Prior to the approval of the final map for Phase I the master plan developer shall have
agreed to participate in the restoration of a significant lagoon and wetland resource area and
made any dedications of property necessary to accomplish the restoration. [Again clearly notes
the exemption only allows a final map for Phase I to be processed. The “lagoon and wetland
resource area” are part of the same constrained/undevelopable lands already pre-zoned prior
to the BLEP MP being incorporated into the City of Carlsbad]”
Page 8 of 20
The Aviara Master Plan (directly adjacent and east of Ponto) and was also being developed at the same
time as Ponto/BLEP MP. 21.90.030 also provided the Aviara Master Plan a similar exemption (h) and
similar lagoon related quid-pro-quo for that exemption. But Aviara did not receive a GM Open Space
Standard Exemption. :
“(iv) Prior to any processing on the [Aviara] master plan the applicant shall grant an easement
over the property necessary for the lagoon restoration and the right-of-way necessary for the
widening of La Costa Avenue and its intersection with El Camino Real. (Ord. NS-63 § 1, 1989;
Ord. 9837 § 1, 1987; Ord. 9808 § 1, 1986)”
Some City staff have incorrectly stated to the City Council that they believe 21.90.030 exempts
Ponto/LFMP-9 from the Growth Management Ordinance/Program or Growth Management Open Space
Standard. RESOLUTION NO. 8666- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA APPROVING TWO AGREEMENTS FOR BATIQUITOS LAGOON EDUCATIONAL PARK also shows
the 21.90.030 exemption was only for development permits during the temporary building moratorium.
In 1986 the City falsely exempted in the Citywide Facilities Plan all Ponto developers from providing 15%
of their useable/developable land as GM required Open Space. The City’s documented/adopted rational
in the Citywide Plan was that Ponto/LFMP-9 was 1) in 1986 already developed, or 2) in 1986 the
developer had already met the GM Open Space Standard by having already dedicated 15% of the
useable land as Open Space. Both situations were/are false. Any air photo map or even the 1986 LFMP-
9 clearly states Ponto was NOT developed in 1986, as only the Lakeshore Gardens existed and the
Ralphs Center was just starting construction. Also the City’s GIS Open Space mapping (see above) shows
that SAMMIS the Ponto developer (BLEP Master Plan MP-175) in 1986 had Not dedicated as Open Space
15% of the useable land as Growth Management compliant Open Space as shown/described in the BLEP
MP (i.e. the 12.8 Acre Recreation Commercial site and all the landscaped open space setbacks required
in the BLEP MP-175. If that 15% was dedicated in 1986 it would show-up on the City’s inventory of
Dedicated Open Space now. So how did this occur?
How Ponto’s planned GM Open Space was eliminated and replaced with Residential land use:
In late 1980’s SAMMIS the BLEP MP-175 developer started building the 75-home Rosalena Development
as the first part of Phase I of the BLEP MP. The City (based on my recollection was very desirous to
develop the BLEP MP) and required special time limits on the BLEP MP to actually advance building the
‘Educational Park’ with all the “initiated” land uses (including GM compliant Open Space) within a
certain period of time. SAMIS was having financial issues and difficulty delivering the BLEP MP land
uses. Amendments (A, B, and C) to BLEP MP reflected on these difficulties:
MP 175(A) to allow minor accessory structures within the rear yards of all Phase I single family
lots located in Planning Area “C”. [This is the Rosalena development that was part of Phase I for
BLEP MP. This amendment has implications on the landscaped Open Space setback along the
Batiquitos Lagoon bluff top, and the required Coastal access trail required by the Coastal
Page 9 of 20
Development Permit for Rosalena. This is an interesting history that can be explained later if the
CTGMC would like.]
MP 175(B) to realign Carlsbad Blvd., between North Batiquitos Lagoon and west of I-5 to
accommodate the Sammis Development was WITHDRAWN January 12, 1990, and
MP 175(C) a request for 5-year extension of time for Master Plan approval related to
educational uses on this project was Approved Planning Commission Resolution No. 2841, April
19, 1989 and approved City Council Ordinance No. NS-83, September 5, 1990.
SAMMIS went bankrupt around 1990 and Kaiza Development purchased the BLEP MP. Kaiza completed
the Rosalena development started by SAMMIS. Kaiza then sought to completely change the planned
land uses on all the remaining unconstrained/developable land in the BLEP MP.
General Plan and Master Plan Amendments eliminated/reduced BLEP’s Growth Management compliant
Open Space and replace with Residential uses in the “amended” Poinsettia Shores Master Plan:
When Kaiza acquired the BLEP MP-175 and its vacant land only the State Campground, Lakeshore
Gardens, Ralphs Center, and now Rosalena were approved/existing developments at Ponto. Kaiza
proposed a Master Plan Amendment to delete the BLEP MP-175 and all its developable land uses,
except for the only portion of Phase I developed – the 75 unit Rosalena subdivision. The pre-BLEP MP
pre-zoned (and General Planned) constrained/undevelopable Lagoon waters and lagoon bluff Open
Spaces and the CA Coastal Act (LCP) required bluff top setbacks were the only Open Spaces retained in
Kaiza’s proposed General Plan land use and Master Plan Amendments.
Most all of the BLEP MP-175 (and Ponto/LFMP-9) land area was still undeveloped at the time Kaiza
proposed changing all the General Plan land uses at Ponto and eliminating the usable Open Space in
BLEP MP.
Kaiza’s General Plan land use and Master Plan ‘Amendments’ made radical land use changes that
converted some critical Useable GM Open Space to residential land use and also reduced some GM
Open Space provided in BLEP MP. Following is Kaiza’s Amended General Plan land use map and bullet
summary of the major Open Space changes without getting into a very detailed forensic analysis:
Eliminated the 12.8 acre Recreation Commercial land use.
Eliminated the minimum 30’ wide landscaped Open Space on both sides of Windrose Circle for
the large unbuilt portions of Windrose Circle
Reduced by 10’ the landscaped Open Space on the smaller built portion of Windrose Circle
Eliminated on 40.3 acres the additional minimum 30’ wide landscaped setbacks between
buildings
Reduced BLEP’s 2.8 acres of private recreation open space to 2.3 acres
Except for the Rosalena (BLEP Area C) and (PSMP Area J), maintained the 45’ to 50’ landscaped
setbacks from the Batiquitos Lagoon Bluff edge
Eliminated the 75’ landscaped separation between BLEP MP Areas C and D
Page 10 of 20
Eliminated the 70’ landscaped separation between BLEP MP Areas D and E
Maintained the 25’ landscaped setback along Avenida Encinas. [However new Master Plan
Amendments MP-175L propose reducing the setback to 10’ on the undeveloped frontage of
Avenida between PCH and the railroad tracks]
Placed a road in most of the 80’ landscape setback between Lakeshore Gardens
Eliminated the 50’ landscaped setback between BLEP MP Areas F and I
Eliminated the 75’ landscaped separation between BLEP MP Areas G and H
Added a 20’ wide by 1,000’ long landscaped strip for an HOA trail
Kaiza’s Master Plan Amendment MP 175 (D) eliminated the 12.8 acre Open Space land use (with an
associated General Plan Amendment to add more residential land use) and reduced the other useable
Open Spaces required in the BLEP MP. When the 1994 Kaiza MP 175 (D) General Plan Amendments
were proposed, it seemed they voided the ‘1986 GM Open Space exemption’ that was clearly specific
only to the 1986 BLEP MP land uses and regulation. Although this was a false exempted, the exemption
only applied to the complete/integrated land use and open space provided in the 1986 BLEP MP. The
1986 exemption specific to BLEP MP could not apply to a different and later 1994 General Plan land use
plan that eliminated the 12.8 acre Recreation Commercial (Open Space) site to add residential land use
Al'PROA.
GROSS AC.
9.8
13.5
10.2
14.7
20.9
2.9
11.2
4.4
0.9
11 .3
8.4
3.7
11.9
13.8
18.3
4.6
2.3
Page 11 of 20
and that also reduced the GM compliant Open Space provided in the 1986 BLEP MP. 21.90.030(b) notes
that:
“(b) No zone change, general plan amendment, master plan amendment or specific plan
amendment which would increase the residential density or development intensity established by
the general plan in effect on the effective date of this chapter shall be approved unless an
amendment to the citywide facilities management plan and the applicable local facilities
management plan has first been approved.”
The 1994 Kaiza General Plan land use and Master Plan (MP 175(D)) Amendments removed 12.8 acres of
Recreation Commercial (GM compliant Open Space) to add residential land use. This violated
21.90.030(b) by doing so without a first providing a Citywide Facilities Plan Amendment that analyzed
the actual amount of GM compliant Open Space being proposed in the 1994 Kaiza MP 175(D) relative to
the 1986 BLEP MP on which the 1986 GM Open Space exemption for LFMP-9 was based. MP 175(D) is
noted in the MP as follows:
“MP 175 (D) Kaiza Poinsettia Master Plan To replace educational uses with residential land uses
And rename to Poinsettia Shores Master Plan (was) Approved Planning Commission Resolution
No. 3552, November 3, 1993, Approved City Council Ordinance No. NS-266, January 18, 1994.”
Kaiza’s MP 175(D) inaccurately and bizarrely claimed BLEP MP’s prior false exemption from the GM
Open Space Standard as the justification that Kaiza’s new 1994 Open Space land use changes that seem
to reduce the amount of GM complaint Open Space in the 1986 BLEP MP are also exempt from the GM
Open Space Standard. Kaiza’s MP 175(D) claims the pre-Growth Management and pre-BLEP MP
Constrained/Undevelopable lagoon waters and bluff habitat that per the 15% Growth Management
Open Space Standard CAN NOT be counted as meeting the 15% GM Open Space Standard can be
magically counted as meeting the 15% GM Open Space Standard. The GM Open Space Standard
specifically states that only Unconstrained/Developable lands CAN BE counted as meeting the GM
Open Space Standard. The stated principles of Growth Management, the Growth Management
Ordnance 21.90 and the Growth Management Open Space Standard DO NOT allow a developer or the
City to count already documented Constrained and unbuildable habitat (and water) as Unconstrained
and developable land. You can’t just turn ‘an apple into a banana by saying it’, or turn
‘Constrained/Undevelopable land into Unconstrained/Developable land by just saying it.
Compliance with the law in this Open Space issue is a part of a current lawsuit by North County
Advocates a group of Citizens watchdogs. The City has unsuccessfully tried to diminish this lawsuit. A
judge/jury will determine the outcome.
Additional MP 175 Amendments have been proposed by and approved to further modify land use and
regulatory limitations at Ponto. These include:
MP 175(E) Poinsettia Shores Master Plan, Redefinition of minor amendment to provide a
flexible regulatory procedure to encourage creative and imaginative planning of coordinated
communities, WITHDRAWN November 1, 1994
Page 12 of 20
MP 175(F) Poinsettia Shores Master Plan minor amendment to actualize off-site option for
provision of 90 affordable housing dwelling units, Approved Planning Commission Resolution
No. 3774, April 19, 1995
MP 175(G) Poinsettia Shores Master Plan minor amendment to adopt Coastal Commission
Suggested modifications, Approved Planning Commission Resolution No. 3922, June 5, 1996
Approved City Council July 16, 1996, NS-367
MP 175(H) Poinsettia Shores Master Plan - major amendment FOR HOTEL AND TIMESHARE
USES, WITHDRAWN January 16, 2003
MP 175(I) Poinsettia Shores Master Plan – Rosalena Trail Amendment, WITHDRAWN January
8, 2002
MP 175(J) Poinsettia Shores Master Plan – major amendment for Carlsbad Coast Residential
project to allow RM land use on Poinsettia Shores, WITHDRAWN January 8, 2002
MP 175 (K) Poinsettia Shores Master Plan – Ponto Area Specific Plan Mixed use consisting of
residential, commercial and retail uses, WITHDRAWN August 19, 2004
MP 175(L) Poinsettia Shores Master Plan – Major amendment for commercial and residential
development on Planning Area F, Still being proposed by developers and being processed by
the City.
The false exemption for the BLEP MP based LFMP-9 should never have occurred. However,
completely eliminating BLEP MP’s OpenSpace land use (12.8 acre Recreation Commercial) and
reducing BLEP MP’s required Open Space while at the same time claiming the false BLEP MP Open
Space Exemption is a violation of common sense, 21.90, and the very founding principles Growth
Management.
The CA Coastal Commission in MP 175 (G) in part recognized the elimination of the 12.8 acre Recreation
Commercial land use and maybe some of the Open Space land use changes and added the following
land use regulations for 11.1 acre Planning Area F in the Carlsbad’s Local Coastal Program LCP). The LCP
as per State Law and referenced in Carlsbad’s General Plan is the controlling land use regulation over the
General Plan, Poinsettia Shores Master Plan and in the Coastal Zone:
“PLANNING AREA F: Planning Area F is located at the far northwest corner of the Master Plan
area west of the AT&SF Railway right-of-way. This Planning Area has a gross area of 11 acres and
a net developable area of 10.7 acres. Planning Area F carries a Non-Residential Reserve (NRR)
General Plan designation. Planning Area F is an “unplanned” area, for which land uses will be
determined at a later date when more specific planning is carried out for areas west of the
railroad right-of-way. A future Major Master Plan Amendment will be required prior to further
development approvals for Planning Area F, and shall include an LCP Amendment with
associated environmental review, if determined necessary.
The intent of the NRR designation is not to limit the range of potential future uses entirely to
nonresidential, however, since the City's current general plan does not contain an “unplanned”
designation, NRR was determined to be appropriate at this time. In the future, if the Local
Coastal Program Amendment has not been processed, and the City develops an “unplanned”
Page 13 of 20
General Plan designation, then this site would likely be redesignated as “unplanned.” Future
uses could include, but are not limited to: commercial, residential, office, and other uses,
subject to future review and approval.
As part of any future planning effort, the City and Developer must consider and document the
need for the provision of lower cost visitor accommodations or recreational facilities (i.e.
public park) on the west side of the railroad.”
In 2010 the CA Coastal Commission in 2010 rejected the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan on which
MP 175(K) was based. MP 175(K) was withdrawn.
On July 3, 2017 the CA Coastal Commission provided direction to the City of Carlsbad regarding MP
175(G), Carlsbad’s 2015 General Plan Update, Carlsbad proposed Local Coastal Program Amendment
Land Use Plan (LUP) . CA Coastal Commission wrote to the City the following. Notes on the context of
communication are in bracketed italics [example]:
“The existing LUP includes policies that require certain visitor-serving developments and/or
studies relevant to the Ponto … area. For example, Planning Area F requires the city and
developer to "consider and document the need for the provision of lower cost visitor
accommodations or recreational facilities (i.e., public park) on the west side of the railroad. …
this study should be undertaken as a part of the visitor serving use inventory analysis described
above. [the discussion of the need for the City to conduct a citywide analysis of the location and
amount of these uses in the Coastal Zone to assure the City General Plan within the Coastal Zone
is providing the adequate amounts and locations of these land uses to fulfill the long-term
population/visitor needs for these uses according to the CA Coastal Act] If this analysis
determines that there is a deficit of low cost visitor accommodations or recreation facilities in
this area, then Planning Area F should be considered as a site where these types of uses could
be developed.”
In 2017 the City conducted the first Sea Level Rise (SLR) Vulnerability Assessment
https://www.carlsbadca.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=33958 . That first initial analysis,
shows significant SLR impacts that will reduce existing Ponto Open Space - the State beach and
Campground and along the Batiquitos Lagoon. The City identified SLR impacts on Ponto Open Space are
summarized in the next section of this history.
In 2023 the CA Coastal Commission will consider the data and public input and decide the appropriate
land use for 11.1 acre Planning Area F based the CA Coastal Act and Coastal Act land use policies.
You can determine the Open Space and Park Quality of Life Standards that will be applied to this and
other future land uses.
City assessment of Sea Level Rise impacts on reducing Ponto Open Space
Page 14 of 20
The City’s 2017 SLR assessment shows SLR will significantly reduce or eliminate only existing Open Space
land at Ponto. The City’s assessment quantifies the speratic/episodic loss of Ponto/Coastal South
Carlsbad Open Space land and land uses being at the State Campground, Beaches, and Batiquitos
Lagoon shoreline – about 32 acres by the year 2100, this would be an average loss of 17,000 square feet
of Open Space per year. Following (within quotation marks) is a description, quantification and images
of the City’s projected loss of Ponto/Coastal South Carlsbad Open Space land and land use due to SLR.
[Italicized text within brackets] is added data based on review of aerial photo maps in the Assessment.
“Planning Zone 3 consists of the Southern Shoreline Planning Area and the Batiquitos Lagoon. Assets
within this zone are vulnerable to inundation, coastal flooding and bluff erosion in both planning
horizons (2050 and 2100). A summary of the vulnerability assessment rating is provided in Table 5. A
discussion of the vulnerability and risk assessment is also provided for each asset category.
5.3.1. Beaches
Approximately 14 acres of beach area is projected to be impacted by inundation/erosion in 2050. …
Beaches in this planning area are backed by unarmored coastal bluffs. Sand derived from the natural
erosion of the bluff as sea levels rise may be adequate to sustain beach widths, thus, beaches in this
reach were assumed to have a moderate adaptive capacity. The overall vulnerability rating for beaches
is moderate for 2050.
Vulnerability is rated moderate for the 2100 horizon due to the significant amount of erosion expected
as the beaches are squeezed between rising sea levels and bluffs. Assuming the bluffs are unarmored in
the future, sand derived from bluff erosion may sustain some level of beaches in this planning
area. A complete loss of beaches poses a high risk to the city as the natural barrier from storm waves is
lost as well as a reduction in beach access, recreation and the economic benefits the beaches provide.
5.3.3. State Parks
A majority of the South Carlsbad State Beach day-use facilities and campgrounds (separated into
four parcels) were determined to be exposed to bluff erosion by the 2050 sea level rise scenario
(moderate exposure). This resource is considered to have a high sensitivity since bluff erosion
could significantly impair usage of the facilities. Though economic impacts to the physical structures
within South Carlsbad State Beach would be relatively low, the loss of this park would be significant
since adequate space for the park to move inland is not available (low adaptive capacity). State
parks was assigned a high vulnerability in the 2050 planning horizon. State park facilities are recognized
as important assets to the city in terms of economic and recreation value as well as providing low-cost
visitor serving amenities. This vulnerability poses a high risk to coastal access, recreation, and
tourism opportunities in this planning area.
In 2100, bluff erosion of South Carlsbad State Beach day-use facilities and campgrounds become
more severe and the South Ponto State Beach day-use area becomes exposed to coastal flooding
during extreme events. The sensitivity of the South Ponto day-use area is low because impacts to usage
will be temporary and no major damage to facilities would be anticipated. Vulnerability and risk to State
Page 15 of 20
Parks remains high by 2100 due to the impacts to South Carlsbad State Beach in combination
with flooding impacts to South Ponto.
Table 5: Planning Zone 3 Vulnerability Assessment Summary [condensed & notated]:
Asset Horizon Vulnerability
Category [time] Hazard Type Impacted Assets Rating
Beaches 2050 Inundation/Erosion, Flooding 14 acres (erosion) Moderate
2100 Inundation/Erosion, Flooding 54 acres (erosion) Moderate
Public Access 2050 Inundation, Flooding 6 access points Moderate
4,791 feet of trails
2100 Inundation, Flooding 10 access points Moderate
14,049 feet of trails
State Parks 2050 Flooding, Bluff Erosion 4 parcels [<18 Acres] High
[Campground - 2100 Flooding, Bluff Erosion 4 parcels [>18 Acres] High
Low-cost Visitor [loss of over 50% of
Accommodations] the campground &
its Low-cost Visitor
Accommodations,
See Figure 5.]
Transportation 2050 Bluff Erosion 1,383 linear feet Moderate
(Road, Bike, 2100 Flooding, Bluff Erosion 11,280 linear feet High
Pedestrian)
Page 16 of 20
Environmentally 2050 Inundation, Flooding 572 acres Moderate
Sensitive 2100 Inundation, Flooding 606 acres High
Lands
O uwHW<t .,,...,,~c;........,,...,,
D 11~•\;ll)-<(.I>' Cb•
1,:::,1 .. ,
fi~re 7: Southern Shortfine PlanningArEa-Year 2050
Page 17 of 20
.i.,.,..,c .. ~ .... ..-.J:,
Cl"'c.-..,.,..:,or..C,:,-t::-=t
CCityof
Carlsbad
{a l lfo r nlu
EXHIBITB6
Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment
Figure 5: CoSMoS Bluff Erosion Projections by 2100
(CoSMoS-COPST 2015)
Page 18 of 20
[Figure 5 show the loss of over 50% of the campground and campground sites with a minimal .2 meter
Sea Level Rise (SLR), and potentially the entire campground (due to loss of access road) in 2 meter SLF.]”
This 2017 SLR data and quantified losses of Ponto/Coastal South Carlsbad Open Space land and land
uses was not considered in the City’s rejected (by CCC) Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan. The Ponto
Vision Plan is the basis for the City’s 2015 General Plan Update that is now being proposed in the City’s
Local Coastal Program Amendment now before the CA Coastal Commission.
Summary:
LFPM-9 was clearly not developed in 1986, and did not then or now dedicate 15% of the
unconstrained/developable land as Open Space as required by the Growth Management Open Space
Standard. These two reasons for the City to “exempt” LFMP-9 from Open Space Standard were/are
False. Saying Constrained/undevelopable land can be counted as Unconstrained/developable land is also
false and clearly not allowed according to the Growth Management Ordinance, Standards, principles,
and common-sense honesty to Carlsbad Citizens. LFMP-9, as the City’s own maps/data base show is
clearly missing 30-acres of GM Open Space. In addition in 2017 we learned that Ponto/Coastal South
Carlsbad will lose about 32 acres of existing Open Space due to SLF.
Closing thoughts:
Growth Management is based on the type/amount/location of General Plan land use designations, the
development potential of those land use designations in creating the demand for the
type/amount/location of facilities, and supply of the type/amount/distribution of facilities – like Open
Space and Parks. If the type/amount/location of supply of facilities does not meet the demand for those
facilities then growth management fails and Quality of Life is reduced.
Quality of Life Standards are used to assure supply and demand for facilities is properly balanced with
respect to type/amount/location.
Ponto is clearly unbalanced. The Ponto Census Track is at a 40% higher population density than the rest
of Carlsbad, yet is Ponto is NOT meeting the Open Space Standard and has NO Park (see City Open Space
maps and Park Master Plan). Ponto and all South Carlsbad have higher population demand for Parks
and Open Space facilities yet Ponto (that is the only place to provide Coastal Park and Open Space needs
for South Carlsbad) has lower or none of those two most critical GM Facilities needed to balance and
mitigate the 40% higher population density at Ponto and also the higher residential density in South
Carlsbad.
Ponto and Coastal South Carlsbad also have additional State and regional responsibilities to provide
Coastal Recreation and Open Space for populations of people and visitors from outside of Ponto and
Carlsbad.
Page 19 of 20
This failure to honestly and adequately balance the type/amount/location higher population density by
providing higher levels of Parks and Open Space in those areas will lead to a slow and but eventual
reduction of the Quality of Life for those areas.
Common sense and the Carlsbad’s Growth Management law say if you change the land use (like what
was done and is still being proposed at Ponto) you change the type/amount/location of potential
development and population and the Growth Management impacts. Land use changes require and
honest/accurate/balanced update to Citywide and Local Growth Management Plans to accurately reflect
those changes and provide an updated plan to provide facilities that meet the Standards for those land
use changes. This is the fundamental heart of any Growth Management.
The Carlsbad Tomorrow Growth Management Committee, and City Commissions and Council are all
now facing the same issues and responsibility that we faced in the 1980’s at the beginning of Growth
Management. We established New Quality of Life Standards – for Open Space and Parks – that required
New investments in Parks and Open Space by both the City and developers.
Open Space and Parks have always been identified as most critical for Carlsbad’s quality of life. The
Carlsbad Tomorrow Growth Management Committee, and City Commissions and Council, and Carlsbad
Citizens are all at a critical crossroad.
Do we, or don’t we, enforce and set new standards that achieve the quality of life we desire?
Do we or don’t we, fix existing past errors and below desired standard situations?
Do we or don’t we, roll-up our sleeves a work together to a better Quality of Life?
As a long-time Carlsbad Citizen I am extremely disappointed by some who say we can’t fulfill our
Community Vision, we can’t fix things, can’t make things better, and can’t add more Parks and Useable
Open Space. This can’t attitude is not out Community Vision. We can and we did before, and we can do
it again and better.
Great cities for hundreds of years have Upgraded their Quality of Life Facility Standards, made and
implemented/funded facilities to fix things up to those Standards. A City is just like a business or person
- If you don’t improve you decline. Examples of Upgrading and funding to New Parks and Open Space
are many but include – Carlsbad’s Buena Vista Reservoir Park, additions to Pine Park, Village H Park, and
Aura Circle Open Space acquisition; and SDSU’s major new Park at the redeveloped Qualcomm Stadium
site.
Now like at the beginning of Carlsbad Growth Management the City can “despite previous city council
actions” make improvements to its Growth Management and Quality of Life Standards to address past
and future needs. Following illustrates existing R-23 (up to 23 dwellings per acre) development in
Carlsbad – most of our future residential development will be required to be like this or more dense.
Page 20 of 20
High-density housing can be great, but it requires MORE Parks and MORE useable Open Space within
walking distance to balance the density and provide large places for families and kids to really play. In
Carlsbad’s high-density residential future with no backyards and stacked flat multi-family homes the
need for both more Parks and Useable Open Space is much greater than in 1980’s.
The time to fix the Parks and Useable Open Space problems at Ponto (LFMP-9) is now. Already Ponto is
developed at a density that is 40% great than the rest of Carlsbad. New proposed and even higher-
density developments (developer driven Amendments) propose to make Ponto even more dense, yet
there are not Parks at Ponto and Ponto is missing 30-acres of Useable Open Space past developers
should have provided.
A doable, time-tested, accountable, tax-payer saving, strongly citizen desired, accountable, and honest
way to fix this was presented to you in 8/8/22 and 12/27/22 emails with attached “CTGMP Key Issues
and Suggestions – 2022-12-6”. Over 5,000 petitions expressing the need to fix the Park and Open Space
problems at Ponto have been sent to the City and the City should have provided these to you in
considering Park and Open Space issues.
Ponto Park and Open Space needs your help fixing NOW. If not Carlsbad Tomorrow will be less than it is
today, and tragically will have failed our Community Vision.
From:Don Christiansen
To:Growth Management Committee
Cc:Katie Hentrich; Jason Haber
Subject:LOCAL Electric Generation
Date:Wednesday, January 11, 2023 1:20:16 PM
Good Day Fellow Carlsbad Tomorrow Growth Management Committee Members!
Since LOCAL Electric Generation is on today's agenda I thought I'd share a few headlines:
U.S. Safety Agency To Consider Ban On Gas Stoves Amid Fears Of Pollution"Gas stoves are bad for our health, and the strongest evidence is on children and children's
asthma"
California is "the first U.S. state to phase out all new gas-fueled furnaces and water heaters inhomes."
Carlsbad Mulls Requiring All-Electric Construction
"The ordinances require water heaters, clothes dryers, space heaters and other appliances in allnew construction to be electric instead of natural gas"
S.D. Battery Research Gets $16M
"The University of California San Diego will receive $10 million to develop and scale uptechnology that recycles lithium-ion batteries. Smartville Inc. of Carlsbad has been awarded
a $6 million grant to extend battery use for energy storage systems."
The focus is to repurpose used EV batteries for renewable energy storage applications.California will ban the sale of new gas powered cars by 2035.
The need for electricity will increase significantly in the future. As I wrote in a previous email
to our committee: "The question is who is going to generate the electricity? An option is to do what makes
sustainable sense and generate as much local electricity as feasible by turning rooftops,parking lots, and underutilized land that have been considered liabilities into assets by
installing solar panels. LOCAL jobs and LOCAL business opportunities are created in theprocess."
Our Clean Energy Alliance is charged with buying renewable energy. Carlsbad is moving
forward with the proposed development of a 50 acre parcel of City owned land (MaerkleReservoir) as a solar farm. Very significant Federal Funding is now available via the
Inflation Reduction Act and other programs. RMI.org (formerly Rocky Mountain Institute)provides Cities guidance on how to access those funds via their LEAF and FFOLD
programs.
France has mandated that all parking lots over a certain size shall have solar electriccanopies. Would the City of Carlsbad have the political will to enact a similar ordinance?
Our Community Vision statement reads: Sustainability: Build on the city's sustainability
initiatives to emerge as a leader in green development sustainability. Pursue public/private partnerships, particularly on sustainable water, energy, recycling and foods.
Don ChristiansenCarlsbad Tomorrow Growth Management Committee Member
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and
know the content is safe.
Jan 11, 2023
To: Carlsbad Growth Management Citizens Committee
From: Howard Krausz, North County Advocates board member
Re: Agenda Item #1, Parks and Open Space Performance Standards
Honorable Chair and Committee Members
Parks and Open Space are critical to the quality of life in Carlsbad and are of the highest priority to our
citizens as demonstrated in public surveys and comments time and time again. Since the State of
California has mandated a large increase in housing to accommodate a massive increase in population
the use of existing parks and open space will increase greatly requiring even more space, not less.
Some, but by no means all, of the measures that must be taken now to manage all this future growth
include:
1. Maintain or preferably increase the existing open space standard of 15% of the unconstrained
land in each LFMZ. Define exactly what “unconstrained land” is and accurately inventory where
such land exists in each LFMZ.
2. Clarify the definition of open space and the categories of open space. Give preference to
natural open space that preserves habitat. Ensure that no acres are counted as open space that
do not meet the definition and that no acres are double counted.
3. Do not allow any further exemptions to the open space standard. In zones 1-10 and 16 that
were already exempted, whatever percent open space now exists must never be decreased
further. Plans should be made to increase that percentage as much as possible towards 15%.
4. When a new development is approved, 15% of its developable acreage must be set aside as
open space. If not on site, then an equal amount of open space needs to be aside in the same or
possibly an adjacent LFMZ. Do not allow developers to pay an in-lieu of fee to avoid this
requirement.
5. Maintain or increase the existing Parks standard of 3 acres per 1000 residents in each quadrant.
Use an accurate method of determining population, current and expected. Residents should
have parks that are readily accessible by walking and/or biking.
Thank you for your attention and for your efforts to protect the environment and quality of life in
Carlsbad from the negative effects of overdevelopment.
H. Krausz, MD
From:Mary Hassing
To:Growth Management Committee
Subject:Agenda #1, Open Space Standard
Date:Wednesday, January 11, 2023 11:09:21 AM
Dear Committee Members,
I am writing to thank you for considering future plans for our precious open space in Carlsbad.
I am concerned that we have not kept faith with the promise in 1986 that 40% of our citywould continue as open space.
I understand that 11 of the 25 LFMZ's are exempted from the standard requiring 15% of
unconstrained open space. Please remove that exemption and require the standard for allmanagement zones. Please find a way to give every area of Carlsbad open areas -- for the
health and enjoyment of residents and the unrestricted movement of wildlife that has lost somuch habitat.
My hope is that Carlsbad is not already so thoroughly built out, with plans in place for further
development, that we cannot take this moment to ensure protected open space far into thefuture.
Thank you for your work,
Mary Hassing
Regent Road, Carlsbad
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and
know the content is safe.
From:Enchanted Seashells
To:Growth Management Committee
Subject:RE: Open Space
Date:Wednesday, January 11, 2023 11:20:23 AM
For the past almost forty years, I've petitioned and spoken out in favor of MORE open
space, citing other comparable cities.
At this point, elected and appointed officials have all but ignored the importance of
maintaining and creating a beautiful landscape for Carlsbad.
Once again, this is your chance to do the right thing for the community and the
environment.
Rosanne Bentley
See below:
Open Space
Staff recommendation is to leave the standard as is—ie: 15% of unconstrained
open space for each LFMZ (Local Facility Management Zone), but 11 of 25
LFMZ's are exempted from the standard.
***Furthermore, that ignores the promise made in 1986 that 40% of the city
would remain in open space . They now estimate being about 750 acres short
at buildout and ignore that over half of the city, in effect, has no standard inplace.
THIS IS, ONCE AGAIN, UNACCEPTABLE.
DO THIS:
-Keep the 15% per LFMZ, but eliminate exemptions so all zones are treated thesame
-Inventory all vacant/underutilized land for potential open space
-Remove the exemption on the 11 LFMZ's and develop transition plans to
gradually increase open space so that each part of the city has an equitableshare of open space- as was promised in 1986.
Parks
Staff recommendation is to leave the standard as is— ie: 3 acres
parkland/quadrant/1,000 residents. But they offered an alternative— increase it
to 4 acres overall, but include many new items in computing park acres (things
like beaches and golf courses) that do not address community concerns.
Community concerns are:
-no requirement for easily accessible neighborhood parks
-no consideration of differential impact on disadvantaged neighborhoods
-giving full credit for joint use school yards- even though these are locked/gated
most of the time
-no provisions for a coastal access park for the entire southern half of the city(which could be addressed at Ponto)
DO THIS:
- add a standard for accessible, neighborhood parks. Other cities have .5 acres
/1,000 residents —often above the 3 acre minimum requirement per state law.
- do not expand what gets counted towards the standard —instead only count
school yards at 1/2 their acres to reflect restrictions on use.
- require a transition plan to accommodate these changes over time to allowtime for park impact fees to be adjusted and other revenues sources
developed.
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and
know the content is safe.
From:DeAnn Weimer
To:Growth Management Committee; Eric Lardy
Subject:CNC comments Carlsbad Tomorrow proposals for Jan. 11th meeting at 5 p.m.
Date:Wednesday, January 11, 2023 1:45:46 PM
Jan. 11, 2023
Carlsbad Tomorrow Growth Management Citizens Committee
1635 Faraday Ave
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Re: CNC Comments on Open Space and Parks
Dear Carlsbad Tomorrow Growth Management Citizens Committee members,
Last month, there was a “feel good” story that garnered national attention for Los AngelesCounty. The Animal Control Department for the County issued a permit to an 11-year-old girlwho wants to keep a unicorn in her backyard when and if she finds one.
We with Citizens for North County (CNC) and no doubt our fellow citizens- all- appreciatethe kindness shown this child and respect for her belief in this mythical creature.
In Carlsbad, open space is our unicorn. For decades, it has been trumpeted to long-standingand potential citizens as Carlsbad’s greatest asset. Or at least since 1986, when the citycommitted itself to remaining 40% open space.
But the reality is very different. Every year, the land officially counted as open space has beenchipped away, and much of the erosion has been undocumented. The city makes a mistake incalculating the open space allocations on a new development, and the mistakes always seem toreduce open space and not expand it. Ponto, of course, is the most talked about example of that– a macro mistake if you will.
Then there are the micro events. Residents – knowingly or unknowingly – infringe ondesignated open space on a house-by-house basis. And this infringement is allowed due tomistakes made by city officials, or because officials are willing to look the other way to avoid
litigation. Interestingly, these “mistakes” are not reported on a case-by-case basis annually.And more importantly, there is no effort to atone for these incremental mistakes by adding
open space to replace that which has vanished, sliver by sliver, on a yearly basis.
Mistakes like these have consequences for the community, and for the very health of ourresidents, which the pandemic made abundantly clear. Are these mistakes malicious? Somethink so. Or do they reflect a lack of accountability to Carlsbad citizens? The rejection ofaccountability, of fair play, of good governance, of trustworthiness, are all underpinned by asimple lack of respect for residents, including those who give their time and patience inserving on important committees, like the one involved here or Envision Carlsbad, etc.
Let us look at some of the shortcomings of this report:
Problem: The staff estimates, the city will be 750 acres short of the 40% goal at buildout.
CNC’s Requested Action: The number is unacceptable as it is, but does it even capture thetrue shortfall? Carlsbad needs a reality check in the form of an inventory of all vacant andunderutilized land for potential open space, as well as an inventory of all “mistakes” or“errors” that have resulted in diminishment of the property historically counted towards openspace citywide.
Problem: The staff recommendation is to leave the standard for the Local FacilitiesManagement Plan Zones (LFMZ) at 15% of unconstrained open space for each LFMZ.
CNC’s Requested Action: The devil is in the details here. That may sound consistent but ismade irrelevant by exempting 11 of the city’s 25 LFMZs from the standard, which means 44%of the LFMZ’s lack an open space standard. Or put another way about half of Carlsbad has ashot at living in a community with about 30% open space, and the other half gets the openspace unicorn. Carlsbad needs to drop the exemption on the 11 LFMZs, and develop a strategyto gradually increase open space so that open space is distributed equitably, i.e., keep itscommitments to ALL residents.
Problem: The staff recommendation on parkland gives the city two options: leave thestandard at three (3) acres of parkland per 1,000 residents (which is the bare minimumunder state law and below the requirements of other San Diego communities), oralternatively, increase the requirement to four (4) acres.
CNC’s Requested Action: Simply put, the staff recommendation achieves four (4) acres/1,000by redefining parkland so just about anything existing can be counted, without actuallymaking “park” experiences available to all residents. To compute “park” acreage, the citywould count beaches and golf courses, while continuing to count locked school yards as partof the parkland. This is analogous to putting flooring in your home on which the children andpets can’t walk. This is not the same as providing the type of park experience the community
needs. Additionally, there are no standards for accessible neighborhood parks; and no attemptto address the lack of parkland in older or disadvantaged neighborhoods. Furthermore, there is
no coastal access park for the entire southern half of the city --- the same area the Pontocommunity has been championing for years.
To address these deficiencies, Carlsbad should adopt a 5 acre/1,000 resident standard; create astandard for neighborhood parks prioritizing accessibility; adjust the contribution of school
yards to the overall park space calculation so that only half of the acreage is included (whichwould still be generous) due to restricted access; and mandate creation of a transition plan to
manage these changes, allow for park impact fees to be adjusted and to develop other parkrevenue sources.
Problem: Staff asserts a variety of CEQA exemptions and fails to meet required publicnotice standards.
CNC’s Requested Action: Regarding noticing the public after the 10-day CEQA appeal periodhad passed, the re-notice as implemented may, or may not, meet state requirements. Howeverthat issue is resolved, the deficiencies in the report referenced above challenge staff’s assertionthat their recommendations do not merit CEQA review because there are no CEQA impacts.In fact, once a true inventory of what is and is not open space and parkland eligible iscompleted, those locations must be reviewed in relation to the impact of existing and proposedplans, which will stress the environment and community via increased utilization. The CEQArelated concerns include:
-- air quality, particularly in neighborhoods impacted by expansion and increased utilization ofthe train tracks;
-- the impact on water resources and threatened species by increased density and nearbycommercialization;
-- land use plans, particularly those impacting Carlsbad’s three lagoons;
-- increased exposure to hazardous materials caused by increased density, and lack ofsufficient open space corridors and parkland;
-- and of course, traffic impacts.
CNC requests the inclusion of the changes outlined above in your recommendations. Thankyou for your consideration and for your commitment to Carlsbad.
Regards,
De’Ann Weimer on behalf of Citizens For North County
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and
know the content is safe.
1
Date: January 11, 2022
To: Growth Management Citizens Committee (and members of the public)
From: Steve Linke, Traffic & Mobility Commission representative
Subject: Open space and parks
After considering feedback from staff, the committee, and the public, below are my proposed
committee recommendations on “open space” and “parks.”
Note first that growth management as envisioned when it was first adopted in 1986 is no longer
possible, because the main enforcement mechanism (a development moratorium) is no longer allowed.
Therefore, I would suggest that the proposed open space and parks standards are not really minimum
standards that must be met immediately, but rather goals to which best efforts should be applied over
time.
In addition, while developers should continue to be required to dedicate a portion of their property
and/or pay their fair shares in fees, it is evident that the limited resources available solely from them
through growth management will typically be insufficient. Accordingly, the city needs to help fund
achievement of the goals with an emphasis on deficient areas.
Given these paradigm shifts in growth management, I think our committee can recommend more
meaningful open space and parks standards/goals and ignore much of the noise about the inability to
guarantee compliance and the other naysaying regarding the ability to pay for and build these important
projects. We also can recommend strategies to help prioritize the projects.
Open Space
Proposed Goal: “Fifteen percent of the total land area in the Local Facility Management Zone (LFMZ)
exclusive of environmentally constrained non-developable land for all LFMZs, including the previously
exempted LFMZs 1-10 and 16.”
• Developers in the deficient zones shall make fair-share contributions toward the 15% open
space goal by dedicating property (either unilaterally or through a developer agreement) and/or
paying an open-space in-lieu fee.
• As part of ongoing growth management monitoring, the City shall:
1. keep the open space in-lieu fee updated to reflect current needs and costs;
2. identify deficient LFMZs;
3. maintain an inventory of candidate parcels (undeveloped or underutilized) within the
deficient LFMZs and proximal LFMZs that could be acquired to help address identified
deficiencies;
4. prioritize projects based on the magnitude of the deficiencies; and
5. account for projected future loss of open space due to sea-level rise.
2
Parks
Note that 3 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents is apparently a State of California minimum, that
multiple adjacent cities seem to have a goal of 5 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, and that cities
including Oceanside have conducted “parkshed analyses” to identify and prioritize areas that lack
sufficient parks.
Proposed Goal: “4 acres of dedicated parkland per 1,000 population with all residences within a
10-minute walk of a park.” [The 4-acre goal number could be flexible up or down based on what is
counted as parkland (see below), and the 10-minute walk number could be flexible.]
• Developers shall make fair-share contributions toward the 4 acre per 1,000 residents parkland
goal by dedicating property (either unilaterally or through a developer agreement) and/or
paying a park in-lieu fee.
• As part of ongoing growth management monitoring, the City shall:
1. keep the park in-lieu fee updated to reflect current needs and costs;
2. identify deficient areas (i.e., quadrants with less than 4 acres per 1,000 residents and
LFMZs with residences greater than a 10-minute walk from a park);
3. maintain an inventory of candidate parcels (undeveloped or underutilized) within the
deficient areas that could be acquired and developed to help address the deficiencies;
4. prioritize projects based on the magnitude of the deficiencies; and
5. account for projected future loss or parkland due to sea-level rise.
What should be counted as parkland?
• Areas inaccessible to people: Such acreage (e.g., protected habitat) should not count as city
parkland, even if it is contiguous with a park (e.g., Poinsettia, La Costa Canyon, Carillo, Hidden
Valley, and Veterans Memorial Parks).
• Veterans Memorial Park: Even the accessible acreage of Veterans Memorial Park should apply
only to the northwest quadrant where it is located—not all four quadrants—because, despite its
size, the city modified its role from a regional park to a neighborhood park.
• Private development parks: This acreage is meant to compensate for developments that do not
provide adequate yard space for their individual dwelling units and is restricted to members
only, so it likely should not count as city parkland.
• Schoolyards: Those that are inaccessible for major parts of the day or are subject to being
withdrawn from public use by schools likely should not be counted as city parkland, or only a
portion of the acreage should be counted.
• Golf courses and trails: These are counted as parkland in Oceanside, but Oceanside has a goal of
5 acres per 1,000 residents. Also, it could be argued that golf courses are really not accessible to
all people. These are debatable.
• Beaches; Agua Hedionda lagoon inner basin: These types of areas do not seem to be routinely
considered parkland in other jurisdictions, but these also are debatable.
From:Diane Nygaard
To:Growth Management Committee
Subject:Agenda item # 1- Parks and Open Space Performance Standards
Date:Tuesday, January 10, 2023 9:29:27 PM
Honorable Chair and Committee Members
There are three critical performance standards that will have the greatest impact on the
future residents of Carlsbad- traffic,parks and open space.
These are the three areas that are most directly connected with everyone's sense of
place, connectedness and health. They truly will define the character of this community.
At your last meeting you raised some concerns about the traffic standards and directedstaff to do some more work on them- thank you!
At your next meeting you will be addressing parks and open space. The issues with thesestandards can't be addressed in a sentence or two. Nor can changes to the standards beimplemented overnight. Your charge is to make recommendations. Not every detail needs to bedefined in order to do that. You need to establish the direction, and a process.
We ask you to consider the following as you make your recommendations:
Open Space Standard
- Has there been an effort to ensure equitable distribution of open space- the 15% for each area ofthe city?
11 of 25 Local Facility Management Zones were "exempted" from the standards,failed to meetthem in 1986 when they were adopted, and fail to meet them today.
- Was the promise from 1986 kept- vote yes on the growth management plan and ensure thatCarlsbad will always be a city with 40% open space?
Staff acknowledges that at full buildout the city will not keep this promise and in fact has nocommitment to even try to do so.
- Is there a need for more open space?
Years of conservation planning have documented the need to preserve more of our natural andworking lands.
- Are there any opportunities left to add open space?
Of course there are. Look at the recent conversion of the old Buena Vista Reservoir to a park. That was city owned land that sat unused for years in a neighborhood that was short open space.
- Will open space be lost as a result of Sea Level Rise(SLR) ?
Yes- that is already well documented. The time to plan to replace those future lost lands is now.
Recommendation
Keep the staff recommended performance standard of 15% unconstrained open space for eachLFMZ. But remove the exemption from the 11 zones and plan now to replace the open spaceland that will be lost to SLR and what is needed to enhance biodiversity. Establish a process forgradually bringing the zones that were short changed up to par with the rest of the city . Allowsome flexibility in how this is applied. Things like adjacent zones may need to share open spaceor boundaries may need to be adjusted to account for the coastal areas that will be inundated bySLR or improvements to things like wildlife movement corridors. This would ensure equitabledistribution of open space and meet the promise for 40% open space that was made in 1986.
Park Standard
- Was the community adequately informed that the majority of future parks for all quadrantswould be at one park- Veteran's Memorial Park ?
This was one of the least known and understood, but most consequential decisions that hid inplain sight for years.
- Does the current standard of 3 acres of parkland/1,000 residents/quadrant address the needs oftoday and for decades to come?
Consider the 100's of people in dense, new multi- family dwelling units, with no back yards, andno parks within easy walking or biking distance.
- Shouldn't there be a coastal access park serving the southern half of the city?
The residents of Ponto have well documented the need for this. The two southern quadrants of thecity were the most impacted by putting what should have been their park at Veteran's park, in thenorthern half of the city. The time to address this is now.
Recommendation
Keep the performance standard for 3 acres of parkland /1,000 residents /quadrant. But add to ittwo new requirements. First, an additional requirement for up to an additional .5 acres ofparkland /1,000 residents /quadrant to address the need for accessible neighborhood parks. Thisis typically done through evaluating the 10 minute walk or 15 min bike ride distance from eachresidential neighborhood. If that neighborhood is a master planned development that includesparks that serve those residents that could be counted for those residents. But it is most importantto ensure that those existing residents without such private parks and future new residents alsohave accessible neighborhood parks.
Secondly, add a requirement to develop a coastal access park serving the southern half of thecity,preferably at Ponto. The mechanics to make this happen will take some time- but the resultwill benefit the entire community for decades to come.
Thank you for considering these comments. The current and future residents of Carlsbad arecounting on you.
Diane NygaardOn behalf of Preserve Calavera
PS. It is very disappointing that the notice of this important meeting - at a non standard time, and
not on the regular meeting schedule was sent out less than 48 hours in advance. ---------- Forwarded message ---------From: City of Carlsbad <planning@carlsbadca.gov>Date: Mon, Jan 9, 2023 at 5:46 PMSubject: Carlsbad Growth Management Committee meets 1/11To: <dnygaard3@gmail.com>
The Carlsbad Tomorrow Growth Management Citiz ens Committee willmeet Wednesday evening to continue the next phase of its work to help the
city develop a new plan for how to manage growth. Specific topics up for
discussion on Wednesday will include:
Open space
Parks
Climate Action Plan
• • •
Iii
Environmental sustainability - renewable energy and local electric power
generation
Water quality and stormwater
Background
Since last March, the resident-led committee has been learning about
and discussing 11 existing “performance standards.” Performance
standards refer to the level of service that needs to be maintained toensure Carlsbad’s excellent quality of life.
Developers either pay fees toward or build the infrastructure and
amenities needed to maintain these standards based on the new
residents who will live in their housing.The current standards were first put in place in the 80s.
The committee is helping to update the standards to reflect the
community’s current needs and priorities.
Now that the group has discussed the existing standards, they arediscussing and developing recommendations for future standards.
The full agenda and staff report are posted on the city's website. The
meeting starts at 5 p.m. at the Faraday Administration Center (1635 Faraday
Ave.), but you can also watch live online or see a recording after the
fact. Details on how you can participate can be found on the meeting
agenda.
The committee is expected to meet through early spring to look at different
options and ideas. Their recommendations about what a new plan shouldconsider will then be presented to the City Council for its consideration.
More information
Growth Management in Carlsbad
Growth Management Committee webpage
Quick Links
Meeting Calendar
Laws & Policies
Public Records
City Charter
Boards & Commissions
Contact Us
City of Carlsbadplanning@carlsbadca.gov442-339-26001635 Faraday Ave.Carlsbad, CA 92008
•
•
•
•
• •
•
From:Lynne
To:Growth Management Committee
Subject:Park and Open Space Performance Standards Comments
Date:Wednesday, January 11, 2023 5:57:04 AM
Carlsbad Committee Members,
I am concerned regarding the City of Carlsbad's workarounds to meet open space and park
requirements. In particular I would like the City to:
Keep the 15% per LFMZ, but eliminate exemptions so all zones are treated the same;
Inventory all vacant/underutilized land for potential open space;
Remove the exemption on the 11 LFMZ's and develop transition plans to gradually increase
open space so that each part of the city has an equitable share of open space- as waspromised in 1986.
Additionally, I don't feel that golf courses, the beach and school yards should count as accessible park oropen space areas.
I feel confident that the City has its citizen's wellbeing in mind when trying to make Carlsbad a liveable,comfortable as well as profitable city. I'm looking forward to further improvements in citizen access tohiking, biking and walking trails in natural settings in our beautiful city. I also want to see growth inneighborhood parks that are easily accessed throughout our city.
Thank you in advance for your attention to my concerns.
Sincerely,Lynne
Lynne Seabloom2750 Windsor CourtCarlsbad, CA 92010760-801-12224thesea@gmail.com
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and
know the content is safe.
•
•
•
From:Barbara Diamond
To:Growth Management Committee
Subject:OPEN SPACE AND PARKS
Date:Monday, January 9, 2023 7:28:59 PM
Staff:
regarding open space: Keep 15% of LFMZ but eliminate exemptions
- inventory all vacant/underutilized land for potential space
-remove the exemption on all 11 LFMZ's
-develope transition plans
Parks:
add standards for accessible neighborhood park
-do not expand what gets counted toward the stand amount- school yards
should only count 50% or less than the acreage of school yards
-require a transition plan for transition and fee structure.
Barbara C, Diamond
3808 Skyline Rd, Carlsbad, CA 92008
--
~Barbara Diamond~
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and
know the content is safe.
From:Mike McMahon
To:Growth Management Committee
Subject:Parks and Open Space for Carlsbad
Date:Tuesday, January 10, 2023 10:16:37 AM
Getting outdoors and enjoying our parks and open space is essential for our individual and
community well being. Carlsbad needs to provide leadership in its vision for our current andfuture demands and not be satisfied with median levels of performance.
Open Space:
1. Maintain the standard of 15% for each Local Facility Management Zone2. Review any vacant or underused land for open space or park designation
3. Currently, 11 of the 25 Local Facility Management Zones are exempt from standard andneed to be included with a transition plan so each quadrant has equal open space.
Park Standards:
1. Put in place a new standard for accessible neighborhood parks to be above 3 acre
minimum/1000 residents. Our neighborhoods need be served by walkable neighborhoodparks without the need for excessive car travel. Special consideration should be made
for underserved or low income communities. 2. Tighten standards on what gets counted as a neighborhood park. Locked school yards
should have a lower value.3. Develop a transition plan to the new standards as funding is developed.
Thank you for your consideration,
Michael McMahon2645 Sutter St
Carlsbad 92010
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and
know the content is safe.
From:maryoren
To:Growth Management Committee
Subject:City of Carlsbad re: Park and Open Space Performance Standard
Date:Tuesday, January 10, 2023 3:15:20 PM
January 10, 2023
Mary Oren
7842 Sitio Coco
Carlsbad, CA 92009
City of Carlsbad re: Park and Open Space Performance Standards
Thank you for the work you are doing to provide park and open space to generations of Carlsbad citizens and
visitors to come. As things change with development in our community, it’s surely something we all share - the
pride and sense of protection we have for our native space and species. So, after much work reviewing standards set
almost 40 years ago, it’s an important time to renew our commitment to preserving that which we love here in
Carlsbad.
Quite simply, it’s time to keep the 15% per LFMZ and eliminate exemptions so all zones are recognized. Inventory
all vacant/underutilized land for potential open space. Move the exemption on the 11 LFMZ’s and develop transition
plans to gradually increase open space so that each part of the city has an equitable share of open space - as was
promised in 1986.
Furthermore - a standard for accessible neighborhood parks must be included. Other cities have .5 acres/1,000
residents - often above the 3 acre minimum requirement per state law. Do not expand what gets counted toward the
standard - only count school yards at 1/2 their acres to reflect restrictions on use. Require a transition plan to
accommodate these changes over time to allow for park impact fees to be adjusted and other revenue sources
developed.
These are clear points of action and concern that will make good on the vision set under leadership and citizenry
who cared about our future some 40 years ago. It’s our turn to lead and protect and provide all the beauty and
uniqueness that is our beloved Carlsbad.
Please take these points to heart and act accordingly as more citizens reach out identifying these common views,
concerns and solutions. We walk this planet and our community at an important time where every action has huge
consequences. Turn on social media, the radio or tv for a half hour and the list grows. We here - in Carlsbad can do
the important work as leaders and citizens voicing concern and shared, deep values. Please protect our open space
and parks as expressed by me and others speaking up, identifying these points with you today.
Thank you for your work, leadership and community vision and the responsibility you have taken on - on behalf of
all of us. We are counting on you and future generations are too.
With gratitude,
Mary Oren
760.271.3059
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and
know the content is safe.
From:Lance Schulte
To:Growth Management Committee; Michele Hardy; Council Internet Email; City Clerk; Kyle Lancaster; Eric Lardy;"Smith, Darren@Parks"; "Homer, Sean@Parks"; "Moran, Gina@Parks"; Boyle, Carrie@Coastal; "Prahler,Erin@Coastal"; "Ross, Toni@Coastal"; melanie@melanieforcarlsbad.com
Cc:info@peopleforponto.com
Subject:2022 Jan 11 Public input to the Carlsbad Tomorrow Growth Management Committee, Carlsbad City Council andParks and Planning Commissions - LCPA and Growth Management-Parks Master Plan Updates - Parks & OpenSpace
Date:Tuesday, January 10, 2023 5:39:15 AM
Attachments:CTGMC key issues and suggestions -2022-12-6.pdf
Dear Carlsbad Tomorrow Growth Management Committee & City Council:
Staff is presenting to you a few limited ideas on how the CTGMC can address the documented Park
and Useable Open Space inequities that lower the Quality of Life for a large majority of Carlsbad’s
families and important businesses. Many of your fellow People for Ponto Carlsbad citizens have
spoken to you about the critical need to correct these Park and Open Space inequities. Your fellow
citizens submitted over 5,000 petitions to the City, and presented you facts and data, and provided
you the following/attached fully doable suggestions that save tax-payers millions of dollars and
produce better and honest solutions. One member of the CTGC rails against “Paper Plans” that use
unsupported statements to ‘paper over or cover-up’ on-the-ground realities. Realities that impact
the Quality of Life of your fellow Citizens and Carlsbad visitors. Your fellow People for Ponto Citizens
are asking you NOT to create “Paper Plans” to cover-up documented Park and Open Space inequities
with “Paper Plan” excuses. We ask you to be true and honest to yourself and future Carlsbad
families. We ask you to do what is right, true and honest and follow the practical-doable-tax-payer
saving Park and Open Space suggestions below/attached. You own and will be remembered by your
decisions.
Sincerely,
Lance Schulte
From: Lance Schulte [mailto:meyers-schulte@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2022 11:17 AMTo: committee@carlsbadca.gov; 'Michele Hardy'; council@carlsbadca.gov; 'City Clerk'; 'Kyle Lancaster';'Eric Lardy'; 'Smith, Darren@Parks'; Homer, Sean@Parks; 'Moran, Gina@Parks'; Carrie Boyle; 'Prahler,Erin@Coastal'; Ross, Toni@Coastal; melanie@melanieforcarlsbad.comCc: info@peopleforponto.comSubject: Public input to the next upcoming meetings of Carlsbad Tomorrow Growth ManagementCommittee, Carlsbad City Council and Parks and Planning Commissions - LCPA and Growth Management-Parks Master Plan Updates - Parks & Open Space
Dear Carlsbad Tomorrow Growth Management Committee, Carlsbad City Council, Parks and
Planning Commissions, , CA Coastal Commission and CA State Parks:
As the City has requested specific reference regarding public input, I ask you to please deliver to the
those address this email and attachment as public input for:
1. the CTGMC’s 12/15/22 meeting,
2. the next Carlsbad Council meeting,
3. the next Carlsbad Planning and Parks Commission meetings on the Parks Master Plan and
Growth Management Program Updates, Ponto Planning Area F and Site 18 land use changes,
and Local Coastal Program Amendments, and
4. as public input to the CCC on Carlsbad proposed Local Coastal Program, and
5. as public input to Carlsbad’s proposed Local Coastal Program Amendment.
The initial version of attached file was sent to you 8/8/22. The attached updated file should replace
that older file as there is new data on significant tax-payer cost savings from Pronto Park relative to
PCH Relocation, and updated examples of how Coastal Open Space can be cost-effectively
persevered and increased. Both Coastal Parks and Open Space are important Carlsbad and State of
CA issues.
· Parks: Updated data shows that a 11.1 acre Ponto Park would now cost less $20 million to
buy and build. This is less than a City Pool Renovation. Carlsbad’s Old City Council planned
to spend $65 to $80 million in Carlsbad tax-payer dollars to address the Citywide need for a
significant Coastal Park in South Carlsbad with a 2.3 mile PCH Relocation. The City identified
in 2001 other pay-payer funds were highly unlikely. $65 to $80 million would only ‘free-up’
15.8 acres of narrow PCH Median (City documented “Surplus Land Area #4 & #5”). As
People for Ponto Citizens have been saying for years that Ponto Park is the better Park
solution to the documented Coastal South Carlsbad Park needs – a citywide need. The
CTGMC should include that citywide Park need and the logical, better and tax-payer
responsible Ponto Park solution to that citywide Park need in your CTGMC recommendations
to City Council.
· Open Space: Updated data shows how documented GM Open Space shortfalls can be
properly and responsibly address in a collaborative citizen-based “Local Facilities Zone
Useable Open Space Correction Plan” approached. Also the need to maintain the 15% GM
(Useable) Open Space Standard will be critical in the future to maintain Open Space and
prevent future conversion of Open Space to residential land use as part of Housing Plan
updates.
For the CTGMC; Parks and Open Space are the 2 most critical/special of 6 Key Growth Management
Program Update Issues and Suggestions the CTGMC should take to properly address these 6 key
Growth Management Issues.
• Please read the Updated data and Suggestions.
• Please responsibly address the Growth Management issues of a citywide Park need
for Coastal South Carlsbad as listed in the attached Suggestions. Include a South
Carlsbad Coastal Park in your recommendations to the City Council. Acknowledge
Ponto Park as the best and most tax-payer efficient solution to address that
documented citywide park need.
• Please in your recommendations to City Council retain and enforce the Open Space
Standard, and fix past errors made in falsely exempting certain developers in certain
areas in the City from complying with the Growth Management Open Space
Standard that other developers in other areas are required to provide.
Please consider this email and attachments, and know P4P Carlsbad Citizens are here to help assure
we sustain and enhance our quality of life for future generations. People for Ponto love deeply
Carlsbad and want to assure we leave a better Carlsbad to future generations.
Happy holidays and with Aloha Aina,
Lance Schulte
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and
know the content is safe.
CTGMC key issues and suggestions – People for Ponto Carlsbad Citizens submitted on 8/8/22 & 12/8/22 Page 1 of 9
CTGMC needed actions: 6 key issues and suggestions – from People for Ponto Carlsbad Citizens
8/8/22 1st submittal, 12/12/22 updated 2nd submittal
Following are 6 key major Growth Management Standards issues of citywide relevance that the Carlsbad
Tomorrow Growth Management Committee (CTGMC) needs to act on, and citizen “Suggestions to
CTGMC” on how to honestly and responsibly act on these 6 key issues in the CTGMC’s recommendations
to the New City Council. This Update includes new information (pp 5-6) on the improved affordability of
Ponto Park, and on how GM Open Space shortfall can be repaired. We hope the CTGMC will act
honestly to make recommendations that truly and responsibly address known documented shortfalls in
both Parks and GM Open Space. Responsible recommendations by the CTGMC can provide a
sustainable Quality of Life to future Carlsbad generations and visitors. Only you own your
recommendations.
1. The State of CA is forcing Carlsbad and all cities/counties in CA to provide for unlimited or Infinite
Population and Visitor growth. So there will be an Infinite population & visitor demands for Parks,
Open Space, water, and demands on our roads/transportation systems, and other Growth
Management (GM) Quality of Life facilities. These infinite increases in population and visitor
demand will come from high density development that requires more public Parks and Open Space
to balance the high-densities. Carlsbad’s new GM Standards will have to provide for a system of
Infinite proportional increases in the supply of Parklands, Open Spaces, water, transportation
facility capacity, etc. or our Quality of Life will diminish.
a. Suggestions to CTGMC:
i. Completely restructure the General Plan, Local Coastal Program and GM Program to
clearly recognize these facts and State requirements to proportionately provide
public facilities to maintain/improve Carlsbad GM Quality of Life Standards for this
Infinite growth of Population and Visitor demands.
ii. Being a Coastal city Carlsbad has an added responsibility to proportionately
maintain/improve providing High-Priority Coastal land uses (Coastal Recreation
{i.e. Public Parks} and Low-cost Visitor Accommodations) needed at a regional and
statewide level to address visitor needs for Coastal Recreation, access, and
affordable accommodations. Carlsbad needs to work with the State of CA Coastal
Commission to completely restructure Carlsbad’s Coastal Land Use Plan to
addresses the State’s requirement to provide an Infinite amount high-priority
Coastal land uses for those Infinite Population and Visitor demands.
iii. Trying to ignore these Infinite demands for Carlsbad’s Quality of Life facilities –
like Parks and Open Spaces is a path to disaster and the ultimate degradation of
Carlsbad’s Quality of Life.
2. Carlsbad has a huge Jobs v. Housing supply imbalance – far too many jobs around the airport for
our amount of housing. This creates negative and costly land use and transportation planning
distortions that radiate from the Airport Central Jobs through Carlsbad in all directions. CA
Housing law penalizes umbalanced cities like Carlsbad by requiring more housing in Carlsbad to
bring jobs/housing ratio into balance. Carlsbad can correct this imbalance by 1 of 2 ways: 1) greatly
increase housing supply (and thus increase the need and City expense for more GM Quality of Life
facilities), or2) more logically and cost effectively greatly decrease the amount of Jobs land use, so
Carlsbad’s housing supply is in balance with jobs. These jobs will move to surrounding Cities that
have more housing than jobs. Rebalancing by reducing jobs land use creates added benefits for
Carlsbad and our region by reducing Carlsbad’s peak-hour job commute traffic volumes and
CTGMC key issues and suggestions – People for Ponto Carlsbad Citizens submitted on 8/8/22 & 12/8/22 Page 2 of 9
vehicle miles traveled (VMT), and by reducing the costs Carlsbad (and other cities and the region)
have to pay to accommodate inter-city commute traffic. If Carlsbad reduces jobs land use will also
reduce the amount of housing the State of California and SANDAG requires Carlsbad provide in its
Housing Element thus reducing forcing incompatible high-density development into established
neighborhoods and pressure to convert useable GM Open Space lands to housing land use.
a. Suggestions to CTGMC:
i. Carlsbad can logically and cost effectively balance Jobs/housing supply by
updating Growth Management Policy to reduce jobs to be in balance with housing
by changing some of Carlsbad’s General Plan land use around the airport into
several high-density residential mixed-use Villages. The City has started some of
this, but can expand this effort but has not planned creating mixed-use village
environments. These high-density villages will reduce jobs and provide both high-
quality and high-density (affordable) housing within walking/biking distance to the
major job center and new neighborhood commercial and Park uses in the Villages.
ii. Prioritize transportation investments in safe bike paths, walking paths between
Carlsbad’s Central Jobs Core around the airport and Carlsbad’s housing, particularly
strongly connecting these new high-density mixed-use villages with the Central Jobs
Core.
iii. Update General Plan land use and housing policy to reduce concentrations of
higher-density housing except around the airport jobs core.
iv. Recognize the central Airport jobs core is ‘Carlsbad’s New Urban Downtown and
“Transect Plan” accordingly toward lower densities on the City periphery.
3. Although some very critical areas (such as the Coastal lands at Ponto) are still vacant and can be
wisely used for critical GM Quality of Life needs, much of Carlsbad is largely developed.
Redevelopment of developed land will require creating increased supplies of Parkland, Open
Spaces, transportation capacity, and other Quality of Life facilities.
a. Suggestions to CTGMC:
i. Completely rethink all City planning on existing vacant lands to assure that
remaining vacant land is planned and being used wisely and fairly distributed to
address critical Quality of Life needs in those areas, and not squandered on
redundant land use. The location of vacant land to address critical Park & Open
Space needs should be preserved with land use planning.
ii. Work with the State and CA Coastal Commission to preserve our Finite vacant
Coastal lands for High-Priority Coastal Land Uses (Coastal Recreation {i.e. Public
Parks} and Low-cost Visitor Accommodations and services) for the Infinite
population and visitor demands both internal and external to Carlsbad that are/will
be placed on them.
iii. Fully and at the very beginning of any Carlsbad General Plan, Local Coastal Program
and Growth Management Program actions going forward fully disclose, map and
require consideration of the impact of future sea level rise and coastal erosion on
Coastal land acres and land uses. Carlsbad has lost and will accelerate loosing acres
of Coastal land and High-priority Coastal Land Uses. Carlsbad must know, see, and
discuss these losses BEFORE making any land use decisions in Carlsbad’s Coastal
Zone and any vacant Coastal Land.
4. Carlsbad General Plan & Growth Management Plan do not provide a fair distribution of
adequately sized City Parks for all Carlsbad families. Veterans Park is a classic example. What will
CTGMC key issues and suggestions – People for Ponto Carlsbad Citizens submitted on 8/8/22 & 12/8/22 Page 3 of 9
be the City’s largest park is only about 1-mile away from three other major City Parks (Zone 5, and
the future Robinson Ranch and Hub Parks). This is a poor and unfair distribution and a misallocation
City Park land resources. Saying Veterans Park is ‘the park to serve SW, SE, and NE Carlsbad families’
(the overwhelming major/majority funders of veterans Park) when those families are upwards of 6-
miles away on major commercial arterials that kids can’t logically/safely use is false and unfair.
Most all the funding (developer fees) to build Veterans Park come from the SW, SE and NW Carlsbad
but those areas are denied the Park the paid for. Veterans Park is inaccessible by almost all its
intended users except by driving their cars and then storing their cars in parking lots on Parkland
thus making less park land available for actual park use – this makes little common sense and is a
great waste of tax-payer funds. This is dysfunctional along with being very unfair to families in SW,
SE and NE Quadrats that are denied park acres near their homes which they funded. Carlsbad’s
Park Master Plan maps ‘Park Service’ areas of existing known Park Inequity or Unfairness
(dysfunction), to show where new City Park investments should be made (See City map image
with notes below).
The Trust for Public Land provides a Park-Score to compare both a City’s amount of park acres and
the ‘fairness’ of access (within a 10-minute walk) to parks. Carlsbad is below national averages in
both park acres and fair access to parks. Carlsbad is also well below what our adjacent Coastal
cities of Encinitas and Oceanside provide. Carlsbad only requires 3 acres of Park land per 1,000
population, while Encinitas and Oceans require 5 acres - 67% more than Carlsbad – of parkland.
Also, Encinitas and Oceanside require parks to be within a 10-mintue walk to their citizens and
families. Carlsbad has no such requirement.
a. Suggestions to CTGMC:
No Coastal Park in South Carlsbad
• Appx. 6 miles of Coast
with out a Coastal Park is a
City & Reg ional need
• South Carlsbad has 64,000
residents & thousands of
hotel visitors without a
Coastal park
• Closest park to Ponto is
Poinsettia Park, approx. 2.5
miles across 1-5
• Proposed Veterans Park is
approx. 6 miles away
......... ,oc-.., '-'• ·-~ n.lo(&et~•~. _<,-., ___ .. -~~-......_ .... .,,..-c..-..,..._....,__ . _c.....,t-,.-___ .,.c-,,,.,,.
CTGMC key issues and suggestions – People for Ponto Carlsbad Citizens submitted on 8/8/22 & 12/8/22 Page 4 of 9
Carlsbad should change its General Plan, Parks and Growth Management Standards and
CMC 20.44 to:
i. Be Above Average Nationally in both providing park acreage and in locating
adequate park acreage to be within a 10-minute walk to all neighborhoods.
ii. Raise its minimum park acreage standard to 5 acers per 1,000 population, versus
the current low 3 acres per 1,000. Carlsbad should be at least as good as Encinitas
and Oceanside in requiring 5 acres, not 40% below what our adjacent Cities
require/provide.
iii. Raise its park location standard to require an adequately sized park be provided to
serve the neighborhood population within a 10-minute walk for all
neighborhoods.
iv. Prioritize City Policy and Park Budgets and investments to achieve park fairness in
‘Park Unserved areas’ identified by Carlsbad’s Park Master Plan.
v. Per Carlsbad’s Municipal Code Chapter 20.44- DEDICATION OF LAND FOR
RECREATIONAL FACILITIES to require developers in ‘Park Unserved areas’ and in
areas that do not have an adequately sized (5 acres per 1,000 population) park
within a 10-minute walk to provide their developments required Park land acre
dedication in actual Park land within a 10-minute walk to their development.
vi. Update the City’s Park-in-lieu fee to assure the fee is adequate to actually buy the
amount of park land a developer is to provide within a 10-miunte walk of their
development. The City’s current ‘Park-in-lieu-fee’ is far too low and inadequate to
actually buy land in area surrounding the proposed development.
vii. Only allow developers to pay a Park-in-lieu-fee where there is an adequately sized
park (provide 5 acres per 1,000 population) within a 10-minute walk of their
development, and growth management planned future development in that area
will not require more park land to provide 5 acres per 1,000 population) within a
10-minute walk.
viii. Consider updating Park policy to provide more multi-use flexibility in park land acres
and development on Parks. Many Carlsbad Park acres are developed/dedicated to a
single-purpose use, and unavailable for other park uses.
ix. Consider eliminating car parking lots from land that can be counted as parkland; or
by significantly limiting park land used for parking to around 5%.
x. Eliminate the counting of ‘GM Constrained and Unusable land’ and Protected
Endangered Species Habitat land as Park land. GM Constrained/Unusable lands
are undevelopable. Protected Habitat lands are by definition not useable for
development by people. Habitat is dedicated for plants and animals. Parks are
open spaces dedicated intended for people. Parkland calculations should exclude
Unusable lands and Protected Habitat lands and only count 100% people Useable
land as Park land. Where Park land abuts Habitat land a sufficient buffer space shall
be provided to prevent people mixing with animals (ex. Rattlesnakes, etc.) and
animals from people (habitat disturbance or destruction). This buffer area should
not be counted as Park or Habitat acres, but as natural/developed buffer open
space acres, and can be counted as part of the City’s 15% Growth Management
‘Aesthetic open Space’.
5. Carlsbad’s Coast is the most, if not the most, important feature of Carlsbad; and is consistently
identified by citizens and businesses and our Community Vision. Carlsbad’s Coastal Parks (west of
the I-5 corridor) are grossly unfairly distributed. Carlsbad’s Coastal Parks do not fairly match the
CTGMC key issues and suggestions – People for Ponto Carlsbad Citizens submitted on 8/8/22 & 12/8/22 Page 5 of 9
locational needs of the population. North Carlsbad that is 38% of Carlsbad’s population and has
10 Coastal Parks totaling 37+ acres in size. South Carlsbad that is 62% of Carlsbad’s population has
0 [ZERO] Coastal Parks totaling 0 [ZERO] acres. Again, Carlsbad’s Park Master Plan maps this
citywide unfairness (dots show park locations and circles show the area served by each park) and
says that the City should look at buying and building New Parks in these areas that are unserved by
City Parks (are not covered by a circle). The GM Update should correct this citywide unfair
distribution of City Parks by making plans for new Park purchases to create City Parks in these
unserved areas of Park Inequity.
To address citywide Coastal Park unfairness the current City Council wants to spend $60-85 million
in Carlsbad tax-payer funds to Relocate 2.3 miles of constrained Pacific Coast Highway median to try
to make some of the narrow PCH median ‘useable’ by people. 2001 and 2013 City PCH Relocation
studies identified only a small amount of ‘people-useable acres’ would be created next to PCH. The
$60-85 million tax-payer cost ($26-37 million per mile) does NOT add one single square foot of new
City land, it only inefficiently rearranges a small amount PCH median. The City can most tax-payer
cost effectively provide needed sidewalks and bike improvements along the outside edges of PCH
without PCH Relocation. The City’s 2001 PCH Relocation Financial Study and 2013 PCH Relocation
Design both indicated minimal useable land could be achieved by Relocation, and that the very high
tax-payer cost to do so would be very difficult to fund. The City has known for well over 20-years
that PCH Relocation is a high-cost and a poor solution to address the Citywide Coastal Park
unfairness in South Carlsbad.
However, a better and far less costly solution to correct Citywide Coastal Park unfairness and
provide a much needed South Carlsbad Coastal Park is to simply buy currently vacant land that is
for sale. The City did this (although the City actually bought existing homes) when it expanded Pine
Park. Carlsbad tax-payers have used the City’s own data to compare the tax-payer Cost/Benefits
of simply purchasing vacant land v. trying to rearrange existing City owned land at PCH. Simply
buying vacant land saves tax-payers saves tax-payers over $32.7 to $7.7 million. Please read the
following data files:
2022-June General Comparative tax-payer Costs/Benefits of Completing PCH, 2.3 miles of
PCH Modification (Island Way to La Costa Ave.), and 14.3 acre Ponto Park (Kam Sang) to
address planned loss of 30+ acres of Coastal Open Space Land Use at Ponto in South
Carlsbad: Part 1 of 2.
City’s PCH Modification Proposal Area Map with notes on usability Constraints and Issues:
P4P Input: Part 2 of 2
The most recent (9/19/22) land sale of 11.1 acre Ponto Planning Area F was less than $8
million (less than $706,000 per acre).
Buying and developing this 11.1 acre Ponto Park would cost less than $20 million
assuming a 10% profit to the new land-owner, and $1 million per acre park construction
cost like our newest Buena Vista Reservoir Park. The cost to help correct a Citywide
Coastal Park unfairness by simply buying & building a much needed 11.1 acre Ponto Coastal
Park would cost tax-payers less than the recently approved Measure J City Monroe Street
Pool Renovation. Investing less than $20 million ($1.8 million per acre) to buy and build an
11.1 acre Ponto Coastal Park is a great tax-payer value v. $65-80 million in tax-payer funds
to rearrange 15.8 acres of narrow strips of constrained PCH median (City documented
“Surplus Land Area #4 &5”) for some minimal people use at a tax-payer cost of $4-5 million
per acre. The overall and per acre costs of buying/building Ponto Park are over 2 to 3
times better value for tax-payers than PCH Relocation/rearrangement.
CTGMC key issues and suggestions – People for Ponto Carlsbad Citizens submitted on 8/8/22 & 12/8/22 Page 6 of 9
The City Council could/can buy land for Open Space (Parks are the most useable of the City’s
4 Open Space categories) under voter approved Prop C Open Space land acquisition
authority. The City has been advised to buy Ponto Park under Prop C per the City’s
settlement of a Growth Management law suit.
The Park and Coastal Park Inequity at Ponto and Coastal South Carlsbad is clearly a citywide issue.
Park and Coastal Park Inequity at Ponto and Coastal South Carlsbad as it is unfair to the vast
majority of Carlsbad citizens and their families as 62% of Carlsbad is in South Carlsbad. Park and
Coastal Park Inequity at Ponto and Coastal South Carlsbad is unfair to our major Visitor serving
industries (and tax generators) in South Carlsbad. Park and Coastal Park Inequity at Ponto and
Coastal South Carlsbad are clearly inconsistent with the CA Coastal Act, Carlsbad’s Community
Vision, and common sense. The Coastal South Carlsbad Park Inequity is also unfair to North
Carlsbad because South Carlsbad’s Coastal Park demand is being forced into Coastal North Carlsbad
and congesting those parks, and adding to Coastal North Carlsbad traffic and parking impacts. It
also increases greenhouse gases and VMT as it forces longer vehicle trips.
a. Suggestions to CTGMC:
i. 11.1 acre Ponto Planning Area F has a specific Local Coastal Program Land Use Policy
that says The City of Carlsbad must for the Ponto Area LCP ‘Consider and Document
the need for Coastal Recreation (i.e. Public Park) and or Low-Cost Visitor
Accommodations west of the railroad tracks (at Ponto) prior to any Land Use
change. The discussion of Parks by the CTGMC is such a situation that requires the
CTGMC to consider this adopted LCP Land Use Policies. Official public records
requests have shown the City never followed this LCP Land Use Policy
Requirement during the 2005 Ponto Vision Plan and 2015 General Plan Update,
and in 2010 the CA Coastal Commission rejected the Ponto Vision Plan and told
the City in 2017 that that land uses at Ponto could change based on the need for
Coastal Recreation and/or Low Cost Visitor Accommodations. The Mello II LCP
that covers most of Carlsbad’s Coastal Zone also has Land Use Policy 6.2 for the City
to consider a major park in the Batiquitos (Ponto/South Carlsbad) area. The City has
only implemented 1/6 to 1/3 of this policy. The CTGMC should fully evaluate the
citywide/South Carlsbad and local Ponto need for Coastal Parks as required by the
City’s adopted LCPs and CA Coastal Act.
ii. Carlsbad’s 2015 General Plan Update and Growth Management Plan (GMP) did not,
and was not updated to, consider the 2017 Sea Level Rise (SLR) Impact report
showing the loss/impact on 32+ acres of Carlsbad’s Coastal Land Use acreage in
South Carlsbad – primarily Open Space Land Use (beach and Campground). Both
the General Plan (and Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan) and GMP should be
updated to account for the loss and replacement of these 32+ acres of high-
priority Coastal Open Space Land Use due to SLR. The updates and the CTGMC
should use the newest CA Coastal Commission SLR Guidelines/science, not the old
guidelines used in 2017. Carlsbad’s LCP and CA Coastal Act Land Use Polies call for
‘upland relocation’ to replace the SLR loss of high-priority Coastal Land Uses.
iii. The availability over the past several years of the last two sufficiently sized vacant
lands suitable for a Ponto/South Carlsbad Coastal Park is a citywide issue. If these
last two vacant lands are lost to development forever future generations will have
lost the last opportunity for the needed South Carlsbad Coastal Park. The 5/3/22
Citizen requests for the City to jointly study acquisition of one or both these last
vacant lands for a needed (and only possible) true and meaningful Coastal Park for
CTGMC key issues and suggestions – People for Ponto Carlsbad Citizens submitted on 8/8/22 & 12/8/22 Page 7 of 9
South Carlsbad should be recommended by the CTGMC. The CTGMC should
recommend Carlsbad’s GMP be updated to incorporate Parkland acquisition of
these last opportunities to provide the needed Coastal Park for South Carlsbad.
6. Carlsbad Growth Management Open Space Standard is that 15% of all the Useable (unconstrained
and fully buildable) areas is to be preserved as Useable Open Space, and that all the 25 Local Facility
Management Plans (LFMP) show how that 15% is provided. The City says:
Yet the City has mapped and documented that this 15% Useable Open Space Performance Standard
was not complied with. The City also acknowledges that without changes to current City planning
the 15% Useable Open Space Performance Standard will never be complied with. The City
acknowledges that only 13% has/will under current plans ever be provided. This missing 2% equals
501 acers of lost GM Open Space the GMP promised citizens. Carlsbad law the Growth
Management Ordinance 21.90, and section ‘21.90.130 Implementation of facilities and
improvements requirements’; provide guidance on how non-compliance with a Performance
Standards is to be handled.
a. Suggestions to CTGMC:
i. Retain the GM Open Space Standard of 15% of all unconstrained and developable
land is maintained as Open Space. If the City removes the Open Space Standard, it
will allow and encourage land use changes to remove GM Open Space and replace
with development.
ii. The CTGMC should make a recommendation that an inventory of all 25 LFMP
Zones be conducted and an inventory of each LFMP Zones provision of at least
15% Useable Open Space shall be compiled. No LFMP Zone shall be allowed to be
“exempt” from this inventory. The City’s computerized GIS mapping system makes
it easy and clear as shown in the following City GIS map for LFMP Zone 9 (aka
Ponto).
OPEN SPACE
A. Performance Standard
Fifteen percent of t he total land uea in t he Local Facility Menagement Zone (LFMZ) exclusive
of environmentally const rained non-developable land must be set aside for permanent open
space and must be a11ai I able concurrent with development.
CTGMC key issues and suggestions – People for Ponto Carlsbad Citizens submitted on 8/8/22 & 12/8/22 Page 8 of 9
City GIS map of Ponto’s (LFMP Zone 9)
Open Space:
Light green areas meet the City’s 15%
unconstrained Growth Management
Program Open Space Standard
Most Ponto Open Space (pink hatch &
blue [water] on map) is “Constrained”
and does not meet the Standard
Aviara - Zone 19, Ponto - Zone 9 and
Hanover/Poinsettia Shores – Zone 22
all developed around the same time
and had similar vacant lands.
City required Aviara - Zone 19 east of
Ponto to provide the 15% Standard
Open Space. Why not Ponto? Aviara
includes the same lagoon.
City required Hanover & Poinsettia
Shores area Zone 22 just north of
Ponto to provide the 15% Standard
Open Space. Why not Ponto?
Why Ponto developers were not
required to comply with the 15%
Useable Open Space Standard is
subject to current litigation
Below is City GIS data from this map
City GIS map data summary of the Growth Management Standard of 15% Useable Open Space at Ponto
472 Acres Total land in LFMP Zone 9 [Ponto]
(197 Acres) Constrained land excluded from Growth Management (GMP) Open Space
275 Acres Unconstrained land in LFMP Zone 9 [Ponto]
X 15% GMP Minimum Unconstrained Open Space requirement
41 Acres GMP Minimum Unconstrained Open Space required
(11 Acres) GMP Open Space provided & mapped per City GIS data
30 Acres Missing Unconstrained Open Space needed in LFMP Zone 9 [Ponto] to meet the City’s
minimum GMP Open Space Standard per City’s GIS map & data
73% of the City’s minimum 15% required Open Space Standard is missing due to over
development of LFMP Zone 9 [Ponto]
• j ••-.•~•I ; , .... ~ ..
Q)l:ltl$~C~ 0Patt(f$
~ 1~PreseM11cno1H.111nfl-c:J Lf'MZ980unclt't
O :t•WOO<J'~ c:Jcc,ens.,_~
0
MlliJs
g ,-~~ .•;;·';.,.-.-::~.;•.-' .....
N
A
O ,oo 200 300 .4(1(1
CTGMC key issues and suggestions – People for Ponto Carlsbad Citizens submitted on 8/8/22 & 12/8/22 Page 9 of 9
iii. In instances like LFMP Zone 9 (above image) that clearly did not provide at least 15%
Useable Open Space and/or were falsely “exempted” the CTGMC should
recommend that a Local Facilities Zone Useable Open Space Correction Plan shall
be developed that explores the GM Open Space use/reuse of City land, land use
planning requirements, and/or possible acquisitions of remaining vacant land acres
to make up for any shortfall in meeting the 15% Useable Open Space in that a Zone.
An example of this in LFMP Zone 9 is that the City’s regional Rail Trail will convert 2-
lanes of almost all of Avenida Encinas to wider buffered bike lanes and an adequate
portion of the converted 2 vehicle lanes can be landscaped (v. just painting strips as
a buffer) to provide a safer/better bike lane buffer within a GM compliant Open
Space. 2 vehicle lanes in Windrose Circle could also be similarly landscaped and
converted to GM complaint Open Space. This is just one example of a cost-effective
means to add GM Open Space that developers were falsely allowed to remove.
iv. A Local Facilities Zone Useable Open Space Correction Plan should involve a
Citizens Advisory Committee composed of citizens within the impacted Zone and
appointed by the Council Members representing the Zone, and a representative of
each vacant land owner over of over 1-acre in size.
v. Consistent with the Growth Management Ordinance land use changes and
development applications within a Local Facilities Zone Useable Open Space
Correction Plan Zone shall be deferred until the applications can considered with (or
after adoption of) a Local Facilities Zone Useable Open Space Correction Plan.
CARLSBAD GROWTH MANAGEMENT MEETING
My name is Robert Gilleskie, P.E., and I’m retired from SDG&E where I managed
the Energy Auditors group among other positions. Later I was the Director of
Engineering at the then California Center for Sustainable Energy, and then the Energy
Manager at Naval Base Point Loma, and finally, the Energy Manager at Marine Corps
Installation West (MCIWEST), from which I retired in 2016.
At MCIWEST I was responsible for coordinating energy projects among the eight
Marine Corps bases in California with Marine Corps headquarters in Washington, DC.
These projects included energy efficiency and renewable energy projects, primarily
solar photovoltaic, but also included possible geothermal projects in the Imperial Valley
near MCAS Yuma. Among the energy projects was a microgrid project at Camp
Pendleton Area 53, consisting of a ground installed solar PV system with tracking
panels, battery storage, and controls which enabled various components of the Area to
rely on each other in the event of failure of any one. Major advantages of the project
were energy security, the use of renewable energy from the solar installation, and
energy efficiency.
In 2012 the San Diego region experienced a massive power failure which
prompted DOD to evaluate the risk of losing the base’s ability to launch aircraft and
control those already airborne. The result was DOD suggesting and funding a microgrid
project at MCAS Miramar, which already had a significant amount of solar PV installed.
As far as I know, that project has been completed, and the base is able to operate for
14 days isolated from SDG&E’s power grid.
During my service as the MCIWEST Energy Manager I began and continued to
advocate to Marine Corps headquarters for the expansion of microgrids at MCB Camp
Pendleton and MCAS Pendleton, as well as the other seven Marine Corps bases of
MCIWEST. This advocacy included presentations to various Department of the Navy
units and the California Energy Commission. With regard to the CEC, the eight Marine
Corps bases in MCIWEST could very well be eight cities in California which could
eventually install their own microgrids. Just as the eight MCIWEST bases could benefit
from diversity of demand and relieve each other (MCB Ridgecrest to MCAS Yuma is
about 334 miles), cities in California could support each other and enjoy the same
benefits as the microgrids at MCB Camp Pendleton and MCAS Miramar.
Prior to retiring as Energy Manager at MCIWEST I wrote its Strategic Energy
Plan and specified the installation of microgrids at all the bases of MCIWEST.
Robert Gilleskie, P.E.
From:Larry Peifer
To:Growth Management Committee
Cc:Larry Peifer
Subject:Park and Open Space Performance Standards
Date:Saturday, January 7, 2023 12:31:25 PM
To: committee@carlsbadca.gov
Fr: Larry Peifer, 2610 Valewood Ave., Carlsbad, CA, 92010760-720-9009
Comments regarding Park and Open Space Performance Standards. Please consider my comments on this subject at reverent meetings and public commentopportunities. Regarding Open Space
Keep the 15% per LFMZ, but eliminate exemptions so all zones are tureated the sameInventory all vacant/underutilized land for potential open spaceRemove the exemption on the 11 LFMZ's and develop transition plans to graduallyincrease open space so that each part of the city has an equitable share of open space- aswas promised in 1986.
Regarding Parks
add a standard for accessible, neighborhood parks. Other cities have .5 acres /1,000residents —often above the 3 acre minimum requirement per state law.
do not expand what gets counted towards the standard —instead only count schoolyards at 1/2 their acres to reflect restrictions on use.
require a transition plan to accommodate these changes over time to allow time for parkimpact fees to be adjusted and other revenues sources developed.
Thank you for your time and consideration of these issues
Sent from my iPad
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and
know the content is safe.
•
•
•
•
•
•
From:Nadine
To:Growth Management Committee
Subject:Standards Open Space and Parks
Date:Saturday, January 7, 2023 6:13:55 PM
To whom it may concern:
Open Space: I urge you to keep the 15% LFMZ with NO exemptions. Remove existingexemptions. The city is already short on acreage that was promised in 1986. It is to be 40% not
the current, quite inadequate 750 acres short of that.
It would also be very helpful if you did an inventory of vacant land/underutilized land that has
potential for this program as well in order to fulfill the agreed to percentage.
Parks Standard: I urge you to review this entire program before keeping it in place or
removing it. Communities thrive when there are more park space, open to the public unlikeschool yards that are often locked. Those should not be counted in park acreage or perhaps
counted at 1/2 value since they are not actually accessible like regular parkland is.
Special attention should be paid to disadvantaged/lower income neighborhoods with the
thought to create MORE parkland there in order to improve quality of life and opportunities.These communities are in need of more parkland.
Last, don't keep the standard at state's minimum of 3 acres. You should increase opportunitiesby using a much lower figure perhaps .5 or even 1 acre for the program.
Carlsbadians are lucky they have a quality city but you can do much better in these areas thatbenefit all.
Thank you for accepting my comments and addressing my concerns.
Nadine Scott, Attorney
Friends of Loma Alta Creek550 Hoover St.
Oceanside CA 92054
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and
know the content is safe.
From:Lynda Daniels
To:Growth Management Committee
Subject:Parks in Carlsbad
Date:Saturday, January 7, 2023 9:21:45 PM
I am a ten year plus resident of Carlsbad and one of the reasons I moved to Carlsbad was its parks and open space.
I am concerned about plans for our open spaces.
I ask you to consider eliminating exceptions to the 11 of the 25 LFMZ’s. Also to look at other open spaces up to
five acres per 1000 residents as many other cities do.
Please do not count what gets counted towards the standard. I.e. count school yards at one half their acres to reflect
restrictions to their use.
A transition plan will be necessary to accommodate these changes.
There also seem to be no provisions for a coastal access park for the entire southern half of the city.
Thank you for your attention.
Lynda Daniels
4547 Piccadilly Ct
Carlsbad 92010
Sent from my iPad
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
From:Mike Guerreiro
To:Growth Management Committee
Subject:Carlsbad Parks and Open Space Performance Standards
Date:Saturday, January 7, 2023 10:30:56 PM
Dear CBad Citizen's Committee,
As a resident of Southwest Carlsbad, I've seen our open space shrink over the past 20 years. It
seems like the developer mafia has a stranglehold our development decisions made within
Carlsbad. We need to protect what open space we have and increase the number of
community parks. The creation of Ponto Park is a must.
I urge you to support the following when considering recommendations on new Parks and
Open Space Performance Standards:
Open Space:
Keep the 15% per LFMZ, but eliminate exemptions so all zones are treated equally
Inventory all vacant/underutilized land for potential open space
Remove the exemption on the 11 LFMZ's and develop transition plans to gradually
increase open space so that each part of the city has an equitable share of open space -
as was promised in 1986.
Parks:
Add a standard for accessible, neighborhood parks above the 3 acre minimum
requirement per state law
Do not expand what gets counted towards the standard, only count school yards
at ½ their acres to reflect restrictions on use.
Require a transition plan to accommodate these changes over time to allow time for
park impact fees to be adjusted and other revenue sources developed.
Encouragingly yours,
Mike Guerreiro
902 Caminito Madrigal, Unit J
Carlsbad, CA 92011
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and
know the content is safe.
•
•
•
•
•
•
From:Harry Peacock
To:Growth Management Committee
Subject:Fwd: FW: Planning Update - Environmental Notices
Date:Sunday, January 8, 2023 11:44:24 AM
Attachments:2022-12-21 Staff proposed CEQA Exemption for SDP 20220003 CDP 20220023 (1).pdf
2022 Oct - Public Input of Environmental Impacts of Ponto Site 18 for SEIR on proposed Coastal Land Use
changes in 2021-2029 Housing Element Update.pdf
Public input and data on Ponto Site 18 within the CA Coastal Zone - Reminder Give input on environmental study
for future housing sites.eml.msg
Site_18_-_North_Ponto_Parcels - City information comparing existing v proposed lu.pdf
Please see the attachments to this email sent to me by Lance Shulte as they relate specificallyto the parks issue we will be discussing at next week's meeting.
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Lance Schulte <meyers-schulte@sbcglobal.net>Date: Fri, Jan 6, 2023 at 1:43 PM
Subject: FW: Planning Update - Environmental NoticesTo: Harry & Bobbi Peacock <hrpeacock41@gmail.com>
Harry:
Below is 1/5/23 notice on 12/21/22 Eric Lardy proposed CEQA Expeption (attached) for Ponto Site
18 proposed development. Look at how the City says increasing density automatically decreases
traffic impact regardless of any rational justification.
Attached is also my CEQA issues and input I sent to the City & CCC in Oct 2022 that appeared
ignored. Attached is my full email to the City & CCC.
Lastly, attached is City’s discussion of Ponto Site 18 (aka ‘FPC Residential SDP20220003 &
CDP20220023’) that notes the GPA/ZC/LCPA issues that are missing in Eric’s 12/21/22 proposed
CEQA exemption along with the CEQA issues I raised in Oct 2022 Public Input as requested by the
City.
Lance
From: City of Carlsbad [mailto:communications@carlsbadca.ccsend.com] On Behalf Of City of CarlsbadSent: Thursday, January 5, 2023 3:39 PMTo: meyers-schulte@sbcglobal.netSubject: Planning Update - Environmental Notices
CEQA Determinations
[I]
Planning Update
The most recent Environmental Notices are now available on the city's
website.
[ii
CEQA Determination of Exemption:
City Planner Determination - Pressure Reducing Station Replacements Project
City Planner Determination - Public Parking Lots and ADA Improvements Project
SDP 2022-0003 CDP 2022-0023 - FPC RESIDENTIAL
V2022-0008 - 3606 LAREDO STREET RV
For more information please visit the city's website, email
planning@carlsbadca.gov or call 442-339-2600.
Quick Links
Meeting Calendar
Laws & Policies
Public Records
City Charter
Boards & Commissions
Contact Us
City of Carlsbad
planning@carlsbadca.gov
442-339-2600
1635 Faraday Ave.
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Connect with us
01------------~.~ D
City of Carlsbad | 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008
Unsubscribe meyers-schulte@sbcglobal.net
Update Profile | Constant Contact Data Notice
Sent by planning@carlsbadca.gov
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and
know the content is safe.
CEQA DETERMINATION OF EXEMPTION
Subject: This California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Determination of Exemption is in compliance
with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 19.04.060. An appeal to this determination must be filed
in writing with the required fee within ten (10) calendar days of the City Planner's decision
consistent with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.54.140.
City Planner Decision Date: _D_e_ce_m_be_r_2_1~2_02_2 ___________________ _
Project Number and Title: SDP 2022-0003 / CDP 2022-0023 (DEV2022-0048) -FPC RESIDENTIAL
Project Location -Specific: 7200, 7290 and 7294 Ponto Drive, Carlsbad, CA. Generally, the project site is
located at the eastern corner of Ponto Road and Ponto Drive in the western portion of the city. It is
bounded by Ponto Drive to the south, the Cape Rey Carlsbad Beach Hotel parking lot to the north, Ponto
Road to the west, and the Burlington, Northern, Santa Fe ("BNSF") Railroad tracks to the east; and consists
of three parcels (Assessor Parcel Numbers 214-160-25-00; 214-160-28-00; and 214-171-11-00) totaling
approximately 4.64 acres.
Project Location -City: ~C~ar_ls~b_a~d ____ _ Project Location -County: _Sa_n_D_i_e~go ____ _
Description of Project: The project consists of a Site Development Plan (SDP 2022-0003) and Coastal
Development Permit (CDP 2022-0023) for the construction and development of 86 multi-family residential
units at a residential density of 18.5 dwelling units per acre. The proposed residential buildings consist of
a mix of two-and three-story town home style apartment units (for rent). The proposed project includes
a 27.5 percent density bonus request and is providing 13 on-site affordable units to lower-income
households. The site is currently developed with a self-storage facility, a junkyard/storage yard, and two
vacant office buildings. The project includes the following off-site improvements: street, curb, gutter,
sidewalk along Ponto Drive and Ponto Road and a sewer line c.onnection through the railroad right-of-
way.
Name of Public Agency Approving Project: ~C=ity~of'-C~a~r~ls~b~ad~---------------
Name of Person or Agency Carrying Out Project: -=-C'""ity.L....=..of'-C=a=r-=ls=b=ad=----------------
Name of Applicant: H.G. Fenton Property Company
Applicant's Address: 7577 Mission Valley Road, San Diego, CA 92108
Applicant's Telephone Number: _6_19_-_4_00_-_0_1_20 ___________________ _
Name of Applicant/Identity of person undertaking the project (if different from the applicant above):
NA
Exempt Status: (Check One)
D Ministerial (Section 21080(b)(l); 15268);
D Declared Emergency (Section 21080(b)(3); 15269(a));
D Emergency Project (Section 21080(b)(4); 15269 (b)(c));
[8J Categorical Exemption -State type and section number: Class 32, Section 15332 (In-Fill Development
Pro·ects
D Statutory Exemptions -State code number: ___________________ _
D Common Sense Exemption (Section 15061(b)(3))
Reasons why project is exempt:
Sections 15300 to 15333 of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") Guidelines provide classes
of projects that have been determined not to have a significant effect on the environment and are exempt
from further CEQA review. As provided below, the Project is consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section
15332, In-Fill Development Projects, and would therefore be exempt from CEQA.
(a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan
policies as well as with applicable zoning designations and regulations.
The Project Site is designated by the City's General Plan as R-15, Residential (R-15) and R-15,
Residential/Visitor Commercial (R-15/VC) and is zoned Residential Density-Multiple (RD-M) and
Residential Density-Multiple/Commercial Tourist (RD-M/CT). According to the General Plan Land Use
Element, the residential designations provide for a range of housing types and densities. Densities are
stated as number of dwelling units per acre of developable land. Residential development is required to
be within the development range as identified in the city's Land Use Map. Properties within a R-15
residential land use designation must have a density of housing between eight and 15 dwelling units per
acre (stated as a minimum to maximum density range), unless otherwise stated in the General Plan or
preempted by State law. The gross acreage of the Project Site is 4.64 acres. The maximum density allowed
is 70 units (4.64-acres multiplied by 15 dwelling units to the acre= 69.6 or 70 units with rounding).
State law encourages cities to provide affordable housing through incentives to developers (i.e., State
Density Bonus Law, Government Code Section 65915). State Density Bonus Law allows a developer to
increase density on a property above the maximum density, set under the General Plan. In this instant the
applicant is requesting a density of 86 units, which includes 13 units reserved for lower-income
households (refer to the supplemental application material for the details of the request). Density Bonus
Law stipulates that a request for a density bonus does not constitute a valid basis on which to find a
proposed housing development project is not compliant with a general plan. In addition, State Density
Bonus Law explicitly requires the city to consider "the density allowed under the land use element of the
general plan" in determining maximum allowable residential density. Therefore, the proposed density of
the Project is deemed compliant with the land use density designation of the General Plan.
The General Plan consists of other elements that provide applicable goals and policies. One objective of
the Housing Element is to promote an equitable distribution of affordable housing opportunities
throughout the city by providing incentives to include affordable housing in residential development. The
proposed Project would bring a mix of housing types and affordability levels and help the city
accommodate housing for various household formations. Providing additional residential uses in the
Ponto Beach area would increase the residential base, providing housing near employment and
recreational opportunities, which will shorten and lessen the need for vehicle trips and vehicle miles
traveled, advancing several policies related to circulation (Mobility Element portion of the General Plan).
The Project Site is located within an area with existing residential and commercial uses. The Project, which
includes the redevelopment of an approximately 4.64-acre site with 86 townhomes and associated
improvements is consistent with the Residential designation.
In terms of zoning consistency, according to Section 21.24.010 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code ("CMC"),
the purpose of the RD-M zone is to: 1. "Implement the residential medium density, residential medium-
high density, and residential high density land use designation" and 2. "Provide regulations and standards
for development of residential dwellings and other permitted or and conditionally permitted uses".
Pursuant to Section 21.24.020 of the CMC, the development of multiple-family dwellings is a permitted
use within the RD-M zone. Thus, the Project is consistent with the RD-M zoning. The zoning on the
property is adopted as part of the Local Coastal Program and was approved by the Coastal Commission
when the designations were applied after the 2015 General Plan Update.
The General Plan includes three policies in the Land Use Element related to the Ponto/Southern
Waterfront area, as follows:
• Policy 2-P .89: Allow development of the Ponto area with land uses that are consistent with those
envisioned in the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan.
o The Ponto Beach area is an approximately 130-acre narrow strip of land, approximately
1/8 mile wide and 1-1/2 miles long, located between Carlsbad Boulevard and the LOSSAN
Corridor (San Diego Northern) railroad tracks. Portions of the plan area extended north
to Poinsettia Lane and south to La Costa Avenue. The southern boundary includes coastal
bluffs that transition to the waters of Batiquitos Lagoon at the southern end. The intent
of the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan was to create a mixed use, active pedestrian,
and bicycle-oriented area with a strong sense of place, village atmosphere, and unique
character of design. Although the Vision Plan called for a future LCP amendment to define
permitted uses, the Vision Plan proposed to break up the Ponto area into three sections
and sets forth a vision of what land uses could occur; 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 northern-most section was to be
comprised of two hotels and a live-work neighborhood. The central portion of the area
was to be comprised of a townhouse neighborhood and a mixed-use center with a public
recreation component. The southern portion of the area included a large-scale resort
hotel.
o The Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan was adopted by the City Council on Dec. 4, 2007
and was to be effective only after the Local Coastal Program Amendment was approved
by the California Coastal Commission and their. approval becomes effective. The Vision
Plan was submitted to the California Coastal Commission for approval but was denied by
the California Coastal Commission on July 22, 2010. The city was directed to first process
a Local Coastal Program Amendment certifying the land use and zoning for the Ponto
Beach area, and then certify the Vision Plan as part of the city's Local Coastal Program.
Because the Vision Plan is not effective, General Plan consistency analysis on this matter
must be limited. However, for informational purposes only, the Project would develop
residential uses, which are contemplated as part of the uncertified Ponto Beachfront
Village Vision Plan. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with the land uses envisioned
in the uncertified Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan.
• Policy 2-P .90: Promote development of recreation uses and improved public access to the beach,
as well as activity centers with restaurants, cafes, and shopping along Carlsbad Boulevard, as
opportunities arise in appropriate locations.
o The Project is not located along Carlsbad Boulevard, but it would nonetheless include on-
and off-site street system improvE:!ments, which would provide for pedestrian access and
improve connectivity to the beach . Therefore, the Project would not conflict with Policy
P-2.90.
• Policy 2-P.91: Allow the property's overall residential development capacity, as indicated by the
land use designations on the Land Use Map, to be clustered toward the northern portion of the
site to create an open space buffer and recreational trail on the southerly third of the site.
o The Project Site is located on the northern portion of the plan area and proposes
residential development consistent with Policy P-2.91. Please refer to the Project Site
Plan.
(b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres
substantially surrounded by urban uses.
The Project Site is located along Ponto Road and Ponto Drive, firmly within the existing boundaries of the
city. The Project Site is approximately 4.64 acres and is surrounded by existing urbanized development
consisting of Ponto Drive to the south, the Cape Rey Carlsbad Beach Hotel parking lot to the north, Ponto
Road and single-family residential development to the west, and the Burlington, Northern, Santa Fe
("BNSF") Railroad tracks to the east. Thus, the Project Site is surrounded by urban uses, is less than 5-
acres, and is located within an urbanized area.
(c) The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species.
The Project Site is located in a developed part of the city and is surrounded by residential and
commercial land uses. The Project Site features the existing Ponto Storage facility and a junkyard,
which would be demolished and removed during Project construction. A Biological Resources Letter
Report (Alden Environmental Inc., September 2022) was prepared for the Project Site. Two field
surveys were conducted (in May 2019 and September 2022) to review and document existing
vegetation communities, plant and animal species, and potential jurisdictional features including
vernal pool resources. The results of the surveys are documented within the Biological Resources
Letter Report and summarized below.
Aerial imagery as far back as 1947, reviewed as part of preparation of the Biological Resources Letter
Report, shows visible ground disturbance on site, and aerial imagery from 1978 shows the existing Ponto
Storage facility (Nationwide Environmental Title Research, LLC 2021). During the site surveys, the property
was found to support Disturbed Land (2.02 acres) and Developed Land (2.62 acres). Disturbed land is a
City Habitat Group F land cover type and typically includes land cleared of vegetation, land containing a
preponderance of non-native plant species, or land showing signs of past or present usage that no longer
provides viable wildlife habitat. Developed land includes nursery/landscape service yard (i.e., junkyard),
the Ponto Storage facility and its outbuildings, concrete foundations, and some associated non-native
landscaping plants such as Mexican fan palm and coppery mesembryanthemum (Malephora crocea).
All Project impacts would occur to either Developed Land (2.62-acres on-site and 0.51 acres off-site) or
Disturbed Land (Group F) (2.02 acres). Neither is considered a sensitive biological resource; therefore,
impacts are considered less than significant. Impacts to Group F land cover do nonetheless require
payment into the City's Habitat Mitigation Fee Program per the Habitat Conservation Plan. As such, the
Project will be conditioned to pay this fee for the 2.02 acres of impact to Disturbed Land.
There was no evidence of vernal pool or wetland features present on the site or in the adjacent mapped
buffer area. Small patches of coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis) do occur in the adjacent buffer area;
however, they do not constitute a sensitive habitat type. This species, while native, is a disturbance
associated species, which commonly forms monospecific patches in developed and disturbed areas. No
special status plant or animal species were observed or detected on-site.
Lastly, the Project Site is not located within any Focused Planning Area (FPA) or any corresponding Habitat
Management Plan (HMP) Core, Linkage, or Special Resource Area, and is not located within the City's
Preserve System.
In summary, as a result of this existing development, vegetation communities on the Project Site are
limited to Developed Land and Disturbed Habitat. There are no sensitive vegetation communities
present within or adjacent to the Project Site; no special status plant or animal species were
observed/detected; and none are considered to have potential to occur based on the existing
conditions of the Project Site. Additionally, the Project Site does not support any jurisdictional
wetland/riparian features. Based on specific habitat requirements, no significant biological resources can
reasonably be expected to occur on the property; therefore, the Project Site is not considered to have
value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species.
Because the site is within the coastal zone, the Coastal Act places limits on what can be developed on the
Project Site, which must be analyzed as part of this section. The Coastal Act specifies that environmentally
sensitive habitat areas (ESHA) "shall be protected against any significant disruption of habitat values, and
only uses dependent on those resources shall be allowed within those areas." (Public Resources Code
Section 30240(a).) ESHA is defined as an area in which plant or animal life or their habitats are either are
or especially vulnerable because of their special nature or role in an ecosystem and which could be easily
disturbed or degraded by human activities or developments. (Public Resources Code Section 30107.5.)
The foregoing summary and analysis provided in the Biological Resources Letter Report does not identify
potential for any ESHA on the Project Site and there is no evidence that the proposed Project violates the
ESHA requirements of the Coastal Act.
(d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to air quality, noise, traffic, or
water quality as discussed below:
Air Quality
An Air Quality Impact Analysis ("AQIA") (Dudek, June 2022) evaluated the potential for adverse impacts
to air quality due to construction and operational emissions resulting from the Project. Impacts were
evaluated for their significance based on the San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD) mass daily
criteria air pollutant thresholds of significance. Criteria air pollutants are defined as pollutants for which
the federal and state governments have established ambient air quality standards (criteria) for outdoor
concentrations to protect public health. Criteria air pollutants include ozone (03), nitrogen dioxide (NO2),
carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (502), particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than
or equal to 10 microns (PM10), particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 2.5
microns (PM2.s), and lead. Pollutants that are evaluated include volatile organic compounds (VOCs) (also
referred to as reactive organic gases), oxides of nitrogen (NOx), CO, sulfur oxides (SOx), PM10, and PM2.s.
voes and NOx are important because they are precursors to 03.
Air Quality Plan Consistency
If a project proposes development that is greater than that anticipated in the local plan and the growth
projections set by the San Diego Association of Governments (SAN DAG), the project might be in conflict
with the State Implementation Plan and Regional Air Quality Strategy, and therefore may contribute to a
potentially significant cumulative impact on air quality. The Project is consistent with the current air
quality plan, because the anticipated growth associated with the Project does not exceed that the growth
projected by SAN DAG. In addition, the Project would not result in an increase in the frequency or severity
of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations. Based on these considerations,
impacts related to the Project's potential to conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air
quality plan would be less than significant.
Construction Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions
Construction of the Project would result in the temporary addition of pollutants to the local airshed
caused by on-site sources (i.e., off-road construction equipment, soil disturbance, and VOC off-gassing)
and off-site sources (i.e., on-road haul trucks, vendor trucks, and worker vehicle trips). As shown in the
AQIA, maximum daily construction emissions would not exceed the SDAPCD significance thresholds for
VOCs, NOx, CO, SOx, PM10, or PM2.s during construction. Therefore, the Project would have a less than
significant impact.
Operational Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions
The AQIA assumed an operational year of 2025. Operation of the Project would generate operational
criteria air pollutants from mobile sources (vehicles), area sources (consumer product use, architectural
coatings, and landscape maintenance equipment), and energy (natural gas). The AQIA concluded that
maximum operational emissions would not exceed the SDAPCD operational significance thresholds for
VOCs, NOx, CO, SOx, PM10, or PM2.s,
Cumulative Impacts
The potential for a project to result in a cumulatively considerable impact, per the SDAPCD guidance and
thresholds, is based on the project's potential to exceed the project-specific daily thresholds. The AQIA
showed that because maximum construction and operational emissions would not exceed the SDAPCD
significance thresholds for VOCs, NOx, CO, SOx, PM10, or PM2.s, the Project would not result in a
cumulatively considerable increase in criteria air pollutants.
Exposure of Sensitive Receptors
Construction activities would not generate emissions in excess of the SDAPCD site-specific mass daily
thresholds; therefore, site-specific construction impacts during construction of the Project would be less
than significant. The AQIA determined that the results of the project-specific Health Risk Assessment (HRA)
demonstrate that the toxic air contaminants (TAC) exposure from construction diesel exhaust emissions would
not result in cancer risk on site above the 10 in 1 million threshold, nor a Chronic Hazard Index greater than
1.0. Therefore, TAC emissions from construction of the Project would not expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations. Therefore, impacts to sensitive receptors would be less than
significant.
The Project includes 86 residential units and based on CalEEMod modeling is expected to generate ·a
maximum of 700 daily vehicle trips on Saturday and 630 daily trips on weekdays. The associated peak-hour
trips from the Project would be 40 and 48 for AM and PM peak hour trips, respectively. Therefore, the AQIA
concluded that the Project would not cause a measurable impact to any nearby intersections in the study
area. In addition, the nearest signalized intersection to the Project is located at Ponto Road and Carlsbad
Boulevard and is over 800 feet from the Project site. Therefore, the AQIA determined that no hotspot
analysis would be required based on the location of the Project in relation to nearby intersections. As such,
Project-generated impacts associated with CO hotspots would be less than significant.
Other Emissions
Potential odors produced during construction would be attributable to concentrations of unburned
hydrocarbons from tailpipes of construction equipment, architectural coatings, and asphalt pavement
application, which would disperse rapidly from the Project site and generally occur at magnitudes that
would not affect substantial numbers of people as explained in the AQIA. Impacts associated with odors
during construction would be less than significant. The Project is a residential development that would
not include land uses with sources that have the potential to generate substantial odors, and impacts
associated with odors during operation would be less than significant.
Noise
A Noise Technical Letter {Helix Environmental Planning, October 2022) was prepared for the Project. The
Noise Technical Letter analyzed noise impacts related to the construction and operation associated with
the Project. A Vibration Technical Letter (Helix Environmental Planning, September 2022) was also
prepared for the Project to analyze vibration impacts associated with the North County Transit District
railroad tracks, which are located adjacent to the Project site.
Construction Noise Levels
Construction of the Project would involve demolition of the existing structures and construction of 86
multi-family residential units. The magnitude of the impact would depend on the type of construction
activity, equipment, duration of each construction phase, distance between the noise source and receiver,
and intervening structures. Construction would generate elevated noise levels that may by audible at
nearby residential uses. Construction equipment would not all operate at the same time or location. and
would not be in constant use during a typical 8-hour operating day.
The closest noise-sensitive land uses (NSLUs) are residential homes approximately 60 feet west of the
Project Site boundary; however, because construction noise is mobile and would occur throughout the
Project Site, an average distance of 150 feet was used to. assess noise levels. Construction Equipment
Noise Levels are modeled in the Noise Technical Letter. The loudest piece of individual equipment
operated during construction would be the grader. Additionally, an excavator, loader, and dump truck
were analyzed together for construction noise impacts due to their likelihood of being used in conjunction
with one another.
The city does not provide a numerical threshold for construction noise levels, and construction would
occur within the hours allowed by the CMC. Given the nature of construction noise and the distance to
the nearest NSLU, while construction may result in temporary noise levels that exceed the existing
ambient noise level of 55.2 dBA, the Project will result in a less than significant construction noise impact.
Construction Vibration
Construction of the Project would occur near single-family residences, with the nearest houses occurring
as close as 60 feet from the edge of the Project Site. A possible source of vibration during general
construction activities would be a vibratory roller, which may be used for compaction of soil beneath
building foundations and would be used within 60 feet of off-site residences. A vibratory roller would
create approximately 0.210 inch per second peak-particle velocity (PPV) at a distance of 25 feet (Caltrans
2013b). A 0.210 inch per second PPV vibration level would equal 0.069 inch per second PPV at a distance
of 60 feet. This would be lower than the structural damage impact to older structures of 0.5 inches per
second PPV and the "strongly perceptible" impact for humans of 0.1 inches per second PPV. Therefore,
even though vibration may be perceptible at nearby residences, the Noise Technical letter concluded that
temporary impacts associated with the roller (and other potential equipment) would be less than
significant.
Operational Noise Levels
On-site Noise Generation. Noise modeling assumed that the Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning
(HVAC) units would be Carrier 38HDR060 split system condenser units, and that one unit would be
mounted on the rooftop of each unit, resulting in a total of 86 HVAC units included in the Project.
According to the CadnaA modeling, operation of the proposed HVAC units would generate a noise level
of 33.3 dBA LEo (equivalent noise level) at the property line of the single-family residence to the west.
Therefore, the Project would not exceed the City's non-transportation nighttime operational noise limit
of 45 dBA LEQ. The Noise Technical Letter determined that impacts would be less than significant.
Off-site Transportation Noise. CadnaA software was used to calculate the noise levels for Existing and
Existing Plus Project conditions. The off-site roadway modeling represents a conservative analysis that
'does not consider topography or attenuation provided by structures such as existing noise walls. With
implementation of the Project, the Noise Technical Letter concluded that noise levels at the nearest NSLUs
to the impacted roadways would minimally increase (1.2 dBA), which would not exceed the city's noise
level threshold of 60 dBA. Therefore, impacts from Project-generated traffic would be less than significant.
Operation Vibration Levels
As a residential development, the Project would not generate excessive ground-borne vibration during
operation. Additionally, the Project site would not be subject to excessive vibration due to the proximity
to the North County Transit District railroad tracks (Vibration Technical Letter). Therefore, the Technical
Letters showed that no impacts would occur.
Land Use Compatibility
Exterior Use Areas. The noise levels associated with traffic (including Project-added trips) were modeled
in the Noise Technical Letter using CadnaA at the Project Site's western boundary, which would be the
portion of the Project closest to local roadways. The western boundary would be located as close as 35
feet from the centerline of Ponto Road and 230 feet from the northbound lane centerline of Carlsbad
Boulevard. The modeled roadway noise level at exterior use areas, assuming no topographic attenuation,
was modeled at 56.1 dBA, which would not exceed the City's 65 dBA CNEL standard.
Interior Spaces. Traditional architectural materials are conservatively estimated in the Technical Letter to
attenuate noise levels by 15 dBA; therefore, if noise levels exceed 60 dBA, interior noise levels may exceed
the Title 24 interior noise standard of 45 dBA (California Building Standards Commission 2010). As
described above, noise levels from Carlsbad Boulevard and Ponto Road would not exceed 60 dBA;
therefore, the proposed Project would not generate noise that would increase noise levels at the nearest
NSLUs that would result in an exceedance of exterior or interior noise standards and impacts would be
less than significant.
Airport Noise
The Project site is not within 2-mies of an airport or airfield. The nearest airport is the Carlsbad McClellan-
Palomar Airport, which is approximately 2.5 miles northeast of the Project site. Further, the Project site is
outside all CNEL noise contours from the McClellan-Palomar Airport as depicted on Exhibit 111-1,
Compatibility Policy Map: Noise, of the McClellan-Palomar Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP).
Traffic
The Vehicle Miles Traveled ("VMT") Report prepared for the Project showed that the Project does not
meet any of the screening criteria; therefore, a detailed analysis (LLG, November 2022, Attachment D)
was conducted. Consistent with the City guidelines, the Project was evaluated using efficiency metrics
(VMT/resident). The Project trip generation is 637 average daily trips (ADT), which is less than 2,400 ADT,
therefore the Project VMT/resident was calculated using the City's VMT/resident analysis maps and the
applicable traffic analysis zone (TAZ).
The unadjusted Project VMT /resident would be 24.0, which is 100% of the Citywide average; therefore,
the Project is required to demonstrate a reduction of 15% to have a less than significant impact with
respect to VMT. Per City VMT Analysis Guidelines, the maximum feasible overall VMT reduction within
Carlsbad is 20%; therefore, model assumptions, project design features, and Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) measures were reviewed to achieve one or both of the following results:
• Reduce the number of daily vehicle trips (especially single-occupant vehicle trips), and/or
• Reduce the length of trips.
The City VMT Analysis Guidelines contain Appendix D -Vehicle Miles Traveled Reduction Strategies and
Effectiveness Calculations, which present several quantifiable TDM strategies that can be used to mitigate
a project's VMT impacts. TOM strategies are quantified using methodologies described in the Handbook
for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing
Health and Equity published by the California Air Pollution Control Offices Association (CAPCOA) in 2021.
Two strategies were determined to apply to the Project's design as explained in the VMT Report. First,
CAPCOA Land Use Measure T-1: Increase Residential Density, applies as the net residential of the Project
Site is 18.3 dwelling units per acre (du/acre). As explained in the VMT Report, using the formulas in
CAPCOA, the relative residential densities of the Project compared to the underlying TAZ is calculated to
result in a 17.4% Project VMT reduction due to the increased density of the Project.
The second applicable strategy is T-4: Integrating Affordable and Below Market Rate Housing. The Project
would include 11 affordable income units, which would reduce Project VMT by 4.3% using the CAPCOA
formula as shown in the VMT Report.
As calculated in the VMT Report, the TOM Strategies are calculated to result in a 21.0% Project VMT
reduction. Thus, the final Project VMT /resident would be 80% of the Citywide average.
Further, the Project would be designed in conformance with City Engineering Standards and would not
result in a hazardous geometric design, nor would it interfere with emergency vehicle responses. Thus,
the Project would have less than significant impacts with respect to transportation and traffic.
Water Quality
Project construction would incorporate standard best management practices (BMPs) to reduce potential
wind and water erosion during grading activities and to prevent the potential discharge of pollutants into
receiving waters. All development is subject to design review by the city to ensure that the Project would
comply with performance standards and design guidelines.
Moreover, the Project would include a stormwater drainage system to prevent water quality impacts to
downstream receiving waters. This system will be designed in accordance with all applicable
requirements, including those set forth in the Water Quality Management Plan prepared for the Project.
The city will review and approve the Water Quality Management Plan prior to the issuance of building
permits to ensure that the Project's storm water drainage system will comply with the Multiple Separate
Storm Sewer System Permit requirements. As a result, the Project's water quality impacts would be less
than significant.
(e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.
The Project Site is located within a developed portion of the city served by utilities and public services.
The Project would include connections to existing utilities and would not require the construction or
expansion of facilities tci adequately serve the Project. In addition, the Project Site is already within the
service area of the City of Carlsbad Fire Department and City of Carlsbad Police Department. The Project
is anticipated to house approximately 221 residents, assuming 2.56 persons per household (per SAN DAG).
Applicable developmental fees would help ensure funding continues to be provided to the City of Carlsbad
Police Department and Fire Department. The Project would pay all applicable fees required by the city,
including utility connection fees and, public service fees.
Exceptions to the Use of Categorical Exemptions:
Planning staff evaluated all the potential exceptions to the use of Categorical Exemptions for the proposed
"Project" (in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2) and determined that none of these
exceptions apply as explained below:
• Location -"Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 are qualified by consideration of where a project is to be
located -a project that is ordinarily insignificant in its impact on the environment may in a
particularly sensitive environment be significant. Therefore, these classes are considered to apply
all instances, except where the project may impact on an environmental resource of hazardous
or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by
federal, state, or local agencies." The Project qualifies for a Class 32 exemption; Classes 3, 4, 5, 6,
and 11 do not apply to the Project. Thus, this exception does not apply.
• Cumulative Impact -"All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative
impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant." Project
construction and operation may result in incremental environmental effects that are not
considered significant; however, as with any environmental impact, when combined with impacts
related to the implementation of other related projects located throughout the broader
geographic area, there is always potential for a project to contribute to cumulative impacts.
Notwithstanding, due to the developed/disturbed nature of the Project Site, and mandatory
adherence with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, regulations and guidelines, any
incremental, individual-level impact resulting from Project construction and operation would
remain less than significant and would not constitute a considerable contribution to potential
regional cumulative impacts in the greater Project region. Additionally, all other related projects
would be required to comply with all applicable federal, state, and local regulatory
requirements and incorporate all feasible mitigation measures to ensure that their potentially
cumulative impacts would remain at less-than-significant levels.
Lastly, the Project is consistent with the underlying land use and zoning designations anticipated
by the General Plan, and the cumulative effects of the Project along with buildout of the City
have already been analyzed and disclosed in the Program Environmental Impact Report
prepared for the General Plan. Thus, this exception does not apply.
• Significant Effect -"A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a
reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to
unusual circumstances." Operation of the Project does not represent a new or unique use or
activity that does not already occur in the city and/or throughout the broader Project area. There
is no evidence of unique conditions (e .g., unique geotechnical characteristics that would result in
impacts to either the Project or adjacent land uses), either on site or within the Project area, and
no unusual circumstances have been identified by the City, other agencies, or local stakeholders .
. The Project is not expected to be affected by unusual circumstances or otherwise unforeseen
conditions. Thus, this exception does not apply.
• Scenic Highway -"A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may result in
damage to scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock
outcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic
highway. This does not apply to improvements which are required as mitigation by an adopted
negative declaration or certified EIR.11 The Project Site does not contain scenic resources, include
any trees, historic resources, or rock outcroppings, rather, it is an existing self-storage facility and
previously graded pad with disturbed habitat.
According to the California Department ofTransportation, the nearest "Officially Designated State
Scenic Highway" to the Project Site is the segment of State Route (SR)-52 located between Santo
Road and Mast Boulevard, approximately 21.9 miles southeast of the Project Site.1 Additionally,
the nearest "Eligible State Scenic Highway" to the Project Site is the segment of Interstate (1)-5
located between Coronado to SR 74 (near San Juan Capistrano), approximately 0.43 miles east of
the Project Site.1 Due to natural topographical variations and intervening development, the
Project Site is not visible from 1-5. Therefore, this exception does not apply.
• Hazardous Waste Site -"A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project located on a site
which is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code." The
provisions in California Government Code Section 65962.5 are commonly referred to as the
"Cortese List" (after the legislator who authored the legislation that enacted it). The list, or a site's
presence on the list, has bearing on the local permitting process as well as on compliance with
CEQA. The California Department of Toxic Substances Control's EnviroStor and the State Water
Resources Control Board's Geo Tracker on line databases are commonly searched to determine the
presence or absence of hazardous materials sites included on the Cortese List.
A review of both GeoTracker2 and EnviroStor3 concluded that no hazardous material sites with an
"open" cleanup case are located within the immediate vicinity of the Project Site. Additionally,
the Project Site itself has no open or historical cases and is not expected to be affected by
potential contamination. Thus, this exception does not apply.
• Historical Resources -"A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a
substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource". A California Historical
Resources Information System {CHRIS) records search was completed by staff at the South Coastal
Information Center (SCIC) on January 31, 2022. Previous investigations overlap the Project Site,
but the Project Site was not mentioned in any reports; and no resources were identified within
the Project Site as a result of the overlapping studies.
The built environment survey was conducted by Dudek on February 4, 2022. The foot survey
involved surveying properties within or immediately adjacent to the Project Site and
recording all buildings and structures with notes and photographs. Eight (8) total buildings over
45 years of age are located on the Project Site (two vacant office buildings and six storage
buildings) and all were evaluated for historical and architectural significance as a single property
California Department ofTransportation. 2022. "Officially Designated State Scenic Highways and Historic Parkways."
Accessed August 2022.
https :// ca ltra ns. maps. a rcgis. com/ a p ps/weba ppviewer /index. htm I ?id=465 dfd3d807 c46cc8e805 7116fla a ca a
Geo Tracker. 2022. GeoTracker Database. Accessed August 2022.
https :// geotracker. waterboa rds. ca .gov/ ma p/?CM D=ru n report&myadd ress=Sea rch +Geo Tracker
EnviroStor. 2022. EnviroStor Database. Accessed August 2022.
https ://www .envi rostor. dtsc.ca. gov/ public/ map/? mya dd ress=Sea rch.
due to the Project Site's shared history first as a concrete mixing plant and later as a storage
facility.
After research and evaluation, the Project Site does not appear eligible under any National
Register of Historic Places (NRHP), California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), or City
cultural resource designation criteria due to a lack of significant historical associations and
architectural merit as further described in a Negative Cultural Resources Inventory Report,
(Dudek, November 2022) and a Historic Resources Technical Report (Dudek, November 2022)
prepared for the project. Therefore, the Project Site is not considered an historical resource
for the purposes of CEQA.
As a result of archival research, field survey, record search, and property significance evaluations,
no historical resources were identified within the Project Site, nor were any adjacent cultural
resources identified that could be indirectly impacted by proposed Project activities. As the
proposed Project would have no impact on historical resources, no further study is required. Thus,
this exception does not apply. '
Planning staff also evaluated the potential exceptions to the use of Categorical Exemptions as defined by
Section 19.04.070 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code and determined that none of these exceptions apply as
explained below:
• Grading and clearing activities affecting sensitive plant or animal habitats -A categorical
exemption shall not apply when there is earth moving activities "which disturb, fragment or
remove such areas as defined by either the California Endangered Species Act (Fish and Game
Code Sections 2050 et seq.), or the Federal Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. Section 15131 et
seq.); sensitive, rare, candidate species of special concern; endangered or threatened biological
species or their habitat (specifically including sage scrub habitat for the California Gnatcatcher)".
The Project Site is located in a developed part of the city and is surrounded by residential and
commercial land uses. The Project Site features the existing Ponto Storage facility and a
junkyard, which would be demolished and removed during Project construction. A Biological
Resources Letter Report (Alden Environmental, Inc., September 2022) was prepared for the
Project Site. Two field surveys were conducted (in May 2019 and September 2022) to review
and document existing vegetation communities, plant and animal species, and potential
jurisdictional features including vernal pool resources. The results of the surveys are
documented within the Biological Resources Letter Report and summarized below.
Aerial imagery as far back as 1947, reviewed as part of preparation of the Biological Resources
Letter Report, shows visible ground disturbance on site, and aerial imagery from 1978 shows the
existing Ponto Storage facility (Nationwide Environmental Title Research, LLC 2021). During the
site surveys, the property was found to support Disturbed Land (2.02 acres) and Developed Land
(2.62 acres). Disturbed land is a City Habitat Group F land cover type and typically includes land
cleared of vegetation, land containing a preponderance of non-native plant species, or land
showing signs of past or present usage that no longer provides viable wildlife habitat. Developed
land includes nursery/landscape service yard (i.e., junkyard), the Ponto Storage facility and its
outbuildings, concrete foundations, and some associated non-native landscaping plants such as
Mexican fan palm and coppery mesembryanthemum (Malephora crocea).
All Project impacts would occur to either Developed Land (2.62-acres on-site and 0.51 acres off-
site) or Disturbed Land (Group F) (2.02 acres). Neither is considered a sensitive biological resource;
therefore, impacts are considered less than significant. Impacts to Group F land cover do
nonetheless require payment into the City's Habitat Mitigation Fee Program per the Habitat
Conservation Plan. As such, the Project will be conditioned to pay this fee for the 2.02 acres of
impact to Disturbed Land.
There was no evidence of vernal pool or wetland features present on the site or in the adjacent
mapped buffer area. Small patches of coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis) do occur in the adjacent
buffer area; however, they do not constitute a sensitive habitat type. This species, while native,
is a disturbance associated species, which commonly forms monospecific patches in developed
and disturbed areas. No special status plant or animal species were observed or detected on-site.
Lastly, the Project Site is not located within any Focused Planning Area (FPA) or any corresponding
Habitat Management Plan (HMP) Core, Linkage, or Special Resource Area, and is not located
within the City's Preserve System.
In summary, as a result of this existing development, vegetation communities on the Project
Site are limited to Developed Land and Disturbed Habitat. There are no sensitive vegetation
communities present within or adjacent to the Project Site; no special status plant or animal
species were observed/detected; and none are considered to have potential to occur based
on the existing conditions of the Project Site. Additionally, the Project Site does not support
any jurisdictional wetland/riparian features. Based on specific habitat requirements, no
significant biological resources can reasonably be expected to occur on the property; therefore,
the Project Site is not considered to have value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened
species. Thus, this exception does not apply.
• Grading and clearing activities affecting archaeological or cultural resources from either historic
or prehistoric periods -A categorical exemption shall not apply when there is earth moving
activities affecting "archaeological or cultural resources from either historic or prehistoric
periods".
A California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) records search was completed by
staff at the South Coastal Information Center {SCIC) on January 31, 2022. Previous investigations
overlap the Project Site, but the Project Site was not mentioned in any reports; and no resources
were identified within the Project Site as a result of the overlapping studies.
The built environment survey was conducted by Dudek on February 4, 2022. The foot survey
involved surveying properties within or immediately adjacent to the Project Site and
recording all buildings and structures with notes and photographs. Eight (8) total buildings over
45 years of age are located on the Project Site (two vacant office buildings and six storage
buildings) and all were evaluated for historical and architectural significance as a single property
due to the Project Site's shared history first as a concrete mixing plant and later as a storage
facility.
After research and evaluation, the Project Site does not appear eligible under any National
Register of Historic Places (NRHP), California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), or City
cultural resource designation criteria due to a lack of significant historical associations and
architectural merit as further described in the Negative Cultural Resources Inventory Report,
(Dudek, November 2022) and Historic Resources Technical Report (Dudek, November 2022)
prepared for the project. Therefore, the Project Site is not considered an historical resource
for the purposes of CEQA.
As a result of archival research, field survey, record search, and property significance evaluations,
no historical resources were identified within the Project Site, nor were any adjacent cultural
resources identified that could be indirectly impacted by proposed Project activities. As the
proposed Project would have no impact on archaeological or cultural resources from either
historic or prehistoric periods, no further study is required. Thus, this exception does not apply.
• "Parcel maps, plot plans and all discretionary development projects otherwise exempt but which
affect sensitive, threatened or endangered biological species or their habitat (as defined above),
archaeological or cultural resources from either historic or prehistoric periods, wetlands, stream
courses designated on U.S. Geological Survey maps, hazardous materials, unstable soils or other
factors requiring special review, on all or a portion of the site." This exception applies when a
project may result in damage to biological species or their habitats or archeological or cultural
resources.
Biological Resources
As discussed above, the proposed Project would not affect sensitive, threatened, or endangered
biological species or their habitat. This exception does not apply.
Cultural Resources
As discussed above, the proposed Project would not affect archaeological or cultural resources
from either historic or prehistoric periods. This exception does not apply.
Wetlands and Streams
As discussed above, the biological analysis conducted for the Project concluded that there was no
evidence of vernal pool or wetland features present on the site or in the adjacent mapped buffer
area. A review of the U.S. Geological Survey's Streamer4 application concluded that no streams
are located within the immediate vicinity of the Project site. Thus, this exception does not apply.
Hazardous Materials
A review of both GeoTracker5 and EnviroStor6 concluded that no hazardous material sites with an
"open" cleanup case are located within the immediate vicinity of the Project Site. Additionally,
the Project Site itself has no open or historical cases and is not expected to be affected by
potential contamination. Thus, this exception does not apply.
U.S. Geological Survey. 2022. Streamer. Accessed November 2022. https://txpub.usgs.gov/DSS/streamer/web/.
Geo Tracker. 2022. Geo Tracker Database. Accessed August 2022.
https :// geotra cker. wate rboa rds. ca .gov/ ma p/?CM D=run repo rt&mya dd ress=Sea rch+Geo Tracker.
EnviroStor. 2022. EnviroStor Database. Accessed August 2022.
https ://www. envi rosto r. dtsc.ca .gov/ public/ map/? mya d d ress=Sea re h.
Unstable Soils
Review of both the City of Carlsbad's General Plan Public Safety Element7 and the California
Geological Survey's Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation Viewer8 conclude that the Project
site is not located in an area with potential for seismic hazards.
Lead Agency Contact Person: Jason Goff, Senior Planner Telephone: 442-339-2643
~~
ERIC LARDY, City Planner
City of Carlsbad. 2015. Chapter 6, Public Safety Element. Accessed November 2022.
https://www.carlsbadca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/3428/637434861106370000.
California Geological Survey. 2016. Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation. Accessed November 2022.
https://ma ps.conservation .ca .gov /cgs/EQZApp/.
1/s/~3
I Date
Page 1 of 11
2022 Oct 12 – Public Input on Ponto Site 18 environmental
impacts to be studied/mitigated by City/Developer
The public input is based on the City of Carlsbad’s description of Ponto Site 18 proposed land use
changes (see pages 8-9 below) and the Developer’s proposed land use change & approach to pay Park-
in-lieu-fees to avoid providing much need Coastal and neighborhood Parks at Ponto (see page 10
below). Please see the 3 attached data files regarding Coastal Recreation, Low-cost Visitor
Accommodations and unmitigated high-priority Coastal land use losses at Ponto from Coastal erosion
and Sea Level Rise listed on page 11 below.
Public Input Questions as to the legality of using tax-payer funds to pay for the CEQA analysis/costs of
private developers:
Who is paying for the CEQA analysis of private property and private developer proposals?
Are Carlsbad tax-payer dollars being used to subsidize Developers’ CEQA analysis costs?
Is the City being reimbursed by each developer to cover the costs of their site-specific CEQA
analysis?
Is the City violating the State Law prohibition of a ‘Gift of Public Funds to a private parties’ by paying
for the CEQA processing for developers?
The following Public Input on environmental impacts are taken from CA CEQA Guidelines Appendix G
(2019):
AIR QUALITY: Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? – Site 18 proposes land
use changes to high-density (DU/Acre) residential development next to the LOSSAN rail corridor (that is
planned to be double tracked to significantly increase train traffic and train pollution). Proposed Site 18
will expose much higher population densities to diesel and particulate emissions from the increased rail
traffic on the LOSSAN Corridor. 91% of Ponto Site 18’s dwelling units are 3 & 4 bedroom and thus the
population proposed is both high occupancy and high density - mean increased population exposure.
The likelihood that most of the 91% of the proposed 3 & 4 bedroom units will be occupied by children
(who are more sensitive/impacted by air pollution) further adds to pollution exposure impacts from
proposed land use changes at Site 18.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service? & c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands
(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other means? – There have been endangered species Fairy Shrimp and
CCS Habitat identified in the area and along poperies adjacent to the LOSSAN corridor. There
endangered species such as Fairy Shrimp and CCS Habitat on the Site 18. Also there appears to maybe
federal jurisdictional waters of Site 18 which should be addressed.
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
Page 2 of 11
materials into the environment? – There is a regional SoCal Gas high-pressure Natural Gas transmission
pipeline and easement that runs through Ponto Site 18 & Planning Area F. This pipeline recently had a
leak that was repaired. However future gas leaks are likely to occur over time. Constructing high-
density & high-occupancy housing likely with significant child population over/adjacent this major
natural gas transmission line exposes larger amounts of future populations (with an estimated higher
percentage of children) to hazards from gas leaks. Providing a sufficient open space/hazard setback
adjacent to the pipeline easement should be explored as a means to provide a safety buffer between
the gas pipeline hazard and proposed higher-density and higher occupancy residential land use. An
expanded open space setback can also serve as repair staging space for gas pipeline repairs and
inspections. Carlsbad’s Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan indicated this Gas Pipeline and easement
would be moved/relocated to a safer location.
LAND USE AND PLANNING: b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land
use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental
effect? – Site 18 proposes to change Carlsbad’s General Plan & Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan &
Zoning by removing VC-Visitor Serving Coastal land use and replacing it with R-23 high-density
Residential land use. VC-Visitor Commercial is a high-priority Coastal Land Use per the CA Coastal Act.
In 2016-2017 the CA Coastal Commission has informed the City of the need to ensure an adequate
amount and distribution of VC land use is forever provided in the City’s currently proposed (that does
not include the proposed Site 18 land use changes eliminating VC Land Use) Local Coastal Program Land
Use Plan (LCP) changes. This issue is reflected in the City’s description of Ponto Site 18 on pages 8-9 in
which the City indicates that the VC-Visitor Serving land use will likely not be changed by City & CA
Coastal Commission. Ponto Site 18 is within Carlsbad’s existing Mello II LCP Segment with specific LCP
Policies that relate to VC land uses – particularly CA Coastal Act high-priority “Low Cost Visitor
Accommodations” land use. Specifically LCP Policies 6-2, 6-4 and 6-10 that read:
POLICY 6-2 REGIONAL PARK: If the population of Carlsbad increases in accordance with SANDAG's
projected Series V Population Forecasts, it is estimated that Carlsbad will need to develop a new regional
park containing 200 to 300 acres in order to adequately serve the public. A location for a new regional
park must, therefore, be established. Consideration should be given to a facility within the Aqua Hedionda
Specific Plan Area, or adjacent lands. The Batiquitos Lagoon area should also be considered.
POLICY 6-4 NEED FOR ADDITIONAL OVERNIGHT CAMPING: Additional overnight camping facilities, the
main source of lower cost visitor and recreational facilities are needed throughout the San Diego coastal
region. Additional facilities of this kind should be provided in a regional park within the Carlsbad area. This
can be accomplished in conjunction with an eventual Batiquitos Park, within the Aqua Hedionda Specific
Plan Area, and/or along with the development of private recreational facilities.
POLICY 6-10 LOWER COST VISITOR-SERVING RECREATIONAL USES: Lower cost visitor and recreational
facilities shall be protected, encouraged, and, where feasible, provided. Encourage a range of
affordability for overnight visitor accommodations. Evaluate the affordability of any new or redeveloped
overnight visitor accommodations, including amenities that reduce the cost of stay. Mitigation may be
applied to protect and encourage affordable overnight accommodations”
Official Carlsbad Public Records Request # R002393-092121 confirmed the City did not implement Policy
6-2 and reduced the 200-300 acres to only a 49-acre useable Veterans Park that City now acknowledges
is only a neighborhood park and will not serve as a ‘regional park’. The City has never implemented
existing Mello II LCP Policy 6-4. The City incorrectly (and potentially dishonestly) implemented Policy 6-
Page 3 of 11
10 as all the ‘new visitor accommodations (hotels and resorts) that the City approved as ‘affordable’
were later documented by the City as “Unaffordable” in “Table 3-1: Carlsbad Coastal Zone Hotel
Inventory” the City’s currently proposed LCP Land Use Plan changes (excluding Ponto Site 18). And no
lower-cost recreational facilities have been provided or approved by the City as called out in Policy 6-10.
The vacant lands at Ponto – Site 18, Planning Area F, and Planning Area G and H, are the only remaining
vacant lands west of the LOSSAN corridor in South Carlsbad that can practically provide for those ‘Lower
cost visitor and recreational facilities’ and “(i.e. Public Park) as noted in the current Ponto Planning Area
F LCP Land Use Policy.
The ONLY Low-cost Visitor Accommodation in Carlsbad is the (overcrowded) State Campground as
documented by the City’s “Table 3-1: Carlsbad Coastal Zone Hotel Inventory” in the City’s currently
proposed LCP Land Use Plan changes. hat the City knows will be ‘impacted’ (eliminated) in the future
due sea level rise and bluff erosion. City proposes to eliminate opportunities for upland relocation of
the Campground (or similar private accommodations) in the City’s currently proposed LCP Land Use Plan
Amendment & in the Developer’s/City proposed elimination of VC land use at Site 18.
Please see and reference the two (2) People for Ponto Public Comments and documented data files on
Carlsbad’s proposed Local Coastal Program Amendment regarding 1) ‘Coastal Recreation Land Use’, and
2) ‘Low Cost Visitor Accommodations’ both dated 10/12/21 for more documented details and data that
relate to the Coastal Land Use issues, Park Inequities at Ponto, lack of Coastal Park in and for South
Carlsbad inland populations, and lack of low-cost visitor accommodations and recreation facilities at
Ponto/South Carlsbad. Please also see and reference the documented data in the ‘2022 Sea Level Rise
and Carlsbad’s DLCP-LUPA’s projected/planned Loss of Open Space at Ponto’ also submitted as People
for Ponto Public Comments on Carlsbad’s proposed Local Coastal Program Amendment showing the
City’s failure to provide Useable Coastal Open Space for Coastal Recreation as required by the City’s
Growth Management Ordinance and the City’s planned and unmitigated loss of Carlsbad’s only Low-cost
Visitor Accommodation land use – State Campground – due to accelerated coastal erosion and Sea Level
Rise.
Site 18 is designated as VC and appears was intended as an affordable visitor site in the City’s Ponto
Beachfront Village Vision Plan (PBVVP). The PBVVP was rejected by the CA Coastal Commission for its
inadequacy in disclosing-considering-documenting “the need for Coastal Recreation (i.e. Public Park) and
Low-cost Visitor Accommodations” in the adjacent and directly abutting Poinsettia Shores Master
Plan/LCP area of Ponto. Ponto Site 18’s proposed elimination of VC Coastal Land Use impacts both the
Existing LCP and City proposed LCP changes regarding CA Coastal Act high-priority Coastal Land Use.
Also, all CA cities are being required by the State of CA to each 8-years change General Plan Land Use
(and in some instances Coastal Land Use Plans) to increase residential land use with higher-densities
that by definition provide less recreational open space for their population, and thus need City/State
Parks for their outdoor recreation needs. Yet every 8-years each City’s Parkland and Coastal Recreation
land uses are not required by the State of CA to increase/grow in proportion to those State required
increases in residential population and higher densities with minimal recreation space. So every 8-years
there is more crowding on exiting City Public Parks, City/State Coastal Parks, and low-cost visitor
accommodations at the Coast. There is a finite amount of Coastal Land for all of Carlsbad and CA to use
for Coastal Recreation and it is imperative that the small amounts of remaining vacant Coastal Land be
preserved for CA Coastal Act high-priority Coastal Recreation land use to meet the increasing
population/visitor demands required to be produced every 8-years.
Page 4 of 11
Also, it should be noted that the City of Carlsbad’s Park Master Plan already identifies the Ponto Area as
an area ‘unserved by City parks’ and an area the City should require/provide new City Parks. Ponto Site
18 should be required to provide its proportionate share of needed City Park land at Ponto by dedicating
unused portions of Site 18 to the City for Park land per the City’s Parkland Dedication Ordinance 20.44.
This is double important give that 91% of Site 18’s proposed housing units are 3 & 4 bedroom and will
likely have ether 1) a high percentage of children per unit, or 2) have a larger per unity adult population
of multiple adult families living as roommates and also increasing parking demand beyond a single-
family home. In either case there is a clear need Park land within walking distance to be
useable/accessible to these proposed larger child and/or adult populations. The private recreation
space (required to offset reduced/eliminated yards and open space by higher density development) is
not a substitute for larger multi-use Park lands for children and adults to run around and play.
NOISE: CEQA does not appear to require consideration of noise/vibration impacts on proposed Ponto
Site 18 populations from the LOSSAN corridor train traffic. Living some distance from the LOSSAN
Corridor and buffered by both landscaped setbacks an 8-10’ concreate block wall outside of the Rail
corridor we can still hear/feel the trains and the vibration impacts should be considered.
POPULATION AND HOUSING: a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other infrastructure)? – Ponto Site 18 was/is in part planned for VC-Visitor
Commercial land use, thus it is inducing unplanned population growth at Ponto. The .397 square mile
Ponto area Census Tract, even with its significant currently vacant land, is already developed at 4,111
people per square mile that is a density that is about 40% more dense than the Citywide average of
2,959 people per square mile. As noted above in ‘Land Use & Planning impacts’ Site 18’s proposed 91%
3-4 bedroom development will create higher occupancy per unit (ether high numbers of Children or high
numbers of adults per unit) and with a proposed high number of dwelling units per acre, Site 18 will
create additional residential population without providing needed Parkland at Ponto. The City Park
Inequity (unfairness) at Ponto has been documented by the City’s Park Master Plan’s map of areas
“unserved by Parks”.
PUBLIC SERVICES: a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in
order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of
the public services:
Fire protection? – the City has said areas west of I-5/LOSSAN Corridor are falling out of desired
Fire/Emergency service levels and new Fire/Emergency/Lifeguard facilities are needed west of I-
/LOSSAN Corridor. Proposed Ponto 18 land use change and development will add new and
more impacts to that situation and should be mitigated.
Parks? – As noted in LAND USE AND PLANNING and POPULATION AND HOUSNG above, the
proposed change in land use to Residential, higher-density residential, and proposed high-
occupancy (many children in a family unit or many multi-family adult roommates) per unit
development will add a larger population needing Park land and access within walking distance.
Carlsbad’s Park Master Plan documents that the Ponto Area is ‘Unserved by Parks’ and an “Area
the City should add Parks’. Also the Local Coastal Program for the directly adjacent Ponto
Page 5 of 11
Planning Area F specifically requires the City and/or developer to address Park needs at Ponto.
On July 3, 2017 the CA Coastal Commission provided the following direction to Carlsbad:
o “The existing LUP includes policies that require certain visitor-serving developments
and/or studies relevant to the Ponto … area. For example, Planning Area F requires the
city and developer to "consider and document the need for the provision of lower cost
visitor accommodations or recreational facilities (i.e., public park) on the west side of
the railroad. … this study should be undertaken as a part of the visitor serving use
inventory analysis described above. If this analysis determines that there is a deficit of
low cost visitor accommodations or recreation facilities in this area, then Planning
Area F should be considered as a site where these types of uses could be developed.”
This study has yet to be done, and was not done by the City with the 2010 Ponto Vision Plan
(rejected by the CCC) nor with the 2015 General Plan Update (currently being evaluated by the
CCC for the Coastal portions of Carlsbad). The newly proposed Ponto Site 18 Coastal land use
change from visitor accommodation land use to residential land use and proposed high
population occupancy/density will impact on the CCC’s 2017 direction to Carlsbad regarding
both “(i.e. Public Park) and low-cost visitor accommodations”; the impacts of this should be
evaluated with CCC consultation.
As noted in LAND USE AND PLANNING, the Mello II LCP for Ponto Site 18 has documented that City has
not followed/implemented the Mello II LCP Land Use Policies 6-2, 6-4 and 6-10. Site 18’s proposed
Coastal Land Use Plan changes and added population will compound the impacts and problems of the
City not complying with these 3 existing Local Coastal Program Land Use Policies. The impacts of this
should be evaluated with CCC consultation.
People for Ponto Carlsbad Citizens have provided a “Coastal Recreation data file” on 10/12/21 to the
City and CCC that documents both local Ponto/South Carlsbad and Regional Coastal Park inadequacy,
inequity, and unfairness; along with the relatively poor provision/distribution of Parks in Carlsbad
relative to adjacent Coastal cities. Because there are no Ponto Parks to informally play ball games and
other larger open areas to play within a safe/short walk or bike ride Ponto children and families are
forced to play in the LOSSAN Corridor and in Ponto streets as has been documented to the City and CCC
in several photos and in numerous petitions/emails. Children and adults playing in streets and along
high-speed railroad tracks are not safe, and the City by not providing an adequate Park at Ponto is
creating this unsafe situation. These safety impacts should be evaluated and with CCC consultation.
Over 5,000 petitions have been sent to the City of Carlsbad and CA Coastal Commission documenting
the need and desire for a meaningful Ponto Park. Ponto Site 18 is in the CA Coastal Zone and very close
to the ocean. Ponto Site 18 should at the very barest of minimums be required to dedicate the
appropriate portion of the Ponto Site 18 land to fulfill the relatively low 3 acres per 1,000 population
park land dedication for a Ponto Site 18 development proposal and assure Site 18’s bare minimum
Ponto park needs are met with a Park actually at Ponto. Ponto Site 18 should NOT be allowed to buy
land outside Ponto or pay an ‘in-lieu-fee’ as a means to avoid providing Park land at Ponto Site 18 as Site
18 has sufficient vacant land to provide the City Parkland dedication. The impacts to both local Park and
the State/Regional Coastal Recreation (i.e. Public Park) needs to provide actual Park land at Ponto
should be evaluated and with CCC consultation.
The VMT & GHG and ADT impacts of not providing Parks within a safe and short walking/biking distance
from the Park need (i.e. Ponto) should also be fully evaluated. The impacts to children’s health and
Page 6 of 11
safety from not providing Parks within a safe and short walking/biking distance from the Park need (i.e.
Ponto) should also be fully evaluated and with CCC and LOSSAN Corridor agency consultations.
RECREATION: a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated? – Ponto Site 18 will increase Recreation needs. However there are no Parks at Ponto. The
only City Parks reasonably accessible (and only safely accessible for children) to Ponto Site 18
populations require driving and parking at Parks over 2-6 miles away. The added impacts to City Streets,
City Park land and City Park parking facilities should be evaluated. Also, will additional Park parking
spaces be required and thus reduce the ‘actual people useable portion’ of the Parks that will be used by
proposed Ponto Site 18?
TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing
measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system …? – As noted 91% of the units
are 3-4 bedrooms that will have the potential for a relative high occupancy per unit. That high-
occupancy will either be a high child (i.e. larger single-family) or high adult (several unrelated adults
living as roommates). If a high child occupancy the impacts will be child related and the need for
abundant safe walking/biking facilities. If high adult occupancy there will be then need to provide much
more parking space than the standard 2-car parking space and guest space requirement for a ‘single-
family unit. It is very common for most garages along the coast to not be used for parking but used for
non-vehicle storage, and for unit occupants to use streets as their primary parking spaces. If there are
more adults (beyond a typical single-family) then there will be more cars and parking demand per unit
and even more cars will use surrounding public streets as their primary parking spaces. If fact the
proposed Ponto Site 18 design and front door locations encourages each unit fronting on a public street
to use the public street as their private parking space. At Ponto there is currently a high demand for
public on-street parking to access the beach. The City has failed to provide public beach parking in the
abandoned (and still paved) PCH Right-of-Way both north and south of Poinsettia Lane at the
Campground entrance. Ponto Site 18 will increase parking demand and that demand will still over onto
the public Ponto Road and thus remove/decrease the limited amount of public beach parking at Ponto.
The CA Coastal Commission has already identified the current public beach parking needs at Ponto and
also the need to provide more public beach parking to accommodate future population growth and
demand to access the Coast. The current/future needs for public beach parking should be studied and
determined, proposed Ponto Site 18’s high-occupancy and parking demand and spillover impact onto
public streets be determined and a 100% accountable/enforceable system established to assure Ponto
Site 18 has no impact to public beach parking.
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? – As noted earlier, Carlsbad already as indicated areas west
of I-5/LOSSAN Corridor have inadequate fire/Emergency access/service levels. Ponto Site 18 will
increase those inadequacies by adding a high-occupancy population. This impact should be studied and
mitigated.
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,
but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of
other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? – Ponto Site 18 is one of the last
Page 7 of 11
meaningful vacant Coastal lands in San Diego County that can serve the documented need to provide
land for the increasing population/visitor demands for Low-Cost Visitor Accommodation uses and for
the no-cost City and regional Coastal Park needs (no Coastal Park in a 6-mile length of Coast centered
around Ponto) and provide a needed neighborhood park for the local Ponto Community. The Coastal
Recreation and Low-Cost Visitor Accommodation data files document these situations/impacts.
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly? – Ponto Site 18 is close Ponto Site 18 is one of the last meaningful
vacant Coastal lands in San Diego County that can serve the documented need to provide land for the
increasing population/visitor demands for Low-Cost Visitor Accommodation uses and for the no-cost
City and regional Coastal Park needs (no Coastal Park in a 6-mile length of Coast centered around Ponto)
and provide a needed neighborhood park for the local Ponto Community. For instance Ponto Children
and their parents are forced to play in the Streets or along the LOSSAN Corridor as these areas are the
only larger open space areas to play. Many of the Ponto homes and manufactured homes have very
narrow yards or zero-side yards, and common open space are only narrow paths or smaller single
function spaces (pool/spa) that can’t be used for play. So there is minim outdoor pay area at Ponto that
impacts children and their families. Per the City of Carlsbad’s minimal Park Standard of 3 acres per
1,000 population the existing Ponto area population the Ponto Area should have about a minimum 6.5
acre City Park. The City only provides parks for Ponto that are 2 to 6 miles away via unsafe arterial
roadways so inaccessible by children, and the City has recently said Ponto’s Park needs are to be fulfilled
by Veterans Park that is over 6-miles away and practically inaccessible and unusable by Ponto residents
and children. The City also acknowledges that Veterans Park will not be used by Ponto and other more
distant residents. The proposed Pont Site 18 land use change/development would add about .7 acres
more of Park Demand at Ponto to add to the current about 6.5 acre Park Demand at Ponto (see page
10). This lack of Park land for Ponto Children and their families has a substantial adverse effect on
human beings – particularly children. Proposed Ponto Site 18 adds to that effect.
The Ponto area is also the last vacant land that can provide a much needed Coastal Park for Carlsbad &
other inland populations (and 62% of Carlsbad Citizens living in South Carlsbad that have NO Coastal
Park) along the 6-mile length of that has no Coastal Park. This lack of Coastal Park impacts all of South
Carlsbad and also is a Regional Coastal Park and Coastal Recreation impact. Coastal Recreation (i.e.
Public Park) is a high-priority land use under the CA Coastal Act, and is even more critical to provide
Coastal Parks for California’s growing resident and visitor populations. There are very limited vacant
lands on which to provide Coastal Parks and preserving those vacant lands for Coastal Recreation (i.e.
Pubic Parks) is critical to avoid adverse effects on human beings – particularly children.
The Ponto area (Planning Area F, and G and H) and Ponto Site 18 are also the last vacant lands that can
provide a much needed Coastal Low Cost Visitor Accommodation Land Uses that are high-priority land
uses under that CA Coastal Act. The need for new Low Cost Visitor Accommodation Land Uses and
acreage has been well documented by the CA Coastal Commission and in Carlsbad’s Mello II LCP and
Poinsettia Shores LCP. The Ponto Site 18 proposal is to eliminate the VC-Visitor Commercial land use
that could provide Low-cost Visitor Accommodations. Recent Sea Level Rise (SLR) and Coastal Erosion
data document that 32+ acres of Carlsbad State Beach & Campground will continue to erode away and
that that erosion will accelerate due to SLR (see attached “Sea Level Rise and Carlsbad’s DLCP-LUPA’s
projected/planned Loss of Open Space at Ponto - 2022” data file). Carlsbad State Campground provides
Carlsbad’s ONLY Low-cost Visitor Accommodations. So Carlsbad will have no Low-cost Visitor
Accommodation land use in the future, and there is no City plan to address this loss and the increased
Page 8 of 11
need for this land use from both current and future population and visitor demands. This lack of Low-
Cost Visitor Accommodation land is an adverse effect on human beings – particularly children.
City of Carlsbad’s description of Ponto Site 18 and Coastal land use issues:
Upper area
proposed
for land
use change
& higher
density
Part of
Lower area
can
(should) be
dedicated
to
provided
needed
parkland
POTENTIAL HOUSING SITES
Site Number: 18 -North Ponto Parcels
SITE DESCRIPTION
The site is a group of eight vacant and underutilized properties in the Ponto
area, located south of the Cape Rey Carlsbad Beach hotel and east of Carlsbad
Boulevard. The site is bisected by Ponto Drive. North of Ponto Drive are three
underutilized parcels containing a mini storage, miscellaneous buildings and
other storage uses on nearly five acres. To the south, across Ponto Drive, is a
cluster of five small vacant properties total just over an acre.
Site topography is generally flat. Some of the parcels may be constrained due
to environmentally sensitive habitat. One parcel is alongside the railroad
corridor. All the parcels are located outside the McClellan-Palomar Airport
flight path.
The site does !lQ! include a vacant 11-acre parcel along either side of Ponto
Drive and fronting Avenida Encinas. The parcel is commonly referred to as
#Planning Area F.N
SITE FEATURES
• Vacant/underutilized • Utilities accessible
• In the Coastal Zone • Site constraints
SITE OPPORTUNITY
The site consists of a mix of residential and non-residential land use designations. Two of the eight parcels have a split
land use designation of VC (Visitor Commercial) and R-15 (11.5 to 15 dwelling units per acre, or du/ac). The one parcel
alongside the railroad corridor is designated R-15. The R-15 designation often applies to small lot single family or
detached or attached condominium development. The cluster of five vacant parcels south of Ponto Drive is designated
GC (General Commercial). General Commercial permits a broad range of commercial uses. It also permits properties to
be developed in a mixed-use format, with limited residential above first floor commercial.
Staff has received a letter from one property owner expressing support for higher density.
Except for the VC-designated portion of the two parcels, which is not anticipated to change, the redesignation of all
parcels to R-23 is contemplated. R-23 is a residential designation the state identifies as suitable for moderate income
households. The R-23 designation would permit a density range of 19 to 23 dwelling units per acre (du/ac). This density
is typical of two-and three-story apartment and condominium developments.
To change any designation, amendments to the General Plan, Local Coastal Program, zoning, Poinsettia Shores Master
Plan, and the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan would be required. These amendments would require Oty Council
and California Coastal Commission approval.
Page 9 of 11
POTENTIAL HOUSING SITES
Site Number: 18 -North Ponto Parcels
216-010-01, 216-010-02,
Parals Numbers 216-010-03, 216-010-04,
216-010-05, 214-160-25,
214-160-28, 214-171-11
Ownership Private (separate ownership)
R-15 (Residential 8-15 du/ac),
CUnent General Plan VC (Visitor Commercial)/R-
Daslpatl-15,
GC (General Commercial)
Approximately 44 units
CUnent Reslclential (based on the existing R-15
designation and limited Opportunity residential permitted on
GC-designated properties)
lncomecatesorvof
units (based Moderate
on minimum densltv)
GMP Quadrant
Parcel Size
Proposed General Plan
Desiplatlon
Proposed Resldentlal
Opportunity
Southwest
(City of
Carlsbad
Approximately 6 acres (all -~ -•
R-23 (Residential, 19 to 23
du/ac)•
•The VC designation, which
applies to two properties, is not
onticipoted to change and
would remain in the some
location.
Approximately 90 units (at 19
du/ac)•
•No yield is determined from
portions of property designated
vc.
Page 10 of 11
Calculation of Ponto Site 18 Parkland dedication requirement and City losses from the Park-in-lieu Fee:
Ponto Site 18 -Fenton proposed development's Park land dedication requirement
Park I and dedication requirement per CMC 20.44 https:ljlibrary.qcode.us/I ib/carlsbad ca/pub/municipal code/item/title 20-chapter 20 44
US Census data https:ljwww .census.gov/qui ckf acts/fact/table/ca rl sbadcityca I iforni a/POP 060210#POP 060210
Carlsbad Park Ded ication Requirement is 3 acres of land per 1,000 population of the proposed development.
Population of proposed development is based on population per household based on latest US Census data
2020 US Census data is 2.64 people per household
FYI, Carlsbad 3 acres /1,000 is comparatively very low both locally and nationally. And there is no 'wal kably requirement'.
5 acres /1,000 population is what Encinitas and Oceanside require along with a 10-minute walk location requirement.
Fenton owns almost 6 acres of land in Site 18, 4.64 acres of which they want to develop now, and the other 1+ acre part they want to develop later.
on the 4.64 acre site change VC-Vi sitor Co mmercial/R-15 (15 dwellings per acre) General Plan land use and Zoning to 100% res idential and develop at
19.125 dwellings per acre on 4.64 acres.
On the 1+ acre site, instead of providing their required Park land dedication, Fenton is proposing to develop the remaining 1 acre area (between PCH &
Ponto Drive) as General Comm ercial.
lnste ad of providing the required Park Land dedication, Fenton is proposing to develop the remaining 1 acre area (between Pe cha and Ponto Drive) as
General Commercial.
Site 18 (Fenton) development proposal for the 4.64 acre portion is development of 86 hou sehold units (over 19 dwelling units per acre in in higher
occupancy units than typical) consisting of:
8 2-bedroom homes = 9% of total units proposed
40 3-bedroom homes = 47% of total units proposed
~ 4-bedroom homes = 44% of total units proposed
86 100%
Fenton is proposing 91% of the project with 3 or 4 bed rooms so the project wi II have higher occupancy, and likely more children, per hous ing unit than the
Fenton Park land dedication requirement per CMC 20.44
cal cu I ati on
X
I
86 DU of Fenton proposed development
2.64 average population per DU per 2020 US Census
227 estimated population of Fenton project
1,000 population that needs 3 ace rs of Park land per CMC 20.44
0.22704 percentage of 3 acres of Park land required for 227 people
X 3 acres of Park land required per 1,000 people
0.68112 acres of Park land required for Fenton's proposed 86 DU project based on Citywide average population per DU
X 43,560 square feet per acre
$
$
29,670 square feet of Park land required for Fenton's proposed 86 DU project base d on Citywide average population per DU
1 acre of Fenton' s unused vacant 'ice plant lots' between PCH & Ponto Drive that can provide Fenton's Park land requirement
398,696 per City Master Fee Schedu le. Consistent with what Fenton said was would be the 'Park -in-lieu Fee for their 86 DU project
50 Est imated SF cost Fenton paid for Ponto Site 18 or$ 2.18 million per acre
$ 1,483,479 cost of 29,670 SF of Ponto Site 18 land to satisfy Fenton's Park land requirement
for the Ponto Site 18 5-acre 86 dweling unit land use cahnge and development proposal:
$ (1,084,783) Dollars the City is loosing in Park land value and not receiving in its Park-in-lieu Fee, so this is a gift to the developer
-73% % of lost Park land value City is loosing and not receiving in its PIL Fee, so this is a City gift to the developer
$ 1,000,000 per acre costto develop a Park like Buena Vista Reservoir Park
43,560 square feet per acre
$ 22.96 Cost per sq. ft.
29,670 square feet of Park land required for Fenian's proposed 86 DU project based on Citywide average population per DU
$ 681,120 Cost to develop Fenton's 29,670 sq. ft. of Park Land Dedication as a Park
$ (282,424) Dollars City looses from Park-in-lieu Fees not even being adequate to cove r Actual Minimal Park Development Costs
Page 11 of 11
Included attached supporting data files:
1. Carlsbad 2019 proposed Draft LCP Amendment – People for Ponto 2021 Oct Updated Public
Comments - Coastal Recreation
2. Carlsbad 2019 proposed Draft LCP Amendment –Public Comments – Low-Cost Visitor
Accommodations updated 2021-10-12
3. Sea Level Rise and Carlsbad’s DLCP-LUPA’s projected/planned Loss of Open Space at Ponto -
2022
POTENTIAL HOUSING SITES
Site Number: 18 -North Ponto Parcels
SITE DESCRIPTION
The site is a group of eight vacant and underutilized properties in the Ponto
area, located south of the Cape Rey Carlsbad Beach hotel and east of Carlsbad
Boulevard. The site is bisected by Ponto Drive. North of Ponto Drive are three
underutilized parcels containing a mini storage, miscellaneous buildings and
other storage uses on nearly five acres. To the south, across Ponto Drive, is a
cluster of five small vacant properties total just over an acre.
Site topography is generally flat. Some of the parcels may be constrained due
to environmentally sensitive habitat. One parcel is alongside the railroad
corridor. All the parcels are located outside the McClellan-Palomar Airport
flight path.
The site does not include a vacant 11-acre parcel along either side of Ponto
Drive and fronting Avenida Encinas. The parcel is commonly referred to as
"Planning Area F."
SITE FEATURES
• Vacant/underutilized • Utilities accessible
• In the Coastal Zone • Site constraints
SITE OPPORTUNITY
(city of
Carlsbad
The site consists of a mix of residential and non-residential land use designations. Two of the eight parcels have a split
land use designation of VC (Visitor Commercial) and R-15 (11.5 to 15 dwelling units per acre, or du/ac). The one parcel
alongside the railroad corridor is designated R-15. The R-15 designation often applies to small lot single family or
detached or attached condominium development. The cluster of five vacant parcels south of Ponto Drive is designated
GC (General Commercial). General Commercial permits a broad range of commercial uses. It also permits properties to
be developed in a mixed-use format, with limited residential above first floor commercial.
Staff has received a letter from one property owner expressing support for higher density.
Except for the VC-designated portion of the two parcels, which is not anticipated to change, the redesignation of all
parcels to R-23 is contemplated. R-23 is a residential designation the state identifies as suitable for moderate income
households. The R-23 designation would permit a density range of 19 to 23 dwelling units per acre (du/ac). This density
is typical of two-and three-story apartment and condominium developments.
To change any designation, amendments to the General Plan, Local Coastal Program, zoning, Poinsettia Shores Master
Plan, and the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan would be required. These amendments would require City Council
and California Coastal Commission approval.
POTENTIAL HOUSING SITES
Site Number: 18 -North Ponto Parcels
216-010-01, 216-010-02,
Parcels Numbers 216-010-03, 216-010-04,
216-010-05, 214-160-25,
214-160-28, 214-171-11
Ownership Private (separate ownership)
R-15 (Residential 8-15 du/ac),
Current General Plan VC (Visitor Commercial)/R-
15, Designations GC (General Commercial)
Approximately 44 units
Current Residential (based on the existing R-15
designation and limited Opportunity residential permitted on
GC-designated properties)
Income category of
units (based Moderate
on minimum density)
GMP Quadrant
Parcel Size
Proposed General Plan
Designation
Proposed Residential
Opportunity
Southwest
(city of
Carlsbad
Approximately 6 acres (all
parcels)
R-23 (Residential, 19 to 23
du/ac)*
*The VC designation, which
applies to two properties, is not
anticipated to change and
would remain in the same
location.
Approximately 90 units (at 19
du/ac)*
*No yield is determined from
portions of property designated
vc.
From:Lance Schulte
To:Scott Donnell; Boyle, Carrie@Coastal; "Prahler, Erin@Coastal"; Ross, Toni@Coastal
Subject:Public input and data on Ponto Site 18 within the CA Coastal Zone - Reminder: Give input on environmental study forfuture housing sites
Attachments:2022 Oct - Public Input of Environmental Impacts of Ponto Site 18 for SEIR on proposed Coastal Land Use changes in2021-2029 Housing Element Update.pdfCarlsbad 2019 proposed Draft LCP Amendment - People for Ponto 2021-Oct Updated Public Comments - Coastal
Recreation.pdfCarlsbad 2019 proposed Draft LCP Amendment - Public Comments - Low-cost Visitor Accmodations - updated 2021-10-12.pdf
Sea Level Rise and Carlsbad DLCP-LUPA planned loss of OS at Ponto - 2022 (2).pdf
Dear Scott, Carrie, Erin and Toni:
Attached is public input to the Carlsbad’s environmental study for the Developer/City proposed Coastal
Land Use changes on Ponto Site 18 – elimination of the VC-Visitor Commercial land use and change to
increase the Residential density range on the entire site. There are 4 components of public input:
1. Public input on the items from the CEQA Checklist, and
2. Backup data to that public input regarding key Coastal environmental issues associated with the
proposed Coastal land use changes on Ponto Site 18 of:
a. Coastal Recreation needs
b. VC-Visitor Commercial land Use Designation/zoning and Low-Cost Visitor
Accommodation needs, and
c. At Ponto the planned unmitigated loss of 32+ acres of State Beach and Campground
(Carlsbad’s only Low-Cost Visitor Accommodations) due to accelerated Coastal Erosion
and Sea Level Rise.
The Ponto area is an area the City has documented as being ‘unserved by Parks’. Ponto is the last vacant
Coastal Land on which to cost effectively and much better address the Coastal Recreation, Low-cost
Visitor Accommodation, and the currently known yet unmitigated 32+acres of Coastal Erosion/Sea Level
Rise impacts to at Ponto. Ponto Site 18 is one of those currently vacant Coastal lands.
Thank you.
Lance Schulte
From: City of Carlsbad [mailto:communications@carlsbadca.ccsend.com] On Behalf Of City of CarlsbadSent: Wednesday, October 12, 2022 8:04 AMTo: meyers-schulte@sbcglobal.netSubject: Reminder: Give input on environmental study for future housing sites
g
Reminder: Third meeting added to give input on
environmental study for future housing sites
Remember to mark your calendar for Monday, Oct. 17, to give input on what
environmental impacts should be evaluated in a study on potential propertiesthat could be rezoned to accommodate future housing. A reminder that the city
also extended the deadline to provide comments from Oct. 14 to Oct. 26.
Environmental Scoping Meeting
Oct. 17, 6 to 7:30 p.m.
City of CarlsbadFaraday Administration Center
1635 Faraday Ave.
You can provide input via mail or email through Oct. 26 to:
[I
]
Scott Donnell, Senior Planner
City of Carlsbad
Planning Division
1635 Faraday Ave.Carlsbad, CA 92008
Scott.Donnell@carlsbadca.gov
Next steps
After helping identify what environmental impacts should be evaluated,residents will have an opportunity to review and provide input on the draft report
once it is developed. The supplemental environmental impact report will be
presented to the City Council for consideration in 2023.
Background
The city is preparing a supplemental environmental impact report for its General
Plan, approved in 2015. The report is required as part of the city’s Housing
Element Update, a state-required plan approved in July 2021 for how Carlsbad
will accommodate projected housing needs through 2029.
As part of a Housing Element Update, the state also requires all cities analyzeand update portions of their Public Safety Element, a separate chapter of the
General Plan that focuses on citywide topics including climate resiliency, wildfire
hazards and evacuation routes. Updates proposed will respond to requirementsof new state legislation related to these topics.
The city worked with the community last year to choose the potential sites, and
the next step is to perform environmental studies. This analysis will help inform
the final selection of sites.
Zoning changes
The city’s housing plan includes proposed changes to zoning that would allowmore housing units on certain properties. This study will evaluate the
environmental impacts of those changes, including how it might affect things like
transportation, aesthetics and greenhouse gas emissions.
Housing program implementationThe housing plan also includes programs that require the city to make changes
to housing standards, such as allowing additional types of housing and higher
densities to meet state requirements. The environmental review will analyze the
impacts of implementing some of these programs. Learn more
· Housing Plan Update
· General Plan
· Scott Donnell, Senior Planner, scott.donnell@carlsbadca.gov
Visit the Website
City of Carlsbad | 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008
Unsubscribe meyers-schulte@sbcglobal.net
Update Profile | Constant Contact Data Notice
Sent by planning@carlsbadca.gov
Page 1 of 11
2022 Oct 12 – Public Input on Ponto Site 18 environmental
impacts to be studied/mitigated by City/Developer
The public input is based on the City of Carlsbad’s description of Ponto Site 18 proposed land use
changes (see pages 8-9 below) and the Developer’s proposed land use change & approach to pay Park-
in-lieu-fees to avoid providing much need Coastal and neighborhood Parks at Ponto (see page 10
below). Please see the 3 attached data files regarding Coastal Recreation, Low-cost Visitor
Accommodations and unmitigated high-priority Coastal land use losses at Ponto from Coastal erosion
and Sea Level Rise listed on page 11 below.
Public Input Questions as to the legality of using tax-payer funds to pay for the CEQA analysis/costs of
private developers:
Who is paying for the CEQA analysis of private property and private developer proposals?
Are Carlsbad tax-payer dollars being used to subsidize Developers’ CEQA analysis costs?
Is the City being reimbursed by each developer to cover the costs of their site-specific CEQA
analysis?
Is the City violating the State Law prohibition of a ‘Gift of Public Funds to a private parties’ by paying
for the CEQA processing for developers?
The following Public Input on environmental impacts are taken from CA CEQA Guidelines Appendix G
(2019):
AIR QUALITY: Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? – Site 18 proposes land
use changes to high-density (DU/Acre) residential development next to the LOSSAN rail corridor (that is
planned to be double tracked to significantly increase train traffic and train pollution). Proposed Site 18
will expose much higher population densities to diesel and particulate emissions from the increased rail
traffic on the LOSSAN Corridor. 91% of Ponto Site 18’s dwelling units are 3 & 4 bedroom and thus the
population proposed is both high occupancy and high density - mean increased population exposure.
The likelihood that most of the 91% of the proposed 3 & 4 bedroom units will be occupied by children
(who are more sensitive/impacted by air pollution) further adds to pollution exposure impacts from
proposed land use changes at Site 18.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service? & c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands
(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other means? – There have been endangered species Fairy Shrimp and
CCS Habitat identified in the area and along poperies adjacent to the LOSSAN corridor. There
endangered species such as Fairy Shrimp and CCS Habitat on the Site 18. Also there appears to maybe
federal jurisdictional waters of Site 18 which should be addressed.
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
Page 2 of 11
materials into the environment? – There is a regional SoCal Gas high-pressure Natural Gas transmission
pipeline and easement that runs through Ponto Site 18 & Planning Area F. This pipeline recently had a
leak that was repaired. However future gas leaks are likely to occur over time. Constructing high-
density & high-occupancy housing likely with significant child population over/adjacent this major
natural gas transmission line exposes larger amounts of future populations (with an estimated higher
percentage of children) to hazards from gas leaks. Providing a sufficient open space/hazard setback
adjacent to the pipeline easement should be explored as a means to provide a safety buffer between
the gas pipeline hazard and proposed higher-density and higher occupancy residential land use. An
expanded open space setback can also serve as repair staging space for gas pipeline repairs and
inspections. Carlsbad’s Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan indicated this Gas Pipeline and easement
would be moved/relocated to a safer location.
LAND USE AND PLANNING: b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land
use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental
effect? – Site 18 proposes to change Carlsbad’s General Plan & Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan &
Zoning by removing VC-Visitor Serving Coastal land use and replacing it with R-23 high-density
Residential land use. VC-Visitor Commercial is a high-priority Coastal Land Use per the CA Coastal Act.
In 2016-2017 the CA Coastal Commission has informed the City of the need to ensure an adequate
amount and distribution of VC land use is forever provided in the City’s currently proposed (that does
not include the proposed Site 18 land use changes eliminating VC Land Use) Local Coastal Program Land
Use Plan (LCP) changes. This issue is reflected in the City’s description of Ponto Site 18 on pages 8-9 in
which the City indicates that the VC-Visitor Serving land use will likely not be changed by City & CA
Coastal Commission. Ponto Site 18 is within Carlsbad’s existing Mello II LCP Segment with specific LCP
Policies that relate to VC land uses – particularly CA Coastal Act high-priority “Low Cost Visitor
Accommodations” land use. Specifically LCP Policies 6-2, 6-4 and 6-10 that read:
POLICY 6-2 REGIONAL PARK: If the population of Carlsbad increases in accordance with SANDAG's
projected Series V Population Forecasts, it is estimated that Carlsbad will need to develop a new regional
park containing 200 to 300 acres in order to adequately serve the public. A location for a new regional
park must, therefore, be established. Consideration should be given to a facility within the Aqua Hedionda
Specific Plan Area, or adjacent lands. The Batiquitos Lagoon area should also be considered.
POLICY 6-4 NEED FOR ADDITIONAL OVERNIGHT CAMPING: Additional overnight camping facilities, the
main source of lower cost visitor and recreational facilities are needed throughout the San Diego coastal
region. Additional facilities of this kind should be provided in a regional park within the Carlsbad area. This
can be accomplished in conjunction with an eventual Batiquitos Park, within the Aqua Hedionda Specific
Plan Area, and/or along with the development of private recreational facilities.
POLICY 6-10 LOWER COST VISITOR-SERVING RECREATIONAL USES: Lower cost visitor and recreational
facilities shall be protected, encouraged, and, where feasible, provided. Encourage a range of
affordability for overnight visitor accommodations. Evaluate the affordability of any new or redeveloped
overnight visitor accommodations, including amenities that reduce the cost of stay. Mitigation may be
applied to protect and encourage affordable overnight accommodations”
Official Carlsbad Public Records Request # R002393-092121 confirmed the City did not implement Policy
6-2 and reduced the 200-300 acres to only a 49-acre useable Veterans Park that City now acknowledges
is only a neighborhood park and will not serve as a ‘regional park’. The City has never implemented
existing Mello II LCP Policy 6-4. The City incorrectly (and potentially dishonestly) implemented Policy 6-
Page 3 of 11
10 as all the ‘new visitor accommodations (hotels and resorts) that the City approved as ‘affordable’
were later documented by the City as “Unaffordable” in “Table 3-1: Carlsbad Coastal Zone Hotel
Inventory” the City’s currently proposed LCP Land Use Plan changes (excluding Ponto Site 18). And no
lower-cost recreational facilities have been provided or approved by the City as called out in Policy 6-10.
The vacant lands at Ponto – Site 18, Planning Area F, and Planning Area G and H, are the only remaining
vacant lands west of the LOSSAN corridor in South Carlsbad that can practically provide for those ‘Lower
cost visitor and recreational facilities’ and “(i.e. Public Park) as noted in the current Ponto Planning Area
F LCP Land Use Policy.
The ONLY Low-cost Visitor Accommodation in Carlsbad is the (overcrowded) State Campground as
documented by the City’s “Table 3-1: Carlsbad Coastal Zone Hotel Inventory” in the City’s currently
proposed LCP Land Use Plan changes. hat the City knows will be ‘impacted’ (eliminated) in the future
due sea level rise and bluff erosion. City proposes to eliminate opportunities for upland relocation of
the Campground (or similar private accommodations) in the City’s currently proposed LCP Land Use Plan
Amendment & in the Developer’s/City proposed elimination of VC land use at Site 18.
Please see and reference the two (2) People for Ponto Public Comments and documented data files on
Carlsbad’s proposed Local Coastal Program Amendment regarding 1) ‘Coastal Recreation Land Use’, and
2) ‘Low Cost Visitor Accommodations’ both dated 10/12/21 for more documented details and data that
relate to the Coastal Land Use issues, Park Inequities at Ponto, lack of Coastal Park in and for South
Carlsbad inland populations, and lack of low-cost visitor accommodations and recreation facilities at
Ponto/South Carlsbad. Please also see and reference the documented data in the ‘2022 Sea Level Rise
and Carlsbad’s DLCP-LUPA’s projected/planned Loss of Open Space at Ponto’ also submitted as People
for Ponto Public Comments on Carlsbad’s proposed Local Coastal Program Amendment showing the
City’s failure to provide Useable Coastal Open Space for Coastal Recreation as required by the City’s
Growth Management Ordinance and the City’s planned and unmitigated loss of Carlsbad’s only Low-cost
Visitor Accommodation land use – State Campground – due to accelerated coastal erosion and Sea Level
Rise.
Site 18 is designated as VC and appears was intended as an affordable visitor site in the City’s Ponto
Beachfront Village Vision Plan (PBVVP). The PBVVP was rejected by the CA Coastal Commission for its
inadequacy in disclosing-considering-documenting “the need for Coastal Recreation (i.e. Public Park) and
Low-cost Visitor Accommodations” in the adjacent and directly abutting Poinsettia Shores Master
Plan/LCP area of Ponto. Ponto Site 18’s proposed elimination of VC Coastal Land Use impacts both the
Existing LCP and City proposed LCP changes regarding CA Coastal Act high-priority Coastal Land Use.
Also, all CA cities are being required by the State of CA to each 8-years change General Plan Land Use
(and in some instances Coastal Land Use Plans) to increase residential land use with higher-densities
that by definition provide less recreational open space for their population, and thus need City/State
Parks for their outdoor recreation needs. Yet every 8-years each City’s Parkland and Coastal Recreation
land uses are not required by the State of CA to increase/grow in proportion to those State required
increases in residential population and higher densities with minimal recreation space. So every 8-years
there is more crowding on exiting City Public Parks, City/State Coastal Parks, and low-cost visitor
accommodations at the Coast. There is a finite amount of Coastal Land for all of Carlsbad and CA to use
for Coastal Recreation and it is imperative that the small amounts of remaining vacant Coastal Land be
preserved for CA Coastal Act high-priority Coastal Recreation land use to meet the increasing
population/visitor demands required to be produced every 8-years.
Page 4 of 11
Also, it should be noted that the City of Carlsbad’s Park Master Plan already identifies the Ponto Area as
an area ‘unserved by City parks’ and an area the City should require/provide new City Parks. Ponto Site
18 should be required to provide its proportionate share of needed City Park land at Ponto by dedicating
unused portions of Site 18 to the City for Park land per the City’s Parkland Dedication Ordinance 20.44.
This is double important give that 91% of Site 18’s proposed housing units are 3 & 4 bedroom and will
likely have ether 1) a high percentage of children per unit, or 2) have a larger per unity adult population
of multiple adult families living as roommates and also increasing parking demand beyond a single-
family home. In either case there is a clear need Park land within walking distance to be
useable/accessible to these proposed larger child and/or adult populations. The private recreation
space (required to offset reduced/eliminated yards and open space by higher density development) is
not a substitute for larger multi-use Park lands for children and adults to run around and play.
NOISE: CEQA does not appear to require consideration of noise/vibration impacts on proposed Ponto
Site 18 populations from the LOSSAN corridor train traffic. Living some distance from the LOSSAN
Corridor and buffered by both landscaped setbacks an 8-10’ concreate block wall outside of the Rail
corridor we can still hear/feel the trains and the vibration impacts should be considered.
POPULATION AND HOUSING: a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other infrastructure)? – Ponto Site 18 was/is in part planned for VC-Visitor
Commercial land use, thus it is inducing unplanned population growth at Ponto. The .397 square mile
Ponto area Census Tract, even with its significant currently vacant land, is already developed at 4,111
people per square mile that is a density that is about 40% more dense than the Citywide average of
2,959 people per square mile. As noted above in ‘Land Use & Planning impacts’ Site 18’s proposed 91%
3-4 bedroom development will create higher occupancy per unit (ether high numbers of Children or high
numbers of adults per unit) and with a proposed high number of dwelling units per acre, Site 18 will
create additional residential population without providing needed Parkland at Ponto. The City Park
Inequity (unfairness) at Ponto has been documented by the City’s Park Master Plan’s map of areas
“unserved by Parks”.
PUBLIC SERVICES: a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in
order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of
the public services:
Fire protection? – the City has said areas west of I-5/LOSSAN Corridor are falling out of desired
Fire/Emergency service levels and new Fire/Emergency/Lifeguard facilities are needed west of I-
/LOSSAN Corridor. Proposed Ponto 18 land use change and development will add new and
more impacts to that situation and should be mitigated.
Parks? – As noted in LAND USE AND PLANNING and POPULATION AND HOUSNG above, the
proposed change in land use to Residential, higher-density residential, and proposed high-
occupancy (many children in a family unit or many multi-family adult roommates) per unit
development will add a larger population needing Park land and access within walking distance.
Carlsbad’s Park Master Plan documents that the Ponto Area is ‘Unserved by Parks’ and an “Area
the City should add Parks’. Also the Local Coastal Program for the directly adjacent Ponto
Page 5 of 11
Planning Area F specifically requires the City and/or developer to address Park needs at Ponto.
On July 3, 2017 the CA Coastal Commission provided the following direction to Carlsbad:
o “The existing LUP includes policies that require certain visitor-serving developments
and/or studies relevant to the Ponto … area. For example, Planning Area F requires the
city and developer to "consider and document the need for the provision of lower cost
visitor accommodations or recreational facilities (i.e., public park) on the west side of
the railroad. … this study should be undertaken as a part of the visitor serving use
inventory analysis described above. If this analysis determines that there is a deficit of
low cost visitor accommodations or recreation facilities in this area, then Planning
Area F should be considered as a site where these types of uses could be developed.”
This study has yet to be done, and was not done by the City with the 2010 Ponto Vision Plan
(rejected by the CCC) nor with the 2015 General Plan Update (currently being evaluated by the
CCC for the Coastal portions of Carlsbad). The newly proposed Ponto Site 18 Coastal land use
change from visitor accommodation land use to residential land use and proposed high
population occupancy/density will impact on the CCC’s 2017 direction to Carlsbad regarding
both “(i.e. Public Park) and low-cost visitor accommodations”; the impacts of this should be
evaluated with CCC consultation.
As noted in LAND USE AND PLANNING, the Mello II LCP for Ponto Site 18 has documented that City has
not followed/implemented the Mello II LCP Land Use Policies 6-2, 6-4 and 6-10. Site 18’s proposed
Coastal Land Use Plan changes and added population will compound the impacts and problems of the
City not complying with these 3 existing Local Coastal Program Land Use Policies. The impacts of this
should be evaluated with CCC consultation.
People for Ponto Carlsbad Citizens have provided a “Coastal Recreation data file” on 10/12/21 to the
City and CCC that documents both local Ponto/South Carlsbad and Regional Coastal Park inadequacy,
inequity, and unfairness; along with the relatively poor provision/distribution of Parks in Carlsbad
relative to adjacent Coastal cities. Because there are no Ponto Parks to informally play ball games and
other larger open areas to play within a safe/short walk or bike ride Ponto children and families are
forced to play in the LOSSAN Corridor and in Ponto streets as has been documented to the City and CCC
in several photos and in numerous petitions/emails. Children and adults playing in streets and along
high-speed railroad tracks are not safe, and the City by not providing an adequate Park at Ponto is
creating this unsafe situation. These safety impacts should be evaluated and with CCC consultation.
Over 5,000 petitions have been sent to the City of Carlsbad and CA Coastal Commission documenting
the need and desire for a meaningful Ponto Park. Ponto Site 18 is in the CA Coastal Zone and very close
to the ocean. Ponto Site 18 should at the very barest of minimums be required to dedicate the
appropriate portion of the Ponto Site 18 land to fulfill the relatively low 3 acres per 1,000 population
park land dedication for a Ponto Site 18 development proposal and assure Site 18’s bare minimum
Ponto park needs are met with a Park actually at Ponto. Ponto Site 18 should NOT be allowed to buy
land outside Ponto or pay an ‘in-lieu-fee’ as a means to avoid providing Park land at Ponto Site 18 as Site
18 has sufficient vacant land to provide the City Parkland dedication. The impacts to both local Park and
the State/Regional Coastal Recreation (i.e. Public Park) needs to provide actual Park land at Ponto
should be evaluated and with CCC consultation.
The VMT & GHG and ADT impacts of not providing Parks within a safe and short walking/biking distance
from the Park need (i.e. Ponto) should also be fully evaluated. The impacts to children’s health and
Page 6 of 11
safety from not providing Parks within a safe and short walking/biking distance from the Park need (i.e.
Ponto) should also be fully evaluated and with CCC and LOSSAN Corridor agency consultations.
RECREATION: a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated? – Ponto Site 18 will increase Recreation needs. However there are no Parks at Ponto. The
only City Parks reasonably accessible (and only safely accessible for children) to Ponto Site 18
populations require driving and parking at Parks over 2-6 miles away. The added impacts to City Streets,
City Park land and City Park parking facilities should be evaluated. Also, will additional Park parking
spaces be required and thus reduce the ‘actual people useable portion’ of the Parks that will be used by
proposed Ponto Site 18?
TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing
measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system …? – As noted 91% of the units
are 3-4 bedrooms that will have the potential for a relative high occupancy per unit. That high-
occupancy will either be a high child (i.e. larger single-family) or high adult (several unrelated adults
living as roommates). If a high child occupancy the impacts will be child related and the need for
abundant safe walking/biking facilities. If high adult occupancy there will be then need to provide much
more parking space than the standard 2-car parking space and guest space requirement for a ‘single-
family unit. It is very common for most garages along the coast to not be used for parking but used for
non-vehicle storage, and for unit occupants to use streets as their primary parking spaces. If there are
more adults (beyond a typical single-family) then there will be more cars and parking demand per unit
and even more cars will use surrounding public streets as their primary parking spaces. If fact the
proposed Ponto Site 18 design and front door locations encourages each unit fronting on a public street
to use the public street as their private parking space. At Ponto there is currently a high demand for
public on-street parking to access the beach. The City has failed to provide public beach parking in the
abandoned (and still paved) PCH Right-of-Way both north and south of Poinsettia Lane at the
Campground entrance. Ponto Site 18 will increase parking demand and that demand will still over onto
the public Ponto Road and thus remove/decrease the limited amount of public beach parking at Ponto.
The CA Coastal Commission has already identified the current public beach parking needs at Ponto and
also the need to provide more public beach parking to accommodate future population growth and
demand to access the Coast. The current/future needs for public beach parking should be studied and
determined, proposed Ponto Site 18’s high-occupancy and parking demand and spillover impact onto
public streets be determined and a 100% accountable/enforceable system established to assure Ponto
Site 18 has no impact to public beach parking.
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? – As noted earlier, Carlsbad already as indicated areas west
of I-5/LOSSAN Corridor have inadequate fire/Emergency access/service levels. Ponto Site 18 will
increase those inadequacies by adding a high-occupancy population. This impact should be studied and
mitigated.
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,
but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of
other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? – Ponto Site 18 is one of the last
Page 7 of 11
meaningful vacant Coastal lands in San Diego County that can serve the documented need to provide
land for the increasing population/visitor demands for Low-Cost Visitor Accommodation uses and for
the no-cost City and regional Coastal Park needs (no Coastal Park in a 6-mile length of Coast centered
around Ponto) and provide a needed neighborhood park for the local Ponto Community. The Coastal
Recreation and Low-Cost Visitor Accommodation data files document these situations/impacts.
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly? – Ponto Site 18 is close Ponto Site 18 is one of the last meaningful
vacant Coastal lands in San Diego County that can serve the documented need to provide land for the
increasing population/visitor demands for Low-Cost Visitor Accommodation uses and for the no-cost
City and regional Coastal Park needs (no Coastal Park in a 6-mile length of Coast centered around Ponto)
and provide a needed neighborhood park for the local Ponto Community. For instance Ponto Children
and their parents are forced to play in the Streets or along the LOSSAN Corridor as these areas are the
only larger open space areas to play. Many of the Ponto homes and manufactured homes have very
narrow yards or zero-side yards, and common open space are only narrow paths or smaller single
function spaces (pool/spa) that can’t be used for play. So there is minim outdoor pay area at Ponto that
impacts children and their families. Per the City of Carlsbad’s minimal Park Standard of 3 acres per
1,000 population the existing Ponto area population the Ponto Area should have about a minimum 6.5
acre City Park. The City only provides parks for Ponto that are 2 to 6 miles away via unsafe arterial
roadways so inaccessible by children, and the City has recently said Ponto’s Park needs are to be fulfilled
by Veterans Park that is over 6-miles away and practically inaccessible and unusable by Ponto residents
and children. The City also acknowledges that Veterans Park will not be used by Ponto and other more
distant residents. The proposed Pont Site 18 land use change/development would add about .7 acres
more of Park Demand at Ponto to add to the current about 6.5 acre Park Demand at Ponto (see page
10). This lack of Park land for Ponto Children and their families has a substantial adverse effect on
human beings – particularly children. Proposed Ponto Site 18 adds to that effect.
The Ponto area is also the last vacant land that can provide a much needed Coastal Park for Carlsbad &
other inland populations (and 62% of Carlsbad Citizens living in South Carlsbad that have NO Coastal
Park) along the 6-mile length of that has no Coastal Park. This lack of Coastal Park impacts all of South
Carlsbad and also is a Regional Coastal Park and Coastal Recreation impact. Coastal Recreation (i.e.
Public Park) is a high-priority land use under the CA Coastal Act, and is even more critical to provide
Coastal Parks for California’s growing resident and visitor populations. There are very limited vacant
lands on which to provide Coastal Parks and preserving those vacant lands for Coastal Recreation (i.e.
Pubic Parks) is critical to avoid adverse effects on human beings – particularly children.
The Ponto area (Planning Area F, and G and H) and Ponto Site 18 are also the last vacant lands that can
provide a much needed Coastal Low Cost Visitor Accommodation Land Uses that are high-priority land
uses under that CA Coastal Act. The need for new Low Cost Visitor Accommodation Land Uses and
acreage has been well documented by the CA Coastal Commission and in Carlsbad’s Mello II LCP and
Poinsettia Shores LCP. The Ponto Site 18 proposal is to eliminate the VC-Visitor Commercial land use
that could provide Low-cost Visitor Accommodations. Recent Sea Level Rise (SLR) and Coastal Erosion
data document that 32+ acres of Carlsbad State Beach & Campground will continue to erode away and
that that erosion will accelerate due to SLR (see attached “Sea Level Rise and Carlsbad’s DLCP-LUPA’s
projected/planned Loss of Open Space at Ponto - 2022” data file). Carlsbad State Campground provides
Carlsbad’s ONLY Low-cost Visitor Accommodations. So Carlsbad will have no Low-cost Visitor
Accommodation land use in the future, and there is no City plan to address this loss and the increased
Page 8 of 11
need for this land use from both current and future population and visitor demands. This lack of Low-
Cost Visitor Accommodation land is an adverse effect on human beings – particularly children.
City of Carlsbad’s description of Ponto Site 18 and Coastal land use issues:
Upper area
proposed
for land
use change
& higher
density
Part of
Lower area
can
(should) be
dedicated
to
provided
needed
parkland
POTENTIAL HOUSING SITES
Site Number: 18 -North Ponto Parcels
SITE DESCRIPTION
The site is a group of eight vacant and underutilized properties in the Ponto
area, located south of the Cape Rey Carlsbad Beach hotel and east of Carlsbad
Boulevard. The site is bisected by Ponto Drive. North of Ponto Drive are three
underutilized parcels containing a mini storage, miscellaneous buildings and
other storage uses on nearly five acres. To the south, across Ponto Drive, is a
cluster of five small vacant properties total just over an acre.
Site topography is generally flat. Some of the parcels may be constrained due
to environmentally sensitive habitat. One parcel is alongside the railroad
corridor. All the parcels are located outside the McClellan-Palomar Airport
flight path.
The site does !lQ! include a vacant 11-acre parcel along either side of Ponto
Drive and fronting Avenida Encinas. The parcel is commonly referred to as
#Planning Area F.N
SITE FEATURES
• Vacant/underutilized • Utilities accessible
• In the Coastal Zone • Site constraints
SITE OPPORTUNITY
The site consists of a mix of residential and non-residential land use designations. Two of the eight parcels have a split
land use designation of VC (Visitor Commercial) and R-15 (11.5 to 15 dwelling units per acre, or du/ac). The one parcel
alongside the railroad corridor is designated R-15. The R-15 designation often applies to small lot single family or
detached or attached condominium development. The cluster of five vacant parcels south of Ponto Drive is designated
GC (General Commercial). General Commercial permits a broad range of commercial uses. It also permits properties to
be developed in a mixed-use format, with limited residential above first floor commercial.
Staff has received a letter from one property owner expressing support for higher density.
Except for the VC-designated portion of the two parcels, which is not anticipated to change, the redesignation of all
parcels to R-23 is contemplated. R-23 is a residential designation the state identifies as suitable for moderate income
households. The R-23 designation would permit a density range of 19 to 23 dwelling units per acre (du/ac). This density
is typical of two-and three-story apartment and condominium developments.
To change any designation, amendments to the General Plan, Local Coastal Program, zoning, Poinsettia Shores Master
Plan, and the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan would be required. These amendments would require Oty Council
and California Coastal Commission approval.
Page 9 of 11
POTENTIAL HOUSING SITES
Site Number: 18 -North Ponto Parcels
216-010-01, 216-010-02,
Parals Numbers 216-010-03, 216-010-04,
216-010-05, 214-160-25,
214-160-28, 214-171-11
Ownership Private (separate ownership)
R-15 (Residential 8-15 du/ac),
CUnent General Plan VC (Visitor Commercial)/R-
Daslpatl-15,
GC (General Commercial)
Approximately 44 units
CUnent Reslclential (based on the existing R-15
designation and limited Opportunity residential permitted on
GC-designated properties)
lncomecatesorvof
units (based Moderate
on minimum densltv)
GMP Quadrant
Parcel Size
Proposed General Plan
Desiplatlon
Proposed Resldentlal
Opportunity
Southwest
(City of
Carlsbad
Approximately 6 acres (all -~ -•
R-23 (Residential, 19 to 23
du/ac)•
•The VC designation, which
applies to two properties, is not
onticipoted to change and
would remain in the some
location.
Approximately 90 units (at 19
du/ac)•
•No yield is determined from
portions of property designated
vc.
Page 10 of 11
Calculation of Ponto Site 18 Parkland dedication requirement and City losses from the Park-in-lieu Fee:
Ponto Site 18 -Fenton proposed development's Park land dedication requirement
Park I and dedication requirement per CMC 20.44 https:ljlibrary.qcode.us/I ib/carlsbad ca/pub/municipal code/item/title 20-chapter 20 44
US Census data https:ljwww .census.gov/qui ckf acts/fact/table/ca rl sbadcityca I iforni a/POP 060210#POP 060210
Carlsbad Park Ded ication Requirement is 3 acres of land per 1,000 population of the proposed development.
Population of proposed development is based on population per household based on latest US Census data
2020 US Census data is 2.64 people per household
FYI, Carlsbad 3 acres /1,000 is comparatively very low both locally and nationally. And there is no 'wal kably requirement'.
5 acres /1,000 population is what Encinitas and Oceanside require along with a 10-minute walk location requirement.
Fenton owns almost 6 acres of land in Site 18, 4.64 acres of which they want to develop now, and the other 1+ acre part they want to develop later.
on the 4.64 acre site change VC-Vi sitor Co mmercial/R-15 (15 dwellings per acre) General Plan land use and Zoning to 100% res idential and develop at
19.125 dwellings per acre on 4.64 acres.
On the 1+ acre site, instead of providing their required Park land dedication, Fenton is proposing to develop the remaining 1 acre area (between PCH &
Ponto Drive) as General Comm ercial.
lnste ad of providing the required Park Land dedication, Fenton is proposing to develop the remaining 1 acre area (between Pe cha and Ponto Drive) as
General Commercial.
Site 18 (Fenton) development proposal for the 4.64 acre portion is development of 86 hou sehold units (over 19 dwelling units per acre in in higher
occupancy units than typical) consisting of:
8 2-bedroom homes = 9% of total units proposed
40 3-bedroom homes = 47% of total units proposed
~ 4-bedroom homes = 44% of total units proposed
86 100%
Fenton is proposing 91% of the project with 3 or 4 bed rooms so the project wi II have higher occupancy, and likely more children, per hous ing unit than the
Fenton Park land dedication requirement per CMC 20.44
cal cu I ati on
X
I
86 DU of Fenton proposed development
2.64 average population per DU per 2020 US Census
227 estimated population of Fenton project
1,000 population that needs 3 ace rs of Park land per CMC 20.44
0.22704 percentage of 3 acres of Park land required for 227 people
X 3 acres of Park land required per 1,000 people
0.68112 acres of Park land required for Fenton's proposed 86 DU project based on Citywide average population per DU
X 43,560 square feet per acre
$
$
29,670 square feet of Park land required for Fenton's proposed 86 DU project base d on Citywide average population per DU
1 acre of Fenton' s unused vacant 'ice plant lots' between PCH & Ponto Drive that can provide Fenton's Park land requirement
398,696 per City Master Fee Schedu le. Consistent with what Fenton said was would be the 'Park -in-lieu Fee for their 86 DU project
50 Est imated SF cost Fenton paid for Ponto Site 18 or$ 2.18 million per acre
$ 1,483,479 cost of 29,670 SF of Ponto Site 18 land to satisfy Fenton's Park land requirement
for the Ponto Site 18 5-acre 86 dweling unit land use cahnge and development proposal:
$ (1,084,783) Dollars the City is loosing in Park land value and not receiving in its Park-in-lieu Fee, so this is a gift to the developer
-73% % of lost Park land value City is loosing and not receiving in its PIL Fee, so this is a City gift to the developer
$ 1,000,000 per acre costto develop a Park like Buena Vista Reservoir Park
43,560 square feet per acre
$ 22.96 Cost per sq. ft.
29,670 square feet of Park land required for Fenian's proposed 86 DU project based on Citywide average population per DU
$ 681,120 Cost to develop Fenton's 29,670 sq. ft. of Park Land Dedication as a Park
$ (282,424) Dollars City looses from Park-in-lieu Fees not even being adequate to cove r Actual Minimal Park Development Costs
Page 11 of 11
Included attached supporting data files:
1. Carlsbad 2019 proposed Draft LCP Amendment – People for Ponto 2021 Oct Updated Public
Comments - Coastal Recreation
2. Carlsbad 2019 proposed Draft LCP Amendment –Public Comments – Low-Cost Visitor
Accommodations updated 2021-10-12
3. Sea Level Rise and Carlsbad’s DLCP-LUPA’s projected/planned Loss of Open Space at Ponto -
2022
Page 1 of 9
Carlsbad’s proposed Draft Local Coastal Program Amendment – People for Ponto comments - updated 10/12/21
Low Cost Visitor Accommodations:
1. On 10/8/21 the Carlsbad City Council and CA Coastal Commission were emailed data from an Official Carlsbad Public
Records Request (# R002393-092121) on the City of Carlsbad’s past compliance/noncompliance with the currently
exiting Mello II LCP Land Use Policies # 6-2, 6-4 & 6-10 Certified in the mid-1980s. The City’s documents show:
a. For Policy 6-2 the 200-300 acre Park called out in Policy 6-2 has been reduced to Veterans Park’s 91.5 acres,
of which only 54% or 49.5 acres is even useable as a Park. The City provided no documents on how a 200-
300 acre park called for in Policy 6-4 is now only 49.5 useable acres.
b. For Policy 6-4 there were no City documents were provided. There was no City Public discussion,
consideration, or City compliance with Policy 6-4 since the mid-1980’s.
c. For Policy 6-10 documents were provided that stated that 3 hotels – Flower Fields Westin, Legoland Hotel,
and Timeshare Expansion were all considered Low Cost Accommodations by the Developer’s Report to City.
Table 3-1 below from the Draft Proposed LCP Amendment however shows these Accommodations are NOT
Low-Cost Accommodations but “Upper Upscale”, “Luxury”, and “Upscale”. Is this right? Has Policy 6-10
seems to have been circumvented in the City’s Coastal Development Permit process. The Draft LCP
Amendment should address an accountable approach to compliance with Policy 6-10.
Page 2 of 9
The 3 existing LCP Land Use Policies are important for Carlsbad, and California’s, Coastal land use resources. There
appears little to no discussion of the City’s past apparent failure to implementation of these 3 LCP LUPs in the
current City consideration of changes to the LCP.
Following is a copy of Public Records Request # R002393-092121: “Carlsbad’s Local Coastal Program (LCP) for the
Mello II Segment of Carlsbad’s Coastal Zone has long established land use Policies 6-2, 6-4 & 6-10 that were adopted
by Carlsbad and Certified by the CA Coastal Commission in the early/mid-1980’s. Mello II LCP Policies 6-2, 6-4 & 6-10
are shown on page 86-87 of Carlsbad’s 2016 compiled LCP and are:
“POLICY 6-2 REGIONAL PARK: If the population of Carlsbad increases in accordance with SANDAG's projected
Series V Population Forecasts, it is estimated that Carlsbad will need to develop a new regional park
containing 200 to 300 acres in order to adequately serve the public. A location for a new regional park must,
therefore, be established. Consideration should be given to a facility within the Aqua Hedionda Specific Plan
Area, or adjacent lands. The Batiquitos Lagoon area should also be considered.
Table 3-1, Carlsbad Coastal Zone Hotel Inventory
Property Smith Travel Research Cost Scale Rooms
Oays Inn Cailsbad Economy 45
Scandia Motel Economy 20
Motel 6 Gallsbad East Economy 140
Motel 6 Gallsbad South Economy 162
Ramada Cartsbad Midscale 121
la Quinta Inns & Suites Garlsbad legoland !>,ea Midscale 110
Best Western Plus Beach VIO\v Lodge Upper Midscale 41
Cartsbad by lhe Sea Resort Upper Midscale 145
Holiday Inn Express & Sliles Gartsbad Beach Upper Midscale 120
Cartsbad Inn Beach Resort Upper Upscale 6.?
Weslln Cartsbad Resort & Spa Upper Upscale 208
Sheraton Holel Gartsbad Resort & Spa Upper Upscale 169
Wesl Inn & Suites @ Cartsbad Upper Upscale 86
Cape Rey Cartsbad, a Hillon Reso<I Upper Upscale 2·15
lejjoland Gaslle Hotel Upscale 250
Grand Pacific Palisade$ Resort Upscale 90
Hyatt HOU$0 San Oiego Cartsbad Upscale 98
Hi lon Garden Inn Carlsbad Beach Upscale 161
Ocean Palms Beach Resort Upscale 56
Tamarack Beach Resort LUXIJ,Y 23
Legoland Calijomia Resort Holel LUXIJ,y 250
Beach Terrace Inn LUXIJ,Y 48
Four Seasons Residence Club Avlara LUXlJ,Y 42
Pa<I: Hyatt Avlara Resort LUXlJ,Y 327
T Olal Holet Room• 2,989
South CMsbad Slale Beacll campground Lower-Cost 222
(per the average daily rate lo, 'Economy"
hotels\
T Olal Accommodationt 3,211
Source: Smith Travel Research. October 2018
Page 3 of 9
POLICY 6-4 NEED FOR ADDITIONAL OVERNIGHT CAMPING: Additional overnight camping facilities, the main
source of lower cost visitor and recreational facilities, are needed throughout the San Diego coastal region.
Additional facilities of this kind should be provided in a regional park within the Carlsbad area. This can be
accomplished in conjunction with an eventual Batiquitos Park, within the Aqua Hedionda Specific Plan Area,
and/or along with the development of private recreational facilities.
POLICY 6-10 LOWER COST VISITOR-SERVING RECREATIONAL USES: Lower cost visitor and recreational
facilities shall be protected, encouraged, and, where feasible, provided. Encourage a range of affordability
for overnight visitor accommodations. Evaluate the affordability of any new or redeveloped overnight visitor
accommodations, including amenities that reduce the cost of stay. Mitigation may be applied to protect and
encourage affordable overnight accommodations”
2. The public record request is to see documents of:
a. City Staff reports, presentations and communications to the Carlsbad Planning and Parks Commissions, and
City Council regarding the City’s consideration and implementation of these 3 specific (6-2, 6-4, and 6-10)
Mello II LCP land use policies; and
b. Carlsbad Planning and Parks Commissions, and City Council minutes, resolutions and ordinances
documenting City of Carlsbad consideration and implementation of these 3 specific (6-2, 6-4, and 6-10)
Mello II LCP land use policies.”
3. P. 3-3 cites CA Coastal Act (CCA) Polices. But the City’s proposed Local Coastal Program (LCP) Land Use Plan (LUP) in
the Ponto Area, particularly for Planning Area F, appears inconsistent with these CCA policies:
a. Section 30213 – protect, encourage and provide Lower-Cost Visitor & Recreation Facilities.
b. Section 30221 – Visitor serving & Recreation uses have priority over Residential & General Commercial uses.
c. Section 30223 – Upland areas reserved to support Coastal Recreation uses
d. Section 30252(6) – correlate development with Local Park acquisition & on-site recreation
4. Planning Area F used to be designated “Visitor Serving Commercial” as part of the original 1980’s LUP and LCP Samis
Master Plan for Ponto. In the 1996 this LUP was changed to the now current LCP and LUP designation of “Non-
Residential Reserve” with a specific LCP requirement to reconsider a high-priority recreation or visitor serving
Coastal land use while other Ponto land uses were changed to low-priority residential uses (see Poinsettia Shores
Master Plan/LCP). It seems appropriated that the LUP should re-designated Planning Area F back to a Visitor Serving
Commercial and Open Space (“i.e. Public Park” in the existing LCP) to provide high-priory coastal uses v. low-priority
residential/general commercial uses: in part for the following reasons:
a. Planning Area F’s existing LCP requirement requires this consideration, but the City has never disclosed this
requirement to Citizens nor followed this requirement during the Cities two prior ‘planning efforts’ in 2010
and 2015 as documented by official Carlsbad Public Records Requests 2017-260, 261, 262.
b. Ponto developers (both Samis and Kaisza) were both allowed to overdevelop Ponto, by not providing the
minimum Open Space required by Carlsbad’s and Citizen approved Growth Management Open Space
Standard. Over 30-acres of land that should have been dedicated to Growth Management Open Space (a
high-priority land use) was instead allowed to be developed with low-priority residential development. If
the City’s Growth Management Open Space Standard was properly applied at Ponto there would be 30-
acres more open space at Ponto then there is now. This is a significant impact to CCA policies that can be
corrected by changes in the Ponto LUP to properly implement City Open Space Standards and CCA policies.
Page 4 of 9
c. The LCPA acknowledges that past (2005-17) and near-term (2019-23) growth in Carlsbad visitor demand for
coastal recreation and accommodations, and indicate high past hotel occupancy rates that implies current
hotel supply is just meeting current demand. Although the LCPA does not discuss the high occupancy rates
at the Low-Cost Accommodation campground facilities, It is assumed the campground occupancy rate
(understood to be around 80% or more) and demand is higher than that of hotels. This should be
documented/defined. Based on current and near term demand for visitor accommodations the LCPA states
on page 3-12 “… the City should identify and designate land where new hotels and other visitor-serving uses
can be developed.” It is clear where the ‘City should identify and designate [this] land”? What new land(s)
should be so identified and designated? However, the LCPA does not disclose longer-term visitor
accommodation needs beyond 2023, nor provide a long-term plan for meeting this long-term need. The
LCPA should publicly disclose, analyze and provide for the longer-term “Coastal Zone Buildout needs”
(beyond present and well beyond 2023) for visitor Coastal accommodations, particularly Low-Cost
Accommodations and Recreation needs because the LPCA’s LUP is a long-term plan for Carlsbad’s buildout
estimated to extend beyond 2035. Also, given the fact that there are very few vacant Coastal sites (like
Ponto) that are still available to address these long-term high priority Coastal land uses – recreation and
visitor serving – reserving these vacant lands for high priority coastal land uses is consistent with many CCA
Polices. Following are some longer-term projections of resident demand for Coastal park and recreation
needs. It seems logical that long-term visitor demand will increase at a similar rate as the general population
increase rate, unless our coast becomes too overcrowded and unattractive vis-à-vis other visitor
destinations. A long-term visitor demand (to go with the below long-term resident demand long-term Sea
Level Rise impacts) for Coastal recreation resources should be a part of the proposed LCPA and part of the
long-term LUP to provide resources for those long-term needs and to mitigate for those long-term Sea Level
Rise impacts.
Page 5 of 9
Increa sing demand for Coa stal
recreational land
San Diego County Population
1980 1,861,846
1990 2,498,016
2000 2,813,833
2010 3,095,313
2020 3,535,000 = 46,500 people"per mile-of coast
2030 3,870,000
2040 4,163,688
2050 4,384,867 = 57,700 people per mile of coast
nge = 42% increase in population
a,t
Increasing demand for Coastal
recreational land
Yearly Visitors t o San Diego County
2016 34,900,000
2017 34,900,000
2018 35,300,000
2019 35,900,000
2020 36,500,000 = average 100,000 visitors pe r day
2021 37,100,000 or 2.83% of Population per day
2022 37,700,000 or 1,316 Visit o rs/coastal mile/day
Typically around 1.6% annua l increase in visitors
Page 6 of 9
d. City in the LCPA inaccurately analyzes and misrepresents how much Visitor Serving Accommodations,
particularly Low-Cost Accommodations, Carlsbad currently provides on a relative or comparative basis. The
LCPA’s inaccurate and simplistic analysis does not adjust for the different sizes of the Coastal Zone in the 3
cities (Carlsbad, Oceanside and Encinitas) used in the analysis. Carlsbad’s Coastal Zone is significantly larger
that both the other cities, so it has more land and accommodations, just like San Diego’s Coastal Zone is
larger than Carlsbad’s and San Diego is larger than its smaller adjacent neighbors Del Mar and National City.
A simplistic how many accommodations are in your adjacent cities is an inappropriate analytical method for
Carlsbad-Oceanside-Encinitas; just as it is inappropriate to compare the number of San Diego’s hotels with
the number hotels in San Diego’s smaller neighbors Del Mar and National City. The accurate method to do a
comparative analysis is based on a common denominator, such as the amount of accommodations per 1,000
acres of Coastal Zone land along with comparing each city’s relative percentages. This is a more accurate
and appropriate analysis that the LCPA should provide, and not that provided on page 3-13. The LCPA
analysis also does not fully discuss and compare “Low-Cost” accommodations that are part of the CCA
policies; nor provide a mitigation approach for “Low-Cost” accommodations lost, just ‘Economy hotel
rooms’. Below is data from the LCPA and other LCPs that shows the proper and more accurate comparison
of existing Visitor Serving Accommodations in Carlsbad-Oceanside-Encinitas and includes Low-Cost
Accommodation numbers/comparisons that are totally missing in the LCPA analysis. As the data shows,
Carlsbad does not perform as well in Visitor Accommodations, and most particularly in “Low-Cost Visitor
Accommodations”, as the LCPA states and proposes in the LUP relative to Oceanside and Encinitas. An
honest analysis like below should be provided in the LCPA LUP, particularly given the very limited amount of
vacant Coastal land left to provide for high-priority Coastal Uses. Ponto is one of the last remaining vacant
Coastal areas.
Carlsbad's proposed 2019 LCPA uses comparative 3-city data to address how Carlsbad's 2019 LCPA addresses Visitor
Serving Accommodation needs. “Low-Cost” Accommodations are an important CA Coastal Act issue
Visitor Serving
Accommodations
(VSA) data
Carlsbad Oceanside Encinitas Data source
Coastal Acres (i.e.
in Coastal Zone)
9,216 1,460 7,845 Carlsbad Draft LCPA 2019 & Oceanside &
Encinitas LCPs
VSA rooms: total 3,211 975 634 Carlsbad Draft LCPA 2019, pp 3-12 - 15
VSA rooms:
Economy
589 346 346 Carlsbad Draft LCPA 2019, pp 3-12 - 15
VSA rooms: Low-
Cost (campsites)
220 413 171 Carlsbad Draft LCPA 2019, State Parks,
Oceanside Harbor, Paradise-by-the-Sea
and Oceanside RV Park data.
Carlsbad Draft LCPA 2019 does not
evaluate other City’s Low-Cost
Accommodations
3-city
Data analysis Carlsbad Oceanside Encinitas Average Key Findings
Page 7 of 9
VSA rooms/1,000
Coastal acres
348 668 81 366 Carlsbad provides overall Visitor
Accommodations at slightly below the 3-
city average
% of VSA rooms
that are Economy
18% 35% 55% 36% Carlsbad provides a percentage of
Economy Accommodations about 50%
below the 3-city average
Economy VSA
rooms/1,000
Coastal acres
64 237 44 115 Carlsbad provides Economy
Accommodations about 50% below the
3-city average
% VSA rooms that
are Low-Cost
7% 42% 27% 25% Carlsbad provides a percentage of Low-
Cost Accommodations about 72% below
the 3-city average
Carlsbad LCPA also does not provide
protection for loss of “Low-Cost”
campground rooms, only “Economy hotel
rooms”
Low-Cost VSA
rooms/1,000
Coastal acres
24 283 22 110 Carlsbad provides Low-Cost
Accommodations about 78% below the
3-city average
e. The LCPA is not providing for any new “Low Cost Visitor Accommodation” land uses in the proposed LUP for
current/long-range needs, even though page 3-12 points out the current demand for accommodations, and
the current Existing LCP has polices to increase “Low Cost Visitor Accommodation” land uses. We
understand that “Low-cost Visitor Accommodation” occupancy rates at CA State Campground at Carlsbad
are near 90%. This occupancy rate is much higher [signifying higher demand] than the occupancy rates of
both the hotels, and “Economy Visitor Accommodations” which the LCPA seeks to protect. The Proposed
LCPA LUP should provide historic and current “Low-cost Visitor Accommodation” occupancy rate data at CA
State Campground at Carlsbad and compare to occupancy demand for other accommodations to determine
the highest occupancy demands and therefore needs. Why is the Proposed LCPA LUP not protecting AND
EXPANDING (for future CA & Carlsbad population growth and visitor demand growth) the supply of this
higher demand for “Low-cost Visitor Accommodations” at the State Campground? Why is the Proposed
LCPA LUP protecting and expanding this high-priority Coastal Land Use particularly given the Current Existing
Carlsbad LCP policies on this issue, long history of this issue documented in the Current Existing Carlsbad LCP
Mello II Segment, and the fact that “Low-cost Visitor Accommodations” are a Statewide ‘high-Coastal-
priority” land use in CA Coastal Act Goals and Policies? Why is the proposed LUP not recognizing and
incorporating these issues? The Current Existing Carlsbad LCP policies [see Existing Carlsbad LCP Mello II
Segment polies 2.3, 4.1, 61, 6.4, 6.5, 6.9, 6.10, 7.5, and 7.15 for example] are not referenced and discussed
in the Proposed LUP nor is a comprehensive long-term analysis of the impact of the proposed LCPA LUP’s
elimination of theses Current Existing Carlsbad LCP policies vis-à-vis the CA Coastal Act Goals and Policies?
How and why is the City proposing changes to these Existing Carlsbad LCP policies in the Mellow II Segment,
particularly given the improved knowledge about Sea Level Rise, and Sea Level Rise and Coastal Bluff erosion
Page 8 of 9
impacts on the State Campground’s “Low-cost Visitor Accommodations” - High-Coastal-Priority land use
under the CA Coastal Act?
f. At Ponto there is no low-cost/no-cost Recreational use as shown by the City of Carlsbad’s adopted Parks
Master Plan (pp 87-89) that show the City’s adopted Park Service Areas in the following image. The image’s
blue dots are park locations and blue circle(s) show the City’s adopted service areas:
Per the current Existing LCP requirements for Planning Area F at Ponto “Coastal Recreation (i.e. Public Park)”
must be considered. How is the Proposed LCPA LUP not reserving Upland Areas at Ponto for recreational
uses given Sea Level Rise and Coastal Bluff erosion impacts as shown in Proposed LCPA LUP Attachment B,
and Exhibits B6 and B7? There is very limited amount of vacant Upland Coastal land at Ponto and South
Coastal Carlsbad to accommodate low-cost/no-cost Recreational use “(i.e. Public Park)”, so why is this last
remaining vacant Coastal land at Ponto not being reserved for “high-Coastal Priority Land Uses”? Why is the
Proposed LCPA LUP proposing this last remaining vacant Coastal land at Ponto be converted from “Non-
residential Reserve” to ‘low-coastal-priority residential and general commercial land uses’?
5. The proposed LCPA approach to protect existing ‘economy hotels’ but not ‘Low-cost Visitor Accommodations’
appears inappropriate. Existing hotel owners providing ‘Economy” rooms are penalized while all other more
expensive ‘non-economy hotel’ owners are not required to mitigate for their not providing more affordable
accommodations. It seems like a fairer and rational approach is to use the same framework as the City’s
inclusionary affordable housing requirements and have the requirement and burden of providing affordable
accommodations required by all visitor accommodation providers, including short-term rentals of residential homes.
Use of any per accommodation “in-lieu fee” should be SUFFICENT TO FULLY MITIGATE for not providing a required
affordable accommodation by being sufficient to fully fund a new ‘affordable accommodation’ on a one-for one
basis. City Transit Occupancy Tax revenues could also potentially be used to provide a catch-up method for existing
No Coastal Park in South Carlsbad
• Appx. 6 miles of Coast
without a Coastal Park is a
City & Regional need
• South Carlsbad has 64,000
residents & thousands of
hotel vis itors without a
Coastal park
• Closest park to Ponto is
Poinsettia Park, approx. 2.5
miles across 1-5
• Proposed Veterans Park is
approx. 6 miles away -----.
"'""'•-CMIIIA,_,, .. _""'°' ~~ .......... n.... ... ,OC.\llll•ll\-i• c...... n.tlo<\elc.tLII• .. '°"'°'~-----SM!IC-~V..-.... ......._ .... .,,, ... CMIIW_,,...,.. __ _
,'-"~&(~ ..... -.-.,.c-i,,Pa-\,
Page 9 of 9
“non-low-cost and/or non-economy accommodation providers” to address what would nominally be their
inclusionary contribution. It seems like the LCPA approach needs significant rethinking to provide a fair and rational
program to include reasonable long-term and sustainable affordability in visitor accommodation’s, particularly give
the Sea Level Rise and Coastal Bluff Erosion impacts on Carlsbad’s Only “Low-cost Visitor Accommodations” and the
State Campground and beaches and Carlsbad’s Coastal access roadways.
6. The Proposed LCPA LUP does not provide a means for citizens to understand the proposed changes to the current
Existing LCP goals and policies. There are numerous current Existing LCP LUP goals and policies regarding “Low-cost
Visitor Accommodations”. All these should be listed in the Proposed LCPA LUP along with a description on how and
why these current Existing LCP Goals and policies are being modified or removed in the Proposed LCPA LUP.
7. Carlsbad has only a Finite amount of vacant Coastal land to provide for an Infinite amount of future Carlsbad/CA
residents and visitors to Carlsbad’s Coastal Zone. How these Finite Coastal Land resources are used to supply high-
priority Coastal Recreation and Low-cost Visitor Accommodation land uses to address the Infinite demand from
future population and visitor growth will be critical in determining the desirability and sustainability of our Carlsbad
and CA Coastal Resources. Expanding Coastal Open Space Land use to accommodate the growing population/visitor
demand for Coastal Open Space is a critical City and CA policy issue.
8. Carlsbad’s 2015 General Plan Update (2015 GPU) could not consider data in the December 2017 Sea Level Rise
Vulnerability Assessment (2017 SLRVA). The Citizens of Carlsbad, City of Carlsbad and the CA Coastal Commission
did not have the ability to know about and consider the projected significant loss of ‘high-priority’ Coastal Open
Space Land Use at Ponto and South Carlsbad. The projected loss of these Coastal Open Space Land Uses at Ponto –
beach and State Campground – will within the ’lifetime of Carlsbad’s LCP and General Plan’, basically eliminate all of
Carlsbad’s existing and planned Low-cost Visitor Accommodations and the only public Coastal Recreation land in
Ponto and South Carlsbad. Please see the attached Public Comments data file for Carlsbad’s Proposed Draft LCPA-
LUPA and all things Ponto regarding Sea Level Rise titled: “Sea Level Rise and Carlsbad’s DLCP-LUPA’s
projected/planned Loss of Open Space at Ponto” that summarizes the projected/planned loss of almost all the high-
priority Coastal Open Space at Ponto due to sea level rise. This data should be considered with both the public
comments on Low-cost Visitor Accommodations and Coastal Recreation in submitted earlier.
9. A Coastal Park provides the lowest-cost (i.e. no-cost) visitor access to the Coast. Although Coastal Parks do not
provide over-night sleeping access, they do provide no-cost Coastal Recreation day-use.
Page 1 of 30
Carlsbad Draft Local Coastal Program Amendment – Coastal Recreation Land Use
People for Ponto Updated Public Comments 10/12/2021
Updated Pubic Comments Coastal Recreation submitted on Oct 12th 2021:
On 10/8/21 the Carlsbad City Council and CA Coastal Commission were emailed data from an Official Carlsbad Public
Records Request (# R002393-092121) on the City of Carlsbad’s past compliance/noncompliance with the currently
exiting Mello II LCP Land Use Policies # 6-2, 6-4 & 6-10 Certified in the mid-1980s. The City’s documents show:
For Policy 6-2 the 200-300 acre Park called out in Policy 6-2 has been reduced to Veterans Park’s 91.5 acres,
of which only 54% or 49.5 acres is even useable as a Park. The City provided no documents on how a 200-
300 acre park called for in Policy 6-4 is now only 49.5 useable acres.
For Policy 6-4 there were no City documents were provided. There was no City Public discussion,
consideration, or City compliance with Policy 6-4 since the mid-1980’s.
For Policy 6-10 concerns providing Low Cost Visitor Accommodations. Public Parks are the lowest cost (free)
Visitor accommodating land use there is.
The 3 existing LCP Land Use Policies are important for Carlsbad, and California’s, Coastal land use resources. There
appears little to no discussion of the City’s past apparent failure to implementation of these 3 LCP LUPs in the current
City consideration of changes to the LCP.
Following is a copy of Public Records Request # R002393-092121: “Carlsbad’s Local Coastal Program (LCP) for the Mello
II Segment of Carlsbad’s Coastal Zone has long established land use Policies 6-2, 6-4 & 6-10 that were adopted by
Carlsbad and Certified by the CA Coastal Commission in the early/mid-1980’s. Mello II LCP Policies 6-2, 6-4 & 6-10 are
shown on page 86-87 of Carlsbad’s 2016 compiled LCP and are:
“POLICY 6-2 REGIONAL PARK: If the population of Carlsbad increases in accordance with SANDAG's projected
Series V Population Forecasts, it is estimated that Carlsbad will need to develop a new regional park
containing 200 to 300 acres in order to adequately serve the public. A location for a new regional park must,
therefore, be established. Consideration should be given to a facility within the Aqua Hedionda Specific Plan
Area, or adjacent lands. The Batiquitos Lagoon area should also be considered.
POLICY 6-4 NEED FOR ADDITIONAL OVERNIGHT CAMPING: Additional overnight camping facilities, the main
source of lower cost visitor and recreational facilities, are needed throughout the San Diego coastal region.
Additional facilities of this kind should be provided in a regional park within the Carlsbad area. This can be
accomplished in conjunction with an eventual Batiquitos Park, within the Aqua Hedionda Specific Plan Area,
and/or along with the development of private recreational facilities.
POLICY 6-10 LOWER COST VISITOR-SERVING RECREATIONAL USES: Lower cost visitor and recreational
facilities shall be protected, encouraged, and, where feasible, provided. Encourage a range of affordability
for overnight visitor accommodations. Evaluate the affordability of any new or redeveloped overnight visitor
accommodations, including amenities that reduce the cost of stay. Mitigation may be applied to protect and
encourage affordable overnight accommodations”
Page 2 of 30
The public record request is to see documents of:
City Staff reports, presentations and communications to the Carlsbad Planning and Parks Commissions, and
City Council regarding the City’s consideration and implementation of these 3 specific (6-2, 6-4, and 6-10)
Mello II LCP land use policies; and
Carlsbad Planning and Parks Commissions, and City Council minutes, resolutions and ordinances
documenting City of Carlsbad consideration and implementation of these 3 specific (6-2, 6-4, and 6-10)
Mello II LCP land use policies.”
Updated Pubic Comments on Coastal Recreation submitted on January 2021:
Over 11-months ago in a 1/29/20 1:56PM email People for Ponto Carlsbad citizens first provided the City of Carlsbad
both data and comments on 14 critical Coastal Recreation issues (see pages 5-30 below). The data and the 14 critical
issues do not seem to be receiving appropriate disclosure/presentation/discussion/consideration in the Dec 2, 2020
Staff Report to the Planning Commission. To assure the 26-pages of citizen data and requests in the 1/29/20 email was
received by the Planning Commission the file was re-emailed on 12/22/20 12:24pm and specifically addressed to City
Council, City Clerk, Planning Commission, Parks Commission, Housing Commission, HEAC, CA Coastal Commission, and
CA HCD. As citizens we request each of these 14 data points (with supporting data) be honestly considered.
In reading the Dec 2 Staff Report citizens conducted additional analysis of City Park data. That research further
reinforces and documents the 14 Critical Coastal Recreation issues and highlights the relatively poor amount of City Park
and Coastal Recreation planned by Carlsbad’s Staff proposed Draft LCP-LUPA. We hope the City Council and City
Commissions, and CA Coastal Commission & HCD will consider this additional analysis of City data and citizen input:
Coastal Zone data Carlsbad Oceanside Encinitas note or source
Coastline miles 6.4 3.9 6.0 Carlsbad Draft LCPA 201, Google Maps
Coastal Zone Acres 9,219 1,460 7,845 & Oceanside & Encinitas LCPs
Coastal Zone Acres 100% 16% 85% % relative to Carlsbad
City Park Standard data
City Park Standard 3 5 5 required park acres / 1,000 population
Park Standard % 100% 167% 167% % is relative to Carlsbad
Oceanside & Encinitas 'require' and plan for 67% MORE Parkland than Carlsbad
Carlsbad 'requires' and plans for ONLY 60% as much Parkland as Oceanside & Encinitas
Carlsbad only requires developers provide 60% of the parkland (or in-lieu fees) as Oceanside & Encinitas require
Encinitas has a ‘Goal’ to provide 15 acres of Park land per 1,000 population
Developed City Park 2.47 3.65 5.5 acres / 1,000 population
Developed Park 100% 148% 223% % is relative to Carlsbad
Oceanside provides 48% MORE developed park land than Carlsbad
Encinitas provide 123% MORE developed park land than Carlsbad
Carlsbad ONLY provides 68% and 45% as much Parks as Oceanside & Encinitas respectively
National Recreation & Park Asso. Metric: a typical City provides 1 park / 2,281 pop. & 9.9 Park acres / 1,000 population
Carlsbad (3 acre) Park Standard is ONLY 30% of what a typical City provides nationally
Carlsbad requires developers to provide, 70% LESS Park acres than typical City provides nationally
Page 3 of 30
National Recreation & Park Asso., Trust for Public Land, et. al.: 10 minute (1/2 mile) Walk to a Park Planning Goal
Both Oceanside and Encinitas plan parks to be within a 10-minute (1/2 mile) walk to homes.
Carlsbad DOES NOT plan Parks within walking distance to homes
Carlsbad is NOT providing equitable and walking/biking access to Parks
Some Carlsbad Parks that are not fully useable as Parks:
total Unusable
Existing Parks with park park % of park
Unusable Open Space acreage acres acres unusable reason unusable
Alga Norte - SE quadrant 32.1 10.7 33% 1/3 of park is a Parking lot not a park
In many other Carlsbad Parks a significant
percentage of those Parks are consumed by
paved parking lots and unusable as a Park.
Hidden Hills - NE quadrant 22.0 12.7 58% city identified unusable habitat open space
La Costa Canyon SE quadrant 14.7 8.9 61% city identified unusable habitat open space
Leo Carrillo - SE quadrant 27.4 16.5 60% city identified unusable habitat open space
Poinsettia - SW quadrant 41.2 11.1 27% city identified unusable habitat open space
Existing Park subtotal 137.4 59.9 44% 44% of these Parks are unusable as Parkland
Anticipated Future Park
development projects
Park - quadrant
Veterans - NW 91.5 49.5 54% estimated unusable habitat open space
Cannon Lake - NW 6.8 3.4 50% estimated unusable water open space
Zone 5 Park expansion - NW 9.3 0 0 appears 100% useable as a Park
Robertson Ranch - NE 11.2 0 0 appears 100% useable as a Park
Future park subtotal 118.8 52.9 45% 45% of Future Parks are unusable as Parks
Unusable Open Space acres
in Existing & Future Parks 256.2 112.8 44% 112.8 acres or 44% is unusable as Parks
112.8 acres or 44% of the Existing & Future Parks are unusable Open Space and can’t be used as Parkland
Based on City's minimum 3-acres/1,000 population Park Standard, 112.8 acres of Unusable Parkland means
37,600 Carlsbad Citizens (or 32.5% of Carlsbad's current population of 112,877) will be denied the minimum
amount of Parkland that they can actually use as a Park.
59.9 acres of Existing unusable ‘park’ / 3 acre park standard x 1,000 population = 19,967 Carlsbad citizens and
their children are currently being denied useable park land. 19,967 is 17.7% of Carlsbad’s current population.
In addition to these 19,967 existing citizens and their children denied park land, the City needs to develop
additional Park acreage in the NE, SW and SE quadrants to cover current shortfalls in meeting in the minimal 3
acre/1,000 population park standard for the current populations in the NE, SW and SE quadrants.
The current NE, SW and SE quadrants park acreage shortfalls are in addition to the 19,967 Carlsbad citizens
and their children that do not have the minimum 3 acres of parkland per 1,000 population
Current FY 2018-19 MINIMUM park acreage shortfalls are listed in the table below. They are:
o 4.3 acres for 1,433 people in NE quadrant,
o 6.8 acres for 2,266 people in SW quadrant, and
o 2.3 acres for 767 people in SE quadrant
Shortfall (excess) in
Current Quadrant
Min. Park standard by
population Future Park
Page 4 of 30
acres need acres % existing Park shortfalls are for NE, SW & SE quadrants
NW quadrant (-14.2) (-4,733) 107.6 91% Current NW parks are 14.2 acres over min. standard &
capacity for 4,733 more people at min. park standard.
91% of all Future City Parks are in NW quadrant
NE quadrant 4.3 1,433 11.2 9% Future Park will exceed minimum NE park standard
SW quadrant 6.8 2,266 0 0% No min. parks for 2,266 people in SW quad. Park deficit
SE quadrant 2.3 767 0 0% No min. parks for 767 SE quadrant Park deficit
A Park Standard minimum is just a “Minimum”. City policy allows the City to buy/create parks above the City’s current 3
acre/1,000 pop. MINIMUM (and lowest) Park Standard of surrounding Coastal cities. Carlsbad already did this in the NW
quadrant. It then added 3.1 more NW quadrant Park acres as part of the Poinsettia 61 Agreement. Poinsettia 61:
converted 3.1 acres of NW City land planned/zoned for Residential use to Open Space Park land use/zoning,
facilitated a developer building condos (increasing park demand) in the SW quadrant,
required the SW Quadrant developer pay $3 million to build the 3.1 acre NW quadrant park, and
required the SW Quadrant developer pay to convert 3.1 acres of NW Quadrant & 5.7 acres of SW Quadrant City
Park land to habitat that will be unusable as a City Park.
So Poinsettia 61 increased SW Quadrant development (that both increased SW Park Demand and expanded the current
SW Quadrant Park deceit) while simultaneously using SW Quadrant development to pay for the conversion of 3.1 acres
of residential land in the NW Quadrant to City Park (the NW Quadrant already has surplus park land per the City’s
minimum standard).
People for Ponto strongly supports creating City Parks above the City’s current low 3-acre per 1,000 population
minimum, as the City’s minimum standard is relatively low and substandard relative to other cities; many Carlsbad parks
have significant acreage that is in fact ‘unusable’ as a park. Most importantly People for Ponto Citizens think it is very
important to prioritize providing City Parks in areas of Park Inequity that are unserved by City Parks. However it seems
very unfair to the SW Quadrant citizens to be so unserved and starved of the bare minimum of City Parks while at the
same time funding City Parks in excess of City standard in other Quadrants.
The Poinsettia 61 illustrates a larger unfair (and dysfunctional) distribution of Quadrant based City Park demand and
supply that is keenly evident in the demands/supply funding and location disparity of Veterans Park. Most all the
development impact and park demand that paid Veterans Park fees came from the SW, SE and NE Quadrants yet the
Veterans Park (supply) is not in those SW, SE and NE Quadrants. This inequity is counter to the implicit City requirement
that City Parks be provided within the Quadrant of their Park demand. It is logical and proper that City Parks be
provided and equitably distributed to be close to the development and population that generated the Park demand.
The City Park inequity at Ponto and in other Coastal areas of the City is counter to several CA Coastal Act policies;
counter to good city planning and good CA Coastal planning. Park Inequity is highly detrimental to the City, and City and
CA citizens in the long-term; fails to properly distribute and match the location supply with the location of demand for
Parks; and is counter to basic fundamental issues of fairness. Since 2017 People for Ponto has tried to get the City
Council and Staff to address this inequity, specifically at Ponto, and to do so in a way that embraces a true and honest
Citizen-based planning process.
Page 5 of 30
Carlsbad Staff proposed Draft Local Coastal Program Amendment – People for Ponto comments submitted 1/29/2020
Coastal Recreation:
2. Request that the City as part of its Draft LCP Public Review process broadly-publicly disclose to all Carlsbad Citizens
the City’s acknowledged prior LCPA processing and planning “mistakes” regarding the requirement that the Ponto
area be considered as a public park: This disclosure is needed to correct about 20 years of City misrepresentation to
the public on the since 1996 and currently Existing LCP requirements at Ponto, and the City’s prior planning mistakes
at Ponto. Citizens have been falsely told by the City that all the Coastal planning at Ponto was done already and that
the City followed its Existing LCP regarding the need for a park at Ponto, and that this is already decided and could
not be reversed. This misinformation has fundamentally stifled public review and public participation regarding the
Coastal Zone. City failure to provide such a broad-public disclosure on the documented prior, and apparently
current proposed, “planning mistakes” would appear to violate the principles of Ca Coastal Act Section 30006. A
broad-public disclosure would for the first time allow citizens to be accurately informed on the Existing LCP
requirements at Ponto so they can provide informed public review and comment regarding the need for a Coastal
Park in in this last vacant ‘unplanned’ area. The requested broad-public disclosure by the City of the City past
mistakes and the Existing LCP requirements at Ponto is consistent with CA Coastal Act (CCA) “Section 30006
Legislative findings and declarations; public participation - The Legislature further finds and declares that the public
has a right to fully participate in decisions affecting coastal planning, conservation and development; that
achievement of sound coastal conservation and development is dependent upon public understanding and
support; and that the continuing planning and implementation of programs for coastal conservation and
development should include the widest opportunity for public participation.” The public cannot participate as
outlined in CCA Section 30006 if past City ‘mistakes’ and misrepresentations on Coastal planning at Ponto go
undisclosed to the public. If the public isn’t fully informed about the 20-years of LCP planning mistakes at Ponto
how could the public in the past (and now in the present) participate in the proposed LCP Amendment – Public
Participation as noted in Section 30006 above is the means to sound coastal conservation and development and is
“… dependent upon public understanding …”. The City’s past mistakes at Ponto need to be corrected by slightly
different a Draft LCP Amendment process than currently outlined by the City; a new process is needed that clearly,
opening and honestly informs and engages the public on the Existing LCP Ponto issues. The City’s current Draft LCP
Amendment process fails to follow CCA Section 30006 in that most all the citizens we encounter are as yet unaware
of the City’s Ponto mistakes and how they can participate in in the DLCPA process without that information. We see
this daily in conversations we have with our fellow citizens. We even saw at the Oct 20, 2019 Carlsbad Planning
Commission meeting that the Planning Commission was unaware of the planning mistakes at Ponto. How can a
decision body of the City make a decision without knowing about these prior ‘planning mistakes’ facts that surround
what they are being asked to decide on? Repeatedly since 2017 Carlsbad citizens and People for Ponto have asked
the City to fully acknowledge the City’s prior flawed planning at Ponto, and to correct that with ether maintaining
the Existing LCP Non-residential Reserve Land Use or restarting the Coastal Planning at Ponto with a true and
accurately informed Community-based Coastal Planning process consistent with Section 30006.
We request the City during the DLCPA Public Review period broadly and publicly disclose to all Carlsbad Citizens the
City’s acknowledged prior LCP and other “planning efforts” public participation processing and planning “mistakes”
regarding the requirement that the Ponto area be considered as a public park, and 1) provide a truly honest public
participation process on that disclosure consistent with CCA Section 30006 as part of the Draft LCP Amendment
process or 2) retain the Existing LCP Non-residential Reserve Land Use and require a comprehensive and honest
community-based redo of Coastal Resource planning at Ponto.
Page 6 of 30
3. City fully and publicly reply to and the City Council consider the 11-20-19 citizen concerns/requests regarding the
City’s proposed LCP Amendment process: Lance Schulte on 1/23/20 received an email reply by the City to his follow-
up email regarding the status of the 11/20/19 citizen concerns/requests public comments and letters presented to
the Planning Commission. This is appreciated, however it is request that the City fully publicly reply to the 11-20-19
citizen concerns/requests regarding the City’s proposed LCP Amendment process and present the to the City Council
11/20/19 citizen concerns/requests so the City Council can consider them and provide any direction to City Staff.
City Staff first presented a summary presentation of the proposed Draft LCP Amendment to the Carlsbad Planning
Commission on November 20, 2019, and indicated the public comment period would close on November in less than
2-weeks. Citizens and citizen groups provided public testimony to the Planning Commission, both verbally and in
two written letters. The CCC was copied on those letters. The testimony and letters noted significant concerns
about the City’s proposed LCP Amendment process and made three requests:
Disclose and provide a publically accessible ‘Redline Version’ of the Existing 2016/Proposed LCP land use
Plan and Policies so everyone can see the proposed changes to the Existing LCP.
Provide true Citizen Workshops on the major remaining vacant Coastal land that still have outstanding
Citizen Concern or objections. Citizen Workshops, when done right, are valuable means to openly educate,
discuss and work to consensus options. These areas, including Ponto, were/are subject to multiple lawsuits,
so true open and honest public workshops would provide an opportunity to openly and honestly discuss the
issues and hopefully build public consensus/support for solutions. This approach seems consistent with CCA
Section 30006, and common sense.
Extend the public comment period 6-months to allow Citizen Review of the Redline Version of the LCPA and
allow time for Citizen Workshops.
The City did extend the Public Review period 2-months over the holidays to January 31, 2020. This is appreciated
although many think this is inadequate given the significance of the Proposed Land Use Plan Amendments, and lack
of Redline Version to compare. The City and their consultants required several extra years beyond schedule prepare
the proposed LCP Amendments. The extra years of City Staff work reflects on the volume of the over 500-pages in
the documents and the time needed to understand the Existing LCP and then create an Amended LCP. Citizens
need sufficient time, proper comparative tools (redline) and a process (workshops) to understand the proposed LCP
Amendments that is reflective of extensive extra time needed by City Staff and consultants needed. Truncation of
lay public review to a few months for an Amendment that took paid professionals many years to produce seems a
more than a bit inappropriate. The City appears to be rejecting citizens’ request to be provided a ‘Redline Version’
of the Existing 2016/Proposed LCP land use Plan. So public review comments will tainted or will miss many issues
due having to manually cross-reference a 150-page Existing LCP LUP with a Proposed 350-page Proposed LCP LUP.
There will be unknown and unconsidered changes in the Draft LCP Amendment that the public and city and CCC
decision makers will not know about due to the lack of ‘Redline Version’.
The City also appears to reject citizen requests for true Citizen Workshops on the major remaining vacant Coastal
land that still have outstanding Citizen Concern – such as Ponto. Like Coastal Recreation issue #1 above the
following citizen requests appear consistent with CA Coastal Act (CCA) Section 30006, and the City’s rejection of that
requests seem counter to the CA Coastal Act.
We again request of the City to provide: 1) a ‘Redline Version’ to the public and decision makers, along with
sufficient time to review and comment on the ‘Redline Version’; and 2) true Citizen Workshops for Ponto and the
Page 7 of 30
other last remaining significant vacant Coastal lands in Carlsbad as part of the Draft LCP Amendment process, or as
part of deferred LCP Amendment process for those areas.
4. Coastal Zoned land is precious: the very small amount of remaining vacant Coastal land should be reserved for
“High-Priority” Coastal Recreation Land Uses under the CA Coastal Act to provide for the growing and forever
‘Buildout’ needs of Carlsbad and CA Citizens, and our visitors.
Less than 1.8% (76 square miles) of San Diego County’s 4,207 square miles is in Coastal Zone. This small area
needs to provide for all the forever Coastal needs of the County, State of CA, and Visitors. Upland Coastal
Recreation (Coastal Park) land use is needed to provide land to migrate the projected/planned loss of “High-
Priority” Coastal Recreation land uses due to Sea Level Rise impacts. There is only 76 miles of total coastline
in San Diego County; a significant amount is publicly inaccessible military/industrial land. So how the last
few portions of Coastal Land within Carlsbad (which is about 8% of San Diego County’s Coastline) is planned
for the forever needs for High-Coastal-Priority Recreation Land Use is critical for Carlsbad, San Diego, and
California Statewide needs into the future.
Most all the developable Coastal land in Carlsbad is already developed with Low-Coastal-Priority residential
uses. Only a very small percentage of Carlsbad’s developable Coastal land, maybe 1-2%, is still vacant. This
last tiny portion of fragment of vacant developable Coastal Land should be documented in the Draft LCP and
reserved for “High-Priority” Coastal Land uses – most critically Coastal Recreation – to address the growing
Coastal Recreation needs from a growing population and visitors. These growing needs are all the more
critical in that existing Coastal Recreation lands will be decreasing due to inundation and erosion due to
DLCPA planned Sea Level Rise.
This image of the western half of San Diego County graphically shows (in the blue line) the very small Coastal
Zone Area that needs to provide the Carlsbad’s and California’s Coastal Recreational needs for all San Diego
County residents and Visitors:
Page 8 of 30
We request that 1) the amount and location of remaining vacant Coastal land in Carlsbad be documented and
mapped and be reserved for high-priority Coastal Land Uses consistent with CCA Goals in Section 30001.5 “… (c) …
maximize public recreational opportunities in the coastal zone consistent with sound resources conservation
principles and constitutionally protected rights of private property owners. (d) Assure priority for coastal-
dependent and coastal-related development over other development on the coast. … “; 2). This data be used in
the City’s analysis and the public’s review and discussion about the City’s proposed Draft ‘Buildout’ Land Use Plan.
The City’s proposed Draft ‘Buildout’ Land Use Plan will forever lock in the amount “maximum public recreational
opportunities in the coastal zone” and will be the final Coastal Land Use Plan that is supposed to “assure priority for
coastal-dependent and coastal-related development over other development on the coast”. Most of Carlsbad’s
Coastal Zone is already developed or committed to low-priority land uses contrary to these CCA Goals, so how we
finally and forever plan to use of the last small remaining vacant Coastal Land is very important.
5. The proposed Draft LCP Amendment in Chapter 3 makes unfounded statements regarding the proposed
Amendment to the LCP Land Use Plan provision of “High-Priority” Coastal Recreation land use: On page 3-3, at the
beginning of the Chapter 3 – Recreation and Visitor Serving Uses the City correctly states that the CA Coastal Act
(CCA) places a high priority on maximizing Recreation uses, and cites multiple CCA Sections to that effect. The City’s
proposed Coastal Land Use Plan then states on page 3-5 that a high proportion of land in the City is dedicated open
:17 •' }~
l~ ---,.,,.
OJ<A NC t ~~
•~:.1-:s:.
,c•~=a r r
5ct.n. e.lld\ .. r "''-'""-•'·,~· o .. &c.w ..
T' ..... ,~=~ ,...,..,.~,._,...
0
()
m
►
'Z
,.._.,,..,,.:a:SN"
C.O...lr.or. ~~NM/
---{--.Sa3-Nllt'araftl.uctt)1'c,...,
Page 9 of 30
space available for passive and active use, yet provides no justification or accurate metric to support this statement.
This is a critical unsubstantiated and speculative statement that is not supported by any comparative data (justifying
the “high proportion” statement). The City later in Chapter 3 compared the adjoining cities of Oceanside and
Encinitas to try to show how the proposed Draft LCP LUP Amendment provides higher levels of Visitor Serving
Accommodations. That ‘non-common denominator’ comparison was fundamentally flawed, as noted in a prior
separate Draft LCPA public review comment from People for Ponto regarding another high-priority Coastal land use
(visitor accommodations) planned for in Chapter 3, but at least it was an attempt to compare. However, for the
Coastal Recreation portion of Chapter 3, the City does not even attempt to provide any comparative data to support
(or justify) the proposed Coastal Recreation Land Use Plan and statements. The Coastal Recreation Chapter also fails
to disclose Carlsbad’s adopted City Park Master Plan (Park Service Area and Equity map) data that shows a clear
conflict between the CA Coastal Act Policy Sections noted at the beginning of Chapter 3 and Chapter 3’s proposed
Draft Coastal Recreation Land Use Plan.
Comparative Coastal Recreation: Comparing the Land Use Plan and policies of Oceanside, Carlsbad and Encinitas,
one finds Carlsbad’s proposed Coastal Recreational Plan and Policies are not “high”, but very low compared with
Oceanside and Encinitas. Carlsbad has a General Plan Park Standard of 3 acres of City Park per 1,000 Population.
Oceanside has a 5 acres of City Park Standard per 1,000 population, and Encinitas has a 15 acres per 1,000
population standard, and an in-lieu park fee requirement of 5 acres per 1,000 population. Carlsbad’s proposed
Coastal Recreation Land Use Plan is in fact not ‘high’ but is in fact the lowest of the three cities, with Carlsbad
providing only 40% of Oceanside’s park standard, and only 20% of Encinitas’s Park Standard. Citywide Carlsbad
currently has 2.47 acres of developed park per 1,000 population, Oceanside currently has 3.6 acres of developed
park per 1,000 population, and Encinitas currently has 5.5 acres of developed park per 1,000 population. Although
this data is citywide, it shows Carlsbad’s current amount of developed parkland is less than 70% of what Oceanside
currently provides, and less than 45% of what Encinitas currently provides. Carlsbad is not currently providing, nor
proposing a Coastal Land Use Plan to provide, a ‘high’ proportion of Coastal Recreation Land Use compared to
Oceanside and Encinitas.
On page 3-5 Carlsbad may be misrepresenting city open space that is needed and used for the preservation of
federally endangered species habitats and lagoon water bodies. This open space Land cannot be Used for Coastal
Recreation purposes; and in fact Land Use regulations prohibit public access and Recreational Use on these Lands
and water bodies to protect those endangered land and water habitats. 78% of Carlsbad’s open space is “open
space for the preservation of natural resources” and cannot be used for Coastal Parks and Recreational use.
Although “open space for the preservation of natural resources” does provide scenic or visual amenity, and this
amenity is addressed as a different coastal resource. Visual open space is not Coastal Recreation Land Use. It
appears Carlsbad is proposing in the Draft LCP Amendment to continue to, providing a ‘low’ percentage of Coastal
Park Land Use and Coastal Recreation Land Use compared to adjoining cities.
In addition to the comparatively low amount of Coastal Park land Carlsbad plans for, Carlsbad scores very poorly
regarding the equitable and fair distribution and accessibility of Coastal Parks and Coastal Recreation Land Uses.
Both the City of Oceanside and Encinitas have very robust and detailed Park and Land Use plans to promote an
equitable distribution of, and good non-vehicular accessibility, to their Coastal Parks. By comparison, Carlsbad’s park
land use plan scores poorly, as exemplified in Ponto and South Carlsbad. Ponto’s existing population requires about
6.6 acres of City Parkland per Carlsbad’s low 3 acres per 1,000 population standard. Yet the nearest City Park is
several miles away and takes over 50 minutes to walk along major arterial roadways and across Interstate 5 to
access. As such this nearest park is not an accessible park for Ponto children, and thus Ponto children have to play in
Page 10 of 30
our local streets to find a significantly large open area to play in. Ponto residents have to drive their kids to get to a
park increasing VMT and GHG emissions. The City’s proposed Coastal Recreation Land Use Plan ‘solution’ to Ponto’s
no-park condition, along with the City’s need to add an additional 6.5 acres of new City parks in Southwest Carlsbad
to comply with the Southwest Carlsbad’s 2012 population demand (at a ratio of 3-acre/1,000 population) is to
provide a City Park – Veterans Park – over 6-miles away from the Ponto and Southwest Carlsbad population need.
This makes a bad situation worse. The City’s proposed location is totally inaccessible to serve the needs of the
population of children or anyone without a car, that it is intended to serve in South Carlsbad. This City proposed
Coastal Recreation Land Use Plan ‘solution’ seems inappropriate and inconsistent with the CA Coastal Act and
common sense. During the City’s Veterans Park and budget community workshops citizens expressed a desire for a
Ponto Park to be the solution to our Ponto and Southwest Carlsbad Park deficits. Those citizen requests were not
apparently considered as part of the City’s proposed Draft Coastal Recreation Land Use Plan. Following is an image
summarizing the magnitude of citizen needs/desires expressed at the City’s Budget workshop. Note the number
and size of the text citing Ponto Park and South Carlsbad that reflects the number and magnitude/intensity of citizen
workshop groups’ input. The failure to acknowledge this public participation and data in the Coastal Recreation
Land Use Plan Park seems in conflict with CCA Sections 30006 and 30252(6):
For South Carlsbad there is a complete lack of any existing or planned City Coastal Park and park acreage west of I-5,
while North Carlsbad has 9 existing and 1 planned City Coastal Parks totaling 37.8 acres of City Coastal W of I-5
North Carlsbad. Not only is this unfair to South Carlsbad, it is also unfair to North Carlsbad as it increases VMT and
parking impacts in North Carlsbad because South Carlsbad is not providing the City Coastal Parks for South Carlsbad
resident/visitor demands. This City Park disparity is shown on Figure 3-1 of the Coastal Recreation Land Use Plan;
Page 11 of 30
however it more accurately illustrated in the following data/image from the adopted Carlsbad Park Master Plan’s
“Service Area Maps (Equity Maps)”. The image below titled ‘No Coastal Park in South Carlsbad’ shows Carlsbad’s
adopted “Park Service Area Maps (Equity Maps)” from the City’s Park Master Plan that says it maps “the population
being served by that park type/facility.” The added text to the image is data regarding park inequity and disparity in
South Carlsbad. The image compiles Carlsbad’s adopted Park “Park Service Area Maps (Equity Maps)” for
Community Parks and Special Use Area Parks that are the City’s two park acreage types produced by the City’s
comparatively low standard of 3 acre of City Park per 1,000 population. The City’s Park Service Area Maps (Equity
Maps) shows areas and populations served by parks within the blue and red circles. City data clearly shows large
areas of overlapping Park Service (areas/populations served by multiple parks) in North Carlsbad and also shows
large areas in South Carlsbad with No Park Service (areas/populations unserved by any parks) and Park Inequity in
South Carlsbad. It clearly shows the City’s Documented Park Need and Park inequity at Ponto. The Existing LCP LUP
for Ponto’s Planning Area F in is required to “consider” and “document” the need for a “Public Park”. The City’s
adopted Park Service Area Maps (Equity Maps) clearly shows the inequity of Coastal City Park between North and
South Carlsbad, and the need for Coastal Parks in South Carlsbad – particularly at Ponto. The City’s proposed Draft
‘Buildout’ Coastal Recreation Land Use Plan instead proposes to lock-in documented City Public Coastal Park
inequity and unserved Coastal Park demand at Ponto and South Carlsbad forever. It does so by proposing the last
vacant undeveloped/unplanned Coastal land – Ponto Planning Area F - in the unserved Ponto and South Carlsbad
coastline areas instead of being planned for much needed City Park and Coastal Recreation use be converted to
even more low-priority residential and general commercial land uses. These ‘low-priority” residential uses, by the
way, further increase City Park and Coastal Recreation demand and inequity in Coastal South Carlsbad. This is
wrong, and a proposed ‘forever-buildout’ wrong at the most basic and fundamental levels. The proposed Draft
Coastal Recreation Land Use Plan by NOT providing documented needed City parks for vast areas of Coastal South
Carlsbad is inconsistent with the CA Coastal Act policies and Existing LCP LUP requirements for Ponto Planning Area
F; and also inconsistent with fair/equitable/commonsense land use and park planning principles, inconsistent with
CA Coastal Commission social justice goals, inconsistent with social equity, inconsistent with VMT reduction
requirements, and inconsistent with common fairness. A different Coastal Recreation Land Use Plan should be
provided that provides for a socially equitable distribution of Coastal Park resources so as to would allow children,
the elderly and those without cars to access Coastal Parks. The proposed Draft ‘Buildout’ Coastal Recreation Land
Use Plan forever locking in the unfair distribution of City Parks appears a violation of the not only CCA Sections
30213, 30222, 30223, and 30252(6) but also the fundamental values and principles of the CA Coastal Act. The Draft
also appears a violation of Carlsbad’s Community Vision.
Page 12 of 30
A different Coastal Recreation Land Use Plan is required to provide a more equitable distribution of City Parks with
non-vehicular accessibility. Such a different plan would advance State and City requirements to reduce vehicle Miles
Traveled (VMT) and greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate change and sea level rise impacts. Please
note that the data for the above basic comparison comes from City of Carlsbad, Oceanside and Encinitas General
Plan and Park Master Plan documents.
Data shows the proposed Coastal Recreation Plan conflicts with the CA Coastal Act policy Sections. As mentioned
page 3-3 correctly states that the CA Coastal Act (CCA) places a high priority on maximizing Recreation Land Uses,
and pages 3-5 list multiple CA Coastal Act (CCA) policy Sections that confirm this. However, given the significant
statewide importance of Coastal Recreation Land Use, the City proposed ‘Buildout’ Coastal Recreation Land Use Plan
does not appear to adequately address and implement these CCA Policies, and most noticeably in the Ponto area of
South Carlsbad. Coastal Recreation is a significant Statewide High-Priority Land Use under the CCA. For a
substantially developed non-coastal-industry city like Carlsbad Coastal Recreation is likely the biggest land use issue.
This issue is even more elevated due to the fact that there are only a few small areas left of undeveloped Coastal
land on which to provide Coastal Recreation, and Carlsbad is proposing a Coastal ‘Buildout’ Land Use Plan on those
areas. The use of the last few remaining vacant portions of Coastal land for Coastal Recreation Land Use is the most
important land use consideration in the proposed Draft LCP Land Use Plan Amendment as population and visitor
growth will increase demands for Coastal Recreation. It is thus very surprising, and disturbing that the proposed
Coastal Recreation Land Use Plan is so short, lacks any comparative and demand projection data, lacks any resource
demand/distribution and social equity data, and lacks any rational and clear connection with CCA Policy and the
proposed ‘Buildout’ Coastal Land Use plan. This is all the more troubling given that:
The Ponto area represents the last significant vacant undeveloped/unplanned land near the coast in South
Carlsbad that can provide a meaningful Coastal Park.
The fact that the City’s Existing LCP requires the city consider and document the need for a “i.e. Public Park”
on Ponto’s Planning Area F prior to the City proposing a change of Planning Area F’s “Non-residential
No Coastal Park in South Carlsbad
• ppx. 6 miles of Coast
without a Coastal Park is a
Ci & Regional need
• South Carlsbad has 64,000
residents & thousands of
hotel visitors without a
Coastal park
• Closest park to Ponto is
Poinsettia Park, appro 2.5
miles across 1-5
• Proposed Veterans Park is
approx. 6 miles away
Page 13 of 30
Reserve” land use designation. The City has repeatedly failed to comply with this LCP LUP requirement, and
worse has repeatedly failed to honestly inform citizens of this LCP LUP requirement at planning Area F
before it granted any land use. The City, apparently implementing speculative developer wishes, has
repeatedly proposed changing Planning Area F’s Coastal Land Use designation to “low-priority” residential
and general commercial land uses without publically disclosing and following the Existing LCP LUP.
The City’s currently developed parks in the southern portion of the City do not meet the city’s
comparatively low public park standard of only 3 acres per 1,000 population. Since 2012 there has been
City park acreage shortfall in both SW and SE Carlsbad.
The Existing population of Ponto (west of I-5 and south of Poinsettia Lane) requires about 6.6 acres of Public
Park based on the City’s comparatively low public park standard of 3 acres per 1,000 population. There ois
no Public Park in Ponto. Adding more population at Ponto will increase this current park demand/supply
disparity.
Carlsbad and other citizens have since 2017 expressed to the City the strong need for a Coastal Park at
Ponto, and requested the City to provide a true citizen-based planning process to consider the Public Park
need at Ponto. The Citizens’ requested process is fully in-line with CCA Goals, Public Participation Policy,
Land Use Policies, and the Existing LCP Land Use Plan/requirements for Planning Area F and is the most
appropriate means to consider and document the need for a Public Park at Ponto as required by the Existing
LCP Land Use Plan.
Planning Area F is for sale, and a non-profit citizens group has made an offer to purchase Planning Area F for
a much needed Coastal Park for both Ponto and inland South Carlsbad residents and visitors. How should
these facts be considered by the City and CCC?
Carlsbad has no Coastal Parks west of I-5 and the railroad corridor for the entire southern half of Carlsbad’s
7-mile coastline.
The southern half of Carlsbad’s coastline is 5.7% of the entire San Diego County coastline and represents a
significant portion of regional coastline without a meaningful Coastal Park west of I-5 and the Railroad
corridor.
The City’s proposed Coastal Recreation Land Use Plan provides No Documentation, No Rational, and No
Supporting or Comparative Data to show the proposed Coastal Recreation Land Use Plan in fact complies
with the CA Coastal Act.
6. There is no Coastal Recreation/Park west of interstate 5 for all South Carlsbad, or half of the entire City. This is an
obviously unfair and inequitable distribution of Coastal Recreation/Park resources that should be corrected by
changes to the Draft LCP Land Use Amendment: The following image (which was sent to the City and CCC on several
prior communications) was first requested by former Carlsbad Councilman Michael Schumacher during a People for
Ponto presentation/request at the Oct 23, 2018 City Council meeting. The data compiled in the image shows how
the South Coastal Carlsbad (Ponto) is not served by a Park per the City’s adopted Parks Master Plan. The blue dots
on the map are park locations and blue circle(s) show the City’s Park Master Plan adopted Park Service Areas and
Park Equity. This data, from pages 87-88 of the City of Carlsbad Parks Master Plan, shows all City Parks (both
Community Parks and Special Use Areas in Coastal Carlsbad (except Aviara Park east of Poinsettia Park and west of
Alga Norte Park). The text on the left margin identifies the South Carlsbad Coastal Park (west of I-5) gap along with
the number of South Carlsbad Citizens (over half the City’s population) without a Coastal Park. The left margin also
identifies more local issues for the over 2,000 Ponto area adults and children. For Ponto residents the nearest Public
Park and City proposed ‘solution’ to the South Carlsbad and Ponto Public Park deficit are miles away over high-
speed/traffic roadways and thus somewhat hazardous to access and effectively unusable by children/the elderly or
Page 14 of 30
those without cars. Having been a 20-year resident of Ponto I regularly see our children have to play in the street as
there are no Public Park with large open fields to play at within a safe and under 1-hour walk away. Ponto citizens
have submitted public comments regarding this condition and the lack of a Park at Ponto
Ponto is at the center of regional 6-mile Coastal Park Gap. A Coastal Park in this instance being a Public Park with
practical green play space and a reasonable connection with the Coast (i.e. located west of the regional rail and
Interstate-5 corridors). The following image shows this larger regional Coastal Park Gap centered on the Ponto Area,
and the nearest Coastal Parks – Cannon Park to the north, and Moonlight Park to the south.
Regionally this image shows Ponto is the last remaining significant vacant Coastal land that could accommodate a
Coastal Park to serve the Coastal Park current needs of over existing 2,000 Ponto residents, 64,000 existing South
Carlsbad residents, and a larger regional population. It is also the only area to serve the Coastal Park needs for the
thousands of hotel rooms in Upland Visitor Accommodations in South Carlsbad.
No Coastal Park in South Carlsbad
• Appx. 6 miles of Coast
without a Coastal Park is a
City & Regional need
• South Carlsbad has 64,000
residents & thousands of
hotel visitors with out a
Coastal park
• Closest park to Ponto is
Poinsettia Park, approx. 2.5
miles across 1-5
• Proposed Veterans Park is
approx. 6 miles away --
< ~ -V -~ .._. ___ ..._ ...............
~ .... c...i.ihfl .. _S.... ~~-._.-n.,..,..,o'-"""'-'11•-
~ n.Wlet<-~•""'-•• ,_~ __ .,,,,.,. ..
~~~\_., ---·--.. -c--.... ... ~---.-~,c~ ...,. __ ... c....t.1, ... ,
Page 15 of 30
As People for Ponto first uncovered and then communicated in 2017 to the City and CCC; Carlsbad’s Existing (since 1994)
Local Coastal Program LUP currently states (on page 101) that Ponto’s Planning Area F: carries a Non-Residential
Reserve (NRR) General Plan designation. Carlsbad’s Existing Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan states: “Planning Area
F carries a Non-Residential Reserve (NRR) General Plan designation. Planning Area F is an “unplanned” area …” and
requires that: “… As part of any future planning effort, the City and Developer must consider and document the need
for the provision of lower cost visitor accommodations or recreational facilities (i.e. public park) on the west side of
the railroad.” CA Coastal Commission actions, Carlsbad Public Records Requests 2017-260, 261, and 262, and 11/20/19
City Planner statements confirm the City never fully communicated to Carlsbad Citizens the existence of this LCP
requirement nor did the City comply with the requirements. Of deep concern is that the City is now (as several times in
the past) still not honestly disclosing to citizens and implementing this Existing LCP requirement as a true and authentic
‘planning effort’. The lack of open public disclosure and apparent fear of true public workshops and Public Comment
about the Existing Planning Area F LCP requirements are troubling. The point of a ‘planning effort’ is to openly and
publically present data, publically discuss and explore possibilities/opportunities, and help build consensus on the best
planning options. Citizens are concerned the city has already made up its mind and there is no real “planning effort” in
the proposed Draft LCP Amendment process, just a brief Staff Report and at the end provide citizens 3-minutes to
comment on the proposal. This is not the proper way to treat the last remaining significant vacant land is South
Carlsbad that will forever determine the Coastal Recreation environment for generations of Carlsbad and California
citizens and visitors to come.
The following data/images show how Ponto is in the center of the 6-mile (west of I-5 and Railroad corridor) regional
Coastal Park gap. Ponto is the last remaining vacant and currently “unplanned” Coastal land that is available to address
this regional Coastal Park Gap.
How Ponte Serves Reg ion
Ponto ls in middle
resiCJnalCoastal
ParkGap
COIISUII P,
-8.6% of SD County
coast ·ne
A Ponto Coastal Park
r26,000
64,000
in South
Page 16 of 30
How Ponto Serves Region cont.
• RellevesCollStal
Park congestion in
North carlsbad,
EncinitasandSolana
Beach
• A1eat.v11enlly m:~t~b
Coastal Parkas seen
by:
-Ponto Beach
parking congestion
-current trespass
use of Planning
Area F asa Park
How Ponto Serves Region cont.
• A Ponto Park helps
address2050 and
beyond Regional
Population and
Visitor Growth
demands for Coastal
Pam
• A Ponto Park
provides the lowest-
oost coastal access
Page 17 of 30
How Ponto Serves Region cont.
• Vital park and open
space amenity for
Visitor serving
busin esand
aa:ommodatlons
• 6.6 acre unlqueCity
Coastal Park venue
to stage special
events: Runs, bike
rides, triathlons,
How Ponto Serves Region cont.
• Ottical Park space
for So. carlsbad
state Beach
campground
• Provides a big
training and staging
space for Junior
lifeguards
• Dogwalktrail
Page 18 of 30
One possible Concept image of a potential Ponto Coastal Park at Planning Area F is illustrated below. The potential for a
Ponto Coastal Park is real. The speculative land investment fund (Lone Star Fund #5 USA L.P. and Bermuda L.P.) that
currently owns Planning Area F is selling the property, and is available for the City of Carlsbad to acquire to address the
documented demand/need for a City Park and City Park inequity at Ponto and in Coastal South Carlsbad. A Ponto
Beachfront Park 501c3 is working to acquire donations to help purchase the site for a Park. These situations and
opportunities should be publicly discussed as part of the City Staff’s proposed Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan
Amendment.
Ponto Coastal Park Concept
• A concept-but
shows potential
recreational
opportunities
• Provides vital
parkland support for
beach & ope n play
fie lds
• Concept plan a gift
from San Pacifico
Page 19 of 30
7. Projected increases in California, San Diego County and Carlsbad population and visitor growth increases the
demand for High-Priority-Coastal Recreation land use:
Increasing Citizen demand for Coastal Recreational land needs to be addressed with increased Coastal
Recreation land:
San Diego County Citizen Population - source: SANDAG Preliminary 2050 Regional Growth Forecast
1980 1,861,846
1990 2,498,016
2000 2,813,833
2010 3,095,313
2020 3,535,000 = 46,500 Citizens per mile of San Diego County coastline
2030 3,870,000
2040 4,163,688
2050 4,384,867 = 57,700 Citizens per mile of San Diego County coastline
2020 to 2050 = 24% increase in San Diego County population.
Citizen Population will continue beyond 2050. Carlsbad may plan for ‘Buildout’ in 2050, but what is San
Diego County’s ‘Buildout’? There is a common-sense need to increase the amount of Coastal Recreation
Land Use in the Proposed LCP Amendment to the Land Use Plan for this growing population. If we do not
increase our supply of Coastal Recreational Resources for these increased demands our Coastal Recreation
Resources will become more overcrowded, deteriorated and ultimately diminish the Coastal Recreation
quality of life for Citizens of Carlsbad and California. Ponto sits in the middle of an existing 6-mile regional
Coastal Park Gap (no Coastal Park west of Interstate 5) and there is No Coastal Park in all of South Carlsbad
to address the Coastal Recreation needs of the 64,000 South Carlsbad Citizens.
Page 20 of 30
Increasing Visitor demand for Coastal Recreational land needs to be addressed with increased Coastal
Recreation land:
Yearly Visitors to San Diego County – source: San Diego Tourism Authority; San Diego Travel Forecast, Dec, 2017
2016 34,900,000
2017 34,900,000
2018 35,300,000
2019 35,900,000
2020 36,500,000 = average 100,000 visitors per day, or 2.83% of County’s Population per day, or
1,316 Visitors/coastal mile/day in 2020
2021 37,100,000
2022 37,700,000
This is growth at about a 1.6% per year increase in visitors. Projecting this Visitor growth rate from 2020 to
2050 results in a 61% or 22,265,000 increase in Visitors in 2050 to:
2050 58,765,000 = average 161,000 visitors per day, or 3.67% of the County’s projected 2050
Population per day, or 2,120 Visitors/coastal mile/day in 2050.
The number of Visitors is likely to increase beyond the year 2050. There is a common-sense need to
increase the amount of Coastal Recreation Land Use in the Proposed LCP Amendment to the Land Use Plan
for these projected 2050 61% increase, and beyond 2050, increases in Visitor demand for Coastal
Recreational Resources. Increasing Coastal Recreation land is a vital and critically supporting Land Use and
vital amenity for California’s, the San Diego Region’s and Carlsbad’s Visitor Serving Industry. Ponto sits in
the middle of an existing 6-mile regional Coastal Park Gap (no Coastal Park west of Interstate 5). There are
thousands of hotel rooms in South Carlsbad that have NO Coastal Park to go to in South Carlsbad. This
needs correcting as both a Coastal Act and also a City economic sustainability imperative.
We request that the as part of the public’s review, the City Staff proposed Draft LCP Amendment to the Land
Use Plan clearly document if and/or how future forever ‘Buildout” City, Regional and Statewide population
and visitor population demand for Coastal Recreation and City Coastal Parks are adequately provided for
both in amount and locational distribution in the Carlsbad proposed Amendment of the LCP Land Use Plan.
8. Carlsbad’s Draft Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan Amendment says it plans to a year 2050 buildout of the
Coastal Zone. The Draft Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan Amendment then is the last opportunity to create a
Coastal Land Use Plan to provide “High-Priority” Coastal Recreation Land Use, and will forever impact future
generations of California, San Diego County, and Carlsbad Citizens and Visitors:
The Draft LCPA indicates in 2008 only 9% of All Carlsbad was vacant land. Less is vacant now in 2019.
Carlsbad’s Coastal Zone is 37% of the City, so vacant unconstrained land suitable for providing Coastal
Recreation is likely only 3-4%. The prior request for a full documentation of the remaining vacant Coastal
lands will provide a better understanding needed to begin to make the final ‘buildout’ Coastal Land Use Plan
for Carlsbad. The Draft LCPA does not indicate the amount and locations of currently vacant unconstrained
Coastal Land in Carlsbad. This final limited vacant land resource should be clearly documented and mapped
in the DLCPA as it represents the real focus of the DLCPA – the Coastal Plan for these remaingn undeveloped
Page 21 of 30
lands. These last remaining vacant lands should be primarily used to provide for and equitably distribute
“High-Priority” Coastal Recreation Land Uses consistent with CCA Sections:
i. Section 30212.5 “… Wherever appropriate and feasible, public facilities, including parking areas or
facilities, shall be distributed throughout an area so as to mitigate against the impacts, social and
otherwise, of overcrowding or overuse by the public of any single area.”;
ii. Section 30213 “… Lower cost visitor and recreational facilities shall be protected, encouraged, and,
where feasible, provided. Developments providing public recreational opportunities are
preferred. …”;
iii. Section 30222 “The use of private lands suitable for visitor-serving commercial recreational
facilities designed to enhance public opportunities for coastal recreation shall have priority over
private residential, general industrial, or general commercial development, but not over
agriculture or coastal-dependent industry.”
iv. Section 30223 “Upland areas necessary to support coastal recreational uses shall be reserved for
such uses, where feasible” ,
v. Section 30251 … The location and amount of new development should maintain and enhance public
access to the coast by … 6) assuring that the recreational needs of new residents will not overload
nearby coastal recreation areas by correlating the amount of development with local park
acquisition and development plans with the provision of onsite recreational facilities to serve the
new development”
Adopted City Park Service Area and Park Equity maps discussed earlier document the proposed Draft LCP
Amendment’s inconstancy with the above CCA Policy Sections. The locations and small amounts remaining
vacant Coastal lands provide the last opportunities to correct the inconsistencies of City proposed Draft
“buildout” LCP Land Use Plan Amendment with these Coastal Act Policies.
Currently and since 1996 there has been LCP LUP Policy/regulations for Ponto Planning Area F that require
consideration of a “Public Park” prior to changing the existing “unplanned Non-residential Reserve” Land
Use designation. A map and data base of vacant developable Coastal land should be provided as part of the
Draft LCPA and the Draft LCPA. This map and data base should document the projected/planned loss of
Coastal land use due to Sea Level Rise. Draft LCPA projects Sea Level Rise will eliminate several beaches and
High-Priority Coastal Land Uses like Coastal Lagoon Trails and the Campground.
The LCP Land Use Plan should plan and reserve the very limited vacant developable Coastal land for the
long-term ‘Buildout’ needs of “High-Priority” Coastal Recreation Land Use. Vacant developable Coastal land
is too scarce to be squandered for “low-priority” uses. Sea Level Rise will reduce “High-Priority” Coastal
Uses. So how vacant developable Upland area should be preserved for “High-Priority” Coastal Uses is a key
requirement to be fully documented and discussed in the Draft LCPA. If not one of two thing will eventually
happen 1) any new Coastal Park land will require very expensive purchase and demolition of buildings or
public facilities to create any new Coastal Park land to meet existing and growing demand; or 2) Coastal
Recreation will hemmed-in my “low-priority” uses and thus force Coastal Recreation to decrease and
become increasing concentrated and overcrowded in its current locations; and thus will promote the
eventual deterioration of our current Coastal Recreation resources. A plan that fails to fix Coastal Park
deficits and then increase Costal Parks in pace with increased population/visitor demand is a plan that can
Page 22 of 30
only result in degradation. How the Draft LCPA documents and addresses the land use planning of the last
small portions of vacant developable Coastal land is critical for the future and future generations.
9. Citizens of South Carlsbad are concerned about the City’s multiple prior flawed Ponto planning processes or
‘mistakes’ the City has made yet is basing the City Staff’s proposed Draft LCP LUP. The concerns being the City is not
openly and honestly communicating information to citizens and the public, and not allowing a reasonable and
appropriate community-based planning process to address the documented Park, Coastal Recreation and
unconstrained open space needs in South Carlsbad. One of these groups of citizens has created a
www.peopleforponto.com website to try to research and compile information and hopefully provide a better means
for citizens to understand facts and then express their concerns/desires to the City of Carlsbad (City) and CA Coastal
Commission (CCC). Over 2,000 emails have sent to the City and CCC regarding Coastal Land Use Planning Issues at
Ponto. The San Pacifico Planned Community (i.e. San Pacifico Community Association) has also, since 2015, sent
numerous emailed letters to the City and CCC noting the significant concerns about changes in Coastal planning the
City is proposing for our Planned Community.
Repeatedly over 90% of surveyed citizens (results emailed prior to both the City and CCC) have expressed the vital
need and desire for a Coastal Park at Ponto to serve the current and future Coastal Recreation needs for all both
Ponto and South Carlsbad and for larger regional and State Coastal Recreational needs. This desire is supported by
data, CA Coastal Act Policy, and also Carlsbad’s Community Vision – the foundation for the City’s General Plan.
Ponto is the last remaining vacant Coastal area available to provide for those needs in South Carlsbad and for a
regional 6-mile stretch of coastline. Citizens have expressed deep concern about the City’s flawed prior Coastal
planning efforts for Coastal Recreation at Ponto, including two repeated LCP Amendment “mistakes” (Ponto
Beachfront Village Vision Plan in 2010 and General Plan Update in 2015) when the City twice failed to publicly
disclose/discuss and then follow the Existing LCP requirements at Ponto – specifically for Planning Area F. People for
Ponto had to use multiple Carlsbad Public Records Requests in 2017 to find these “mistakes”. CCC Staff was helpful
in both confirming the City “mistakes” and communicating back to the City. As citizens we are still unclear has to
how/why these two repeated “mistakes” happened. There is citizen concern that the City is again repeating these
two prior “mistakes” by not at the beginning of the Public Comment Period clearly and publicly disclosing the
Planning Area F LCP requirements to citizens as part of the current LCP Amendment process, and also by not
implementing the exiting LCP requirement PRIOR to proposing an Amended Coastal Land Use Plan for Ponto. The
City in its proposed LCP Amendment process is putting-the-cart-before-the-horse with respect to honest and open
consideration, documentation and public discussion of the need for high-priority Coastal Recreation land use
required of Planning Area F at Ponto. The City is also not clearly letting all Carlsbad citizens know about the Existing
LCP requirements for Ponto’s Planning Area F so they can be informed to reasonably participate in public review and
comment regarding amending that LCP requirement, and the need for Coastal Recreation land uses in South
Carlsbad. Since 2017 there has been repeated citizen requests to the City (copies were provided to the CCC) to fix
these multiple fundamental/foundational flaws by in the City’s prior Coastal Recreation and Public Parks and Open
Space at planning, and the currently Proposed Draft LCP Land Use Plan Amendment. Since 2017 there have also
been repeated citizen requests to the City to provide a truly open, honest, inclusive community-based planning
process and workshops with the accurate and honest information, prior to forming a proposed Draft LCP Land Use
Plan Amendment. As citizens we believe we can constructively work with the City and CCC towards a consensus or
viable options on these important Coastal Recreation issues if the City allows and encourages such an open, honest
and inclusive process. We request the City respond to the requests submitted to the City since 2017, and again
request such a process from the City before any LCP Amendment is first considered by the Planning Commission and
City Council. Such a requested process benefits all.
Page 23 of 30
10. Why the Draft LCPA Land Use Plan for Ponto should provide for the current and future Coastal Park and Recreation
needs for South Carlsbad, the San Diego Region and California.
Ponto, is one of last remaining vacant and undeveloped Coastal lands in North County
Ponto is the last remaining undeveloped Coastal land in South Carlsbad
Ponto has the last unplanned Planning Area of the Existing Poinsettia Shores Planned Community & Local
Coastal Program that can be planned for high-priority Coastal Recreation land use. This Existing LCP requires
Planning Area F be considered for a “Public Park”.
Following is a map of the Ponto area in South Carlsbad:
Following is the LCP Land Use map from the Existing Poinsettia Shores Master Plan & Local Coastal Program adopted
in 1996. This is the Land Use map that the City is proposing to change in the proposed LCP Amendment to the Land
Use Plan. As the Existing LCP Land Use map shows most all the land is ‘low-priority’ residential use at an RM
Residential medium density, a small portion is ‘high-priority’ Visitor Serving TC/C Tourist Commercial. Most all the
Page 24 of 30
Open Space is constrained and undevelopable land (the steep CSS habitat bluffs above Batiquitos Lagoon) or water
(the lagoon water). This land/water is owned by the State of California, like the inner lagoon east of I-5. Only
Planning Area M at 2.3 acres is unconstrained Open Space and it provides a small private internal recreation facility
for the approximately 450 homes and 1,000 people in the Planned Community. This small recreation area is a City
requirement for ‘planned developments’ to off-set loss open space from planned development impacts on housing
quality. Planned developments can propose designs that reduce normal setback and open space areas – they bunch
together buildings to increase development – such as the smaller lot sizes, and extensive use of “zero-setbacks” to
reduce typical lot sizes that occurs at Poinsettia Shores. A private recreation facility in any of the City’s planned
developments is never considered a replacement for required City Parks. Planned Developments, like unplanned
developments, are required to dedicate Park land to the City, or pay a Park In-Lieu fee to the City so the City provide
the developer’s obligation to provide City Park acreage to address the population increase of their proposed planned
development. For Poinsettia Shores’ population the City’s minimum City Park Standard would require developers
set aside 3 acres of City Park land for local park needs. For the larger Ponto area population about 6.6 acres of City
Park Land is required. The Existing LCP reserves Planning Area F as an unplanned “Non-residential Reserve” Land
Use until the Public Park needs for Ponto are considered and documented. Only then can the NRR land use be
changed.
11. Developers have overbuilt in the Ponto area of the Coastal Zone. The City of Carlsbad has under questionable
circumstances is currently choosing to ‘exempted’ Ponto developers from providing the minimum amount of
unconstrained Open Space according to the City’s developer required Open Space Public Facilities Standard. The
legality of these confusing circumstances is subject to a lawsuit against the City. However the City’s computerize
mapping system has documented that the Ponto area of the Coastal Zone is missing about 30-acres of
Unconstrained Open Space that can be used to fulfill the City’s Open Space Performance Standard that states that
Page 25 of 30
15% of unconstrained and developable land must be preserved by developers as Open Space. Following is a
summary of data from the City data regarding the missing Open Space at Ponto (Local Facility Management Plan
Zone 9, LFMP Zone 9) in the Coastal Zone pursuant to the City’s Open Space Performance Standard. If it is desirable
People for Ponto can provide the City GIS map and parcel-by-parcel data base on which the following summary is
based:
City of Carlsbad GIS data calculations of Open Space at Ponto area of Coastal Zone:
472 Acres = Total land in LFMP Zone 9 [Ponto area] per City of Carlsbad GIS data
(197 Acres) = Constrained land/water/infrastructure that is excluded from the City’s Open Space Standard
275 Acres = Unconstrained land in LFMP Zone 9 (Ponto) subject to the City’s Open Space Standard
X 15% = Minimum unconstrained Open Space requirement per the City Open Space Standard
41 Acres = Minimum unconstrained Open Space required in LFMP Zone 9
(11 Acres) = Actual unconstrained Open Space provided & mapped by City in LFMP Zone 9
30 Acres = Missing unconstrained Open Space needed in LFMP Zone 9 [Ponto area of Coastal Zone] to meet the
City’s minimum GMP Open Space Standard. 73% of the required Open Space Standard is missing.
Thus the Ponto area of the Coastal Zone appears overdeveloped with 30 additional acres of “low-priority” residential
land uses due to developers’ non-compliance to the City’s Open Space Public Facility Performance Standard’s
Minimum developer required Open Space requirement. As noted a citizens group has a pending lawsuit with the
City over the City’s current ‘exempting’ Ponto and future developers from meeting the Open Space Standard.
12. The prior pre-1996 LCP for Ponto – the Batiquitos Lagoon Educational Park Master Plan & LCP (BLEP MP/LCP) had
significant Open Space and recreational areas. These significant Open Space and Recreational areas where removed
with BLEP MP/LCP’s replacement in 1996 by the currently existing Poinsettia Shores Master & LCP (PSMP/LCP) and
its City Zoning and LCP LUP requirements that reserved Planning Area F with the current “Non-residential Reserve”
Land Use designation. Since the BLEP MP/LCP it appears developers and the City of Carlsbad have worked to
remove “High-Priority” Coastal land uses (i.e. Coastal Recreation and Park uses) out of the Ponto area and replaced
them with more “low-priority” residential and general commercial land uses. For example:
Planning Area F used to be designated “Visitor Serving Commercial” as part of the original 1980’s BLEP
MP/LCP for Ponto.
In 1996 the BLEP MP LCP was changed by developer application to the now current PSMP LCP, and the LCP
LUP designation changed from “Visitor Serving Commercial” to “Non-Residential Reserve” with the
requirement to study and document the need for “High-Priority” Coastal Recreation (i.e. Public Park) and/or
Low-cost visitor accommodations prior to any change to Planning Area F’s “Non-residential Reserve” LCP
land use.
In 2005 the City started to try to change Planning Area F to low-priority residential and general commercial
land use in the City’s Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan (PBVVP). At this time the City made its first
documented Coastal ‘planning mistake’ by not disclosing to the public the existence of Planning Area F’s LCP
requirements and then also not following those LCP requirements. The City’s planning process seemed
focused on addressing developer’s land use desires, and increasing land use intensity to boost “Tax-
increment financing” as the City had established a Redevelopment Project Area at Ponto. A short time after
the State of CA dissolved Redevelopment Agencies due in part to such abuses by cities. The CCC formally
rejected the PBVVP in 2010, citing the City’s failure to follow the LCP requirements for Planning Area F.
Page 26 of 30
Five years later in 2015 the City again adopted a proposed General Plan Update to again change Planning
Area F to low-priority residential and general commercial land use. The General Plan Update cited the City’s
PBVVP that was in fact rejected by the CCC only a few years before. The City again repeated their PBVVP’s
Coastal land use ‘planning mistake’ by again not disclosing to the public the existence of Planning Area F’s
LCP requirements and then not following those LCP requirements. It is unclear why the City did this only 5-
years after the CCC specifically rejected the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan for those same reasons.
In 2017 citizens found and then confirmed these Ponto Coastal ‘planning mistakes’ by the City through
multiple official Carlsbad Public Records Requests and CCC Staff confirmation. The CCC readily identified the
mistakes, but the City’s 2019 proposed Draft LCP Land Use Plan and planning process still has yet fully
disclose these prior Coastal ‘planning mistakes’ to ALL citizens of Carlsbad - the failure to disclose and follow
the Planning Area F LCP LUP and City Zoning requirements. Full City disclosure is needed now to try to
correct many years of City misrepresentation to citizens on LCP required Coastal land Use planning at Ponto.
It is needed now so the public is aware at the start of the Public Comment Period. In 2017 citizens began
asking the City fix the City’s over 12-years of misinformation and planning mistakes by ‘restarting’ Coastal
land use planning at Ponto with an open and honest community-based Coastal planning process. These
citizens’ requests have been rejected.
In 2019 the City Staff proposed citywide Draft LCP land Use Plan Amendment that again proposed to change
Planning Area F to “low-priority” residential and general commercial land use, without First disclosing the
Planning Area F LCP requirements with corresponding analysis of the Need for Coastal Recreation (i.e. Public
Park) and/or low-cost visitor accommodations at Planning Area F and providing that Documented analysis
for public review/Consideration/comment. This seems like another 3rd repeat of the prior two Coastal
planning mistakes by the City. In 2019, again citizens asked for a reset and a true community-based process
for the last remaining significant vacant Coastal lands – including Ponto. Again the City rejected citizens’
requests.
In 2020 thousands of public requests again asked, and are currently asking, for a reset and a true
community-based process for the last remaining significant vacant Coastal lands – including Ponto. Again
these requests are being rejected. Based on the significant citizen concern and the documented prior
‘planning mistakes’ at Ponto it appears reasonable and responsible for Ponto’s Planning Area F to ether:
i. Retain its current Existing LCP LUP land Use of “Non-Residential Reserve” until such time as the
City’s past Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan and General Plan Update planning mistakes and
other issues subject to current planning lawsuits against the City are resolved with a true, honest
and open community-based Coastal planning process asked for by citizens since 2017. Or
ii. Propose in the Draft LCP Land Use Plan Amendment to re-designated Planning Area F back to a
Visitor Serving Commercial and Open Space (“i.e. Public Park”) to provide both “High-Priory” coastal
uses v. low-priority residential/general commercial uses due to the documented Coastal Recreation
and Low-cost visitor accommodation needs for both citizens and visitors at Ponto and South
Carlsbad.
13. Questionable logic and inconsistency in proposed Draft land use map and policies: Chapter 2 Figure 2-2B & C on
pages 2-19 & 20 proposes to Amend the existing LCP Land Use Plan Map, and policies LCP-2-P.19 and 20 on pages 2-
27 to 2-29 propose Amendments to existing LCP policy and create a new added layer of policy referencing a
Ponto/Southern Waterfront. The proposed Land Use Map and Policies serve to firmly plan for “low-priority”
residential and general commercial land uses at Ponto with a clear regulatory Land Use Plan Map showing these
land uses and by specific regulatory policy (LCP-2-20) that clearly requires (by using the words “shall”) these “low
Page 27 of 30
priority” uses. In contrast the “High-Priority” Coastal Recreation and Coastal Park land uses that would be
designated as Open Space are not mapped at all in Figure 2-2B & C; and the proposed policy LCP-2-P.19 is both
misleading and specifically does Not Require any “High-Priority” Coastal Recreation and Coastal Park land Use at
Ponto and South Carlsbad. In fact page 2-22 specifically indicates two “may” criteria that would first need to occur
in the positive before any potential Coastal Recreation and Coastal Park Land could then theoretically even be
possible. It is highly probable that it is already known by the City that the proposed relocation of Carlsbad Boulevard
(Coast Highway) is not very feasible and not cost effective, and will not yield (due to environmental habitat
constraints, narrowness of the roadway median, and other design constraints) any significant dimensions of land
that could potentially be designated Open Space and realistically be used as a Park.
The blank outline map (Figure 2-2B &C) provides no mapped Open Space Land Use designation, other than for the
currently existing State Campgrounds’ low-cost visitor accommodations, so the proposed Land Use Plan Map is Not
providing/mapping any new Open Space land use to address Coastal Recreation and Coastal Park needs. The Draft
LCP Land Use Plan Amendment’s proposed/projected/planned Sea Level Rise and associated coastal erosion appears
to indicate that this “High-Priority” low-cost visitor accommodation (Campground) land use designated as Open
Space will be reduced in the ‘Buildout’ condition due to coastal erosion. So the Draft LCP Land Use Plan is actually
planning for a Reduction in Open Space Land Use in South Carlsbad and Ponto. Both the blank outline map and
the proposed Land Use Map Figure 2-1 DO NOT clearly map and designate both South Carlsbad’s Draft LCP Planned
Loss of the Open Space Land Use and also any New or replacement unconstrained land as Open Space land use for
Coastal Recreation and Coastal Park. This is an internal inconsistency in Land Use Mapping that should be corrected
in two ways:
1) Showing on all the Land Use (Figure 2-1), Special Planning Area (Figure 2-2B & C), and other Draft LCP Maps
the Draft LCP’s planned loss of land area in those maps due to the Draft LCP’s planned loss of land due to
Sea Level Rise and Coastal Land Erosion. This is required to show how land use boundaries and Coastal
Recourses are planned to change over time. or
2) Provide detailed Land Use Constraint Maps for the current Carlsbad Boulevard right-of-way that the City
“may” or ‘may not’ choose (per the proposed “may” LCP-2-P.19 policy) use to explore to address the City’s
(Park Master Plan) documented Coastal Recreation and Coastal Park land use shortages in Coastal South
Carlsbad and Ponto. Clearly showing the potential residual Unconstrained Land within a Carlsbad Boulevard
relocation that have any potential possibility to add new Open Space Land Use Designations (for Coastal
Recreation) is needed now to judge if the policy is even rational, or is it just a Trojan horse.
The proposed internal inconsistency in mapping and policy appears like a plan/policy ‘shell game’. The proposed
Land Use Plan Maps and Policies should be consistent and equality committed (mapped-shall v. unmapped-may) to
a feasible and actual Plan. If not then there is No real Plan.
There is no Regulatory Policy requirement in LCP-2-P.19 to even require the City to work on the two “may” criteria.
The City could choose to bury the entire Carlsbad Boulevard relocation concept and be totally consistent with Policy
LCP-2-P.19 and the LCP. As such the language on 2-22, Figure 2-2C (and the proposed Land Use Map), and policy
LCP-2-P.19 and 20 appear conspire to create a shell game or bait-and-switch game in that only “low-priority”
residential and general commercial uses are guaranteed (by “shall” policy) winners, and “high-priority” Coastal
Recreation and Coastal Park Land Uses are at best a non-committal ‘long-shot” (“may” policy) that the city is
specifically not providing a way to ever define, or commit to implement. The proposed Draft LCP Land Use Plan
Coastal Recreation and Coastal Park statements for Ponto are just words on paper that are designed to have no
force, no commitment, no defined outcome, and no defined requirement to even have an outcome regarding the
Page 28 of 30
documented “High-Priority” Coastal Recreation and Costal Park needs at Ponto, Coastal South Carlsbad and the
regional 6-mile Coastal Park gap centered around Ponto.
Policy LCP-2-P.19 falsely says it “promotes development of recreational use” but does not in fact do that. How is
development of ‘recreational use promoted’ when the Use is both unmapped and no regulatory policy requirement
and commitment (no “shall” statement) to ‘promote’ that Use is provided? Policy LCP-2-19.19 appears a misleading
sham that does not ‘promote’ or require in any way “High-Priority” Coastal Recreation and Park Land Use at Ponto.
There should be open and honest public workshops before the Draft LCP Amendment goes to its first public hearing
to clearly define the major environmental constraints and cost estimates involving possible relocation of Carlsbad
Boulevard and constructing needed beach access parking, and sufficient and safe sidewalks and bike paths along
Carlsbad Boulevard; and then map the amount and dimensions of potential ‘excess land’ that maybe available for
possible designation as Open Space in the City General Plan and Local Coastal Program. The City should not repeat
the mistakes at the Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course (resulting in the most expensive to construct maniple course in
the USA) by not defining and vetting the concept first. A preliminary review of City GIS data appears the amount,
dimensions and locations of any potential ‘excess’ land maybe modest at best. However before the City proposes a
‘Buildout’ Coastal Land Use Plan this critical information should be clearly provided and considered. It is likely the
City’s Carlsbad Boulevard relocation concept is unfeasible, inefficient, too costly, and yields too little actual useable
‘excess land’ to ever approach the Coastal Recreation and Coastal Park needs for South Carlsbad. This may already
be known by the City, but it surely should be publicly disclosed and discussed in the DLPCA.
The proposed Coastal Land Use Plan to address Carlsbad’s, San Diego County’s and California’s High-Priority Coastal
Recreation Land Use and Coastal Park needs should NOT be vague “may” policy that appears to be purposely
designed/worded to not commit to actually providing any “High-Priority” Coastal Recreation and Coastal Park land
uses on the map or in policy commitments. The Land Use Plan and Policy for High-Priority Coastal Recreation and
Coastal Park Land Use should be definitive with triggered “shall” policy statements requiring and assuring that the
‘Forever’ “High-Priority” Coastal Recreation and Coastal Park needs are properly and timely addressed in the City’s
proposed ‘Buildout’ Coastal Land Use Plan. This “shall” policy commitment should be clearly and consistently
mapped to show the basic feasibility of the planned outcomes and the resulting actual Land that could feasibly
implement the planned outcome.
Providing safe and sufficient sidewalks, bike paths, and public parking along Carlsbad Boulevard: Providing safe and
sufficient sidewalks, bike paths, and public parking along Carlsbad Boulevard are Coastal Access and Completes
Streets issues. South Carlsbad Boulevard now and has for decades been a highly used Incomplete Street that is out
of compliance with the City’s minimum Street Standards for pedestrian and bike access and safety. The Coastal
Access portion of the Draft Land Use Plan should strongly address the Complete Street requirements for South
Carlsbad Boulevard. Those policy commitments should be reference in Policy LCP-2-P.19 and 20 as Carlsbad
Boulevard in South Carlsbad is the most Complete Street deficient portion of Carlsbad Boulevard. Forever Coastal
Access parking demand and the proposed LCP Amendment’s Land Use Plan to supply parking for those demands
should also be addressed as part of the Coastal Access and Complete Streets issues for South Carlsbad Boulevard. If
much needed Coastal Access Parking is provided on South Carlsbad Boulevard as part of a “maybe” implemented
realignment, most of the “maybe” realignment land left after constraints are accommodated for and buffered will
likely be consumed with these parking spaces and parking drive aisles/buffer area needed to separate high-speed
vehicular traffic from parking, a buffered bike path, and a sufficiently wide pedestrian sidewalk or Coastal Path.
After accommodating these much needed Complete Street facilitates there will likely be little if any sufficiently
Page 29 of 30
dimensioned land available for a Coastal Recreation and a Coastal Park. The needed Coastal Access and Complete
Street facilities on South Carlsbad Boulevard are very much needed, but they are NOT a Coastal Park.
As mentioned the proposed Draft Coastal Land Use Plan’s Maps and Policies are very specific in providing for the
City’s proposed LCP Land Use changes to ‘low-priority” Residential and General Commercial’ on Planning Area F
(proposed to be renamed to Area 1 and 2). It is curious as to why the proposed Draft LCP Land Use Plan
Amendment has no Land Use Map and minor vague unaccountable Land Use Policy concerning ‘High-priority Coastal
Recreation Land Use’ at Ponto, while the very same time proposing very clear Land Use Mapping and detailed
unambiguous “shall” land use policy requirements for ‘low-priority” Residential and General Commercial land use at
Ponto. Why is the City Not committing and requiring (in a Land Use Map and Land Use Policy) to much needed
‘High-priority” Coastal Recreation and Coastal Park Land Use’ needs at Ponto the same detail and commitment as
the City is providing for “low-priority” uses? This is backwards and inappropriate. It is all the more inappropriate
given the ‘Buildout’ Coastal Land Use Plan the City is proposing at Ponto. These issues and plan/policy commitments
and non-commitments will be ‘forever’ and should be fully and publicly evaluated as previously requested, or the
Exiting LCP Land Use Plan of “Non-residential Reserve” for Planning Area F should remain unchanged and until the
forever-buildout Coastal Recreation and Coastal Park issues can be clearly, honestly and properly considered and
accountably planned for. This is vitally important and seems to speak to the very heart of the CA Coastal Act, its
founding and enduring principles, and its policies to maximize Coastal Recreation. People for Ponto and we believe
many others, when they are aware of the issues, think the City and CA Coastal Commission should be taking a long-
term perspective and be more careful, thorough, thoughtful, inclusive, and in the considerations of the City’s
proposal/request to permanently convert the last vacant unplanned (Non-residential Reserve) Coastal land at Ponto
to “low-priority” land uses and forever eliminate any Coastal Recreation and Coastal Park opportunities.
14. Public Coastal View protection: Avenida Encinas is the only inland public access road and pedestrian sidewalk to
access the Coast at Ponto for one mile in each direction north and south. It is also hosts the regional Coastal Rail
Trail in 3’ wide bike lanes. There exist now phenomenal coastal ocean views for the public along Avenida Encinas
from the rail corridor bridge to Carlsbad Boulevard. It is assumed these existing expansive public views to the ocean
will be mostly eliminated with any building development seaward or the Rail corridor. This is understandable, but
an accountable (‘shall”) Land Use Plan/Policy addition to proposed Policy LCP-2-P.20 should be provided for a
reasonable Public Coastal View corridor along both sides of Avenida Encinas and at the intersection with Carlsbad
Boulevard. Public Coastal view analysis, building height-setback standards along Avenida Encinas, and building
placement and site design and landscaping criteria in policy LCP-2-P.20 could also considered to reasonably provide
for some residual public coastal view preservation.
15. Illogical landscape setback reductions proposed along Carlsbad Boulevard, and Undefined landscape setback along
the Lagoon Bluff Top and rail corridor in Policy LCP-2-P.20: Logically setbacks are used in planning to provide a
buffering separation of incompatible land uses/activities/habitats. The intent of the setback separation being to
protect adjacent uses/activities/habitats from incompatibility, nuisance or harassment by providing a sufficient
distance/area (i.e. setback) between uses/activities/habitats and for required urban design aesthetics – almost
always a buffering landscaping. Policy LCP-2-P.20. A.4 and C.3 says the required 40’ landscape setback along
Carlsbad Boulevard “maybe reduced due to site constraints or protection of environmental resources.” The ability
to reduce the setback is illogical in that setbacks are intendent to protect environmental resources and provide a
buffer for constraints. In the Carlsbad Boulevard right-of-way there is documented sensitive environmental habitat,
along with being a busy roadway. How could reducing the protective 40’ setback in anyway better protect that
habitat or provide a better landscaped compatibility or visual aesthesis buffer along Carlsbad Boulevard? It is
Page 30 of 30
illogical. If anything the minimum 40’ landscaped setback should likely be expanded near “environmental
resources”. Regarding reducing the minimum 40’ landscape setback for “site constraints” there is no definition of
what a “site constraint” is or why it (whatever it may be) justifies a reduction of the minimum landscaped setback.
Is endangered species habitat, or a hazardous geologic feature, or a slope, or on-site infrastructure considered a
“site constraint”? There should be some explanation of what a “site constraint” is and is not, and once defined if it
warrants a landscape setback reduction to enhance the buffering purpose of a landscape setback. Or will a
reduction only allow bringing the defined constraint closer to the adjacent uses/activities/habitats that the
landscape setback is designed to buffer. It is good planning practice to not only be clear in the use of terms; but
also, if a proposed reduction in a minimum standard is allowed, to define reasonably clear criteria for that
reduction/modification and provide appropriate defined mitigation to assume the intended performance objectives
of the minimum landscape setback are achieved.
Policy LCP-2-P.20.C.4 is missing a critical Bluff-Top landscape setback. It seems impossible that the DLCPA is
proposing no Bluff-Top setback from the lagoon bluffs and sensitive habitat. The Batiquitos Lagoon’s adjoining steep
sensitive habitat slopes directly connect along the Bluff-top. Batiquitos Lagoon’s and adjoining steep sensitive
habitat is a sensitive habitat that requires significant setbacks as a buffer from development impacts. Setbacks
similar to those required for the San Pacifico area inland of the rail corridor, should be provided unless updated
information about habitat sensitivity or community aesthetics requires different setback requirements.
Policy LCP-2-P.20 does not include a landscape setback standard adjacent to the rail corridor. This is a significant
national transportation corridor, part of the 2nd busiest rail corridor in the USA. Train travel along this corridor is
planned to increase greatly in the years to come. Now there is significant noise, Diesel engine pollution, and
extensive ground vibration due to train travel along the rail corridor. Long freight trains which currently run mostly
at night and weekends are particularly noisy and heavy, and create significant ground vibration (underground noise).
These issues are best mitigated by landscape setbacks and other buffers/barriers. A minimum setback standard for
sufficient landscaping for a visual buffer and also factoring appropriate noise and ground vibration standards for a
buildout situation should be used to establish an appropriate landscape setback that should be provided along the
rail corridor. Carlsbad’s landscape aesthetics along the rail corridor should be factored into how wide the setback
should be and how landscaping should be provided. An example for the landscape aesthetic portion of the setback
standard could be landscape design dimensions of the San Pacifico community on the inland side of the rail corridor.
However, noise and vibrational impacts at San Pacifico are felt much further inland and appear to justify increased
setbacks for those impacts.
Sea Level Rise and Carlsbad’s DLCP-LUPA’s projected/planned Loss of Open Space at Ponto Page 1 of 7
Sea Level Rise and Carlsbad’s DLCP-LUPA’s projected/planned Loss of Open Space at Ponto
Introduction:
Carlsbad first documented Sea Level Rise (SLR) and associated increases in coastal erosion in a
December 2017 Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment (2017 SLR Assessment). Prior planning activities
(2010 Ponto Vision Plan – rejected by CA Coastal Commission, and 2015 General Plan Update) did not
consider SLR and how SLR would impact Coastal Open Space Land Use & CA Coastal Act ‘High-Priority’
Coastal Open Space Land Uses at Ponto. The 2017 SLR Assessment shows Open Space land and Open
Space Land Uses are almost exclusively impacted by SLR at Ponto & South Coastal Carlsbad. The 2017
SLF Assessment also shows significant LOSS of Open Space land acreage and Land Uses. Most all
impacted Open Space Land Uses are CA Coastal Act “High-Priority Coastal Land Uses” – Coastal
Recreation (i.e. Public Park) and Low-Cost Visitor Accommodations. Existing Ponto Open Space Land
Uses are already very congested (non-existent/narrow beach) and have very high, almost exclusionary,
occupancy rates (Campground) due to existing population/visitor demands. Future population/visitor
increases will make this demand situation worst. The significant permanent LOSS of existing Coastal
Open Space land and Coastal Open Space Land Use (and land) due to SLR reduces existing supply and
compounds Open Space congestion elsewhere. Prior Ponto planning did not consider, nor plan, for
significant SLR and current/future “High-Priority” Coastal Open Space Land Use demands.
Open Space and City Park demand at Ponto:
Open Space at Ponto is primarily ‘Constrained’ as defined by the City’s Growth Management Program
(GMP), and cannot be counted in meeting the City’s minimal 15% ‘Unconstrained’ GMP Open Space
Standard. Per the GMP Open Space Standard, the developers of Ponto should have provided in their
developments at least 30-acres of additional ‘Unconstrained’ GMP Open Space at Ponto. City GIS
mapping data confirm 30-acres of GMP Standard Open Space is missing at Ponto (Local Facilities
Management Plan Zone 9).
The City of Carlsbad GIS Map on page 2 shows locations of Open Spaces at Ponto. This map and its
corresponding tax parcel-based data file document Ponto’s non-compliance with the GMP Open Space
Standard. A summary of that City GIS data file is also on page 2. The City said Ponto’s non-compliance
with the GMP Open Space Standard was ‘justified’ by the City ‘exempting’ compliance with the
Standard. The City ‘justified’ this ‘exemption’ for reasons that do not appear correct based on the City’s
GIS map and data on page 2, and by a review of 1986 aerial photography that shows most of Ponto as
vacant land. The City in the Citywide Facilities Improvement Plan (CFIP) said 1) Ponto was already
developed in 1986, or 2) Ponto in 1986 already provided 15% of the ‘Unconstrained’ land as GMP
Standard Open Space. Both these ‘justifications’ for Ponto ‘exemption’ in the CFIP were not correct.
The legality of the City ‘exempting’ Ponto developers from the GMP Open Space Standard is subject to
current litigation.
The City proposes to continue to exempt future Ponto developers from providing the missing 30-acres of
minimally required GMP Open Space, even though a change in Ponto Planning Area F land use from the
current ‘Non-Residential Reserve” Land Use requires comprehensive Amendment of the Local Facilitates
Management Plan Zone 9 to account for a land use change. City exemption is subject of litigation.
Ponto (west of I-5 and South of Poinsettia Lane) currently has 1,025 homes that per Carlsbad’s minimal
Park Standard demand an 8-acre City Park. There is no City Park at Ponto. Coastal Southwest Carlsbad
has an over 6.5 acre Park deficit that is being met 6-miles away in NW Carlsbad. Ponto is in the middle
of 6-miles of Coastline without a City Coastal Park west of the rail corridor.
Sea Level Rise and Carlsbad’s DLCP-LUPA’s projected/planned Loss of Open Space at Ponto Page 2 of 7
City GIS map of Ponto’s (LFMP Zone 9)
Open Space:
Light green areas meet the City’s 15%
unconstrained Growth Management
Program Open Space Standard
Most Ponto Open Space (pink hatch &
blue [water] on map) is “Constrained”
and does not meet the Standard
Aviara - Zone 19, Ponto - Zone 9 and
Hanover/Poinsettia Shores – Zone 22
all developed around the same time
and had similar vacant lands.
City required Aviara - Zone 19 east of
Ponto to provide the 15% Standard
Open Space. Why not Ponto? Aviara
had the same lagoon waters.
City required Hanover & Poinsettia
Shores area Zone 22 just north of
Ponto to provide the 15% Standard
Open Space. Why not Ponto?
Why Ponto developers were never
required to comply with the 15%
Standard Open Space is subject to
current litigation
Below is City GIS data from this map
City GIS map data summary of the 15% Growth Management Standard Open Space at Ponto
472 Acres Total land in LFMP Zone 9 [Ponto]
(197 Acres) Constrained land excluded from GMP Open Space
275 Acres Unconstrained land in LFMP Zone 9 [Ponto]
X 15% GMP Minimum Unconstrained Open Space requirement
41 Acres GMP Minimum Unconstrained Open Space required
(11 Acres) GMP Open Space provided & mapped per City GIS data
30 Acres Missing Unconstrained Open Space needed in LFMP Zone 9 [Ponto] to meet the City’s
minimum GMP Open Space Standard per City’s GIS map & data
73% of the City’s minimum 15% required Open Space Standard is missing due to over
development of LFMP Zone 9 [Ponto]
• j ••-.•~•I ; , .... ~ ..
Q)l:ltl$~C~ 0Patt(f$
~ 1~PreseM11cno1H.111nfl-c:J Lf'MZ980unclt't
O :t•WOO<J'~ c:Jcc,ens.,_~
0
MlliJs
g ,-~~ .•;;·';.,.-.-::~.;•.-' .....
N
A
O ,oo 200 300 .4(1(1
Sea Level Rise and Carlsbad’s DLCP-LUPA’s projected/planned Loss of Open Space at Ponto Page 3 of 7
Sea Level Rise impacts on Open Space and Open Space Land Use Planning at Ponto:
The City’s 2015 General Plan Update did not factor in the impacts of Sea Level Rise (SLR) on Ponto’s
Open Space land. In December 2017 the City conducted the first Sea Level Rise Vulnerability
Assessment https://www.carlsbadca.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=33958. The 2017 SLR
Assessment is an initial baseline analysis, but it shows significant SLR impacts on Ponto Open Space.
More follow-up analysis is being conducted to incorporate newer knowledge on SLR projections and
coastal land erosion accelerated by SLR. Follow-up analysis may likely show SLR impacts occurring
sooner and more extreme.
Troublingly the 2017 SLR Assessment shows SLR actually significantly reducing or eliminating Open
Space land at Ponto. SLR is projected to only impact and eliminate Open Space lands and Open Space
Land Use at Ponto. The loss of Ponto Open Space land and Land Use being at the State Campground,
Beaches, and Batiquitos Lagoon shoreline. The losses of these Open Space lands and land uses would
progress over time, and be a permanent loss. The 2017 SLR Assessment provides two time frames near-
term 2050 that match with the Carlsbad General Plan, and the longer-term ‘the next General Plan
Update’ time frame of 2100. One can think of these timeframes as the lifetimes of our children and
their children (2050), and the lifetimes of our Grandchildren and their children (2100). SLR impact on
Coastal Land Use and Coastal Land Use planning is a perpetual (permanent) impact that carries over
from one Local Coastal Program (LCP) and City General Plan (GP) to the next Updated LCP and GP.
Following (within quotation marks) are excerpts from Carlsbad’s 2017 Sea Level Rise Vulnerability
Assessment:
[Italicized text within brackets] is added data based on review of aerial photo maps in the Assessment.
“Planning Zone 3 consists of the Southern Shoreline Planning Area and the Batiquitos Lagoon. Assets
within this zone are vulnerable to inundation, coastal flooding and bluff erosion in both planning
horizons (2050 and 2100). A summary of the vulnerability assessment rating is provided in Table 5. A
discussion of the vulnerability and risk assessment is also provided for each asset category.
5.3.1. Beaches
Approximately 14 acres of beach area is projected to be impacted by inundation/erosion in 2050. …
Beaches in this planning area are backed by unarmored coastal bluffs. Sand derived from the natural
erosion of the bluff as sea levels rise may be adequate to sustain beach widths, thus, beaches in this
reach were assumed to have a moderate adaptive capacity. The overall vulnerability rating for beaches
is moderate for 2050.
Vulnerability is rated moderate for the 2100 horizon due to the significant amount of erosion expected
as the beaches are squeezed between rising sea levels and bluffs. Assuming the bluffs are unarmored in
the future, sand derived from bluff erosion may sustain some level of beaches in this planning
area. A complete loss of beaches poses a high risk to the city as the natural barrier from storm waves is
lost as well as a reduction in beach access, recreation and the economic benefits the beaches provide.
5.3.3. State Parks
A majority of the South Carlsbad State Beach day-use facilities and campgrounds (separated into
four parcels) were determined to be exposed to bluff erosion by the 2050 sea level rise scenario
(moderate exposure). This resource is considered to have a high sensitivity since bluff erosion
could significantly impair usage of the facilities. Though economic impacts to the physical structures
within South Carlsbad State Beach would be relatively low, the loss of this park would be significant
Sea Level Rise and Carlsbad’s DLCP-LUPA’s projected/planned Loss of Open Space at Ponto Page 4 of 7
since adequate space for the park to move inland is not available (low adaptive capacity). State
parks was assigned a high vulnerability in the 2050 planning horizon. State park facilities are recognized
as important assets to the city in terms of economic and recreation value as well as providing low-cost
visitor serving amenities. This vulnerability poses a high risk to coastal access, recreation, and
tourism opportunities in this planning area.
In 2100, bluff erosion of South Carlsbad State Beach day-use facilities and campgrounds become
more severe and the South Ponto State Beach day-use area becomes exposed to coastal flooding
during extreme events. The sensitivity of the South Ponto day-use area is low because impacts to usage
will be temporary and no major damage to facilities would be anticipated. Vulnerability and risk to State
Parks remains high by 2100 due to the impacts to South Carlsbad State Beach in combination
with flooding impacts to South Ponto.
Table 5: Planning Zone 3 Vulnerability Assessment Summary [condensed & notated]:
Asset Horizon Vulnerability
Category [time] Hazard Type Impacted Assets Rating
Beaches 2050 Inundation/Erosion, Flooding 14 acres (erosion) Moderate
2100 Inundation/Erosion, Flooding 54 acres (erosion) Moderate
Public Access 2050 Inundation, Flooding 6 access points Moderate
4,791 feet of trails
2100 Inundation, Flooding 10 access points Moderate
14,049 feet of trails
State Parks 2050 Flooding, Bluff Erosion 4 parcels [<18 Acres] High
[Campground - 2100 Flooding, Bluff Erosion 4 parcels [>18 Acres] High
Low-cost Visitor [loss of over 50% of
Accommodations] the campground &
its Low-cost Visitor
Accommodations,
See Figure 5.]
Transportation 2050 Bluff Erosion 1,383 linear feet Moderate
(Road, Bike, 2100 Flooding, Bluff Erosion 11,280 linear feet High
Pedestrian)
Environmentally 2050 Inundation, Flooding 572 acres Moderate
Sensitive 2100 Inundation, Flooding 606 acres High
Lands
Sea Level Rise and Carlsbad’s DLCP-LUPA’s projected/planned Loss of Open Space at Ponto Page 5 of 7
.,,...,,~c;........,,...,,
D 11~•\;ll)-<(.I>' Cb•
Southern Shortfine PlanningArEa-Year 2050
CXIUOITOG
1,:::,1 .. ,
Sea Level Rise and Carlsbad’s DLCP-LUPA’s projected/planned Loss of Open Space at Ponto Page 6 of 7
[Figure 5 show the loss of over 50% of the campground and campground sites with a minimal .2 meter
Sea Level Rise (SLR), and potentially the entire campground (due to loss of access road) in 2 meter SLF.]”
Directions to analyze and correct current and future LOSS of Coastal Open Space Land Use at Ponto
On July 3, 2017 the CA Coastal Commission provided direction to Carlsbad stating:
“The existing LUP includes policies that require certain visitor-serving developments and/or
studies relevant to the Ponto … area. For example, Planning Area F requires the city and
developer to "consider and document the need for the provision of lower cost visitor
accommodations or recreational facilities (i.e., public park) on the west side of the railroad. …
this study should be undertaken as a part of the visitor serving use inventory analysis described
above. If this analysis determines that there is a deficit of low cost visitor accommodations or
recreation facilities in this area, then Planning Area F should be considered as a site where these
types of uses could be developed.”
Official Carlsbad Public Records Requests (PRR 2017-260, et. al.) confirmed Carlsbad’s Existing LCP and
its Ponto specific existing LUP polices and Zoning regulations were never followed in the City’s prior
Ponto planning activities (i.e. 2010 Ponto Vision Plan & 2015 General Plan Update). The projected SLR
loss of recreation (beach) and low-cost visitor accommodations (campground) at Ponto should factor in
this Existing LCP required analysis, and a LCP-LUP for Ponto and Ponto Planning Area F.
In a February 11, 2020 City Council Staff Report City Staff stated:
“On March 14, 2017, the City Council approved the General Plan Lawsuit Settlement Agreement
(Agreement) between City of Carlsbad and North County Advocates (NCA). Section 4.3.15 of the
Agreement requires the city to continue to consider and evaluate properties for potential
acquisition of open space and use good faith efforts to acquire those properties.”
{'Cityof
Carlsbad
C a l lfo r nl u Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment
Figure 5: CoSMoS Bluff Erosion Projections by 2100
(CoSMoS-COAST 2015)
Sea Level Rise and Carlsbad’s DLCP-LUPA’s projected/planned Loss of Open Space at Ponto Page 7 of 7
In 2020 NCA recommended the City acquire Ponto Planning Area F as Open Space. The status of City
processing that recommendation is unclear. However the Lawsuit Settlement Agreement and NCA’s
recommendation to the City should also be considered in the required Existing LCP analysis.
Summary:
Tragically Carlsbad’s’ Draft Local Coastal Program – Land Use Plan Amendment (DLCP-LUPA) is actually
planning to both SIGNIFICATLY REDUCE Coastal Open Space acreage, and to eliminate ‘High-Priority
Coastal Open Space Land Uses at Ponto due to SLR.
The Existing LCP requirements for Ponto Planning Area F to analyze the deficit of Coastal Open Space
Land Use should factor in the currently planned LOSS of both Coastal Open Space acreage and Coastal
Open Space Land Uses at Ponto due to SLR. As a long-range Coastal Land Use Plan this required LCP
analysis needs to also consider the concurrent future increases in both population and visitor demand
for those LOST Coastal Open Space acres and Coastal Open Space Land Uses.
It is very troubling that demand for these CA Coastal Act ‘High-Priority’ Coastal Open Space Land Uses is
increasing at the same time the current (near/at capacity) supply of these CA Coastal Act ‘High-Priority’
Coastal Open Space Land Uses is significantly decreasing due to SLR. Instead of planning for long-term
sustainability of these CA Coastal Act ‘High-Priority’ Coastal Open Space Land Uses for future
generations there appears to be a plan to use SLR and inappropriate (lower-priority residential) Coastal
Land Use planning to forever remove those CA Coastal Act ‘High-Priority’ Coastal Open Space Land Uses
from Ponto. CA Coastal Act Policies to address these issues should be thoroughly considered.
2021-2 proposed Draft Local Coastal Program – Land Use Plan Amendment (DLCP-LUPA) will likely result
in City and CA Coastal Commission making updates to the 2015 General Plan, based on the existing
Ponto Planning Area F LCP – LUP Policy requirements, Ponto Open Space issues, high-priority Coastal
Land Use needs, and SLR issues not addressed in the 2015 General Plan.