Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 98-14; Thompson/Tabata; Tentative Map (CT) (5)May 23,2001 TO: CITY AlTORNEY FROM: Senior Planner VIA: Planning Director ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FOR PROPOSED THOMPSONnABATA SUBDIVISION (CT 98-14) The above referenced project is in process with the City and a Mitigated Negative Declaration was recently distributed for the mandated 30-day public review. Attached are the comments received during the public review period. Many of the comments merely request additional information to substantiate the negative declaration of significant environmental impacts. Other comments address concerns outside of the realm of CEQA, for example financial impact of purported loss of property value. One of the comment letters, that of Mary and Joseph Hull, requests a complete summary of the Master EIR for the 1994 General Plan Update. The standard environmental impact assessment language for circulation and air quality states that the City has reviewed its MElR and found it “adequate to review later projects”. There has been substantial public controversy on this proposed development. You may remember that this project was the topic of a Community Information Forum in August 2000; copies of the minutes of that meeting were forwarded to the Council and City Manager. We would like to set a meeting with you to discuss the further processing of this project in light of the attached comments and previously expressed public concerns. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. ;’ /‘ MICHAEL GRIM .. ~ ... Attachments c: Gary Wayne Chris DeCerbo MARY 8 JOSEPH HULL 913 POPPY LANE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92009 May 1,2001 Mr. Michael J. Holzmiller Planning Director City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 Dear Mr. Holzmiller: We have completed our review of the Negative Declaration (ND) dated April 4, 2001 for the proposed Standard Pacific Development Project-ThompsodTabata Site. Our comments are outlined by categories of Project and Environmental Issues and idendied by page number as shown in the ND. - The Final ND should include a concise and complete ht of public information meetings held and any public notices sent for the project. I requested a copy of this information last year and did not receive any response. In addition, the ND should contain a summary of the modihcations to the project and tentative map including the reasoning for each modification. The ND states on the first page that.. .”there is no substantial evidence in hght of the whole record before the City that the project “as revised” may have a s@cant effect on the environment.” Because the tentative map has been revised numerous times, including moving the affordable units to the south side of Poinsettia Lane, a complete history is needed for the “whole record”. The ND should also contain a map of the project location and a map of the project site at a minimum. A map showing the project layout and circulation is also suggested. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION PAGE 10-The project site contains three areas, the size and density of each area should be added to the ND. The project also straddles Poinsettia Lane and the area of each portion should be included in the ND. PAGE 10-In late 2000 the greenhouses on the property were removed. This is after Standard Pacific acquired the property. Did the City issue a permit and approve this removal? If not, what is the justification for this work on the property? PAGE 10-The development proposes SO0,OOO cubic yards of cuts and fills. The ND states that the topography would remain essentially the same, yet the cut and fills proposed dire over 30 feet in height. This should be addressed in the Aesthetics section as a visual impact to the area. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION Cont.. . PAGE 11-The project proposes three connections to the local street network. -4n important component that should be considered in the ND is the proposed signal at Poinsettia Lane and Snapdragon Drive. The city conducted a meeting in riugust oi last pear and stated that a signal is already warranted at that location. The ND completely pores that issue. A detailed discussion of the proposed signal is necessary for a complete ND. Y PAGE 11-The project is divided in two sections north and south of Poinsettia Lane. The ND should contain densities for each section of the project along with the description contained for the western and eastern portion of the project. PAGE 12-A complete summary of the Master EIR for the 1994 General Plan update should be included in the ND. PAGE 12-The overall density for the project should be added in section c). The density of Mariner’s Point needs to be included. Generally, the project is too dense. The proposed project includes a number of lots that are not only less than 7,500 square feet but, are less than 6,500 square feet. The project should contain a more balanced lot sizing and more open space. This lack of open space creates a loss of character to the area and substantial increases in urban runoff which directly impacts Batiquitos Lagoon. PAGE 13-How will the midgation funding of 8419,265 for loss of agncultural land be used? PAGE 13-Due to the new project, Section e) should contain a detailed discussion of the ngq5cannt inpat of the connection of the new development to the existing developments. The established communities of Spinnaker Hill and Vista Pacifica will be disrupted by the proposed development due to the significant increase in traffic on the streets within those developments. PAGE 14-Include the actual current number of units in the SW quadrant of Carlsbad. Utilizing information from 1986 is inappropriate. GEOLOGIC PROB- PAGE 14-Aa additional mitigation measure should be added to notify potential homebuyers that this project is in Zone 4 for seismic dew. Zone 4 is the highest zone number included in the UBC. PAGE 15-As previously mentioned the project proposes cuts and as over 30 feet in height. Special care should be taken to prevent erosion both during and after construction of the project. The applicant should coordinate with and be required to obtain a permit form the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Due to the large amount of grading and lack of open space, hgh amounts of erosion are likely. 2 WATER PAGE 16-The propeT is described as having greenhouses corering a large portion of the project. In fact, the site had mostly open fields with greenhouses coring about 15 to 20 Yo of the site (see attached photo). PAGE 16-The project should be redesrgned to create more open space areas to prevention Qh concentrations of urban runoff. Of the 82.20 acre site 76.46 acres are to be graded. This grading should be reduced to avoid impacting water qdn-. The lack of open space contributes significantly to urban runoff pollution wiih potential impacts to the Batiquitos Lagoon. This should be of great concern because it not only impacts the lagoon environment but the beaches of southern Carlsbad that connects directly to the lagoon. 43Jmmum PAGE 19-Section c) states that the maximum building height for the project is 30 feet for single family residences and 35 feet for multi-family residences. Based on the grading proposed with cuts and fills of over 30 feet in height, the existing terrain could be 60-65 feet different in some areas. This should be discussed in the Aesthetics section of the ND. This large of an alteration with close proximity to the coast is a significant impact to the surrounding area. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION Page 20-The Linscott, Law & Greenspan (LLG) traffic study contains several inconsistencies and errors regarding the existing and proposed traffic volumes (see attached). The report also should include information for Snapdragon Drive including discussion of the proposed signal at Poinsettia Lane. The traffic study also fails to address a key intersection at Poinsettia Lane and Batiquitos Drive. This intersection currently experiences demand that exceeds capacity for the northbound Batiquitos Drive left turn to westbound Poinsettia Lane. This information is necessary for an adequate review by the residents of Spinnaker Hill and Vista Pacifica. The current layout of the project proposes three points of access. These include Street “A” to Poinsettia Lane, Rose Drive to Daisy Avenue and Alyssum to Snapdragon Drive. It is estimated that the project will generate 2,562 daily trips (ADT). The traffic study shows 70% of the trips from the project wiU go to 1-5. This breaks down to about 45% of the trips from the project entering/exiting at “A” Street to Poinsettia Lane and 25% of the project mps using the connection of Rose Drive to Daisy Avenue. In addition, 10% of the project trips are estimated to use the Daisy connection in order to proceed south on Batiquitos Drive. This means that 35 % of the trips from the project will use Daisy Avenue. This adds 760 trips to Daisy Avenue bringmg the total ADT on Daisy Avenue to about 2800 ADT. By contrast, the project proposes to add 980 trips to westbound Poinsettia Lane and 430 trips a day to eastbound Poinsettia Lane. This trip distribution is severely unbalanced given that Poinsettia currently carries 10 times the amount of traffic, as does Daisy Avenue. Due to this increase of traffic on Daisy Avenue a ngmzunt hpact will occur on Daisy Avenue and in the Spinnaker Hill community. 3 However, the traffic study concludes that the additional traffic on Daisy ,J\-enue will be wih acceptable values. The report classifies Daisy as a residential couector street with a capaaty of 4,500 ADT; this is an incorrect classification. The report cites the San Diego County Public Road Standards for classifving streets. Because Daisy Avenue is as wide as a residential collector street, the report assumes it is one. For non-circulation element roads (Section 4.5) a residential collector is defined as a having a 60-foot right-of-way wide and 40 foot curb-to curb width. It also states, “Such roads are not envisioned as providing for through traffic generating in one community and destined for another.” As such, the proper classification for Daisy Avenue is a “residential road.” A residential road has a capacity of 1,500 ADT. This explains why the general consensus within the Spinnaker Hill Communiq is that the existing traffic volume on Daisy Avenue already exceeds proper design values. The City of San Diego Stmt Den& Manual has more detailed information regarding roadway classification. This manual has similar urban local streets as compared with the County standards. The City manual has several types of residential streets for use in residenual areas. These include a Two-Lane Collector Street, a Two-Lane Sub-Collector Street, and a Residential Street. The two-lane collector has a recommended capacity of 5,000 ADT, along with no direct front residential access. Whereas the two-lane sub-collector has a capaaty of 2,200 ADT, the residential street has a capacity of 1,500 ADT, both with direct residential access. Direct access is really the main difference between a collector type of street and a residential road. The proposed ADT on Daisy Avenue far exceeds these values. Therefore, the project will cause a ngnijcant impact. The ND needs to address this ngmjkanf impact and provide for alternatives to avoid ths impact. Two such alternatives are suggested below: (1) As currently configured, a nght in/right on Poinsettia Lane could be added to the development. It could be placed between Snapdragon Drive and the proposed connection of Street “A”. An emergency access type gate could be placed at the proposed connection to Daisy Avenue, similar to the existing gate at the southerly end of Daisy Avenue. (2) Redesign the development to create a loop system with two full points of access to Poinsettia Lane. This system could place two signals on existing Poinsettia Lane about 600 feet apart. These slgnals would both be three-way signals and provide full access to the development. Although, this configuration would require a variance to the signal spacing policy of the City of Carlsbad, in hs particular case the signals could be interconnected and basically perform as one signal. Left turn movements from the development could be synchronized such that the disruption of Poinsettia Lane would occur only once for both signals. In other words, placing two signals with reduced signal spacing would not impact Poinsettia Lane to any greater extent than a single signal. This signal spacing would also meet the Caltrans ramp signal spacing criteria of 160 meters (525 feet). 4 In addtion, the traffic report notes that speedtng has been observed on Daisy Avenue. It also states the City should prepare a “Traffic Chg Report” to address this issue. Chg devices such as stop sps, mini-roundabouts and raised pinch points along Daisy Avenue are suggested. The proposed project ob\iously compounds this public safety situation. The ND contains no information or discussion of a traffic calrmng report. PUBJJC SERVICES PAGE 26-The Carlsbad School District has recentlv changed the elementary school boundaries. The ND should contain a letter from the School District that the new students associated with the development can be accommodated. This information should also include the current total enrollment at each school, the enrollment generated by the project, and the capaaty of each school. The ND is incomplete in this area. PAGE 31-Based on the size of the project an additional 2.62 acres of parkland is needed. Will the project contribute to acquire parkland? If so, where? If not, how is this impact being mimgated? Currently, NCTD operates bus serpice (Route #321) on Daisy Avenue. Will the project impact this bus service? The ND should require coordination with NCTD before the project is approved to ensure this service continues and is not impacted. We appreciate the opportunity to review this document but strongly feel that the impacts of this project are ngrn,$cunt and severe to the adjacent communities. Based on the number of comments above and general lack of conclusive data in the ND it is substantially inadequate for public circulation and should be revised and released again for public comment. The ND was issued on April 4, 2001 with a 30-day comment period. If you have any questions regarding our comments please contact us at (760) 438-2719. Sincerely, Mary R. Hull Joseph R. Hull c: Carkbad city council Carlsbad Planning Commission 5 NOTE: - ADTs are shown midbloc - AM/PM Peak hour dun shown at the intetrsectia RDI. 12m/m k I- are 78 =mnr Fia u re 5 Figure 7b I 'I i i I c - TIMOTHY M. HUTAiR May 3,2001 Mike Grim City of Carlsbad Planning Department 1635 Faraday Ave. Carlsbad, CA 92008 RE: ThompsodTabata Mitigated Negative Declarations Dated April 4,2001 Dear Mr. Grim: The purpose of this letter is to make public comment on the above referenced Mitigated Negative Declaration (ND). The ND in its current form pmvides inadequate detail from which the public can make serious review and comment. Many of the responses to the issues and impacts are boilerplate responses, as found in other City NDs, and offer little insight into the true impacts this project will have on the surrounding community. While others are on record with the City disputing the validity of the ND, we will limit our comments to the following items. A) VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. The ND states that the project will have potentially significant impact due to increased vehicle trips and traffic congestion. Neither the ND nor the project's traffic report discuss the negative impact the increase traffic will have on 1) the safety and welfare of residents of Daisy Ave. due to the increased traffic 2) the financial impact and loss of propeny values and 3) the bi-polarization of the neighborhood. These are significant issues and the societal impacts are not discussed. The statement that no significant adverse impacts will occur due to the increase in traffic on Daisy Ave. is false. Further, many of the assertions made in the traffic report are invalid as they are based on false assumptions. Primarily, the incorrect classification of Daisy Ave. as a "residential collector" street when in fact it is a "residential road". Inasmuch, the increase in projected AMs ;IS a result of the completion of the pmjec as cwrently designed will exceed the design capacity of Daisy. B) XI PUBLIC SERVICES The ND states that the pmposed development would not caw any significant impact to the school system and that local schools have capacity to accommodate additional students. THIS CLAIM IS COMPLETELY FALSE. The three schools affected, Pacific Rim Elementary, Aviara Oaks Elementary and Avian Oaks Middle School are now nearing capacity despite the current addition of portable classrooms. According to the Carlsbad Unified School District, based on expected new enmllments in the Fall of 2001, all three will be at or exceed design capacity. In addition, there' are no plans for the construction of any new schools in the area of the pmject prior to ;he expected build out of the project. h XU. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS The ND states that the project would not mult in the need for new power or natural gas systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to pmr or natural gas systems. This statement is based on the Master EIR assertion that no significant adverse environmental impacts due to power or natural gas supply would oar due to the build OW of the City. This assertion is ludicrous in light of the ongoing power and natural gas shortages. The community is already subject to rolling blackouts as a result of this shortage and any additional demand on the system will exacerbate the problem. Therefore the statement that this project will have no affect on utilities and service systems is false. I look forward to your written response to our comments. Sincerely, Timothy M. Hutter & Tamra E Hutter 939 BEGONIA C.OURT CARLSBAD, CA 92009 PHONE: 760-93 1-2656 Charles B. Christensen Donald W. Detisch DETISCH & CHRIS1 dNSEN Attorneys at Law Sean D. Schwerdtfeger Of Counsel Harold 0. Valdrrhaug Via Facsimile & U.S. Mail Michael J. Holzmiller, Planning Director City of Carlsbad Planning Department Senior Planner 1635 Faraday Avenue Carisbad, California 92008-7314 RE: Mitigated Negative Declaration dated April 4, 2001 Case Name: ThompsodTabata Publish Date: April 4, 2001 Case No.: ZC 98-OSILPCA 98-04/CT 98-14/PUD OO-OZSDP 99-06/HDP 98-15ICDP 98-68 Dear Mr. Holzmiller: 1 received the above Declaration on or about April 11, 2001. This was several days after the initial publication date. I was informed that this was due to an oversight on the part of staff and thus, staff was kind enough to extend our response date until May 11, 2001. (See my letter of April 25, 2001 .) In any event our general comments follow: Overall the document generally covers the impacts associated with the project. The document seems to address the majority of environmental issues. it would appear that this is one of the last remaining agricultural areas surrounded by pre-existing residential communities being converted to multi- residential use. We have been in contact with Standard Pacific, the developer, during this process and have been favorably impressed with their willingness [o work with this office and our clients, Mr. and Mrs. Michael Burris who reside at 1250 Veronica Court, Carlsbad. California, 92OO8. Ms. Baker has been particularly receptive to our concerns. My clients’ concern with the proposed subdivision primarily relates to noise, visual pollution, traffic circulation, and the public safety and general welfare. These concerns are based upon the most recent iteration of the proposed subdivision. - DETLLH 8: CHRISTESSEN Michael J. Holzmiller, Planning Director May 4, 2001 Page 2 We understand that any anticipated noise increase resulting from the proposed subdi~.isiu~~ will arise through the use of Poinsettia Lane. The proposed mitigation refers to the use of noise attenuation walls. This makes good sense and is appropriate. While it would appear that this issue has been appropriately addressed, except as set forth below, we would like to suggest that monitoring occur to confirm the prediction of the noise consultants. Secondly, we understand that there will be passive and active park use. My clients’ concern here is that these parks use low wattage or low luminous lights (if night lighting is used ) so that harsh piercing lighting is nor used. My client’s greatest concern relates to the proposed expansion and continued use of a driveway area which presently serves as access to the Tabata residence. By way of reference page 10 of the Declaration states: “The two portions north of Poinsettia Lane are separated by two existing lots totaling 2.40 acres that are not part of the proposed subdivision. The properties contain the existing single family residence and accessory structures for the previous agricultural operations. The residence currently takes access off of Lonicera Street, just south of its intersection with Camino de Las Ondas, via an access easement and paved driveway. The proposed subdivision does not affect this existing access and provides public street frontages to the east side of the lot through the extension of Lemon Leaf Drive thereby allowing future development of the site.” Here, what has transpired is that our client’s property which lies adjacent to this driveway access has been exposed to noise due to large mechanical equipment and off road vehicle use whereby vehicles have actually driven onto my clients’ property. Overall this has proven to be an altogether unsatisfactory situation for my clients’. We understand that the proposed subdivision includes a condition to expand this access driveway area to a 50 foot wide easement, i.e., Standard is required to dedicate 30 feet of right of way for the use of the Tabata property. This is then supposed to be used in connection with a purported 20 foot easement to create a 50 foot wide right of way. It is our belief that the road way area where the 20 foot wide alleged easement exists is not in the ownership of Mr. Tabata but is still dedicated open space owned by the Lennar Development Company. In addition, the Tabata property can and will be adequately accessed from Lemon Leaf Drive. Any future development of the Tabata property can take access from Lemon Leaf and does not require a second access point from Lonicera Street. The Tabata property will more than likely not be able to obtain more than two or three lots for which a cul-de-sac street access from Lemon Leaf would be more than adequate. This would eliminate the need for the 30 foot wide dedication as well as the existing driveway access. Of course access to Lonicera would not be cut off until Lemon Leaf was opened to the Tabata property. In the area of the driveway access is an access point for the Municipal Water District which obliviously would remain. My clients simply are interested in eliminating any roadway noise which emanates from this adjacent roadway area as well as protect their property from vehicles driving onto their property. In discussions with Standard Pacific staff they have indicated a willingness to support the elimination of these roadway areas which are truly not . P - DETIbdH & CHRISTENSEN Michael J. Holzmiller , Planning Director May 4,2001 Page 2 necessary. The Lemon Leaf access which would cul-de-sac on the Tabata property u,ould adequately address this need and candidly would reduce all of the environmental impacts associated with the addition of another roadway, e.g., air pollution. etc. It is also our understanding that there are many other instances within the City of Catlsbad where the cul-de- sacing of a roadway into a small area has been allowed and endorsed. If this private access and 30 foot dedication occurs, my clients' property \{,ill become 311 island surrounded by streets. We do not believe this is appropriare. We think this would be most appropriate and should be favorably considered by the Cit!. staff. Finally and simply by way of reference we believe that the declaration should be updated relative to the discussion of energy use. Whether there is anything that can be done is debatable. DWDlsll cc: Mr. and Mrs. Michael Burris Mr. Michael Grim ,- DETISCH & CHRISThNSEN AtlOmyS at hW Charles B. Christensen Donald W. Detisch Sean D. Schwerdtfeger Of Counsel Harold 0. Valderhaug April 25, 2001 / Mr. Mike Grim City of Carlsbad Planning Department Senior Planner 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008-73 14 RE: Phase 2 Standard Pacific Homes Dear Mr. Grim: 444 West C Street, Sulte 200 San Diego, Califomla 9710: Tel. (619) 236-9343 Fax (619) 236-8307 e-mail dclaw@adnc.com This will confirm your voice mail message of April 24, 2001 and your conversation with my assistant, Ms. Landry of the same date regarding the extension of time within which to make comments to the Environmental Assessment which was belatedly forwarded to this office. It is my unequivocal understanding that this office and my clients will have up to and including May 11, 2001 within which to provide you with comments regarding the assessment and related materials. If you regard this statement incorrect in any fashion I would expect you to contact me immediately. Additionally, I believe you originally thought the Planning Commission hearing on the Standard Pacific matter would be around the 6* of June. Is this date still valid? I would suspect it is not but I would certainly like to know the rescheduled date as soon as possible. Thank you for your courtesy, cooperation and helpfulness. DWD/sll cc: Mr. and Mrs. 'Michael Burris hlay 1.2001 Planning Director, City of Carlsbad Planning Department Dear hlr. Holrmiller: We are in receipt of a copy of a report siped by you entitled “Miti_uated Negative Declaration. ” Case number ZC 98-08LCPA 98-04/CT 98-14PUD 98-05/CP OO-O2!SDP 99-06/HDP 98-1 XDP 98-63. Thompsonqabata. The document is dated April 4,2001. We have examined this document carefully and find that it is filled with many inaccuracies and erroneous conclusions. For starters. you have completely mixed up our location. The Vista Pacifica planned unit development is not cast of any of the developments you mention. It is south of Poinsettia and west of the proposed Thompsoflabata project. There are no multi-family housing units. RV storage area or parking stalls in this neighborhood. Obviously, you have us confused with the Las Playas development on the other side of Poinsettia. This development has multi-family units, and an RV parking lot. However. it does not have parking stalls. Each unit has a 2 car garage. Therefore, your desire to “cluster“ compatible housing styles adjacent to us, can only include sinsle family homes since no other units exist here. It had been brought to our attention that originaliy, the 24 multi family affordable units slated for the Thompsoflabata project were to be placed on the north side of Poinsettia near the newer and pricier Mariners Point tract. Mariners Point residents, alarmed at the possibility of having affordable housing units in their neighborhood, promptly hired a lawyer. The lawyer got in touch with the city and through some clever sleight of hand, the 24 affordable housing units were suddenly switched to the southern side of Poinsettia. In a letter to the city following his discussions, the lawyer representing some of the Mariners Point residents stated, “My clients believe, based on what they perceived at the meeting with city officials. that an alternative site within the Thompsoflabata project, preferably south of Poinsettia Road would be the most appropriate location for the affordable housing units.” The implication is. that unknown to us, the city and the Mariners Point lawyer decided that it would be more appropriate to place the affordable housing units away from the pricier housing at Mariners Point and closer to the less expensive houses in Vista Pacifica. This maneuver compromises the basic integtity of the whole planning process. It may even violate HUD policy. We are now requesting that you reveal the details of the “switch, how was it made, by whom, when and why. Were there secret neyotiations and did any benefits accrue to the city as a result? Did the Planning Department favor a pricier more upscale neighborhood over an older established community? In our view, this is a very serious ethical situation that has been created here and your misrepresentation of our location and neighborhood character may possibly be explained by this. Your plan to extend Alyssum Road, a nmow residential street into the Thompsoflabata project lacks any justification. It certainly would be of absolutely no benefit to the Vista Pacifica homeowners. You talk about connecting communities. How do you explain then. the proliferation of so many new gated communities in this quadrant? These new developments are not connected to anything; in fact. the developers want to isolate them to boost the prices of their homes. To enter Alyssum Road fiom Poinsettia. a driver has to make a 90 degree right hand turn onto Snapdragon. To coshue eastward, mer 90 degree turn is required. Poinsettia and Alyssum run parallel; they are separcyd by the width da one story house and patio. Even now. entering or exiting Alyssum from or onto Poinsettia is very dangerous; there is no traffic signal. We have been asked to keep the foliage trimmed at the Vista Pacifica entrance to help drivers get some visibility. Your proposal would add at least an additional 500 vehicles to this very small area creating an even more dangerous situation. To claim that Thompsoflabata needs more adan at Rose or Daisy for emergency vehicles is ridiculous. How can you recommend this when you permit m many gated communities in our quadrant? Why would Thompsoflabata need three access points? Gated communities don’t. We have only two. Are you telling us that for years your planning department has created an unsafe emironment' In fact. we have always felt veri. fonunate that ue are a couple ofnmures away from the Batiquitos Fire Station. as will the future residents of the Thompsonlabara de\.elopntent We feel that you need to review your traffic circulation plan Funnelins more traffic onlo residenrial srree1~ increases the danger to families and children already in this area. Motorists will use ..Uyssum Road a5 a shon cut and to avoid the sigal at Rose. Here in Vista Pacifica cyclists, children at play and pedestrians have at least some semblance of safety now. This will disappear of course if Alyssum Road is opened and joined to the new project. However. your check list in the mitigation repon indicates the extension of Alyssum Road would have "no impact". You have already stated to us that from now on. you will put signs on streets that might be eaended in the future giving notice to the public of this fact. Obviously you realize that you were negligent in the past. The eastern terminus of Alyssum Road was made to look like a dead end street. It was walled in. landscaped. etc. To tell us now that we should have known that Alyssum Road eventually would be a through street is outrageous. Disclosures were never made to our homeowners by either the ciry of by Standard Pacific regarding an eventual extension of Alyssum and homeowners rely on disclosures We are quite intriigued that you intend to mitigate the projects' impact on air quality by haking the Thompsoflabata homeowners association hand out bus schedules. On the one hand. vou want to open Alyssum Road for better traffic circulation. Then you propose to tell the residents to take the bus. It is news to us that a homeowners association would be in the business of working for the AQMD. Caltrans or the NCTD. Furthermore, if normal behavior is any indication, we doubt that owners of %500.000 plus homes will take the bus to work or anywhere else. for that matter. Besides. what bus would they take? The recent building frenzy resulting in an amazing 2590 increase in population here in Carlsbad has guaranteed deteriorating air quality for all of us. A fleet of busses can't possibly mitigate this. It is really insultins ro anyone's intelligence to ask us to buy into this logic. Previously, when there were heavy rains. mud and debris has washed down Poinsettia Lane from the fields adjacent to us into our storm drains and down our streets. You claim in your repon that storm drainage is adequate. How can this be the case since we have had to call the city time and time again about the problem. Our storm drains are not designed to carry the run off from the hiigher elevation. We object to the run off coming into our tract and you do not appear to be offering a solution to this problem. From the day it opened. Pacific Rim Elementary School was near or at capacity. In fact. new students living in Vista Pacifica, who were assigned from Aviara Oaks to Pacific Rim, will now have to go back to Aviara Oaks. Multi family housing always impacts a school district more than single family homes That certainly has been the case in Vista and San Marcos. Your growth management policy and school enrollment here are completely disconnected. The low or affordable income housing ordinance, which has been in place about ten years, has always been administered in a completely arbitrary manner. The most notorious example is of course the Aviara development. In that case. its low income allocation ended up miles away with a wall around the units. We have been told that the city "struck a deal" with the developers of Aviara which actually was more beneficial to the city. When you look around the city and the new and old developments, it is obvious that the city has struck other deals with developers and continues to do so to this day as evidenced by the new developments along route 101 at the foot ofpoinsettia. The Assistant City Attorney informed us in writing that one of the reasons the Thompsoflabata low income units were transferred from the north side of Poinsettia to the south side, was because the city did not want to appear to be "clustering" the affordable housing units. Do you not consider Villa Lomas as a clustering of low income,housing units? What about the units adjacent to the Poinsettia Station? We can name other locations and other clustering of low income housiny units which clearly renders the explanation offered us by the Assistant City Attorney suspect if not totally untruthful. We feel it is no accident that in the proposed ThompsodTabata development, the low income housing units and the RV storage lot seem inextricably linked. It is as though the low income housing units deserve to be adjacent to the RV storage lot. And hnher, that both these units deserve to be located adjacent to the Vista Pacifica tract. You must keep in mind. that Vista Pacifica is in effect. an affordable housing development That 15 u f1) the lawyer felt the low income housing units of the ThompsonTabata development should be more appropriately placed adjacent to our community with the full impact of these units placed or1 us and 1101 on the new development itself The prices of homes in \'isfa Pacifica are far below the median pnce of home:. in the south-west quadrant of the city This fact obviously. was not lost on the Iasyer or residents of Manners Point. Does this not fit the definition of"c1ustering" as presented IO us by the Assistant City Attorney or would the term discrimination seem more appropriate. If clustering of low income housing is okay, then why was it not acceptable on the north side of Poinsettia as it was originally proposed" You seem to have ignored totally the hct that placins the low income housing units on the north side of Poinsettia would have provided an extra security feature for children. The children in these units could walk to the Pacific Rim Elementary School or to the local park without being forced to cross Poinsettia . which has become a heavily trafficked and danprous road. Your section XI11 - Aesthetics - notes that the Thompsoflabata development as currently layed ouf. would have "no impact" aesthetically on the area. We would ask you to visualize a typical RV parking lot where people passing by can observe the upper portions of the parked RV's with their satellite dishes and various paraphernalia stored on top of these units. Does this picture belong on Poinsettia Lane in the clear view of foreigners and tourists who are en route to and from the Aviara Four Seasons Hotel and Golf Course? Poinsettia Lane at this location is one of the most picturesque arteries in the city. Why would anyone want to deface it with an RV storage lot which would be impossible to conceal totally at its proposed location? We feel that Vista Pacifica is in fact, the type of "mixed" style community which the State of California and the County of San Diego would like to see. In addition to being the only community of its type that is affordable in this quadrant. Vista Pacifica is well maintained, well landscaped, has strong CUR'S and its own security. Over time, we will save this city tens of thousands of dollars in crime prevention. blight control, code enforcement and lower propew values. You should suppon and appreciate our community, instead of planning to diminish us. At this point, given what we know and what you plan on doing, we propose that we sit down in an honest. open forum and resolve the issues raised here. Let us bring in all the parties involved and lay our cards on the table. We make one stipulation however, and that is that you deal with us in good faith. We certainly have with you. Sincerely, Vista Pacifica Homeowners Committee C/o GRG Management Inc. P.O. Box 1186 Carlsbad, CA 920 18-1 1 86 Copies to: Mayor Pro-tern Ann Kulchin Council Member Matt Hall Assistant City Attorney Gray Davis GO\-ERNOR May 3,2001 Michael Grim City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 - ST.4TE OF C?\LIFORFA4 Subject: Thompsoflabata-ZC 98-08kCPA 98-04/CT 98-14PUD 98-OYCP 00-02/SDP 99-06/HDP 98- SCH#: 200 104 1008 lS/CDP 98-68 Dear Michael Grim: The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Negative Declaration to selected state agencies for review. The review period closed on May 2,2001, and no state agencies submitted comments by that date. This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for drafi environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Please call the State Clearinghouse at (9 16) 45-06 13 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process. If you have a question about the above-named project, please refer to the ten-digit State Clearinghouse number when contacting this offtce. Sincerely, Terry Roberts Senior Planner, State Clearinghouse I400 TESTH STREET P.O. BOX 3044 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95812-3044 916-445-0613 FAX 916-323-3018 U'WW.OPR.CA.GOV/CLEARINGHOUSE.HTML a uocument uetalls Kepon - State Clearinghouse Data Ease SCH# 2001041008 Project Tide Thompsonnabata-ZC 98-08/LCPA 98-04/CT 98-141PUD 9&05/CP 00-02SDP 99-06/HDP 98-1 ~~CDP Lead Agency 98-68 Carlsbad. City of Type Neg Negative Declaration Description Request for a Zone Change and Local Coastal Program Amendment to change 40.41 acres of the subdivision from Limited Control (L-C) to Residential Multiple-Density with a Qualified Development Overlay Zone (RD-M-Q) and to change 41.79 acres from Limited Control (L-C) to One Family Residential with a Qualified Development Overlay Zone (R-14); and a Tentative Tract Map, Planned Unit Development Permit, Site Development Plan, Condominium Permit, Hillside Development Permit and Coastal Development Permit to subdivide, grade, and develop 82.20 acres, creating 238 single family lots, two open space lots, four recreation lots, one recreational vehicle storage lot and a 24 unit, for-sale condominium project, affordable to lower-income households. Lead Agency Contact Name Michael Grim Agency City of Carlsbad Phone 7601 602-4623 Fax email Address 1635 Faraday Avenue City Carlsbad State CA Zip 92008 Project Location County San Diego CiZy Carlsbad Region Cross Streets Poinsettia Lane and Aviara Parkway Parcel No. 214-140-44; 214-170-09, -36, -46, -58, -59, -73, -74, -75. -76. -77 Township Range Section Base Proximity to: Highways 1-5 Airports McClellan/Palomar Railways NCTD Schools Carlsbad Waterways Pacific Ocean, Batiquitos Lagoon Land Use Currently fallow agricultural fielddlimited Control, One Family Residential with a Qualified Development OverlaylResidential Low Medium Density and Residential Medium density. Project Issues Revkwing Resources Agency; California Coastal Commission; Department of Conservation; Department of Fish Agencies and Game, Region 5; Department of Parks and Recreation; Caltrans, Division of Aeronautics; California Highway Patrol; Caltrans. District 11; Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 9; Native American Heritage Commission; Pubiic Utilities Commission; State Lands Commission ~~ ~~ Date Received 04/03/2001 Start of Review 04/03/2001 End of Review 05/02/2001 ~~ Note: Blanks in data fields result from insufficient information provided by lead agency.