No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 98-14; Thompson/Tabata; Tentative Map (CT) (6)REL JEST FOR ACTION -*j, * !s* .- OFFICE OFTHE CITY MANAGER - Referred to a Please Handle 0 Please Call Requestor 0 Investigate and Report 0 Respond Directlybend Copy of Response w/RFA 0 Draft Reply for Signature RETURN COMPLETED REQUEST TO f-4- BY Explanation of Request I i Requestor Notified of Action Taken: 0 Yes No Handled By Dept./Div. ,?&- Date yhbb/ f., '% ' W (Return original white copy with response) k.. . Mayor Bud Lewis City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad. CA 92008 JOSEPH & MARY HULL 913 POPPY LANE CARLSBAD. CA 92009 PHONE (760) 438-3719 Re: Standard Pacific Development Project-Thompsoflabata Site Dear Mayor Lewis: The purpose of this letter is to request that the City Council take immediate action to discontinue the public circulation of the Mitigated Negative Declaration (ND) for the proposed Standard Pacific development project located on the site known as ThompsodTabata. The ND in its current form 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. A copy is attached for your review. As stated in the ND. the proposed project is located north and south of existing Poinsettia Lane west of Aviara Parkway. The ND does not contain a vicinity/site map. project map, or a circulatiodstreet network map. The project proposes three new connections. two of these connections are to existing residential streets, so these maps are critical to provide adequate information for public review and comment. In addition. the ND references two previously approved environmental documents that were prepared for this area. These reports are an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for Zone 20 in the City of Carlsbad by Brain Mooney and Associates. dated June 1992. and an EIR for a general plan update prepared by the City. dated March 1994. Because these documents are nine and seven years old respectfully the ND should at a minimum contain a summary of each EIR for comparison to the current ND. It is unreasonable to expect good citizen participation in the environmental process by submitting for public review a ND referencing two major EIR's, within the 30-day review period. This would require review of the ND. and review of two EIR's (on file at the City), and review of the other seven technical studies that go along with the ND. Since this ND is currently in public circulation please consider this request at the earliest possible date. Should you wish to contact me regarding this request. please call me at the number above or during the day at (619) 688-3633. Sincerely. I ./ JOSEPH R. HULL c: City Council Members Ramona Finnila, Ann Kulchin, Julianne Nygaard, Matt Hall .L. MITIGATED NEG.4TIVE DECLARATIOK Project Address/Location: North and south of Poinsettia Lane, west of Aviara Parkway and east of Snapdragon Drive. in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego. State of California Project Description: Request for a Zone Change and Local Coastal Program Amendment to change 30.41 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-I-Q); and a Tentative Tract Map. Planned Unit Development Permit. Site Development Plan, Condominium Permit. Hillside Development Permit and Coastal Development Permit to subdivide. pde. 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. The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the initial study (EL4 Pan 2) identified potentially significant effects on the environment. but (1) revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the City that the project “as revised” may have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore. a Mitigated Negative Declaration is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in the Planning Department. A copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. Comments from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 30 days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Michael Grim in the Planning Department at (760) 6024623. DATED: APRIL 4,2001 CASE NO: ZC 98-08LCPA 98-03/CT 98-13PUD 98-0YCP 00-03SDP 99-06/HDP 98- 1 S/CDP 98-68 CASE NAME: THOMPSON/TABATA PUBLISH DATE: APRIL 4,2001 MICHAEL J. HOLZMLL~ Planning Director 1635 Faraday Ave‘nue - Carlsbad. CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us e MARY & 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-Thompsoflabata Site. Our comments are outlined by categories of Project and Environmental Issues and identified by page number as shown in the ND. GENERAL COMMENTS The Final ND should include a concise and complete list 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 modifications to the project and tentative map including the reasoning for each modification. The ND states on the &st page that ...” there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the City that the project “as revised” may have a slgnificant 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 500,000 cubic yards of cuts and fills. The ND states that the topography would remain essentially the same, yet the cut and fills proposed are over 30 feet in height. This should be addressed in the Aesthetics section as a visual impact to the area. I DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION Cont ... PAGE 11-The project proposes three connections to the local street network. An 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 August of last year and stated that a signal is already warranted at that location. The ND completely ignores that issue. A detailed discussion of the proposed signal is necessary for a complete ND. LAND USE AND PLANNING 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 mitigation funding of $419,265 for loss of agricultural land be used? PAGE 13-Due to the new project, Section e) should contain a detailed discussion of the ngn@cazt impad 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. Utiltzing inforrnation from 1986 is inappropriate. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS PAGE 14-Aa additional mitigation measure should be added to notify potential homebuyers that this project is in Zone 4 for seismic design. Zone 4 is the highest zone number included in the UBC. PAGE 15-As previously mentioned the project proposes cuts and fills 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, high amounts of erosion are likely. 2 WATER PAGE 16-The property is described as having greenhouses covering a large portion of the project. In fact, the site had mostly open fields with greenhouses coving about 15 to 20 Yo of the site (see attached photo). PAGE 16-The project should be redesigned to create more open space areas to prevention high 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 quality. The lack of open space contributes sipficantly to urban runoff pollution with 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. AIR OUALITY 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 fils 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. & 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 will 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 trips 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 ‘/o 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 ~~g@-untimpact will occur on Daisy Avenue and in the Spinnaker Hill community. 3 However, the traffic study concludes that the additional traffic on Daisy Avenue will be within acceptable values. The report classifies Daisy as a residential collector street with a capacity of 4,500 ADZ this is an incorrect classification. The report cites the San Diego County Public Road Standards for classifymg 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 defmed as a having a 60-foot right-of-way wide Ad 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 Community is that the existing traffic volume on Daisy Avenue already exceeds proper design values. The City of San Diego Street Dengn 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 residential 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 capacity 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 ngni,&antimpact. The ND needs to address this ng@ant impact and provide for alternatives to avoid this impact. Two such alternatives are suggested below: (1) As currently configured, a right 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 signals 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 this 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 s’gnal. This signal spacing would also meet the Caltrans ramp signal spacing criteria of 160 meters (525 feet). 4 In addition, the traffic report notes that speedmg has been observed (XI Dars:. Avenue. It also states the Cit~ should preparc s “‘Traffic Calming Kepcrrr” TC! address this issue. Cahmg de\<ces such as stop sips. mini-roundabouts and raised pinch points along Daisy Avenue arc SUggSed. The proposed project obviousl! compounds this public safeq situation. The ND contains no information OK Qscussion of a traffic calmrng report. PUBLIC SERVICES PAGE 26-The Carlsbad School Distric: has recently changed the elementag school boundaries. The ND should contain a letter from ;he School District that the new students associated with the development car: be accommodated. This information should also include the current total enrollment at each school, the enrollment generated by the project, and the capacity of each school. The ND is incomplete in this area. pECREATIONAL PAGE 31-Rased on the size of the project an additional 2.62 acres of parkland is needed. Will the project contribute to acquire parkland? Tf so, where? If not, how is this impact being miugated? Currently, NCTI> operates bus senrice (Route #321 j on Daisy Avenue. Will the project impact this bus senrice? The XI) should require coor&acion with NCTD beforc the project is approved to ensure ths senice continues and is not impacted. We appreciate the opportunity to review this document but strong17 feel that the impacts of this project are ~&nificun~ and severe to the adjacent communities. Hased on the number of comments above and general lack of conclusive data in the ND it is substand? inadequate for public circulation and should be reT+sed and released again for public comment. The ND was issued on ,April 4, 2i!Ol wlth a 3O-day comment period. If you have any questions regarding our commcnt.s please contact us at (760) 438-2719. Sincerely. Mary R. Hull Joseph R. Null c: Carlsbad City Council Carlsbad Planning Commission P \= h ... . fa .