HomeMy WebLinkAbout1972-11-02; City Council; 919; Elm Avenue Alignment LarwinT" HE C I T .3 OF C A R L S B L I
7-(&)
R N I A
Agenda Bill No . 9/9
-Deferred To: City Council
Date; November 2, 1972
Subject:ELM AVENUE ALIGNMENT (LARWIN)Submi tted By :
Planning
Commission
Statement of the Matter
The Planning Commission, at their regular meeting of October 10, 1972,
held a public hearing regarding the alignment of Elm Avenue. The
staff's, report was presented by Tim Flanagan of the Engineering
Department. He i11ustrated the proposed alignments with a topo
display for the audience and'commission.
The Planning Commission recommends the adoption of the alignment of
Elm Avenue specified as Proposal D, as prepared under the auspices
of the City of Carlsbad Public Works Department, and that an Environ-
mental Impact Statement be undertaken prior to the. final adoption
of Al ignment D..
Exhibit
Staff Report dated Oct. 10, 1972, plus Exhibit 1
Staff Recommendations
Staff recommendations are more completely outlined in referenced
staff report. • • .
AS No. '' . Pate":
City Manager's Recommendation
Co unci1 Action
11-8-72 By motion of the Council it was, agreed that this matter be sent,
to the Planning Commission for a hearing on the EIR, as well as
the Larwin property development, as recommended by the City Manager.
It was further agreed that these two matters be.continued to
December 19, 1972 at 7:30 P.M..
12-19-72 Resolution No. 3036 adopting a precise "aligriment of Elm Avenue
and amending the circulation element pf "'the General Plan was adopted.
— O —
™ MEMORAND U M^
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR DUNNE
AND CITY COUNCILMEN
FROM: PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBJECT: ELM AVENUE ALIGNMENT
(LARWIN)
The Planning Commission, at their regular meeting of October 10,
1972, held a public hearing regarding the alignment of Elm Avenue. .
The staff's report was presented by Tim Flanagan of the Engineering
Department. He illustrated the proposed alignments with, a topo
display for the audience and Commission.
Commissioner Dominguez made a motion, which was approved, recommending
to City Council the adoption of the alignment of Elm Avenue specified
as Proposal D, as prepared under the auspices of the City of Carlsbad:
Public Works Department, and that an Environmental Impact Statement
be undertaken prior to the final adoption of Alignment D.
-.
ELMER H. JOSE, JR., ChairmanJ
'MEMORANDUM
.October 10, 1972
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: ENGINEERING DIVISION, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: Elm Avenue AT ignment Study (El Camino Real Easterly
to the East Limits of Assessor's Parcel //167-09-26
more commonly referred.to as the Larwin Parcel)
(CT .72-21 - Tang.l-ew.ood,)
BACKGROUND
The Specific Plan and Tentative Map for Tanglewood (CT 72-21)
was approved by the Planning Commission on July 25, 1972,
subject to several conditions. Condition #21, in particular,
stated that "Before this application is submitted to the City
Council, the Elm Avenue alignment shall be resolved between the
developer, adjoining property owners, and the City staff."
This agenda item was prematurely brought before the City Council
on August 15, 1972, at which time there was considerable dis-
cussion concerning the alignment of Elm Avenue. The Council
directed engineering staff to meet with the developer and other
concerned property owners and to report back to Council with a
recommended a 1 ignment- wh ich would be in the best interests of
the City.
A meeting was held on August 16, 1972, with the property owners
and City staff, at which time it became apparent to staff that
the property owners and staff could not come to an agreement
as to the alignment of Elm Avenue.
A study was made by engineering staff which included: 1) a
review of alternate alignment proposals submitted by McCabe
Engineering, the engineer for the developer, (these alternate
alignment studies were submitted at the request of City staff),
2) field -investigation, 3) alignment studies (plan and profile)
based on small scale (1" = 1000') contour maps of the area.
A written report was submitted to City Council on September 5,
1972, recommending that the best alignment for Elm Avenue was
the one originally proposed and as shown on the Tentative Map.
The report also recommended that a compromise alignment, similar
to the originally proposed alignment, but with a modified center-
line radius, would be an acceptable alternate.
MEMORANDUM
October 10, 1972
TO: 'Planning Commission
Re: CT 72-21
Rage 2
The_fol1owing then occurred:
September 5, 1972
September 12, 1972
September 19, 1972
DISCUSSION
City Council meeting- The Council discussed
only the legalities of whether the public
had had a chance to speak regarding the
alignment. Council directed Larwin Co. to
prepare graphic displays for presentation
at the next Planning Commission Meeting.
Council continued matter for two weeks and
requested Planning Commission to consider
tire aT'rgnment -of -E-1m -Avenue at its next
meet i ng.
Planning Commission meeting- Engineering
staff presented oral report on alignment
study recommendations- no public hearing-
Commission referred matter back to Council
with the recommendation that no decision
be made on Elm Avenue alignment without .
Public hear i ng.
City Council meeting- Set Public Hearing for
October 10, 1972, on the a 1ignment of Elm
Avenue.
the extension of
Camino Real to an
miles to the east
Plan defines
The General Plan of the City of Carlsbad shows
Elm Avenue as a major arterial highway from El
extension of College Boulevard approximately 2
(see Calavera Road- Exhibit ( 1 ) ) „ The General
major arterial highway as a 4-lane, divided highway plus park-
ing lanes; with frontage roads for access; controlled inter-
sections; capable of carrying over 10,000 vehicles per day with
recommended standards of 102' of right of way, 82' curb to curb,
10' parkway each side, 18' median divider and 7% maximum grade.
Cross streets should be spaced a minimum of 1/4 mile apart with
the intent that the major arterial highway be a limited access
major traffic route.
While the General Plan (prepared in 1965) has no provisions for
hillside design standards, it became obvious some years back that
strict conformance to the design standards would be detrimental
to the environment in areas of steep terrain.
The topography in the subject area is extreme. I n order to fit
a road through this terrain, several "flat land" design stand-
ards have to be revised. Prud'ent maximizing of vertical grades
and mi nimi z i ng of horizontal curves, as well as minimizing the
required right of way, can still provide safe travel while re-
ducing (but not eliminating) large cut and fill operations,,
MEMORANDUM^
October 10^Pl972
To: Planning Commission
Re; CT 72-21
Page 3
Based on field investigation of the area and on study of exist-
ing available contour maps, five alignments were studies (labeled
A through E, A being the most northerly alignment).
The studies were based on the following criteria:
1. All alignments would start from the same point on exist-
ing El Camino Real (opposite existing adopted alignment
for Elm Avenue we^t of El Camino Real).
2. Right of way required - 8V (still provides k lanes and
coiuT'd prov-i-de -d i vided-med-ran i'f parking were -eliminated.)
3. Maximum grade = 10%
40 Minimum centerline radius - 600' )provide larger radius
i f poss ible).
5» Cut and fill slopes at 1h horizontal to 1 verticalm:D
6. Provide access to Elm Avenue from adjacent parcels (i.e.
eliminate or reduce the number of frontage roads and
collector streets).
7o Reduce if possible thre number and magnitude of cut and
fill operat ions.
8. Provide a safe roadway with adequate capacity to serve
the genera 1 public.
Each a 1ignment was plotted in plan view (overhead) on a contour
map. (Each inch on the plan view represents 200 feet on the
ground. Each contour line is at a 5 foot vertical differential .
from an adjacent line, i.e. contour interval = 5').
A profile was also plotted (at an exaggerated scale) showing the
existing and proposed ground elevations for each alignment. (On
the profile each vertical inch » 10 feet, while each horizontal
inch = 100 feet).
A summary of each alignment study follows:
Plan A
Pros. 1. Large radius horizontal curves.
2. Good sight distance.
3. Earthwork could be adjusted to balance.
k. Good horizontal approach to intersection with El,
Cami no Rea1„
Cons. 1. Undesirable long, high earth fill across ravines.
20 Drainage systems under large fill costly to construct
and ma i nta in.
3. Provides barrier between 2 relatively steep and
MEMORANDUM
October 10, 1972
To: Planning Commission
Re: CT.72-21
Page k
Plani B
Pros.
Cons.
Plan C
Pros..
Cons.
Plan D
Pros.
Cons.
1.
2,
,3.
1.
2.
3.
1.
2.
3.
k.
1.
2.
3.
1.
-2.
3.
1°
2.
3.
unbuildable areas that could otherwise be part of
contiguous open space.
Poor access to nearby parcels requiring additiona
frontage and collector road system for access.
Large radius horizontal curves.
Good sight distance.
.Earthwork C.QU 1 d b.e a.dj,ust,e.d t,o .balance.
Good horizontal approach to intersection with El
Cam i no Rea1.
Undesirable long, high earth fill across
Drainage systems under large fill costly
and ma i nta i n0
Provides barrier between 2 relatively steep and
unbuildable areas that could otherwise be part of
contiguous open space.
Poor access to nearby parcels' requireing additional
frontage and collector road system for access.
ravines.
to construct
Large radius horizontal curves.
Good sight distance.
Provides reasonable access to parcel 167-09-0^.
Provides access to steep and unbuildable area which
could be used as open space.
Horizontal curve approaching El Camino Real safe, but
not as good.as Plan A or B.
Poor access to nearby parcels requiring additional
frontage and collector road system for access.
Drainage systems under large fill costly to construct
and ma i nta i n.
in the vicinity with
ong existing property
Does not require large earth fills across existing
ravi nes „
Provides access to most parcels
road centerline predomi nent 1 y a.^.y ^..^...y K, ^^^,
} ines or making use of existing Appian Way right of
way.
Can be extended eastward with minimum earthwork.
Provides good sight distance.
Has short radius horizontal curve approach to El
Cami no Rea1„
Has short radius horizontal curve at approach to
existing Appian Way.
Is significantly below existing grade until
limits of study.
near the
MEMORANDUM
October 10
To:
Re:
Page
Planning
CT 72-21
5
Commission
Plan E
Pros.'
Cons.1
2,
The alignment south of existing Appian Way is at or
near existing grade.
Reversing curves at nimimum radius are poor.
Puts burden of entire roadway on some property
owners who will not be able to adequately utilize
remainder of parcels between proposed alignment and
existing Appian Way right of way.
Does not.have access to steep unbuildable areas to the
north (i.e» no park access.)
Has minimum rad'ius approach to E'l Cam i no Real.
Long portions .of this proposed alignment are below
existing grade and provide poor access to adjoining
property,,
CONCLUSIONS
While each alignment has its pros and cons it is the opinion of
engineering staff that alignment "D" is the best alignment studied
primarily because it does not require large earth fills, it
provides access to all properties (the amount of cut can be mater-
ially reduced to provide better access to the road by increasing
the grade of Elm to 15-20%), it makes use of an existing street
right of way which would otherwise have to be widened as a collector
street "in the absence of Elm Avenue.
Tim Flanagan
Pri nc ipa1 C ivi Engi neer
TCF/mac
":*:>v ;:.>••-
1
2
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
21
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.861
A RESOLUTION OF THE CARLSBAD CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING PRECISE ALIGNMENT OF ELM AVENUE, AND
AMENDMENT TO THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL
PLAN.
3
THE Carlsbad City Planning Commission does hereby resolve as follows:
WHEREAS, said Planning Commission did on the 10th day of October, 1972
hold a duly advertised public hearing as prescribed by law to consider an
amendment to the Circulation Element of the General Plan by declaring the
precise alignment of Elm Avenue, easterly of El Camino Real to the easterly
boundary of the proposed "Tanglewood" Development.
WHEREAS, said Planning Commission has found the following facts to
exist:
1. That it does not require large earth fills across
existing ravines.
2. That it provides access to most parcels in the vo'cinity
with road center!ine predominently along existing property
lines or making use of existing Appian Way right of way.
3. That it can be extended eastward with minimum earthwork.
4. That it provides good sight distance.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that said amendment to the Circulation
Element of the General Plan is hereby recommended to be approved.
AND FINALLY RESOLVED, that a copy of this REsolution be forwarded
to the City Council for its attention in the manner prescribed by law.
25 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission held on the 10th day of October, 1972, by the following vote,
25 to wit:
rjc AYES: Commissioners Jose, Palmateer, Dominguez & Dewhurst
?7 NOES: Commissioners Norman and Little
CO ABSENT: Commissioner Forman
29
30
31
32
E. H. JOSE, JR.,Chairman
ATTEST:
EDMOND W. DOMINGUEZ, Secretary
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
15
1.4
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
.24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
RESOLUTION NO. 3036
A RESOLUTION OF THE CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL
ADOPTING PRECISE ALIGNMENT OF ELM AVENUE
AND AN AMENDMENT TO THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT
OF THE GENERAL PLAN
The Carlsbad City Council does hereby resolve as follows:
WHEREAS, said Planning Commission did on the 10th day of October, 1972
hold a duly advertised public hearing as prescribed by law to consider an
amendment to the Circulation Element of the General Plan by declaring the
precise alignment of Elm Avenue, Easterly of El Camino Real to the easterly
boundary of the proposed "Tanglewood" Development.
WHEREAS, said Planning Commission has found the following facts
exist: I. That the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council
that Alignment "D" as shown on Specific Plan/Tentative Map»
would be in the best interest of the City of Carlsbad for the
following reasons:
a. That it does not require large earth fills across
existing ravines.
b. That it provides access to most parcels in the vicinity
with road center!ine predominently along existing property
lines or making use of existing Appian Way right of way.
c. That it can be extended eastward with minimum earthwork.
d. That it provides good sight distance.
WHEREAS, that on November 8, 1972 Council deferred all matters
relating to alignment of Elm Avenue to December 19, 1972 to Planning
Commission to hear the final E.I.R. prior to Council action.
WHEREAS, said Planning Commission did on the 7th day of December, 1972
hold a duly advertised public hearing to consider a Final Environmental
Impact Report submitted by Larwin-San Diego, Inc., on property located'
easterly of El Camino Real between the extensions of Elm.Avenue and Marron
Road, for a 506-lot residential development and alignment of Elm Avenue,
WHEREAS, said Planning Commission has found the following fact to
exist: ' ...
1. That the Larwin "Tanglewood" Development and the Alignment D of
Elm Avenue Extension do not, in themselves, represent a significant
1
2
3
'4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
environmental impact, (Ref. Resolution #862)
2. Resolution No. 861, recommending precise alignment of Elm Avenue
and amendment to the circulation element of the General Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Council does hereby adopt:
(a) Final environmental impact report. .
(b) Adopt, per exhibit "A" (Specific Plan/Tentative Map), in-
corporated herein, as the alignment of Elm Avenue and
amending the Circulation Element of the General Plan.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council
held on the 19th day of December, 1972 by the following vote, to wit;
AYES: Councilmen Dunne, McComas5 Lewis, Chase and Frazee.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
DAVID M. DUNNE,
Mayor
ATTEST:
MAR£AR€/T E. ADAMS,
City #ierk
-2-