The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1982-05-04; City Council; 6994; SPECIFIC PLAN AND ZONE CHANGE FOR ELM PROPERTIESP I- CIT~~F CARLSBAD - AGEND~~ILL ELM PROPERTIES Although the Planning Commission has recommended approval, st is recommending that the City Council direct the Attorney's Office to prepare documents DENYING ZC-240 and SP-182. ITEM EXPLANATION The applicant is requesting a zone chanqe from R-1-10,000 to Residential Professional (RP) and approval of a specific plar property located on the northeast corner of El Camino Real ar Elm Avenue. The request is intended to implement the Genera Plan Combination District on the site which contains the Professional and Related Commercial Category (0) and the Residential Medium Density (RM) categories. The major unresolved issues for this project are concerning intent of the general plan. In 1980, Council denied a reque from the applicant to change the property to straight office type uses. The City Council expressed concern that uses sho be low intensity and development should not appear to be a c tinuation of the strip office/commercial uses to the north. 1981 the Council approved a similar request, but this time included residential use. The Council felt that the site ma appropriate for affordable housing. The same concerns regar intensity of use were expressed at this hearing. The Counci also felt that approval of commercial type uses would set a precedent at this corner and make it easier for owners of th other corners on this intersection to justify commercial or office type uses on their property. Staff feels that a drive-thru bank as proposed by the applicant, is not a low intensity use and should be replaced at the southern end of site with a more appropriate low intensity office use. The Planning Commission has recommended approval of the project conditions. For more information please see attached staff report to the Planning Commission. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FISCAL IMPACT EXHI BITS A. Staff Report to PC w/attachments B. Location Map C. PC Resolution Nos. 1932 and 1933 E. Memorandum from Traffic Engineer dated, March 26, 1982 D. SP-182 P 'c 0 1' (3 MEMORANDUM DATE : April 14, 1982 TO: Planning Commission FROM : Planning Department SUBSECT: ZC-24O/SP-182, ELM PROPERTIES The Zone Change and Specific Plan hearings for Elm Properties were continued from the Planning Commission hearing of March 2 Staff was directed to prepare conditions for the possible approval of these items. The conditions, as part of the new resolution are attached. Staff is still recommending denial of the project because of t critical plaaning issues involved with the site. Staff feels that it is inappropriate to permit a high intensity commercial use (drive-thru-bank) in an area that is intended to be the fi southward extention of off ice use along El Carnino Real. High intensity uses at this corner could also set a precedent for commercial uses at the other corners of Elm and El Camino Real The proposed driveway on Elm Avenue is also undesirable from a planning standpoint because the property is heavily constrainc physically {narrow) and a driveway will further intensify activity at the southern end of the site. Should the Planning Commission recommend approval of the driw on Elm Avenue, staff would recommend that the drive-thru faci: at the southern end of the property be eliminated to lessen tl impact of this access. Attachments 1. PC Resolution No. 1932 and 1933 2. Staff Report dated, March 24, 1982 . CDG : ar 4/8/82 il IUL\ 3UDl"il I IAJA November 30 __.- 0 """0 h. 51 . /- '\ I . / 5- a STPIFI;' REPORT I tu DATE : laarch 24, 4982 TO : Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: - ZC-240/SP-182 -11 - ELM PROFERTIES - Request to change the zone from R-I~O,OOO to xesidential Profession [RP) a-nd approval of a Specific Plan on property located on the northeast corner of El Camino Real Elm Avenue I. BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION -- The subject property is approximately 7.9 acres in size and is located on the northeast corner of El Camino Real and Elm Aver1 and is just south of Hosp Way. The property is currently zone R-1-1OE-080 with a request to change the zoning to Residential Professional (R-P), A Combination District exists on the site containing the 0 [Professional- and Zeia'ied Commercial) and RM (Medium Density Residential 4-10 du/ac). The Combination Dis- trict requir3s the use of a S_r)eci.fic Plan, The site is relatively flat along El Camlno Real but slopes upward sharply to the east and south. The area to the east ol . the property is in open space and residential use. The propel imrnediaiely to the north is vacant but has an approved office developnent . In DeC@mbeK a€ 1980, the City Council denied a request (GPA-5: Reso # 5440) to change the subject property from 374 (Residentl Mediux Density) to 0 (Professional and ~ciated Co-nmercial). ' Council indicated that oEf ice and related cornmercial uses alor would continue the strip effect created by development to the north. The Council indicated that some residential use may bc dppropriate, In May of 59531, a similar change was proposed (GEA-*53(J) Reso 6582) requeskiing approval of an amendment to the General Plan changing land use from RH to a Combination District (CD) cem- prised of ofr'ice and medium density residential uses (0 and R With the addition of the residential category and the Specifi Plan requireaent (CD) the Council approvcd the request e 11. a ANALYS I s I II) A. -I__-.. Planninq rssues I e Is the proposed RP Zone- consistent with the General designations (0 and RM) p the Combination I~istrict i3n Specific Plan? 0 0 - ., 2, Are uses permitted in the RP Zone compatible with SUL rounding land uses? a Discussion A Combination District places two (or more) General Plan desic nations on the same piece of property. Because of the diffict 'in providing zoning which is consistent with two land uses , i Specific Plan is required. The Specific Plan and the underlyj zone must act as a cohesive unit to implement the General Plar dual land use situations as described for the subject propert) Staff feels that ultimately, the RP zone is the proper zone fc the property and that it is consistent with both the 0 (Officc and RM (Medium Density) designations. With proper development standards applied through the Specific Plan, the RP Zone is cc sistent with surrounding land use and existing development to east (Residential) e Staff does not feel, however, that the Specific Plan (discussc below) properly implements the purpose of the Combination District for the land use on this property. Because of the c: relationship necessary between the zone and the Specific Plan a Combination District, and because of the problems with the Specific Plan as presented, staff must recommend denial of tht Zone Change until sac? tige that the intent of the zoning, tht Specific Plan and the General Plan are all in conforaance. B. Specific Plan SI?-182 (attached) " Planning Issues 1, Does the Specific Plan implement the intent of the Gc ral Plan (RM and 0) and the RP Zone? 2. Are the standards in the Specific Plan adequate to p vide a high quality office development? Discussion In 1980, the City denied a request to change the subject prop1 to straight office (0) type uses. The feeling at that time w that office use would continue the strip effect from the nort' and that the property could be i! possible site for af€ordable housing, Last year, the city considered the same request wit the inclusion of the Rr.1 designation. The same concerns were expressed; that if this corner of El Camino Real. and Elm Aven becomes office, then the precedent is set for all four corner become off ice or. commercial; and that increased traffic will movement on El Camino Real. A clear indication was needed, t this would be the last area of office or cornrnercial. use on th northern portions of El Camino Real, and that traffic would n be a problem. The Council approved the request based on the e -2- .. h e 0 I* ' fact that the city would have firm control on this property through the Specific Ilan process, Staff does not feel that the concerns have been implemented in the Specific Plan. Staff had anticipated that the southern en of the site, abutting Eln Avenue, either be reserved for residential use, left in open space, or designed sc that 'development appears to end some distance before the intersection.This would make R definitive visual statement tha * this is the terminus of comncrcial and office uses in this are Staff does feel that the developer is including a number of ve good standards which will help to reduce some of the problems associated with the site. These standards include heavily lan scaped areas and berming (20" wide) along El Camino Real. It the feeling of staff, however, that a number of other signific issues have not been adequately addressed in the Specific Plan These issues are as follows: Traffic: (See Exhibit 3 in SP-182) Because of the narrow natu of the property, the Engineering Department has recommended th no acces.s be permitted from Elm Avenue. The primary purpose f a driveway on Elm Avenue wouLd be to allow access to southboun El Canino Real. The distance between the driveway and the intersection of Elm Avenue and El Cainino Real is eo0 short to allow an autombile to sa€ely C'YOSS Elm Avenue fa secondary ar rial) and reach the left kurn lane to the southbound El Caminc Real. The developer was informed during the General Plan Amendment staae about the traffic problenis and it was suggested that acc to Hosp Way would have to be acquired before a large amount ol office use could be justified for" the si-te, This would allev. the need for access on Elm. Apparently, the developer has acquired this access but still wishes to have a driveway on EI Avenue. The Engineering Department has recommended that to reduce traffic Lmpzcts, the Hosp Nay access s!iould be require( such time that 25,000 scq. ft. of developnent occurs on the si1 These traffic concerns are not addressed in the Specific Plan staf E feels that serious traf E ic problem could result if the2 recommendations are not incorpor3ted inio the Specific Plan. Drive-Thru Facilities: The Specific Plan shows drive-thru bai ing faciliKes located at not?& the nort.11 FAIid south ends of th< . project. Even though drive-thrtl bmks arc generally permittee office areas, they are considered as carnrnercial LISPS hecause 1 generate higher traffic volune. StafK originalLy recommended that no drive-thru facili'cies be allowed because of the previc ly staked traffic problems. A drive-thrcr at the north end of proyerty.would probably cause little diEficulty. Staff feels that the drive-thru showr? on the soukh end of the property shc be removed. If access i.s left open on E:lm Averiile as shown on Exhibit 3, a drive-thrii will only create further traffic pro- blems. Staff wouid pmlJOSe that a smal'ler, less-intensive c)fj ~_I 0 r) -3- e 0 I+ type use be located at this point. The south end of the prope is supposed to be the terminus of the commercial-office activi and an intensive use would be inappropriate. In summary, staff is recommending denial of SI?-182 for the fol lowing reasons: e 1. The project does not meet the intent of the General E for this property, -Staff feels that the southern end the property wil.1 still appear as a continuation of t commercial/office complex to the north. 2. An access point is shown on Elm Avenue, which will ac more traffic problems to an already constrained property. allowed at a point that is supposed to be the very er of contmercial/office uses. 3. That a drive-thru commercial type use should not be 111. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Planning Director has determined that this project will nc have a significant impact on the environment and has issued a Negative Declaration on Zanuary 21, 1982. 0 IV. RE C OX3 E ?ID AT I ON . It is recoinmended that the Plannning Commission approve the Nf tive Declaration as issued by the Planning Director and adopt Planning Commission Resolutiofis No. 1932 and No, 1933 rec'ommei ing DENIAL of ZC-240 and SP-I82 based on the findings contain< therein, ATTACHMENTS 1. Planning Cornmission Resolutions No, 9932 and 1933 2. Location Map 3. Background Data Sheet 4. Disclosure Form 5. Environmental Documents 6. Reduced Exhibit -TI-- 7. SP-182 CDG r ar 3/16/82 c -4- 0 e _________ --.------ I?,ilCt;CXQ:.XD D.A'L'A S! if:XY.i.' 'L. '+- ., CJ!S,r: bT.) : 2;c- 7 4Q.L sp - 1 8 2 a Ti'.: Elrn ___ __ Prope-rties .- ..__ -- hXD 1.05T!:.X(~.~i: Zcne chancre , R- 1-10 ,OLO,O_-_ta.-RE_and_apiclr_ou~~~ specific plan ._________.- for Eroperty .-.- at the NE corner o_f_--J.l Camino Red- J'.J3-:x3 I?E~T>T'VC~:<: Parcel __ -. _..___.-._- 1 of pm 7990 and other, pox.tions of lot C t _____.___.- - ll__l_ __-___ ~ ___, .- ._. ._ _-.----- 823, Rho. Aqua Hedionda _c____. c__----------.--- Ass12:;:;C)rs PZXCEX MU1:lbclT : - e I_____ _I.__. _- _...- -.. .--- .1 i"\c1-p;; - 7 a 9 bKl* -of Iiots. a<~wiy?j, FlL?J] AX[) 'L,C)X'!'ER ; .-___.- _.._.- ~~~~~ra]. plan ~.and Tis~ Disignation _______ (0 & __ RM) ----..- CD 4-10 D.?asity PJTJ~:os~~~ -_-I_- None Der;~ 5 t:l~ Al!-O;,\?d __ _____- RP ~ist~nq ~cxe R-1-10 r 000 - propsiS3. mnz ___- s~m-om&ir~g Zoning a.nd Lmd Use : rn1.d Ese z02i.2q __--- e' _--.- PJCxrth E3xqas.e-d off ice Re.L-- sgj~ R-1 ____-.-- - =st R-1 - _____- Fk3%-.-- R-A- 10 ______- - WSt I.%3LIIC FAcI-L%TIES Sckwl District I-___- Carlsbad __- KZ. i: c?r ~istr ic k: . ______-- C a r 1 s b - a d 2:- i)istri.c:t. ~~~~cl,]-~~ Ii;;:; ~.'ec: ~~~~ei';i?ciLt, CI;~ tc4 --__ _____- ...___ __.-__ _+.-_.- - FZYJ ' 8 ____-,__. Carlsbad _I______________I_ _---.__..--- -.--.- - ... __l__l_ _I ___-. ___ ____.---. --------- E" .,,-Ji-ic 1- 1 ' c -____-- - _x^___._____I____._.____- ~ __-_.__-.-._ ----- -- .-..------ I$NI XX+lX~ lAL UWCi! AS;;?! __ - __.______ -_ -.. __ __..._ -. .. . . -.. . ____I-- N: XJ,-Z I;;.vc: I)i.d..arat:j.on, is..;ued ___._ p.?lZ8 2 ___,_,___._I,___ 1:xx;j , Ilo. _.__... x .^___.__ E. I .I:. (.:in*ki f icd, i!7 tal ____________. ~ .._______- - - -.. ___- . ._ .. , . . . . - _. -. e ____I__^__ - _-______,_, __-______,___ ~ _..._,___ _._ .__.._" _____-_ -.--_--.- - -..---..---. ---..--..---.-.---_-- - O! 1-1c:51-, e e .#8 i ' ,' , .. .\, _. - ____ E?-? __ p_ro.i>_e G>-%s_, ,~ .?-Ai.: ..!!.e n t3-z c ..-.--- -.-_---.-.. .-.- -.-. - - - !i!>!)L.[l,;; '*.!Z: \ l.!ci::>z (i1ji!i:\- i.dti:i]. , L>~~K L~!PI:s~I ! j:i 11i- yvi;:iii-c, c.-(.)i-,)<.L:-t:t- 1570 Linda Vista Dr., San PIarcos, Cali.€: 92069 _______.____.__~______.__.___.__I_.._ ._._ -- -__________. -___ __. ______-___----...__I- -- i.,.. I- , ,._ . i .-% ..ti::;s i.cicircsr; 714-744-3133 t <:-1.cj;::c;:-I.? 2IX?d ;:x a .-__ ~ .-__ ____...__-___-_________I ~ --.-_.--._- .-. A::r;:;; ?'? : John A Bailev _-----___I .--__ A ___-___-. _-I____.__.- ________--_ _._-A- it ;.1z Cr _s _.L_illd_aJ-i.staD x:, S-?_n2!Es2?c,_C_a LEL2-920.69_ __ - 744-3133 ----- ----...----_--_.-_-I_- .. I , .. Llci;;-2.:lf:> -- ;:I-..;;~~~ ----- u2-s ?Lon+ _I______ ____ __.- ______- -- $.:->,e i.F;?.=;L\ isssL, ~:~~-;;~~~, joijlt. I.lc~>fi pir2Cij ds>; -- v t: ;1 i- ur c , cc >.I) ;'ra t i,>i: , zyx rl i c: ;, ti 011 ) . P. 0. Box 2068, Rancho Santa Fe, Calif. 92067 - ---I--.----_---_-__-I_--____ _______ ___--- __ ---.- -- 232. si: le I.. 3 .?.d ...: 7 t' 5s 756-3748 ---^_---- -..---.-_.___.-__ ~ .....___-.--._.___ ~ .____ __ ____._______.___-__- Tc 1 c:p ii:,:i 6: X itni;: z 7.t.- LC il 1 L,.,-:.,:>2 ,>,.-i,- ;:E:&kr 2331 Littler L+ne2-O: W. C. LusardF -. -.. -.-._I_ _--I _--.---______- . _._______._. 4b Vista Dr. San Ilarcos- Calif 92069 -.---_.-.- . .--- L -.--_._--. .___ _.-_._ I .__._. .. -E ____-.._.______- 1570 .L 744-3133 _.-.-__ ..._ ---.--- - .- - .. ._ .. J';-sip-ar; - ._ d _-.-- ~ .--- - - --. -___ - ----- - . __1--- - -- - .- _- -_-. - .__. ___ _I __.-_____-_..-I ___-- ,-.- 1.22 I t?>c:>:.**2 - ;.::::::,<2: !rC!lCiA :):IC ' Ed Fogal -.----.-.--...------- I __I ------ -___-_.--. .______._-__ __ -_----- --.-----.---.-- _______.. LlQI .,benida-d chi t a.+C ~LT Ish ad ,...- Cali€...-3-2Ofl8 ______.-_ _._____ . .___. 729-73_08 Ilome 756-4243 _. _.-_.__. ________. . ... __.-____II-.._ __. .__ _____-___. _..____ .___ _..____.__.__ ___. _.________I ----- (->;tt.iLcj1i JL:->:-~ ::!;::.,-ti-,~ j f :>.~~~:A<:!:-~,~) I/:::.; fi\$..-J'' .. '-.L;. . iii>JL::- ~v:i::Ll$.y of pei-jcuy t-lizit: t!!;. iriPcti::i.~Lici~! cc)-d-a.i !ic<: i.1, chi c-.?cj:-ti!-i* .is: ~2.c: s:;..; cox-~.-c~i:t a~d tli-~ir it 1i.iZ1. ,-cxcAi :I t.i:uc: ;..xd c:oryc::: i- L.ii<? ir;1 i.-,::I~ic,~l i:;~,:, :?;.: !-~,-:Z~tcj ti:tic! and cci-r<\c.'i iiiii i j ::;,I :;dcci. Elm Properties -----_--- - --.- .__- --__.___-__---I---- I\l>i> I j. ~i.1 I I i a ,_". : / -4' It'{ - // .*.. <.L<:L,Z 7- ~ : ( -. -. .. -. . ;>*.L+ /i(j (:I i! , 4-1+C.L. -,_. ;J.T-r+7-? 3 t r !j e t e 0. ~/~~~~~ * ?$\ ? e p I* m pa s’i Q@ $$ 3 ;*e S?] _-I---_ ____ Y- li roq i,? 4 ,-j= .%3 *4 ,PI pq-r - -- :?by --.- -- _____.________I____________II_. ~~~~~~~~~~-~~~ -d .E < - I---_-__I V 1 C ! PJ I’TY ~ --A_ PA AP - -i 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 3.0 11 22 13 '94 15 16 l7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 e a PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1932 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COPIMISSION OF THE CITY OF CAKLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPRO\ OF A ZONE CHANGE FROM R-1-10,000 TO RESIDENTIAL PROFESSIONAL ( R-P) ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF EL CAMINO REAL AND EL! AVENUE. APPLICANT: ELM PROPERTIES CASE NO: ZC-240 WHEREAS, a verified application for certain property, Parcel I of Parcel Map No. 7990, and other portic of Lot J of Rancho Agua Hedionda, according to p; ition map thereof No. 823, Rancho Agua Hedionda, filed in the office of the County Recorder of Sar Diego County, November 16, 1886, has been filed with the City of Carlsbad, and referred to Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request as prc by Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 24th day c 1982, and on the 14th day of April, 1982, held duly notice hearings as prescribed by law to consider said request; ar WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and cons all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desirj lheard, said Commission considered all factors relating. to Change; and I NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission as follows: (A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. (B) That based on the evidence presented at the public he: Plaming Commission recommends APPROVAL of ZC-240, ba: following findings: _I_-- I//// I//// //// I . * I x 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 29 20 I-t3 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1) e Findings: 1) That the RP Zone is consistent with the 0 and RM land designations of the General Plan in conjunction with t required Specific Plan, 2) That uses allowed in the RP Zone with the Specific P1; compatible with surrounding land uses and zones e 3) That the development standards of the RP Zone with tht Specific Plan as proposed will ensure compatibility w surrounding uses, Thj-s project will not cause any significant environmel impacts and a negative declaration has been issued by Planning Directcr on January 21, 1982 and approved by Planning Commission on April 14, 1982. 4) PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, Californi( held on the 14th day of April, 1982, by the following vote to wit: AYES : NOES : ABSENT: ABSTAIN : ! I I - I VERNON FARROW, JR, Chari CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMIS ATTEST : JAMES C. HAGAMAN, Secretary CARLSBAD PLANNING COMI*lISSION I 2 -- PC RES0 # 1932 I 4 21 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 21 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 E9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 e e PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION N0.1933 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPRO’ OF SPECIFIC PLAN SF-182, FOR A 7 ACRE OFFICE AREA GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER 01 EL CAMINO REAL AND ELM AVENUE APPLICANT: ELM PROPERTIES CASE NO: SP-182 WHEREAS, a verified application for certain property Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 7990, and other portions ( Lot J of Rancho Aqua Kedionda, according to part map thereof No. 823 - Rancho Agua Hedionda filed the office of the County Recorder of San Diego Cc November 16, 1886. has been filed with the City of Carlsbad, and referred to Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a requc provided by Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 24th day of I 1982, and the 14th day of April, 1982, held duly noticed 1 hearings as prescribed by law, to consider said request; i WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and con: a11 testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desir. heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to Specific Plan; and I NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission as follows: (A) That, the foregoing recitations are true and correct. (I31 That based on the evidence presented at the public hei Commission recommends that the City Council APPROVE SI based on the following findings and conditions: //// \/// //// ' 2 3 4 5 f5 7 l3 9 lo x' 12 13 14 3.5 16 27 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 e e Findings: 1) This project as conditioned will not create any signif impacts oil the environment and a Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director on January 21, 1982 an approved by the Planning Commission on April 14, 1982. 2) The uses proposed in the Specific Plan are compatible surrounding properties and surrounding land use. 3) The Specific Plan is consistent with the Carlsbad Gene Plan and with Sections 65451 and 65452 of the Governme which regulate the use of Specific Plans. 4) The Specific Pian properly implements the RP Zone becz is compatible with the standards and uses described ir zone, Conditions : 1) Approval is granted for SI?-182, as shown on Exhibit "I March 24, 1982, incorporated by reference and on file Planning Department. Development shall occur substat as shown unless otherwise noted in these conditions. 2) This project is approved upon the express condition t? building permits will not be issued for development .o subject property unless the City Engineer determines sewer facilities are available at the time of applica such sewer permits and will continue to be available i time of occupancy. This note shall be placed on the map. 3) This project is approved upon the express condition t' applicant shall pay a public facilities fee as require City Council Policy No, 17, dated August 29, 1979, o with the City Clerk and incorporated herein by refere according to the agreement executed by the applicant payment of said fee a copy of that agreement dated Se 25p 1980, is on file with the City Clerk and incorpor herein by reference, If said fee is not paid as prom this application will not be consistent with the Gene and approval for this project shall be void. are not issued for this project within two years fron of project approval. sections of the Zoning Ordinance and all other applic ordinances in effect at time of building permit issua 4) This approval shall become null and void if building 5) Approval sf this request shall not excuse compliance //// PC RES0 NO. 1933 -2- X 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 'I 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2l 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 e 0 6) The applicant shall prepare a reproducible mylar of land use plan incorporating the conditions contained Said site plan shall be submitted to and approved by Planning Director prior to the issuance of building 7) All parking lot trees as shown on said landscape pla be a minimum of 15 gallons in size. 8) All landscaped areas shall be maintained in a health thriving condition, free from weeds, trash, and debr 9) Trash receptacle areas shall be enclosed by a 6 foot masonry wall with gates pursuant to city standards. of said receptacles shall be approved by the Planninl Director. 10) Approval of SP-182 does not guarantee approval of an permits, licenses or other required actions which ma necessary for the development of this site, 11) Specific Plan 182 is approved for one parcel. Any fl subdivision of this property will require the filing appropriate applications pursuant to Title 20 (Subdi. of the Municipal Code and the filing of a new specif 12) The "Residential Uses" section of SP-182 (page 2) shl reworded as follows: The subject property has a General Plan Combinat District which includes the Residential Medium Dc (RM) and the Professional and Related Commercial categories. Residential uses are permitted on tl property by both the General Plan and by the Res Professional (R-P) zone, This specific plan, as does not provide for residential uses on the sub: property. Ally proposed development of residenti, this property shall necessitate a major amendmeni specific plan. 13) The section titled "Traffic Signals" on page 4 shall 14) Number 6 listed under permitted uses on page 3 shall deleted €rom the specific plan. amended to read as follows: 6) Investment agencies and services, including institutions (subject to land use plan) //I/ //// //// PC RES0 NO, 1933 -3- I //// I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 3.0 11 12 13 14 l5 16 lr 28 19 20 'I 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 e 0 15) Paragraph 2 on page 6 should be amended as foll-ows: A comprehensive landscape plan for the entire sit€ be submitted for Planning Director approval prior issuance of any building permits. The Planning Dj shall respond in writing as to the completeness oi proposed landscape plan which shall at a minimum, the foll.oaring criteria: 16) The section titled "Permitted Uses" on page 2 shall bc amended to replace the first sentence with the follow This specific plan determines land use for the site a serves to implement the combination general plan desi of "0" and "KLVI" and the zoning classification of "R-P permitted uses and development standards specified by plan are more restrictive than the R-P zone; therefor provisions of this plan shall take precedence over th provisions of the underlying zone. The provisions of zone shall apply to subjects not addressed in this pl Subject to the site plan the following uses shall be permitted: Engineering Grading 17) The developer shall obtain a grading permit prior to commencment of any clearing or grading of the site. 18) The grading for this project is defined as "regular 9 by Section 11,06,i70(a) of the Carlsbad Municipal CoC: developer shall submit a grading plan for approval wk include all required drainage structures and any reqL erosion control measures, The developer shall also f soils, geologic or compaction reports if required and comply with all provisions of Chapter 11.06 of the CE Municipal Code, 19) No Grading shall occur outside the limits of the sub< unless a letter of permission is obtained from the ot the affected properties. 20) Direct access rights €or all lots abutting El Camino Elm Avenue shall be waived by deed to the city prior issuance of any building permits. This condition ex( access points shown on the approved specific plan. 21) The developer shall bond to install a raised medium I Avenue extending from El Camino Real to 20 feet east easterly property line of the subject property at su the City Engineer feels that said median is necessar; median shall be constructed to the satisfaction of t Engineer. PC RES0 NO. 1933 -4- I. ' 2 3 * 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 l2 13 14 15 16 a7 18 19 0 0 22) The developer shall be responsible for any improvemen necessary to bring El Camino Real and Elm Avenue into conformance with the city's standards for arterial st the satisfaction of the City Engineer. All improveme shall be installed prior to the occupancy of any buil 23) The driveway on Elm Avenue shall be designed for adeq siqht distance to the satisfaction of the City Engine This may require some regrading of the existing slope adjacent to the driveway and/or a retaining wall, 24) All cut and fill slopes shall be revegetated immediat after grading to control erosion. 25) Access to Hosp Way shall be completed to the satisfac the City Engineer prior to the occupancy of the last in the development. Public Improvements - 26) The developer shall install street lights along all I private street frontages in conformance with City of Standards. 27) The developer shall install street trees at the eguiT 40-fOOt intervals along a11 public street fr0ntages.j conformance with City of Carlsbad Standards. The trc be of a variety selected from the approved Street Trc 28) The developer shall install a wheelchair ramp at the street corner abutting the subdivision in conformancc City of Carlshad Standards prior to occupancy of any ings. 29) The developer shall comply with all the rules, regulz design requirements of the respective sewer and wate regarding services to the project, -111 ZL 2 :3 4 5 6 7 €3 9 10 'X 12 13 I.4 15 16 11 l8 2.9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 a 0 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting Planning Commission of the city of Carlsbad, California, h the 14th day of April, 1982, by the following vote, to wit AYES : NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: VERNON J, FARROW, JR., ' Cha CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSI 1 ATTEST: JAMES C. HAGAMAN, Secretary CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION I 1 I /PC RES0 NO. 1933 -6- I I c. * e MEMORANDUM DATE: March 26, 1982 TO: FROM: Kent Whitson, Transportation Engineer SUBJECT: TRAFFIC CIRCULATION OF PROPOSED ELM PRClPERTlES Les Evans, &i ty Engineer f4y oi-igii?al recommendation was based on discussions with the PI ning Department, who indicated the City Council was very concer about a land use change on the above property from residential to office/commercial, Therefore, before this property could be rezoned to a more intense traffic generator, it seemed desirabl to have a definite physical barrier between Elm Avenue, which would carry primarily residential traffic, and the site traffic Upon field inspection, one will see that there already is a lar hill at the north end of the property that would very well sert this purpose as an excellent buffer/barrier, Grading this hill just to provide more parking and access to Elm Avenue, which ir opinion would be more hazardous than routing site traffic to tt existing signalized intersection at Hosp Way, appears not to be the best decision, i am very concerned about the accidents and congestion that are likely to result from left turns into and left turns from this driveway along Elm Avenue, Elm Avenue at this location is on t a horizonal curve and a vertical grade. This makes it harder f motorists turning at this point to judge approaching vehicles' speeds and lane positions. It should also be noted that once E Avenue connects west of El Camino Real, vehicle speeds will in< substantially when Elm Avenue traffic has a green light. However, if it is decided to permit access to Elm Avenue, conti to staff's recommendation, then I would recommend that, as a mi mum, a raised median (island) be installed continuously on Elm Avenue from El Carnino Real to Avenida de Anita, This distance 600 feet, which happens to be the minimum spactng required for intersections along secondary arterials, according to the City Carlsbad's Design Standards. Since Elm Avenue is classified a Secondary Arterial, full access to the proposed Elm Properties driveway might be construed as an intersection, which would vi the City's standards. In order to install the median, Elm Avenue would have to be wi and the existing curb on the south side of Elm will have to be located further to the south. The applicant has presented several locations where access to mercial properties has been permitted. I would like to commen each of those: Pag? -2- e 0 A. Exhibit 0: Four out of the six reported accidents that hav occurred on Marron Road east of El Camino Real could have b avoided if a raised median were installed to Von's/HandyMan easterly most driveway--a distance of about 240 feet (see attached). 1 would recommend that a median installation be considered prior to Marron Road extending to College Boulev B. Exhibit P: There is already a raised median on Alga Road. C. Exhibit Q: This driveway location was inherited by the Cit when La Costa was annexed. You will notice that the drivel? to Burnett's Shopping Center is located a1,nost twice as far From El Canlno Real as the one ivdicated in th? exhibit. D. Exhibit R: This is a poor design and should not have been accepted. KAW: 1s -0 Attachment C; Richard Allen, Engineering Charles Grimm, Planning ..~ - LOCAIIOH kt fjp 2 0 $J CITY OF CARLSBAD LY I :i"l DRAWH . , *- ~~L~~l~i~~~ DIBGER*"* 'c Rd, F F IC ENG 1 N E E RING 5 E CS I ON DAFE I ;s\.-p:,. .. :' ? . . . .. COIIST C0tiShh)CTtON Zr .. DfV DKtVER PhrS~Cal DV DEFECFIYE VEW *-[F- HEAD-OH SIDESWIPE ES EXCESS SPEED C7C FOLLOWING 'IO1 hCD HAD BEEN DRll ti-R tllT AND fNH ILC 1hIPROPEH LANE u FlXCD ODJECT APPHOACW TURH IMP~?UP~:R lllAl LEGEND ' RlC,HT ANGLE IP WZItOPER )'ASS 0 FftOPERTY DAMAGE ONLY 1N 4T I (KAT TENT IO* @ INSJHY LCCI1)ENT H/C blDTDttCYCCE 0 FATAL LCCIDEI4T .-? VEtIlCLc1 TU;lNED OVEb ASS RAN STOP SIGN CCD clm.t.rm nn Y r f. rlsbad _______- - -- Jobrnz Decreed a Legal Newspaper by the Superior Court of San Diego County 3 138 ROOSNELT ST. 0 P.O. BOX 248 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 --- 729-2345 - - - - - - ___ - - - STATE OFCALIFORNIA, ss. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, -- I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above entitled I am principal clerk of the printer of the Carlsbad Journal a newspaper of general c published twice weekly in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, c newspaper is published for the dissemination of local news and intelligence of a general char which newspaper at all times herein mentioned had and still has a bona fide subscription list subscribers, and which newspaper has been established and published at regular intervals City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, for a period exceeding next preceding the date of publicati notice hereinafter referred to; and that of which the annexed is a printed copy published in each regular and entire is$ NOTICEISHEREBYGIVENthat Parcel1oPParcefMapNo.79~), newspaper and not in any supplement NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ZC-240/SP-182 erty generally 1ocated.on the north- east corner of El Camino Real and Elm Avenue and more particularly described as: and Other portions Of Lot J Of Ran- cho Agua Hedionda, accordrng to partition mapthereof No. 823, filed in the Office Of the County Record- er Of San D1ego County, November Applicant E1m Properties theCityCounci1 ofthe City of Carls- bad ,.,ill hold a public hearing at the city council Chambers, 1200 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad. California. at6:OOP.M. on Tuesday, May4.1982, to consider an application for ap 16, 1886 April 21 prvval of a zone change from R-1- 10.0 to Residential Professional (RP) and a Specific Plan on prop- the following dates, to-Wit: .............................. CAFUSBAD CITY COUNCIL ............. , q :’**.-,’ 4 1 .I ’, :i **,J I, :i 2;: A > . ............................... 4’!\ ............................... ............................... \TO.? R-A\: .?+Q ’ - ............................... sl.9 -\ I certify under penalty of perjury that the for1 and correct. Executed at Carlsbad, County I day of :jAn?j1 1982 mI-- - State of California on the 31 st ?I c ‘bile:,. i‘ ~\‘JL,Ld.k - / U‘ i..!o. 7.c, ;tt;o,’:,P tc:< ’ I Clerk fiL’:’?.FC ;’.Nd I~t-~I f’i’.@f’t KTIXS -vjc,t~i~~~,~~~ 1 WW81 CJ w23s: April 21,1982 1 .? A (-J-J-& u - v. ICE OF' Prm 0- NCWICE2 IS FiEREZY GIi,E< that .Lhe E-1a:liiii.y Gc.irrtnissiGn of thz City of Carlsbad will h01d a public heariiy at the Citzy Coul-&l Cha&ersI 1200 Elm Avenue, Carl.;bad, Cakifornia, at 7:OO pa. on Wdnes&y, Iqarch 24, 1982, to to Res53eirtial Professienal (32) ad a Specific Plan on' property generally lo@a.':ed on t'ne northask corner of El Camino Real ad Elm Avenue and mre part icillarly descrik? as: consider zppwval of a zone chaqe frag ~-5.-10,00Q Parcel 1 of Parcel I+ No. 7990, arid other prti.ons of LQ~ J of 17.~1,oim Piyx ';i-dicr,da, according to paxtition mn t.kereof &:ao 823 Eil.ed in tho office of the County Recorder of Sa1 Diqo County, fG3vernbnr 15, 1986, Those persons wishing to spealr on this propal are cxdially invited to atterd tile public hearing, Planning r&partrnent at 455-5591. CASE FILZ: ZC-24O/SP-182 If ycu have arty questions please call the WPrJ1:cNTT: E?-m Frqert ies PLBLISH : March 13, 1982 CITY OF CIAmSRAI) PLll?EJITT; c)r3 0 ilbrarnovitz, Albert & Ed' 2507 Via Sorbcte Carlsbad CA 92008 0 e-%' .""& 1.6 7 -4 0 0 - 3 0 8-28 husman, Douglas, Florence, Bernard, 251i Avenida de Anita 747 E. Green Ste. 100 Cai-lsbad CA 92008 Pasadena, Ca. 91101 (1)Otis E. & Christine VanderburE h Cathy c/o- Waken & Co. 167-400-28 167-030-53 8-28 Re si d.en t (3)RobSins, Easkin, Lachman 2511 Via Sorbette 71-111 Tamarish Lane Carlsbad, CA 92008 Rancho Mirage, Ca. 92770 167-400-28 167-060- 10 8-31 Chino Hidcnhiko 1304 N. Santa Fe c/o Strong Vista, Ch 92083 P.O. Box 2068 167-400-31 Rancho Santa Fe, Ca. 92068 (6) The Highland Co . 167-090-53 8-31 Resident 2505 Avenida de Anita Carlsbad, CA 92008 167-400-31 9-10 Rouse, Charles 2503. Via Astuto Carlsbad, CA 92008 167-360-10 8-12 Sirninons p Vern (8-24) Paul & Edith Linden P.0. Box 1307 2519 Via Sorbete Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067 Carlsbad, Ca. 92008 167-400-12 167-400-24 8-12 Res Id CP, t (8-26) Margaret S. Price 3108 Avenida de Anita 4705 Amberwood Ct. Carlsbad, CA 92008 Carlsbad, C . 92008 167-400-12 1 6 7 -4 0 9- 2 6 8-15 Quade, Robert Or Joyce (8-32) Robert & Vanda Wilkerson 5473 Avenida Fiesta 2503 Via Sorbete La Jolla, Ch 92037 Carlsbad, Ca. 92008 167-400-15 167-400-32 8-15 Resident (4) Horace Felltiris, Jr. and 2502 Via Sorbcte Dolphine Felkins Carlsbad, CA 92008 P.O. Box 431 167-400-15 Oceanside, Ca. 92054 167- 030-24 3 8-17 bkitlci f Br inn & Phri lyu (7) Hclix hssoc. 2506 Vi a Sorbc t c P.O. I!ox 985 Cnrlsb,ld, Ch ?:?O3G El Cajun;Ca. 32022 167-400-1 7 .I_-. ,~._ ,r a 0 2512 Via Sorbete Carlsbada, Ca. 92 *- - 167-4013-20 8:-20 Resident 2512 Avenida de Anita Carlsbad, Ca. 92008 (8-18) Patricia Perlcins 2508 Via Sorbete Carlsbad, Ca. 92008 1.6 7- 4 00- 20 16 7 -4 00- 15 8-23 Como, Michael and Carol 2516 Via Sorbete Carlsbad, Ca. 92008 (8-21) Ken G Barbara Brannick 2514 Via Scrbete Carlsbad, Ca. 92008 167-400-23 '167-400-21 (2) Gens t ar Development 3911 Sorrento Valley Blvd. San Diego, Ca. 92122 (8-25) Robert & Hilda Natscn P.O. Box 1790 Zephyr Cove, Nv 98448 157-250-22 167-400-25 8-46 Helix Associates P. 0. Box 985 El Cajon, Ca. 92022 167-460-46 8-46 Resident 2701 Avznida de Anlta Carlsbad, Ca. 92008 167-430-46 8-24 Felkins , Horrace (8-33) Jerry & Hollace Hanson 2501 Via Sorbete Carlsbad, Ca. 92008 P.0.Box 431 Oceanside, Ca. 92054 167-400-33 167-400-24 (5) Larwin-Southern Calif. 16255 Ventura Blvd I Encino, Ca. 91436 167-090-54 (8-16) Michael 6 Barb Buggy 4703 Rirchtrood Cir. Carlsbad, Ca. 92008 . 167--400-16 (8-19) Donald & Thomas Nicolis 2510 Via Sorbctc Carlsbad, Ca. 92008 I. 67 -4 00- 1 9 e 4- m NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ZC-24O/SP-182 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad B a public hearing at the City Council Chambers, 1200 Elm Avenue, Carlsl: California, at 6:OO P.M., on Tuesday, May 4, 1982, to consider an appl for approval of a zone change from R-1-10,000 to Residential Professic (RP) and a Specific Plan on property generally located on the northeas of El Camino Real and Elm Avenue and more particularly described as: Parcel 1 of Parcel Map No. 7990, and other portions of Lot J of Rancho Agua Hedionda, according to partitj map thereof No. 823, filed in the Office of the Count) Recorder of San Diego County, November 16, 1886. APPLICANT: Elm Properties PUBLISH : April 21, 1982 CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL I' a r; tr\ ;D ;, 3 ,I 1.L A u .. * -f ,t .I 4\ -_...-- tp~X-22- - / 1';. c Fi i y:r- I $3 ": -; L1 E..' Q :,e- c; ;i l; <>/' :> P I c 2 k\$;>:tc-!<, LI,p:.d i.t-l-t I i',Oi ..* vj 5 i ? 112 y '"A-C- 0 0 0 -7 w-( Eo 6 td=j g-3 ”p. m Ti 030 >>g r Loci- (8-27) Will & Cleo Degher NZcfa 2513 Via Sorbete 0,m om>- c;ocp Carlsbad, Ca. 92008 l67-b00-77 (8-29) M. & G. Gandall 2509 Via Sorbete Carlsbad, Ca. 92008 167-400-29 (8-34) Tiburon/Carlsbad Homeowne. P.O. BOX 1246 CJ Carlsbad, Ca. 92008 T 167-400-34 . ._ - L0-m -A Ts ‘-13 0 7 rc P a-u ’5 2.0 .. 0 30 0 an, ”& c= 4. 0 --I. m ct Wop, N m-5 C 10 DJ U’I-d -+ Fu r-5 e- .,/ u)w-3 T.,----- \ >.v, v) %+ 2 -- .-” ‘ ---If- v. c””“ ,/--.-- j_- <-- /+---’ ow /’ p--; Lo --De c \, --. ‘\ 2512 Via Sorbete Carlsbada, Ca. 92008 167-400-20 -_ 8-20 Resident 2512 Avenida de Anita Carlsbada, Ca. 92008 167-400-23 .,* ,.-.. ~ -- ~ & ha”. - .- - 2516 Via Sorbete _I Carlsbad , Ca, 92008 __.. - (8-18) Patricia Perkins 2508 Via Sorbete Carlsbad, Ca. 92008 167-400-15 San Diego, Ca. 92122 (2) Genstar Development 3911 Sorrento Valley Blv (8-21) Ken & Barbara Brannick 2514 Via Sorbete Carlsbad, Ca. 92008 8-46 Helix Associates P.O.Box 985 El Cajon, Ca. 92022 - 6 7-400-2 1- 8-46 Resident 2701 Avenida de Anita Carlsbad, Ca. 92008 (8-25) Robert & Hilda Glatson P-0. Box 1790 Zephyr Cove, Nv 98448 167-400-24 167-4oa-25 8-24 Felkins, Horrace P.O.Box 431 Oceanside, Ca. 92054 167-400-24 - ---* (8-33) Jerry & Hollace Hanson 2501 Via Sorbete Carlsbad, Ca. 92008 67 -400-33 (5) Larwin-Southern Calif. 16255 Ventura Blvd. Encino, Ca. 91436 167-090-54 (8-16) Michael SI Barb Buggy 4703 Birchwood Cir. Carlsbad, Ca. 92008 167-400-16 Carlsbad, Ca. 92008 2513 Via Sorbete (8-19) Donald & Thomas Nicolis 167-400-27 2510 Via Sorbete Carlsbad, Ca. 92008 (8-29) M. & G. Gandall 167-400-19 Carlsbad, Ca. 92008 2509 Via Sorbete - _- .-*- *. *. 167-400-29 (8-34) Tiburon/Carlsbad Ho~eowners P.O. BOX 1246 Carlsbad, Ca. 92008 Abramovitz, Albert & Edith 2507 Via Sorbete c/o Waken & Co. 2511 Avenida de Anita 747 E. Green, Ste. 100 Resident 2511 Via Sorbette 71-111 Tamarish Lane Carlsbad, CA 92008 c. 167-400-28 Chino Hidenhiko (6)The Highland Co. 1304 N. Santa Fe Vista, CA 92083 167-400-31 Rancho Santa Fe, Ca. 92068 2505 Avenida de Anita Carlsbad, CA 92008 Rouse, Charles. 2501 Via Astuto Carlsbad, CA 92008 167-360-10 Simmons, Vern P.O. Box 1307 2519 Via Sorbete Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067 Carlsbad, Ca. 92008 167-400-12 167-400-24 ( Resident (8-26) Margaret S. Price 3108 Avenida de Anita Carlsbad, CA 92008 167-400-12 4705 Amberwood Ct, Carlsbad, Ca. 92008 Quade, Robert & Joyce (8-32) Robert & Wanda Wilkerson 5473 Avenida Fiesta La Jolla, CA 92037 Ciarlsbad, Ca. 92008 2503 Via Sorbete , 167-400-15 2502 Via Sorbete Dolphine Felkins Carlsbad, CA 92008 167-400-15 Mudd, Brian & Marilyn 2506 Via Sorbete P.O. Box 985 Carlsbad, CA 92008 167-400-17 '2 Pavlof f Louis & Birthe 2510 Via Sorbete Carlsbad, CA 92008 .-.. - - I 167-400-19 - ..--- ~ * -... I".-.- c ... r "%-.x--. ---.aw- REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF ZONE CHANGE ZC-240 AND SPECIFIC PLAN SP-182 by ELM PROPERTIES 24 Mar 82 LUSARDI CONSTRUCTION CO. Bu i Id i ng Construct ion Engineering Construction 1570 Linda Vista Drive San Marcos, California 92069 Civil Engineering (714) 744-3133 State License No 207287 March 22, 1982 Planning Commission CITY OF CARLSBAD 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 Request €or Approval of Zone Change (ZC-240) and Specific Plan (SP-182), Elm Properties, Carlsbad, California Commissioners: We have prepared this booklet to hopefully give you background information that will enable you to approve our request for the subject zone change and specific plan. We thank you in advance for taking the time to review this information and we will make every effort to answer your questions at the hearing. Very truly yours, Executive Vice President JAB : mld Enclosure TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Introduction 3 History 4 Comparison o'f Old Site Plan wTth New Site Plan 7 Traffic Analysis 8 Analysis of Access Locations at Comparable Intersections 12 List of Exhibits A - City Traffic Engineer Memorandum, B - Staff Report to Planning Commission, C - Staff Report to Planning Commission, D - Traffic Impact Study - Federhart & December 11, 1980 14 December 17, 1980 16 May 13, 1981 18 Associates, March 19, 1982 21 E - -Specific Plan, January 4, 1982 22 F - Old Site Plan Study, June 2, 1981 23 G - New Site Plan, March 12, 1982 24 H - Elevation as viewed from El Camino 25 I - Elevation Blow-up, March 12, 1982 26 J - Section AA, June 2, 1981 27 K - Section BB,.Section CC, March 12, 1982 28 L - Landscaping Plan, March 12, 1982 29 M - Landscaping Plan - southerly bank location, March 12, 1982 30 N - City of Carlsbad Circulation Plan, May 14, 1975 31 0 - Aerial - N.E. corner of Marron Road and El Camino Real, January 15,1982 32 Aerial - N.E. corner of Elm Avene Real, March 12, 1982 and El Camino Real, January 15, 1982 33 El Camino Real, January 15, 1982 34 P - Aerial - N.E. corner of Alga Road and Q- Aerial - N.E. corner of La Costa Avenue and El Camino Real, January 15, 1982 35 -1- List of Exhibits (Cont.) a Page R - Aerial - N.W. corner of Paseo del Norte and Palomar Airport Road, January 15, 1982 36 S - Phasing diagram 37 e 0 -2- INTRODUCTION Our presentation begins with History, an account of events that leads us from the first attempt at a general plan amendment to now - our request for approval of a zone change and specific plan. The information has been capsulized for clarity. Next, we compare the Old Site Plan with Buildings, which was presented to the Council before the General Plan Amendment was approved, to the New Site Plan with Buildings, which hopefully contains all the input we got from staff, Planning Commission and City Council. Please note that the new Site Plan with Buildings shows offices on all the pads while the specific plan shows only the financial institution on the southerly pad. This information is included so that you can see how we progressed to our specific plan from the original site plan. - Proceeding, we offer our traffic analysis relying heavily on the information from our traffic consultant, Federhart & Associates. We end our written text with an' analysis of Access Locations at Comparable Intersections. We conclude our report with 19 exhibits. -3- HISTORY Sep 80: Application filed for a General Plan Amendment from I (Residential Medium Density) to 0 (Profession; Offices and Related Commercial). Traffic study by Federhart & Associates, for adequai access; required: a a) b) A right-turn-in and a right-turn-ou Left and right turn driveway on Elm Avenue driveway on El Camino Real c) A second right-turn-in and a right-turn-ou driveway in conjunction with a median brea on El Camino Real. 11 Dec 80: William E. Stracker, City Traffic Engineer, felt median break would eventually be detrimental t traffic flow on El Camino Real. As a result, h recommended: (Exhibit "A") a) One entrance off El Camino Real b) One driveway off Elm Avenue c) Entrance road off Hosp Way e 17 Dec 80: 1) Staff reported to Planning Commission: 'I. . . Thc possibility exists that access could be made fron the subject property to Hosp Way.. .Should the applicant be able to guarantee an acceptable connection to Hosp Way, staff would recommenc approval of the proposed amendment. I (Exhibit "B") 2) Planning Commission recommended approval of GPA. Jan 81: 1) At the City Council meeting, some members of the Council were concerned that: a) "0" designation could possibly lead to a "strip" type commercial zoning (which was their main objection); b) Property might be suitable for low income housing or senior citizen type a housing; -4- 2) GPA was denied by City Council on a 3-2 vote. Feb 81: 1) Met with City Council people and-staff; 2) The purpose of the GPA request. for the "0" designation was to lead to RP (Residential Professional) zone so that offices could be deve loped ; 3) Staff recommended that to alleviate the Council's concern for a "strip" type commercial . zoning, a new application be filed requesting a combination district land use element consisting of "0" (Professional and related Commercial.) and RM (Residential Medium Density). This would be the land use that would lead directly to the desired .. RP zone classification and eventually an office project. 4) The new application was filed as per staff's recommendation. 13 May 81: 1) Planning Commission voted 6-1 to approve GPA-S8J after the staff recommended approval. (Exhibit "C") 16 Jun 81: 1) Prior to the GPA Council hearing, the owners filed a Zone Change Application requesting the RP zoning to assure the Council of our intent to proceed with the proposed offLce type development. 2) City Council viewed a site plan showing the owners I concept of the proposed office deve lopment (Exhibit " F I' ) 3) Council approved the GPA with a 3-1 vote, with 1 member absent. Jul 81: 1) Staff required submittal of a specific plan before they would process the Zone Change Application. 2) Site plan shown at Council meeting was preliminarily submitted to: a) Planning Staff b) Engineering Department -5- c) City Traffic Engineer d) Fire Department e 7 Aug 81: 1) Preliminary meeting with Charlie Grim, planning Richard Allen, engineering; Ken Whitson, Traffi Engineer; and the applicants to review site plar 2) Staff said they liked the project. The requested the following changes: (a) Move th Elm driveway as far to the east as possible; (k Place financial institution drive-throughs c either the side or the rear of the buildings (c) More landscaping on Elm Avenue to provide better buffer. The owners made the requested changes and submitted the final form of th Specific Plan. The owners felt they had made every possible attempt t answer all of the concerns by Planning Commission, City Council, an staff. (Exhibit "E") Comparisons of both the original site plan and the final form of th Specific Plan are presented in a later section of this text. The owners believed everything was ready to proceed to the Plannin 0 Commission. The applicants were called to a meeting with staff. At that meeting staff said they would not recommend the project for approval unless: (a The access to Elm was eliminated; (b) The drive-through for the financia institution at the south end of the project was eliminated; (c) minimum of 100' of setback from Elm be left in its natural state. These eleventh-hour requirements were a surprise to the owners. Afte several months of additional meetings, it was determined that these point of difference could not be resolved and it was agreed to forward th application to the Commission and Council. -6- __"_ ___ ______I__ - - -- --I - -- - - --- - Comparison of Old Site Plan with Buildings (dated 2 Jun 81) (Exhibit "F") to New Site Plan with Buildings (dated 12 Mar 82) (Exhibit "G"). 1. Building area decreased from 156,000 square feet to 154,300 square feet; provided parking increased from 293 sp,aces to 423 spaces. 2. The drive-through facility has been moved from the front to the rear of the financial institution at the northern end. 3. At the south end of the project: a) To decrease density, the 19,200 square foot office building has been eliminated and 6,000 square feet of office has been placed on a second floor over the financial insti-tution b) The financial institution has been moved farther away from the intersection of El Camino Real and Elm Avenue. c) The drive-through facility has been screened from Elm Avenue by a heavily landscaped berm and sloped area (Exhibits "G" and "K") and an upper parking lot approximately 8 feet above the drive-through (Exhibit "Kt'). Note that the drive-through canopy also serves as the walkway from the upper parking lot to the second floor office space (Exhibit "K"). The visibility of the drive-through facility has been screened from El Camino Real by a heavily landscaped sloped area (approximately 15 feet above El Camino Rea:L where the cross-section was taken (Exhibit "K") ) . d) The Elm access has been moved easterly approximately 55 feet to maximize the distance from El Camino Real. This has been achieved by the use of a 10 foot high retaining wall along the easterly boundary of the project. -7- TRAFFIC ANALYSIS a Elm Avenue Traffic factors have been the most carefully and critically analyze features of the project. Both the City's traffic consultant and th developer's expert have studied the traffic issues, yet they have reache differing conclusions. Federhart & Associates, among the most respected of the professiona traffic engineers (see credentials, Exhibit I'D") , has concluded that, a1 things being considered, the project site is best served by a combinatio of access points. Federhart recommends that the first phase of th project be provided access from Elm Avenue and two curb cuts on El Camin Real. Ultimately, a fourth point of access is to be furnished acros private property to Hosp Way. The developer's access proposal is supported by the following points a. The City's general plan and staff planning policies require tha access points directly to El Camino Real be minimized to the greates extent possible. While both the City's and the developer's expert suggest that there be two curb cuts onto El Camino Real, the Federhar proposal diffuses the impact upon El Camino Real by spreading the use t another point of ingress and egress. The result is a greater degree o compliance with a key general plan principle. On the other hand, th staff's plan for access tends to intensify traffic impacts upon El Camin1 Real, a result to be avoided according to the general plan terms. e b. The developer's proposal for the combined use of Elm Avenue ant Hosp Way, in conjunction with El Camino Real, responds specifically to thi staff's direction offered in 1980. On December 17, 1980, the staf a -8- objected to a previously proposed development plan for the property, citing the adverse impacts upon El Camino Real as the primary basis for objection. In preference to the originally proposed use of El Camino Real, the City suggested that the strain upon El Camino Real be reduced by the combined use of Elm Avenue and Hosp Way as additional points of access. In its report, the staff favored the Elm Avenue access but based its negative recommendation as to the project upon the developer's request for a median break on El Camino Real. A copy of the report, in its entirety, is attached as Exhibit "D". It is interesting to note that the staff relied upon its own traffic engineer whose guidance prompted the recommendation favoring access to the project from Elm Avenue and Hosp Way. In his report, dated December 11, 1980, the traffic engineer stated, "It is recommended that access to the site be provided by one entrance off El Camino Real, one driveway off Elm Avenue, and an. entrance road off Hosp Way." (Emphasis added. ) A copy of the engineer's complete report is attached as Exhibit "A". The developer has attempted to comply with the original direction offered by staff. c. The staff objects to the use of Elm Avenue for access purposes basing its position upon a concern for impacts upon the designated secondary arterial. El Camino, on the other hand, is a primary arterial, the integrity of which has been the subject of specific policy concerns. As the Federhart report indicates, 8% of the traffic generated by the project will use the Elm Avenue curb cut. This increased use is not -9- expected to be a significant adverse impact upon Elm, yet it could have beneficial affect by diminishing traffic pressures on El Camino Rea: Essentially, the problem is one of balancing impacts. It is far mol beneficial to the community to diffuse the impact upon El Camino Real 1 routing a portion of the traffic flow to Elm Avenue. Stated different11 the benefit to El Camino Real traffic patterns will outweigh any negatiT impact that may occur on Elm Avenue. Hosp Way e In compliance with the direction of the City staff, the developer hc undertaken the acquisition of a right of access to the site from Hosp Waq This has required sensitive negotiations with neighboring property owners Staff suggests that the installation of such access be keyed to tl- completion of a certain amount of square footage in the project. Sai figure has been somewhat arbitrarily set at 25,000 square feet. Thus upon the completion of 25,000 square feet of phase one construction, Hos Way would have to be installed. e During discussions with the staff, it was made clear to the develope that the 25,000 square footage figure which would prompt the improvemen of Hosp Way was based upon the assumption that Elm Avenue would not b available for access. In the event that Elm Avenue is to be used as a access, the staff concedes that the 25,000 square foot figure would chang and the need for the improvement of Hosp Way would be triggered by different square footage figure for improvements in phase one. It is ou position that Hosp Way would not be needed to serve the first 100,OO square feet of building space to be completed as part of phase one, base upon the assumption that Elm Avenue is to be a permitted access. Thus, w would request that, if Elm Avenue is approved for access to the project 0 -10- the installation of Hosp Way would be required at such time iis more than 100,000 square feet of construction is proposed for completion. Stated differently , the construction of 100,000 square feet of improvements in phase one would not necessitate the completion of the Hosp Way access. -11- ANALYSIS OF ACCESS LOCATIONS AT 0 COMPARABLE INTERSECTIONS There are six (6) intersections at which secondary arterials cross E Camino Real. (Exhibit "N") At three (3) of these intersection commercial/office properties are situated similar to our property. 1. Access Location for Elm Garden Offices at the N.E. corner of El Avenue and El Camino Real: (Exhibit "0") 192' from curb line to center line of access to bank. 2. Access Locations at N.E. corner of Marron Road and El Camino Real: (Exhibit "0") 37' from curb line to center line of access to Shell Service Station 98' from curb line to center line of access to Shell Service Station 145' from curb line to center line of access to Hughes Office Buildin 389' from curb line to center line of access to Vons Shopping Center e 3. Access Location at N.E. corner of Alga Road and El Camino Real: (Exhibit "P") 152' from curb line to center line of access to Beverly Hill Savings & Loan 4. Access locations at N.E. corner of La 'Costa Avenue and El Camino Real (Exhibit "Q") 35' from curb line to center line of access into Arc0 gas station 159' from curb line to center line of access into Arc0 gas station 230' from curb line to center line of access into La Costa Hotel & Sp 0 -12- 5. Access locations at N.W. corner of Paseo del Norte and Palmomar Airport Road: (Exhibit "R") 66' from curb line to center line of access into General Store/Gas Station 210' from curb line to center line of access into Pea Soup Anderson CONCLUSION At comparable intersections in Carlsbad (where secondary arterials cross prime arterials), there are accesses situated at shorter distances from the intersection than the one we are requesting €or Elm Properties. -13- f I \ EXH I MEMCRANDUbI TO : Charles Grimm e P LANN I NG DEPARTMENT FROM : Wi I I iam E. Stracker TRAFFIC ENGINEER VIA: Les Evans E. CITY ENGINEER SUBJECT: ELM PROPERTIES OFFICE PARK TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY The traffic impact study for the subject project at El Camino Real and E Avenue prepared by Federhart 8 Associates was reviewed. The professional office park project is located on the east side of El Camino Real north of Elm-Avenue. The traffic on El Camino Real is trave ing downhill past the site at a very high rate of speed. There is a hor zontal curve in El Camino Real creating a sight restriction for vehicles turning left across the median into the dzvelopment. The consultant indicates that 2828 ADT is being generated by the site. reduce the number of U-turns at Elm Avenue, the consultant proposes that left turn only across the median on El Canino Real be provided. This le turn lane will be utilized by approximately 749 vehicles per day with 11 vehicles during the morning peak hour. This left turn opening has a re- stricted sight distance due to the horizontal curvature of El Camino Rea and the landscaping in the median. A traffic signal at Elm Avenue and Camino Real will create some gaps for vehicles to turn left into the sit but other methods of access should be investigated before allowing these left turns. An access roadway to the rear of the property near the northeast corner could be constructed across the open space area to Hosp Way. This acces will allow the vehicles to utilize the left turn signal at Hosp Way and I Camino Real. The professional office type land use is compatible with ai cess to Hosp Way because this office use does not rely on impulse client1 Their clientele will be heading directly for the site mostly by invitati1 If the access roadway to Hosp Way is not feasible to construct, the projl will be significantly impacted with access problems. The horizontal cur ture, fast traffic and traffic volumes in El Camino Real creates a high accident potential for left turns across the median into the site. Therc are 749 vehicles coming from the north an El Camino Real which turn left, most of these into the site. These vehicles would have to make a U-turn at Elm Avenue into the proposed dirveway. A left turn access for the site wculd require another traffic signal on El Camino Real. This would create additional delays for this primary his way. e a - 14- - 1- ( RECOXMENDATI OPi A site plan of the pr~2s;iy shtjt$ing 3ui IdiR? ZRZ! ?a;%Ing layouts was not . avai lable. It is recommendnd +hat a.cce55 t=, th? site 5% crovided bl/ one entrance off El Carnino Real, 82~3 driv3uay off E17 Avmuz, and 23 entrance road off Hosp Way. The enirance off Ei Canino %?I s;?ould be 2 ws11-dssigned right-in/ right-out only access. - - If the access road to Has? 'i'iay cannot- bz provided and +ne Commission - . approves the'project, then EZ ad2iiionai driveway c~ff Ef Camirto Real may be located a? the third ?Dints. . BS:ls 12/11/80 -1 5- > c EXHIBIT i c r *x\ 1, B STAFF REPORT DATE : December 17, 1980 TO : Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: GPA-57 (A) , SANDY, Request to wend the Land Use Element from Residential Medium Density (RM) to - Professional and Related Commercial (0). e I, PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND The subject property is approximately 7.9 acres in size anc is located on the northeast corner of El Camino Real and Elm Avenue and is just south of Hosp Way, (see attached' location map). The property is currently designated Residc Medium Density (4-0 du/acre) by the General Plan and the applicant is requesting that the land use be redesignated Professional and Related Commercial (0%. The site is relatively flat along El Camino Real but begin: to slope sharply upward toward the east end of the propert] The property also slopes upward toward the south end of tht property, creating an 8 to 15 foot banks above Elm Avenue, The zrea to the east of the property is designated as open space and the property to the north, along Hosp Way, has an approved office development. Environiiental Review The ?laming Director has issued a negative declaration of environmental impact for the proposed General Plan Amendme A traffic study was completed for the site as part of the initial study. A copy of the negative declaration is atta 11. ANALYSIS e- Planning Issues 1. Is the proposed use (0) appropriate for the site 2. Will a change in land use have a detrimental effl on the traffic flow for El Camino Real? 111. DISCUSSION Staff feels that the proposed designation, Professional an Related Commercial (0) is appropriate for the site from a land use perspective. The Land Use Element of the General 0 - 1G- .f \ c U Plan states that Professional and Related Commercial areas can be placed along arterials without creating adverse conditions which are associated with strip development (if properly planned), and can be used as buffers between commercial areas and residential uses. The subject: property is highly impacted from noise generated by El Camino Real creating a nuisance for residential development. Office type uses would also act to buffer surrounding residential uses to the east. From a physical standpoint, the site has a major problem. Access to the site is currently limited to El Camirio Real and Elm Avenue. There is a center median on El Camino Heal and city policy would discourage a median break between the signals at Elm Avenue and Hosp Way. A traffic study, attached, was submitted by the applicant, The study was reviewed'by the city's Traffic Engineer and his report is also attached. Basically, the applicant's traffic study indicates that office uses on this site could be adequately served by a left-and right turn driveway on Elm; a right-turn-in and right-turn-out driveway on El Camino Real; and a second right-turn-in-right-turn-out driveway (in conjunction with a median break) on El Camino Real (see graphic on page 10 of applicant traffic study). The City Traffic Engineer has indicated that this design would adequately handle traffic to and from the site but that a median break would eventually be detrimental to the flow of traffic or1 El Camino Real. Without the median break, access to the property becomes inadequate. For this reason staff is recommending denial of the proposed change to office use, The possibility exists that access could be made from the subject property to Hosp Way behind the adjacent development to the north. This would give the property access to the signal at Hosp and allows easy access to southbound El Camino Real. Should the applicant be able to guarantee' an acceptable connection to Hosp Way, staff would recommend approval of the proposed amendment. IV. RECOiMMENDATION Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission DENY GPA-57 (A). Attachnents Location Map Negative Declaration Traffic Study Traffic Engineer Study (Stracker) CG:ar 12/11/80 -2- - 17- I. EXHIBIT C STAFF REPORT DATE: May 13, 1981 TO : Planning Commission FROM: P1 anni ng Department SUBJECT: GPA-58(J) ELM PROPERTIES - Request to amend the Land Use Element . from Residential Nedium Density (RM) to a 'combination d,istrict comprised of Professional and Related Commercial (0) and Residen- tial Nedium Density (RM). 0 I. PROJECT DESCRI.PTIOM AND BACKGROUND The subject property is approximately 7.9 acres in size and is located or the northeast corner of El Camino Real and Elm Avenue'and is just south-ol tiosp .Way, (see attached location map). The property i.s currently desig- nated Residential Medium Densi'ty (4-10 du/acre) by the General Plan and thc applicant is requesting that the land use be redesignated to a combinatior district comprised of Professional and Related Commercial (0) and Residen- tial Medium Density (RM). A combination district allows two or more lan use classifications to be applied to the same property, and its use re quires a specific plan. ' -The site is relatively ;la.; along El Camino Real but begins to slope sharp ly upward toward the south end of the property, creating 8 to 15 foot bank above. Eim Avenue. The area to the east nf the property is designated; a open and the property to the north, along tiosp Way, has an approve office devel'opment. El Camino Real is shown as a prime arterial and El Avenue as a secondary arterial on the General Plan Circulation Map. A General P1a.n Amendment for this property was heard by the Council in Jar uary of 1981 and was denied on a 3 to 2 vote.. The request was to chanc the land use from Residential Medium (RM) density to Professional and Rel; ted Commerci-a1 (0). The application was changed (RM added) to assure 33 Council If the p.rc perty was designated as 0 alone, a good case could be made for commercit zoning on this site. !I. ANALYSIS P1 anni ng Issues space that the applicant's. intent is to seek office zoning. I. Is the proposed amendment consistent wjth the goals and polic.il presented in the General Plan? Is a combination district appropriate for the site? Are the proposed land uses appropriate for the site? ' 2. 3. e - 1233- Discussion The General Plan states that Professional and Related Commercial uses can be placed a1 ong arterial s without creating adverse conditions which are associated with strip development, and can be used as a buffer between com- mercial and residential areas. The General Plan states that the medium (and higher) density residential c1assi.fications should be located on sites which are close to commercial areas and transportation facilities. Using the above criteria, the applicant's proposed uses would be consistent with the General Plan. : The General Plan says very little about the combination district. Gener- ally it can be utilized if the Council feels that more than one land use classifications is desi.rable on a property. Staff has not had my problems with implementation -of the combination district because a specific plan is required. The specific plan can regulate the location of the various uses on the site.. Staff feels that-a combination district would be desirable because both the Medium Density classification and the Professional and Re1 ated Commerci a1 category are appropriate for the site. Strong arguments can be made for both the Residential Medium Density and the Professional and Related Commercial categories as being the most appro- priate for the site. Professional and Related Commercial (primarily office type uses) is a good use category for the site because of the topography and surrounding land uses. The northern portion of the site is physically oriented toward the large cammercial area to the north and is separated from the residential uses to the east by a steep slope. Office uses would provide a good buffer between the commercial and residential uses. Office use, if properly planned, is also beneficial because it will not appear to be a continuation of the "strip" -type'cornmercial uses to the north. Residential use (RM) is also an appropriate use for the site because of its location. The property is very close to a major commercial area, to enter- tainment activities and to transportation facilities. As a result, the property could be suitable for an affordable or senior type housing devel- opmen t . Because categories are appropri'ate for the site, it may be beneficial to utilize both of them. At the 'time a specific plan is submitted, the city can, based on the applicant's plan, determine whether office or resi- dential use, or a combination thereof, is most appropriate for the site. For example, the Council could limit office uses to the north and residen- tial uses to the south portion of the site. If the proposed amendment is approved, it is probable that the Residential Professional Zone (RP) will be requested by the applicant on the site. This zone allows office and residential uses. The Residential Medium Den- sity designation wmegulate the density for residential uses. There are some problems associated with access to the site. Staff feels that access issues should be resolved at the time that a specific plan is submi tted. . L two -2- d Is- 4 < < Staff believes that the this property is the last logical -extension of corn ' mercial/office use. It should be noted that staff would not recommend an: further expansion of. commercial/office uses in this area. Arguments can bc made for commercial uses almost anywhere along El Camino -Real. Future de. mand for these uses, especially at a major intersection like El Camino Rea' and Elm Avenue, will be great. The success of these demands will depend 01 future Council decisions. In Summary, staff is supporting approval of the proposed amendment because both offfce and residential uses are compatible with the site and becausc , the zone change and the specific plan process- will be ut.ilized to control .. the.location of uses on the site. - @ '- 1II.ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Planning Director has determined that approval of GPA-58(J) will not have a significant effect on the environment and has issued a Negative Dec- laration on April 13, 1951. IV. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission APPROVE the Negative Decla- ration issued by the Planning Director and ADOPTmtion No. 1802 recom- mending approval of GPA-58 (J) . ATTACHMENTS . . 1. Location Map 2. Environemental Documents (at rear of packet) 3. Resolution No. 1802 (at rear of packet) CG:ls 4/27/81 -3- a -28- t . EXHIBIT D Federhart & Associates 5252 Balboa Avenue, Suite 709 San Diego, CA 92117 (7 14) 278-3365 TRAFFIC AND PARKING S 0 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY ELM PROPERTIES' OFFICE PARK EL CMIINO REAL AND ELM AVENUE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA Introdution Elm Properties retained Federhart & Associates, traffic sultants, to develop a traffic impact study to analyze the irn the proposed office park development will have on the traffic circulation system of the area. The study has been completed this report trill document its findings. Project Elm ProFerties proposes the development of a 142,800-squ foot business office complex and a 6,000-square-foot bank and 5,500-square-foot savings and loan on the 7.97-acre site on t east side of El Camino Real, north of Elm Avenue in the city Carlsbad, California. Figure 1 shows the project location wi the San Diego metropolitan region. Figure 2 is a vicinity ma showing the site location in relationship to the local street e system. The developer proposes a building complex that will serv the office needs of professionals such as engineers, planners developers, and contractors. This type of user tends to have lower traffic generation rate than medical or business office Due to the land topography and existing and proposed -1- a I Grdi by th. SC -~~ -l -/- \/lCINITY MAP Fed e r ha r t & A sso ci a tes TRAFFIC AND PARKING STUDIES ~- Figure 2. ~ ~~ 4 e devklopments, the project's major access must be from El Camir Real, with secondary access from Elm Avenue and Hosp Way. Existing Traffic Conditions Figure 3 shows the -existing traffic volme on the freeway and major circulation streets in the vicinity of the project s . El Camino Real exists as a four-lane primary arterial str within a 126-foot right-of-way, and is planned as a six-lane primary arterial. Space exists for the two additional lanes j the median. Elm Avenue along the property's south frontage has been c structed as a 64-foot roadway in an 84-foot right-of-way. Hosp ?lay intersects El Camino Real approximately 1,600 f€ north of Eln Avenue. No median opening exists between these t intersections. Elm Avenue is a major street in the downtown section of Carlsbad with an interchange at Interstate 5. The road is planned for extension from its existing terminus. in .dc towh Carlsbad to El Camino Real. 0. The consultant made P.K. peak-hour manual counts at the existing intersection of Elm Avenue and El Camino Real and at Hosp Way and El Camino Real, These volumes are shown in Figu; Traffic Generation The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) and Ca: Trans District 11 conducted traffic generation studies of fivt commercial office buildings in the San Diego region dur2ng tht a -4- r a% Fcdcrhrrrt &C Associntcu TRAIfFIC AND PARKING. STUDIES EX I s 71 NG 7-ZA Ff/L Figure 3 L/aLUrn E5 tl: 0 2 gt 3 J +\ ', N - d 5L :o rn 41 z t-& si i! 3 -- F: p' 2 u xt $2 a;; H G: : 2 d 2z d3 -2 a w u w. 0 a 0 0 cn t- W .2 0 h e, .u -6- fib-dk e winter of 1979/80. Although the buildings studied were smallc than the proposed development and had somewhat'different type: tenants, these studies are the most recent and reliable generz studies made in San Diego County.. The traffic-generation ratc found in the average of the studies is 20-2 trips per 1,000 sc feet of gross floor area. Using'the above factor, it is estimated that the project (average daily tri generate 2,'884 trips per day (20.2 X 142.8) (ADT). In November 1981 SANDAG developed a "Brief Guide of Vehic Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Region." In the gi the generation rates for banks is recommended as 200 trips/l,l square feet, and savings and loans as 60 trips/1,000 square fr The guide indicates that a bank with a drive-in window would generate 320' trips per day. The study that developed the 320. trips-per-day data for drive-in windows was made at a San Die( bank in Mission Valley. The study was of the drive-in window only and did not include a study of the total bank traffic. a study of four banks in the San Francisco Bay area (three wi drive-through windows; one may or may not have a drive-throug window), the average generation rate was 179.1 trips per 1,OO square feet of floor area. This study is referenced in the SANDAS report as a source document for their recommendations. Based on this analysis, we are concluding that the drive-in window traffic is part of the overall rate'recommended by SAN a . e -7- 0 1 (200 trips per 1,000 square feet). Since banks and savings and loans contribute little, if a traffic to the peak hour,-the peak-hour analysis will include only the office traffic. The A.M.-P.N. peak-hour directional traffic volumes are shown in Table 1. Table 1 Traffic Generation Rate Size Off ice 20.2 X 142.8 = 2.884 Bank 200 X 6 = 1,200 Savings & Loan 60 X 5.5 = 330 @ 4,414 Peak-Hour Traffic Distribution Total In out % One-way ADT % Onnay ADT % Two-way A.M. 15 X 1442 = 216 3 X 1414 = 43 9 X 2884 = P.M. 4 X 1442 = 58 20 X 1414 = 288 12 X 2884 = Trip Distribution The directional distribution of the project-generated tr 9 -8- .I 0 was determined by an analysis of the existing traffic volume i consultation with CalTrans transportation planners -regarding future traffic assignments for the San Diego region for the yt 2000. Since the street system has not been completed, the fu. trip distribution patternmust therefore be modified to fit thc existing street system. The distribution pattern used in thi: study is shown in Figure 5. 55% /\I e -=+ g % 57% Figure 5 Trip Length For air pollution and energy considerations, it is impor. to have an estimate of average vehicle trip lengths to and frc the project site. Based on data obtained from SANDAG and Cal' with consideration of existing and future population in the a: it was concluded that the average one-way trip length to or f the project would be approximately 4.5 miles. e -9- 0 4 Traffic Assignment Utilizing the trip generation and distribution data, it i: possible to assign the future traffic generated by the project to 'the street system. However, due to the restricted nature 0: the property access to El Camino Real and the effect of future signalized intersections, driveways, and left turns, an access pattern has been developed that the consultant feels would ser the best interests of the community as-a whole and still provi adequate access to the proposed development. The proposed acc points with future ADT, A.M., and P.M. peak-hour traffic are shown in Figure 6. Traffic Analysis e ' El Camino Real is classed as a primary arterial with six traffic lanes. There is approximately 1,600 feet between Hosp Way' and Elm Avenue. No intersection is currently planned by t City of- Carlsbad or proposed by this developer between the two intersections. The property frontage along Elm Avenue is shor and restricted by a cut bank. It has been recommended by the City of Carlsbad that access to Hosp Way from the project be provided across the open spaces or through the property north the project site. In addition, future signalization of the El Avenue/El Camino Real intersection will aid in accesSto the property. Reail, remove traffic from El Camino Real, and serve the In an effort to reduce U-turning moves along El Cam e -10- 0- . .. ~ T-(v ww cnv, << .I I aa a u IL c .- Go << <OH g$ +:? PW E:: ;z ..I a I- WID* oo 0 -1 1- /-% /I 0 residential area east along Elm Avenue, we recommend that the access from the project site be provided on Elm Avenue as shoi on Figure 6. This access point will reduce out-of-direction travel, U turns, and traffic along El Camino Real. In our traffic impact report dated December 3, 1980, we recommended a median break in El Carnino Real between Hosp Way and Elm Avenue. With the proposed access to Hosp Way now recc mended by the City (with an indication that it is achievable) retention of the Elm Avenue access to the property, the total access should be adequate. P.M. Peak-Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis Intersection Level of Service (LOS), using the intersect] capacity utilization (ICUj technique, was determined for the E peak hour at the intersection of El Camino Real and Elm Avenuc and at El Camino Real and Hosp Way for both the existing volun and with the project volume added. The existing Level of Sen at Elm Avenue is "A" with.a numerical value of 0.31. The Lev€ of Service using the existing volumes with the project traffic added is also "A" with a numerical value of 0.36 (LOS "A" = I( below 0.6). e The current LOS at Hosp Way and El Camino fieal is 0.32, C "A". With project traffic added, the LOS would be 0.38, or "1 Conclusions and Reconmendations During the condu&t of this traffic analysis, the consult? e -12- 11 0 arrived at certain conclusions and recommendations that are pr vided herewith: 1. The property is currently zoned for 4 to 10 dwelling per acre. Due to the traffic noise created by the site proxirn to a primary arterial road located onavertical grade, we do n feel that residential use is the best land use for the propert 2. In an effort to relieve projected U-turn movement at Camino Real and Elm Avenue and at El Camino Real and Hosp Way, propose thataccess be provided to Hosp Way through the open sp or the adjoining subdivision and that access be retained on El Avenue. 3. We feel that with the planned-access provided, and a future traffic signal at Elm Avenue and El Camino Real, the traffic impact of the proposed development can be mitigated. 0 &P& /?k Federhart & Associ tes 3 Z/ cs : vc // e -13- I” 1 Federhari & Associates 0 c* 5252 Balboa Aven~e, Suite 709 San Diego, CA 92 11 7 ’ (714) 278-3365 TRAFFIC AND PARKIN6 ST Federhart fi Associates is a traffic engineering and transportation plan- ning consulting firm with its offices in San Diego. Its principal, James W. Pederhart, has been actively engaged in traffic engineering and trans- portation planning activities in San Diego since 1961. Prior to 1961, after a Civil Engineering degree in Michigan and a Certificate in Transportation from the Yale .Bureau of Highway Traffic in 1950, he was the City traffic engineer for the City of Saginaw, Michigan (population, . lOO,OOO), for almost ten years. He came to the City of San Diego in 1961 as an associate traffic engineer and was on the City Traffic and Trans- portation Planning staff until 1971. In 1971, he joined the San Diego offices of Alan M. Voorhees and Associates as a senior engineer and becamc regional manager in 1975. In September 1976, he left AMV to establish his own consulting firm. He has been project manager or principal in charge of various Southern California topics studies, transportation planning studies, and many traffic impact studies. Some of Federhart & Associates studies were, or are, for the City of La Mesa; for the University of California Medical Center, San Diego; for Nercy Hospital, San Diego; for the City of El Cajon and the County of San Diego and its East County Regional Administration Center. A number of studies have been conducted for the City of San Diego, including the traffic circulation portion of the EIR for the Otay Mesa Second Border Crossing now scheduled to open in 1983. Other recent studies have been conducted for the University of California, San Diego, for the State of California Architect’s office for the San Diego County Fatrgrounds Master Plan, and for the U. S. Navy at Port Hueneme. Other Federal Government studies have been conducted at the Miramar Naval Air Station and the Marine Corps Recruit Depot in San Diego. Other clients have been the San Diego Unified Port District, the San Diego Unified School District, the cities of Escondido, Oceanside, Corona, Carlsbad, National City, Calexico, San Marcos, and many private companies. Mr. Federhart is a Professional Engineer (traffic) in California, is a Fellow in the Institute of Transportation Engineers, is a member of the American Public Works Association, and other local transportation and traffic sapety organizations. a %e .- 9 Fed@rhan.t 8. &st>ciates 5252 Balboa Avenue, Suite 709 San Dicgo, CA 9.2117 (714) 278-3365 .. c TRAFFIC AND PARKING S’l Charles P. Strong (Chuck) PRINCIPAL ASSOCIATE Mr. Strong joined Federhart & Associates in 1978 and has been completely responsible for many traffic and traffic impact studies ever since. -Chuck is a retiree from the City of San Diego where he spent the last seven years as the Transportation Development Engineer, supervising the various transportation planning functions in the Engineering Division of the City. Prior to this assignment he had spent thirteen years in the traffic operations field in such functions as Traffic Operations Enginee Parking Engineer, and Records and Survey Engineer for the City. Before coming to the City, Chuck worlced for nine years with the Californ Division of Highways, primarily in traffic engineering, planning, and operational phases of highway development. He was a member of the team that developed the first Land Use Origin and Destination survey for the San Diego metropolitan area. Since joining Federhart & Associates, he has been responsible for many traffic signal designs and has conducted traffic studies in the Tierra- santa, UCSD, University City, Rancho Bernardo, and South Bay areas of th city of San Diego as well as in the 1-15 corridor. One of the most recent was the traffic impact report for the EIR for the Second Border Crossing (Otay Mesa Border Crossing). In the county of San Diego, he ha worked in the Hansen’s Ranch area, and in the Otay and Bonita areas. He has also conducted studies in the cities of Oceanside, Vista, Chula Vist La Mesa, El Cajon, National City, Calexico, and Corona. Mr. Strong is a Registered Traffic Engineer in the State of California and is a Fellow in the Institute of Transportation Engineers. He ho1.d~ Bachelor of Science degree from San Diego State University, a Certificat in Transportation from Yale University, and has completed the course in Urban Transportation at Carnegie-Mellon University. 0 a+ z 4 -I n IL ww ‘In 00 u q;g: --=<< TCL4 ;I uzsz ::=2 0- 0 Pm ,-z -. VI 2 ZI c/) <='g zzz CCnc w E;;g k -?:$ rn 52&E a--- Y 2 7 N _* - - _I __._ - /. r '1 Q 3 I- cn --, ,' .L_ :-- Z-L. ---. /- e i w I- v) - \:> -~ . -T' >z - L__ -- -_ _1 5 r $ tood~ &Sf&: at:- BP us: Ij ON gg 7 I 0 LBi? a i5&E f KW : ZEieP 0 e CD PI Q E L @ z rvirl @ ZE a@ J@ E 3iW :dl E: a e e i \ EXHIBIT I \ i i \ e I \\ 0 a EXBIB r T J a a a z - o o I z 0 t- 0 W cn - 0 7 r 0 8 E @ z clnrl OPQ 9% a z@ wn cnw L 0 - o +E + n W 0 0 e c3 a c> m 0 I @ PI a L L @ zz cv!!!l @I E za E@ E 0 5d \ LANDSCAPING CONCEPT 7 ELMI GARDEN 0 --., LUSARDX G@NQTIX~W~~ GQ 9 0 'i, 1, m PI 0 E CLnl @ *z 4w pB cm z@, 2@ ZZ 5@4 =n n z wi 031 W' + J Ji 51 @ gwz,2 :E 2 _I I > - > -wu -I w Y$W ID OZZI c 2 5 Ee6 2 z g 5 eg- g yz E = rb ImI*mY)* j:%z.995= u: 2-2 5 ,-zow:zg rv~g~ 1 I? u) 53 2 ; :a: 22%; g 2 2c5 ,,WE;is;$: %zb zzq2 :iisz oeuytu I- m i& ; p i g 2;; E 2 g z L 2 a0 $:E 9 +> z >n -antw u z I m - 2-2 : g - 25%W* m v uau zc 20 sg =< 2 5 g z 2 2 :: grnz I- 4kWAL WTQBANK, 1NC. 11211 SOLnmfo VAUEY Ro s#r MGU+ CA 92lZl (nq 4wm rt6. (0. 907 B 8 '- t, ,, 11128: SOWRENTO V.f,!tEY i?D {Z4) 455-0728 SFIN DIEGO, 3, 32121 VEG NO __ )wEe- c ‘)ATE -_____--___ /‘Rr-BL l_l_l 1v. NC. 5__ GA-Z-* 0 afRlAh FOTOBANK, lK 11211 SORRENTO VALLM RD SAN DIEGO, CA 92121 (714) 455-0780 4EG. NO. 2- fig., OAT€ /- / s-82 a 110. s B B L I i LTLCI.LI.~LJ.L~~ -m '.(UIOJl(.~ 'p*q.cr.~ Sallti3dOk3d n13 lj9 -.,w-,,rauaLn --a- xmm 9 ;: 1 - 1 a -I I- z 0 > a a X 4 0 z U -I I- z 0 > I l a a I I l 1 I I I I I I t- U Z -I ob mm + - .--.- -.----- ------- / ------- , / / ------- / ---- 5 - n a z J I- z U 0 > a ! -pippp I j a PAL@%IIARAFOF - 0 0 -1 - ~- _3 __ __ . ___. ___ I - __. OUTLINE OF CONSULTANT'S e SUMMARY LETTER On April 7, 1982, Chuck Strong of Federhart & Associates, z traffic engineering firm, summarized his traffic generation finding: regarding the Elm Gardens project. They are outlined below: . Office Space. The best available data suggests that traffic generation rates for the office space should be computed at 20.2 trips per one thousand square feet of space. The project contains 142,800 square feet devoted to office use. Thus, 20.2 x 142.8 produces a generation figure of 2,884. .. Bank Space. The engineer strongly disagrees with the traffic figure relied upon by staff. He points out that the staff has "double-counted" traffic numbers for the bank. The consultant carefully justifies a computation of 200 trips per one thousand square feet of bank space.. There will be .6,000 square feet attributable to the bank; thus, 200 x 6.equ.als a generation of 1,200 trips. 0 Sav'ings & Loan. The consultant computes traffic generation for a savings and loan at 60 trips per one thousand square feet of space. At 5,500 square feet, the formula of 60 x 5.5 produces 330 trips. Total. The total trip generation figure for all three project categories iis 4,414. i The figure promoted by the staff is without justification. e