Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-05-06; City Council; N/A; Scott's Valley GPA Densityr ram, 1200 ELM AVENUE CARLSBAD, CA 92008.1989 City Council Office April 25, 1986 V'ry� U � v VP 1,4,FOaa� TO: MAYOR & COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: Council Member Mark Pettine It has come to my attention that the Board of Supervisors has recently granted tentative approval for General Plan Amendments that would increase the density ranges on two parcels located in the vicinity of Olivenhain Road and E1 Camino Real. In addition, the County is currently processing an application for a General Plan Amendment to increase density on an additional parcel near the same intersection.. In light of the traffic circulation problems the City of Carlsbad has experienced in La Costa, it appears that this action by the County may, without proper mitigation, undermine our efforts to resolve this problem. These applications and approvals also come during a time in which the La Costa Master Plan is under review by our city planners. In light of the above I am requesting that the Council review the actions taken by the County and, if warranted by the evidence presented, request that the County reconsider its position or ensure that proper mitigation is included in its approvals. Respectfully submitted, 6 ./ MARK V. PETTINE Council Member Attachment COUNCIL 5-6-86 Council determined to adopt a resolution asking the County ACTION: Board of Supervisors to delay action on the proposed GPA until traffic matters can be successfully mitigated. TELEPHONE (619) 438.5599 DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES LAND USE PLANNING OFFICE July 10, 1985 .rw 6F C 4 9 (f c` P Steve Koules, Project Planner DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & LAND USE 5201 Ruffin Road M.S. 0-650 San Diego, California 92123 Re: Scott's Valley, GPA 85-03 Dear Mr. Koules: 1200 ELM AVENUE CARLSBAD, CA 92008.1989 (619) 438.5591 Cl) The City of Carlsbad appreciates the opportunity to comment on the General Plan Amendment report for Scott's Valley. Basically, the City feels there is inadequate justification presented in the report to allow the proposed density increase. The following comments are offered: 1. Channelizing Encinitas Creek is not compatible with the surrounding area. The area to be developed to the east will preserve Encinitas Creek in a natural state -- we hope that the County would respect this precedent with retard to development in Scott's Valley. The channelization is being proposed solely for the benefit of the developer, who wants to avoid losing units. It is noted in the report that two previous proposals for this property only had 161 and 123 units, respectively. This General Plan Amendment would allow up to 283 units to be built, which does not appear to be justified based on the physical constraints of steep topography and the creek with its associated flocdplain." In fact, the statement on Page 29 of the report says that the density increase from 2.9 to 4.3 dulac will help offset the additional cost of the more extensive flood control improvements ...". Obviously, if you do not channelize the floodplain area you do not need additional revenues for improvements. 2. There appear to be several discrepancies in the traffic circulation discussion. The General Plan Amendment report uses year 2005 (20-year projection) for analysis of impacts. General Plan buildout should be used: SANDAG data shows that ADT volumes will be 10 to 20 percent higher than the 20-year estimate. Steve Koules July 10, 1965 Page 2 The report distributed trips for daily traffic. This should be done for peak hour traffic. Again, using SANDAL data, our analysis stews the E1 Camino Real and Olivenhain Road will experience .a Level of Service F at buildout. The report states that loading of the additional trips onto the streets serving the area "appears to be negligible" (pg. 22). A re -analysis of traffic impacts should be required by the County for this project. Olivenhain Road is identified on the City of Carlsbad's Circulation Element as a Prime Arterial and is proposed to be the same on the San Dieguito Circulation Element. As such, intersection spacing policies may not allow access onto Olivenhain Road. Did the Environmental Impact Report address traffic and the potential impacts of a primary access from*Village View Road only? It is likely that this area will be greatly impacted from traffic in the future. Increases in density should be more closely scrutinized in terms of impact on the entire area. 3. The report states several times that the General Plan Amendment is being proposed to bring the density on this property into "compatibility" with the surrounding area and also because the No. 4 Residential category is "not consistent" with higher density trends in this portion of North County (Pages 1 & 31). These statements are riot well founded and appear to try and loosely justify the higher density. It is highly unlikely that a single-family development of 2.9 du/ac would not be compatible with other single-family units developed at 4.3 du/ac. Figure 3 on Page 5 shows that property to the west, south and southeast is designated 2.9 du/ac. The RLM designation in -Carlsbad of 0-4 du/ac which is found to the north and east guarantees a minimum density, 4 du/ac is the maximum obtainable and is d fEicult to achieve. Physical constraints as well as the type of development propimed are very important factors in determining the # appropriate density within the range. For example, the Rice f property further east is designated 0-4 du/ac but is proposing development at 2.5 du/ac due to the above - mentioned factors. It does not appear that the Scott Valley site was incorrectly designated by the County. A density of 2.9 du/ac is appropriate based on the physical constraints found on the site. a } 3 Steve Koules July 10, 1985 Page 3 4. The report states on Page 16 that future development will probably be similar in concept to the previously approved + 123-unit project. A potential increase of an additional 160 units would seem to require quite a change in concept on the site. one can also assume by reading further on Page 16 that the knoll in the southwest corner will be developed with "custom homes". Should that knoll really be developed at all? Some preservation or limited use of a natural landform seems to be in order since the creek channel would be altered from its natural state. Page 16 (and page 31) also refers to this proposal as an i "in -filling" of the area. This is not quite true. The site is located on the fringe of Encinitas and Olivenhain. The surrounding area is largely undeveloped and is not really an "urbanized" area in the sense that "in -fill" development is typically associated, i.e.. in a developed environment. In summary, the City of Carlsbad feels that no information was offered to justify the increase in density of this property. The current designation of 2.9 du/ac accurately reflects the existing constraints on the site. Development implemented at that density would not be incompatible with residential develupment in the surrounding area. Channelizing Encinitas Creek would be disruptive to the integrity of this natural feature and would set an undesirable precedent that the City of Carlsbad has tried hard to preserve. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. We hope that your staff agrees with our comments. At best, the zone change is premature. Also, we would appreciate receiving notice of upcoming public hearings for GPA 85-03. We also would like to review the Environmental Impact Report that was prepared for this General Plan Amendment proposal. Sincerely, Michael J. Hol`miller Land Use Planning Manager MJH:NER:ad c: Frank Aleshire, City Manager "N, DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES LAND USE PLANNING OFFICE Up of Carldab September 12, 1985 County of San Diego Department of Planning & Land Use c/o Mr. Thomas A. Oberbauer 5201 Ruffin Road, Suite H San Diego, CA 92123 SUCIIECT: HPI DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, EIR FOR GPA 86-01 Dear Mr. Oberbauer': 1200 ELM AVENUE CARLSBAD, CA 92008.1989 (619) 438-5591 The City of Carlsbad appreciates the opportunity to respond to the Notice of Preparation of the Draft EIR for GPA 86-01. The property is located adjacent to the City of Carlsbad's southern boundary; we have several concerns and wish to see them adequately addressed in the EIR: 1) Traffic - Potential traffic impacts to E1 Camino Real, Olivenhain Road, Rancho Santa Fe Road and the intersections of these roadways should be evaluated in the proposed EIR. SANDAG data shows that El Camino Real and Olivenhain Road will experience a level of Service F at full buildout. Implementation of the proposed GPA could likely exacerbate an existing and future poor circulation condition within the project vicinity. An analysis of traffic generation and distribution associated with the proposed GPA should be evaluated in the EIR. Olivenhain Road is identified on the City of Carlsbad's Circulation Element as a Prime Arterial and is proposed to be the same on the San Dieguito Circulation Element. Intersection and driveway spacing is 2600' on prime arterials. This, may prevent access onto Olivenhain Road. At worst, access from Olivenhain Road should line up with existing access north of Olivenhain Road. E1 Camino Real already experiences serious congestion problems associated with the numerous driveways and strip commercial along both sides to the south. The EIR should evaluate these potential traffic impacts and the overall impact of adding more commercial/office use along E1 Camino Real. �-A September 12, 1985 Mr. Oberbauer Page Two 2) floodplain and Flooding - Approximately 25% of the subject property s ocated within the floodplain of Encinitas Creek. In accordance, the County has designated the property impact sensitive. It is the City of Carlsbad's concern that implementation of the proposed GPA could result in flooding impacts on the subject and adjacent properties. If this were the case, the City would be opposed to mitigating this potential flooding impact through channelization of Encinitas Creek. We would prefer that Encinitas Creek be preserved in its natural state, as other developments adjacent to the creek in Carlsbad have been required to do. Ev.luation of flooding impacts and mitigation measures :could be included within the draft EIR. 3) Land Use -- The southern half of the project site has steep slopes (over 25%). The northern quarter of the. property is within the Encinitas Creek floodplain. Overall, it should be concluded that the project is environmentally constrained. The EIR should discuss these site constraints relative to future land uses that would be allowed with the approval of this GPA. We would like to review a copy of the Draft F.IR when it is available. Thank you. Sincerely, (k) � a-61- CHRISTOPHER D. DE CERBO Assistant Planner c: Michael J. Holzmiller Gene Donovan Charlie Grimm CDD:bn A DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES - LAND USE PLANNING OFFICE December 4, 1985 1200 ELM AVENUE CARLSBAD, CA 9200&1989 (019) 438.550 rel County of San Diego DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND LAND USE c/o Steve.Roules 5201 Ruffin Road, Suite B San Diego, California 92123 Subject: HPI DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, GPA 86-01 YDear Mr. koules: The City of Carlsbad appreciates the opportunity to comment on GPA 86-01. The subject property is located adjacent to the City of Carlsbad's southern boundary. Our comments on GPA 86-01 are.. included below: i Page 3, Paragraph 1 - How will this proposed General Amendment (GPA) result in a b break in strip commercial land uses along El Camino Real since commercial uses would not be allowed under the current land use designations? In addition, the proposed GPA also requests a commercial use right at the southeastern intersection of El Camino Real and Olivenhain Road. City staff questions whether there is a need for this additional commercial use in this area and whether a safe and reasonable access. to this site from either Olivenhain Road or El Camino Real could be accommodated. , Page 4, Paragraph 1 - Given the existing and future traffic congestion problems within the project vicinity, why would the subject at a higher density? Thp isratierty be eonaleforrapprovaldseems unfounded. f Page 14, Regional Land Use Element Plan - There should be fi ncluded in this section of the General Plan Amendment report, a discussion of the consistency or inconsistency of this GPA request with the other Regional Land Use Element Plan policies. t.�A Mr. Steve Roules December 4; 1985 Page Two Page 16, San Die uito Community Plan - should be evaluated re a"tve goals, policies and objectives Community Plan. Again, this GPA request to its consistency with all of the San Dieguito Page 17, Objective 10 -'In that approval of this request would result in development within a flood plain, a discussion of this incompatibility with Objective 10 should be included in the report. Page 190 Circulation Goals, Objective 4 - Future development of the subject property (in particular driveway accesses as discussed on Page 20, Paragraph 1) would be in violation of City/County intersection spacing policies and would be incompatible with Objective 4. This should be discussed in the GPA report. Page 21, Olivenhain Road to the east of E1 Camino Real is currently designated as a Prime Arterial on the City of Carlsbad's Circulation Element. It is City staff's opinion that it should be likewise designated on the.. County's Circulation Element in view of anticipated traffic generation along it. Page 23, Paragraph 3 - Mitigation of traffic impacts associated with this GPA request, especially to El Camino Real, is not adequately discussed. It is City staff's opinion that a feasible mitigation alternative to pursuing• other amendments to the Circulation Element, may include the reduction in land use densities which would thereby reduce the number of trips generated on this impacted roadway. Page 29, Hydrology and Water Quality - A discussion of potential flooding impacts to upstream properties associated with development within the flood plain should be included. Page 32, Traffic - Since El Camino Real, south of Olivenhain Road and Olivenhain Road east of El Camino Real are already over capacity, the statement that "no significant traffic impacts are anticipated as a result of the proposed project in the near term" is incorrect. 0 �"_4 Mr. Steve Koules December 4; 1985 Page Three 0 As noted earlier, mitigation to traffic impacts could also include the downzoning of surrounding contributory land uses. This mitigation should also include a discussion of denying the GPA request. Again, the City of Carlsbad thanks you for the Opportunity to comment on this GPA; request. Could you also please send -us a copy of the draft EIR when it is available. Sincerely, ;i Christopher D. DeCerbo Assistant Planner a CDD:ad c: Michael J. Holzmiller Charlie Grimm Gene Donovan i a t i t F r M DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES LAND USE PLANNING OFFICE Citp of Carbibab April 24, 1986 0 1200 ELM AVENUE CARLSBAD, CA 92008.1989 (619) 438.5591 Mr. Steven Roules COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND LAND USE 5201 Ruffin Road, Suite B5 (M.S. 0-650) San Diego, California 92123 Re: PEARCE GPA 86-02 The City of Carlsbad appreciates the opportunity to comment on the proposed Pearce General Plan Amendment and zone reclassification. The City has several concerns as to the appropriateness of the proposal. 1. The proposed 70 percent increase (from 44 du to 75 du) in allowable density appears unwarranted. Over 37 percent of the site is physically constrained. Thirty-two percent of the site has northerly facing slopes of over 25 percent and an additional five percent o` the site is within the 100-year floodplain of Encinitas Cree}t. These development constraints appear accurately reflected in the present allowable density of 2.9 du/ac. The area surrounding Encinitas Creek within Carlsbad is designated "Open Space" on the General Plan. This designation reflects the development limitations and community wide importance and amenity of floodplain areas. The City of Carlsbad would like to suggest a continuation of this designated riparian open space corridor into the County portions of Encinitas Creek. Additionally, Encinitas Creek serves as a sedimentation trap for waters draining into Batiquitos Lagoon. The importance of maintaining this natural sedimentation trat to this regional resource is of upmost concern to the City of Carlsbad. 2. The proposed density increase would further impact an already constrained circulation system. Although the impact would not in -and -of -itself, further degrade existing deficient service levels of the major roadway that would service the site, the incremental impact would contribute to the acknowledged roadway deficiency. This cumulative impact IV MO Mr. Steven Koules April 24, 1986 Page Two AMI. is skirted in the report's Environmental Mitigation on page 24 by assuming that "cumulative...impacts can be mitigated by pursuing other amendments to the circulation element of the General Plan". The City of Carlsbad along with other North County cities are very concerned with proposals which irresponsibly tax the regions existing public facilities without providing clear and adequate mitigation. Concern is particularly high in this area of the County because of existing congestion and recently approved strip commercial development. In addition, Carlsbad has lowered densities throughout the City to help mitigate existing and future circulation problems. 3. The General Plan Amendment suggests land use compatibility is advanced by allowing densities of 7.26 du/ac. on a majority of the site. For the adjacent lands within Carlsbad, this assumption does not hold true. Most of the land in Carlsbad, near the proposal is designated "RLM 0-4 du/ac". Additionally, Carlsbad does not "guarantee" the maximum available.density within this density range. Rather, a particular site's physical attributes and unique land use compatibility factors, along with the type of proposed development, guide appropriate site density. As a consequence, few sites are able to uniformly obtain the "maximum" theoretical densfty. The existing density of 2.9 du/ac would, from the City of Carlsbad's standpoint, reflect a more compatible density. In summary, the City of Carlsbad would suggest a very close examination of the proposed general plan amendment. The proposed general plan amendment appears less than truly sensitive to the site's physical constraints, the surrounding land use and the regions already impacted major roadways. Thank you again for the opportunity to comment. We hope our comments have proved useful. ,We would appreciate receiving notice of upcoming public hearings for general plan amendment 86- 02, along with any other proposal which may impact the City of Carlsbad. Sincerely, MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER Planning Director MJH:LBS:ad i 1-4 APRIL 29, 1986 TO: COUNCILMEMBER MARK PETTINE VIA: CITY MANAGER FROM: PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN DENSITY INCREASES/COUNTY AREAS ADJACENT TO THE CITY You have requested comments from the Planning Department as to whether we believe the traffic problems associated with the recent General Plan Amendments approved by the County of San Diego south of Olivenhain Road can be mitigated. As you are aware, the recent traffic study that was performed for the southerly portion of the City showed that there wou.Ld be unmitigatable traffic problems at certain intersections at the present level of land use intensity permitted by the City and the County in this area. Increases in density by the County will only exacerbate this problem. It is doubtful whether adequate mitigating measures can be determined at this time. However, several studies are underway which might provide additional information which can be used as a basis for discussing mitigation. These studies include the review of the La Costa Master Plan and a rerun of the SANDAG traffic model for Carlsbad based upon the recent reduction in the City's density ranges. At the very least, staff believes that the County should defer consideration of any General Plan Amendments to increase density on properties adjacent to the City of Carlsbad until these studies are completed. In addition, consideration should probably be deferred until a vote is taken on the incorporation of the San Dieguito area. MICHAEL J.UiOLZMIff,,ER Planning Director MJH:bn Note: Count; should also be encouraged to do a Traffic Impact Study for the Encinitas - E1 Camino - Rancho Santa Fe - corridor areas to determine what added traffic mitigation measures'need to be required of developers. F.A. 11,