Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-07-07; City Council; 8952-2; Report of Circulation Committee on RSF Rdma, cda, u- PLN DEPT. MTGm7/7/R7 I ROAD CORRIDOR MG RECOMMENDED ACTION: APPROVE the report and direct staff to initiate appropriate follow-up actions. ITEM EXPLANATION Attached is the Report from the Circulation Committee which was appointed by the City Council to analyze the Rancho Santa Fe Road Corridor. ATTACHMENT Report of the Circulation Committee on the Rancho Santa Fe Road Corridor dated 3uly 7, 1987 REPORT OF THE CIRCULATION COMMITTEE ON THE RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD CORRIDOR 3ULY 7, 1987 CIRCULATION COMMITTEE 3eanne B. McFadden, Chairperson Majorie Morrison, Co-Chairperson Girard lqLePtyql Anear Dave Carr Barbara Donovan Tom Erwin Mike Glass 3im Hicks Barbara Pursehouse Irv Roston Fay Round Robert Royce Clarence IIBudl' Schlehuber TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF HISTORY OF RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD ........................ 11. OVERALL FINDING................................'. 111. SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS........................ IV. APPENDICES Exhibit A Corridor Map.... .......................... 5 Exhibit B List of Material Reviewed by Committee.... 7 Exhibit C Minutes of Committee Meetings, ............ 11 comments received by Committee........... 57 Exhibit D Report from public input meeting, 3une 20, with petitions and written I. INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF HISTORY OF RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD c c The alignment of Rancho Santa Fe Road was approved over 16 years ago. In 1971, one year prior to the La Costa area's annexation into the City of Carlsbad, the County Board of Supervisors approved the plan for La Costa. That plan identified Rancho Santa Fe, El Camino Real, and Melrose Avenue as prime arterials. Immediately prior to La Costa's annexation, the County of San Diego approved a subdivision called "La Costa Vale Unit #I." That subdivision provided for the alignment of Rancho Santa Fe Road including the intersection of Rancho Santa Fe Road and La Costa Avenue. That subdivision identified and dedicated La Costa Avenue as a 90 foot wide roadway and Rancho Santa Fe Road as a 110 foot wide roadway of which only approximately 55 feet was dedicated. After La Costa's annexation in 1972, the La Costa Master Plan was adopted by the City of Carlsbad. That plan identified Rancho Santa Fe Road as a 102 foot major arterial roadway at its current location. In 1984, as part of a comprehensive review and revision of the City's Circulation Element, the classification of Rancho Santa Fe Road was upgraded to a Prime Arterial. Based upon the projection of high traffic volumes, the planned roadway width was expanded to 126 feet. The classification and alignment of Rancho Santa Fe Road became an issue again last year because of complaints about increased noise, accidents and truck traffic using the road to get to the San Marcos landfill. Residents along the road requested that trucks be banned and that the alignment of the road be moved to the east. The City Council responded by constructing a truck bypass for northerly bound trucks, prohibiting trucks from traveling south on the road and re-establishing the 1984 Circulation Committee to again evaluate the classification and general alignment of the road. The Circulation Committee was reappointed to study the Rancho Santa Fe Road corridor on April 14, 1987. The Committee met six times including one public hearing. The Committee's charge was as follows: 1) Review and determine classification of the roadway. 2) Review and determine general alignment of the roadway. 3) Review and determine appropriate short term and long term mitigation measures. The list of material that was analyzed by the Committee in making its recommendations is included in the appendix to this report. Also included are the minutes from the Committee meetings, as well as petitions and written correspondence received by the Commit tee. 11. OVERALL FINDING The Circulation Committee supports the existing Circulation Element as it relates to the Rancho Santa Fe Road corridor. Specifically, with respect to Rancho Santa Fe Road, the Committee recommends: 1) That the classification of the road remain as a Prime Arterial; 2) That the general alignment of the road as shown on the Circulation Element be retained but that it be moved east as Engineering standards permit to allow noise and safety mitigation. The Committee also made several additional recommendations regarding mitigation which are contained in the next section of this report. Results of the voting are shown in parenthesis after each recommendation. Also included is the minority opinion regarding the classification and alignment of the road. -2- / 111. SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS Classification Retain Rancho Santa Fe Road and Olivenhain Road as a Prime Arterial (8-4). Reasons: 1) Safety - level of service reduced if a major 2) Traffic projections from SANDAG do not reflect build-out for neighboring communities 3) Less pollution and noise with good free flow of traffic 4) Regional responsibility to take fair share of traffic on arterial links c 5) Will need prime whether trash to energy plan goes in or not Miniority Opinion - Downgrade Rancho Santa Fe Road to a Major Arterial. Reasons: 1) Prime incompatible with existing and future residential 2) Increased volume as a primary 3) Noise and safety problems/reduced with major Construct Rancho Santa Fe Road as a Prime Arterial but stripe initially as a Major Arterial (4 lanes) until full width (6 lanes) is needed (10-2). Alignment Retain the present general alignment but move it to the east as Engineering standards permit to allow noise and safety mitigation. A detailed engineering and environmental study would determine the exact alignment, location and grade (7-5). Reasons: 1) Safest alignment 2) Noise can be mitigated -3- Miniority Opinion - change the present alignment by moving the road to the canyon area located to the east. Reasons: 1) Get away from existing residences for safety and noise 2) If moved, can be built right Short and Long-Term Mitigation Measures c c c Review and update the Noise Element of the General Plan to establish a noise standard including roadway noise and other noise sources (12-0). 0 As part of the revision to the Noise Element, prepare a policy to help residents impacted by noise sources to create an association to formulate, develop and maintain noise mitigation measures (7-5). 0 Prepare and adopt a comprehensive, Citywide noise ordinance with enforcement authority for compliance (12- 0). 0 In order to reduce traffic volumes on Rancho Santa Fe Road, encourage other east-west and north-south connections - PoinsettiafCarrillo Way, Leucadia Boulevard, Alga Road from Melrose east to Rancho Santa Fe Road and South Melrose Drive (8-4). Study the possibility of another north-so'uth connection to the east of the Rancho Santa Fe Road corridor (12-0). 0 Provide off-property mitigation for all one and two-story homes along Rancho Santa Fe Road and use Federal noise standards for the construction of new homes along the roadway (12-0). Design the construction of Rancho Santa Fe Road utilizing the standards contained in the draft Scenic Corridor Study (10-2). The design of Rancho Santa Fe Road should also address the safety of children especially as it relates to crossing the road to get to Stagecoach Park (12-0). 0 Prepare a policy on toxic waste routes in Carlsbad (9-2- 1). -4- Appendix EXHl6lT A . Appendix EXHIBIT B Material Reviewed by Committee In the course of review of the Rancho Santa Fe Road corridor, the Circulation Committee has reviewed the following information: Background Information - Carlsbad 1. Circulation element 2. Study area boundary map 3. City of Carlsbad, Land Use Plan 4. City street design standards. A. Current B. Draft a 5. Traffic volumes A. Current 6. Accident data 7. Minutes A. Former Circulation Committee (August 21, 1984 and November 27, 1984) 6. March 21, 1987, Citizen Meeting C. Verbatim written comments, March 21, 1987 Citizen Meeting Backaround Information - Other 3urisdictions 8. San Marcos A. Circulation Element, 1985 B. Land Use Plan, 1984 A. Circulation Element Map, October 2, 1985 (adopted College Plan 12/11/84) 9. San Diego County 10. Adopted Land Use Alternative Mav 12. 1987 Meetina 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. Map showing projected traffic volumes at buildout per the existing General Plan and Circulation Plan. SANDAG North County existing traffic volumes (on back side of map) Report on the history of Rancho Santa Fe Road and the history of projects approved along Rancho Santa Fe Road. Excerpts from 1984 Circulation Element Review regarding Rancho Santa Fe Road. Road noise information. Excerpt from SANDAG Highway 78 Corridor Study. Excerpt from municipal code regarding truck routes. Excerpts from PDP 70-2 (La Costa) regardinq Rancho Santa Fe Road. City Zoning Map. Newspaper article regarding Rancho Santa FelLaCosta intersection. Rick Engineering alternative alignments. -8- Page 2 c c 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. Alan Reece alternative alignment. Excerpt from Scripps Hospital EIR regarding traffic. Excerpt from San Marcos Trash to Energy Plant EIR regarding traffic. Revised schedule and procedural guidelines for workbook. San Dieguito Circulation Element. San Diego Region Average Weekday Traffic Volumes Draft Scenic Corridor Study Environmental Noise - Decibel Examples Letter dated April 30, 1987 to City Council and City Manager. 1982 - 1986 May 26, 1987 Meeting 31. A brief summary regarding roadway air emissions. 32. Sections 1031 to 1036 of the California Public Utilities Code and Section 35703 of the California Vehicle Code regarding vehicles allowed on truck routes. A. Acoustical analysis study for Assessment 8. Community Noise Analysis for La Costa South C. Acoustical Analysis for Meadowlands, D. Acoustical Analysis for Park View West. 34. Alternative Traffic Models prepared by SANDAG including: A. Leucadia connection deleted, 8. Carrillo Way and Poinsettia deleted, C. Melrose and 680 deleted, 0. Leucadia, Melrose and 680 deleted, E. Rancho Santa Fe Road as major, F. Rancho Santa Fe Road as collector from La Costa to Questhaven (status quo), G. SDSU Campus added. 33. Noise information including: District No. 86-5, Phase 1, June 11. 1987 Meetina 35. Staff worksheet used for alternative traffic model 36. Report on ordinance regarding trucks on Rancho Santa 37. Report on number of existing and approved homes 38. Report on background of extending Alga Road from 39. Noise Element. analysis. Fe Road. adjacent to Rancho Santa Fe Road. Melrose to Rancho Santa Fe Road. -9- Page 3 40. Additional Traffic Model, Alternative No. 8 - Rancho Santa Fe Road as a Major with Melrose and 680. 41. Summary Report from noise consultant Mestre-Greve Associates. June 25, 1987 Meeting 42. . Advantages and disadvantages of the existing Rancho Santa Fe Road alignment. 43. San Dieguito Community Plan, Draft EIR. 44. Dedicated right-of-way on Olivenhain Road between Rancho Santa Fe Road and El Camino Real. In addition to the above materials, members of the committee also attended the 3oint City Council/Planning Commission workshop on the Citywide Traffic Impact Study and a North County Transportation Workshop sponsored by the 8IA. BH:af 6/29/87 -10- Appendix EXHIBIT C e HINUTES Meeting of: CIRCULATION COMMITTEE Time of Meeting: 3:30 P.M. Date of Meeting: 3une 25, 1987 Place of Meeting: Carlsbad Public Safety & Service Center CALL TO ORDER Chairperson McFadden called the meeting to order at 3:35 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Chairperson McFadden, Anear, Donovan, Erwin, Morrison, Roston, Royce, Glass, Carr, Pursehouse, Schlehuber, and Round. 3im Hicks (Mr. Hicks submitted a letter with written recommendations which is attached to the minutes.) Staff Members Present: Michael 3. Holzmiller, Planning Director Charles Grimm, Assistant Planning Director Bobbie Hoder, Sr. Management Analyst Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer Mike Howes, Senior Planner Lance Schulte, Associate Planner Marty Bouman, City Transportation Planning Robert gohnson, Principal Civil Engineer Frank Boensch, Management Analyst Consultant PUBLIC COMMENT Homer Hupf, 3341 Cadencia Street, stated that he would like to summarize his views on Rancho Santa Fe Road for the Committee. He feels that widening is not going to help and it will add unsightly dirt berms and other noise barriers, which ruin the beauty of the area. Mr. Hupf asked the Committee to consider moving the road to the east. There being no one else wishing to address the Committee, Chairperson McFadden closed the public input and proceeded to the next item. -1 2- 3une 25, 1987 Circulation Committee Page 2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES A motion was made and seconded to approve the minutes of 3une 11, 1987. DISCUSSION OF NEW MATERIALS The Committee discussed the following new information that they had received from staff: The advantages and disadvantages of the alignments of Rancho Santa Fe Road. The EIR the Committee received from the County. The dedication of right-of-way on Olivenhain Road, between Rancho Santa Fe Road and El Camino Real. DISCUSSION OF INPUT OF PUBLIC HEARING Chairperson McFadden felt that the meeting of 3une 20, 1987 was a very worthwhile and productive meeting. Lefty Anear spoke about some comments that were made at the meeting and stated that a six lane road was not a freeway and did not automatically mean a 55 mph speed limit. He made the comment that because of accidents on Rancho Santa Fe Road it was realigned to its present alignment. Irv Roston said that he had listened to the tapes of the meeting because he was not present. The Committee discussed the petitions that were submitted and also the draft agenda bill that Mr. Recce submitted along with a petition. Chairperson McFadden commented on the fiscal impact section of the agenda bill. Chairperson McFadden questioned who pays for the construction of the road. Lloyd Hubbs stated that normally major road improvements are done by the developer concurrent with development. If you take the current alignment, the normal process would be as the abutting development occured, portions of the roadway would be constructed incrementally. If you are looking at realignment, such as the far east realignment, that is probably not realistic to phase construction and it would require one large $12 million dollar -13- c 3une 25, 1987 Circulation Committee Page 3 construction project. It would require some unusual financing mechanism to construct that road. It could be an assessment district, City funding, a combination of other sources, but it's likely that some major project would have to be developed. Mr. Hubbs also mentioned that with the Growth Management Program, Rancho Santa Fe Road would probably be identified as a need and the financing mechanisms would be addressed. Chairperson McFadden referred to the notice that Brookfield-Phase I is having people sign that are buying into the project next to a prime arterial and wondered if this would be passed on if property sold. Irv Roston commented that this should be passed on with other paperwork and that buyers should be aware that a prime arterial would be going in'. Chairperson McFadden referred to a letter that was attached from a couple in Encinitas, complaining directly to the Circulation Committee because Mashburn sanitation is increasing rates because of the banning of trucks on Rancho Santa Fe Road. FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS Mike Glass asked if the order of the final recommendations could be changed since the alignment affects the classification more than the classification affects the alignment. Chairperson McFadden did not favor a change of order in the final recommendations. Chairperson McFadden felt that the Committee needed to address the classification before the alignment. A motion was made and seconded to study the subject of alignment prior to the classification of Rancho Santa Fe Road. Motion fails (5-7 Royce, Round, Schlehuber, Morrison, McFadden, Anear and Roston). A motion was made and seconded to classify Rancho Santa Fe Road as a prime arterial. Motion passed (8-4 Erwin, Donovan, Glass and Carr). A motion was made and seconded to build Rancho Santa Fe Road as a prime arterial but to stripe it with only four lanes until six lanes are needed. Motion passed (10-2 Donovan, Glass). -14- June 25, 1987 Circulation Committee Page 4 A motion was made and seconded to maintain the current general alignment and according to engineering studies determining potentially where the road could be moved, Motion passed (7-5 Carr, Pursehouse, Erwin, Donovan, and Glass). A motion was made that the roadway be moved far enough east from existing property lines to accommodate a combination of landscaped berms and other safety or noise mitigation necessary to reduce noise levels on the existing and future homes to acceptable levels and to accomplish it in such a way that it is sensitive to the scenic highway designation on that roadway, the existing homes in the area and future development in the area. Motion dies due to lack of a second. A motion was made and seconded to encourage eastfwest connections including Leucadia, Alga, Poinsettia and south Melrose. Motion passed (8-4 Glass, Donovan, Erwin, and Carr). A motion was made and seconded to have a Citywide Noise Ordinance with enforcement for compliance. Motion passed (12- 0). A motion was made and seconded to have the Noise Element revised and noise standards for the City set. Motion passed (12-0). A motion was made and seconded for the formation of an association of homeowners impacted by noise to formulate mitigation. Motion passed (7-5 Roston, Anear, Schlehuber, Glass and Round). A motion was made and seconded that all off-property mitigation address one and two-story existing properties and that the City of Carlsbad enforce existing federal policies on new construction. Motion passed (12-0). A motion was made and seconded that the City develop a policy regarding toxic waste routes. Motion passed (9-2-1 Schlehuber and Anear, Roston abstained). A motion was made and seconded to develop Rancho Santa Fe Road according to the Scenic Corridor Study Guidelines. Motion passed (10-2 Anear and Roston). A motion was made and seconded that the safety of children issue be addressed in the design of Rancho Santa Fe Road. Motion passed (12-0). -15- 3une 25, 1987 Circulation Committee Page A 5 A motion was made to change Melrose Avenue south of Rancho Santa Fe Road from a prime arterial to a collector. Motion fails due to lack of second. Chairperson McFadden announced to the Committee that their recommendations would be going to City Council on 3uly 7, 1987. The meeting was adjourned at 5:15 p.m. Respectfully Submitted , MICHAEL 3. 'HOLZM~LLER Planning Director BARBARA NEDROS Secretary to Planning Department -16- L c *- . Mrs. Jeanne Chairperson CIRCULATION Dear Jean: Mc Fadden COMMITTEE Please accept my apologies for not being able to attend the final meeting of the Circulation Committee on June 25, 1987. Having attended all of the previous meetings, it is my under- standing that I am entitled to express my voting preference in written form and have it delivered to the Chair for a reading at the final meeting. This being the case, I would . like to go on the record to vote as follow%: A. CLASSIFICATION OF ROADWAY. There is no doubt in mind that the road should be class- ified as a Prime Arterial. Having sat on the previous Circulation Committee as well as the present, it is very apparent to me that the traffic volumes are going to i.ncrease significantly. My primary concern is safety. I am convinced that the safest road would be a Prime Arterial. 8. ALIGNMENT OF ROADWAY There is a concern for safety as well as the problem of noise for those residents impacted by the current align- ment of Rancho Santa Fe Road as well as those future residents who may be impacted by a change in that alignment. Therefore, it is my recommendation that steps be taken to mitigate these problems. If this involves a re-alignment of Rancho Santa Fe Road, then I would be in favor of it. I would like to emphasis however, that I am not in favor of moving the road “as far away from the existing residences as possible”. Basic standards must be set for the entire city in matters such as these. Standard mitigating measures must be approved and applied equally throughout the city. These same standards should apply to all roads which are in the same classifications throughout the city. All of the citizens of Carlsbad have to be considered, present and future. -17- -- I C. TENTATIVE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS ..-I 1. ENCOURAGE EAST\WEST CONNECTIONS The east\west corridors are our most pressing problem. While I do not have enough information available to prioritize specific arterials, it seems apparent that emphasis should be placed on getting the traffic to Interstate 5 in the safest and most expeditious manner. The widening of La Costa Avenue is encouraging. There is a need to extend Alga Road to Poinsettia Avenue as early as possible. I also feel very strongly that 4 Leucadia Boulevard should be connected with Interstate 5.1n the immediate future. Provisions have been made by CalTrans, yet the Leucadia Boulevard intersection with I-S is greatly under-utilized. It should be shown to the City of Encinitas how this extension would ease the traffic problems on Encinitas 80ulevard. I also believe it is very important to extend Cannon Road from El Camino Real to Interstate 5. This would greatly relieve the congestion on Tamarack Avenue, Chestnut Uvenue and Palomar Airport Road not to mention Highway 78. And finally, a safe intersection at Rancho Santa Fe Road and Alga Road (extension) might take some of the pressure off of Rancho Santa Fe Road and Melrose Avenue. However, I would need more information on that matter - 2. ADOPT CITYWIDE NOISE ORDINANCE While 1- originally indicated an agreement on this issue, I must agree with Mr. Schlehuber and question as to whether this was part of our charge as a committee. If it is determined that it is part of the committee’s responsibility, then I would be willing to vote in favor of it. It could be, that this ordinance would specify acceptable noise levels for the various classifications of arterials. 3. REVIEW AND REVISE NOISE ELEMENT I would still vote in favor of this matter. -18- 's 4. ENCOURAGE ADDITIONAL NORTH\SOUTH ROAD IN EASTERI I V AREA . I ! With the exception of Carlsbad Boulevard and Interstate 5, there are only three arterials in the Circulation . Element to handle the majority of north\south traffic through the city. These are El Camino Real, Melrose Avenue and Rancho Santa Fe Road. I 1 With the good possibility of a north campus of SDSU locating at Highway 78 and Twin Oaks Valley Road, as well as the chance of the "Trash to Energy" plant becoming a reality, I believe a preliminary study should be made to take this traffic from the source and direct it to those arterials best suited to handle the traffic, thereby minimizing' the impact on the residents of Carlsbad. 5. OFF-PROPERTY MITIGATION FOR TWO-STORY HOMES I would vote i.n favor of this matter as long as it was . directed to future construction. 6. POLICY REGARDING TOXIC WASTES An obvious concern that should be looked into. 7. HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION TO FORMULATE MITIGATION I am opposed to this. Experience has shown, that while those most impacted are more than entitled to voice their concerns and, contribute their knowledge of tr-9 problem, I believe that an unbiased and totally objective group is better qualified to analyze the concerns of a,l,lL of the citizens of Carlsbad. I hope I have adequately addressed the recommendations of the committee. Again, please accept my apologies for missing the last meeting - I consider it an honor to have had the opportunity to sit on this committee. It is apparent that there is a genuine concern on the part of the committee members to serve the needs of the citizenry. Respectfully submitted, Chmittee Member -1 9- MINUTES Meeting of: CIRCULATION COMMITTEE Time of Meeting: 3:30 P.M. Date of Meeting: June 11, 1987 Place of Meeting: Carlsbad Public Safety & Service Center CALL TO ORDER Chairperson McFadden called the meeting to order at 3:34 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Chairperson McFadden, Anear, Donovan, Erwin, Morrison, Roston, Carr, Round, Pursehouse, Schlehuber and Hicks. Robert Royce arrived late. Absent: Michael Glass. Staff Members Present: Michael 3. Holzmiller, Planning Director Charles Grimm, Assistant Planning Director Bobbie Hoder, Sr. Management Analyst Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer Mike Howes, Senior Planner Lance Schulte, Associate Planner Marty Bouman, City Transportation Planning Robert Johnson, Principal Civil Engineer Frank Boensch, Management Analyst Consultant PUBLIC COMMENT There being no one wishing to address the Committee, Chairperson McFadden closed the public input and proceeded to the next item. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A motion was made and seconded to approve the Minutes of May 26, 1987 as corrected. QUESTIONS REGARDING ADDITIONAL MATERIAL RECEIVED Chairperson McFadden introduced the third item on the agenda, and asked the Committee if there were any questions on the additional material that the Committee had received. -20- 3une 11, 1987 Circulation Committee ?age 2 Questions raised by the Committee were: The actual number of homes backing Rancho Santa Fe Road the Committee was told at the last meeting. . differs in the material received for this meeting from what The Committee discussed the extension of Alga Road across Melrose Avenue to Rancho Santa Fe Road. Irv Roston stated that he felt that the Committee should put the extension of Melrose Avenue in their recommendations. The Committee discussed the Noise Element that was adopted in 1975 by the City of Carlsbad. Chairperson McFadden questioned staff if a Noise Ordinance existed in the City of Carlsbad. Mr. Holzmiller responded that there was no Noise Ordinance in existence. Clarence Schlehuber questioned why the City of Carlsbad did not have a Noise Ordinance. Mr. Holzmiller responded that when the Citizen's Committee reviewed the General Plan, that a Noise Ordinance was one of their recommendations. It is on the list of projects still to be done and staff has done some work on a Noise Ordinance. The main problem with a Noise Ordinance is enforcement. Most cities that have adopted a Noise Ordinance had to follow up on it by hiring personnel just to enforce the Noise Ordinance. The Committee discussed Rancho Santa Fe Road and Olivenhain Road as major arterials. Chairperson McFadden questioned Mr. Holzmiller how that compares with the worksheet the Committee received and the other alternatives discussed at the last Circulation Committee meeting. Mr. Holzmiller addressed the Committee as to how Alternative No. 8 would affect the Rancho Santa Fe corridor. Chairperson McFadden asked staff to give their report on the transportation of toxic wastes. Mr. Charles Grimm reported to the Committee that the City did not have any restrictions on the transportation of toxic wastes through the City. The City is not notified when toxic wastes were being transported through the City. Mr. Grimm -21- 3une 11, 1987 Circulation Committee Page 3 stated that staff did contact some regulatory agencies. He said that the Department of Health and the Department of Transportation were the only agencies that had any regulations regarding the transportation of toxic wastes. He also said that these agencies did not have any specific routes designated for toxic waste transportation. Chairperson McFadden asked Mr. Rosenthal (Prinicpal Transportation Planner, County of San Diego), to speak at this time. Chairperson McFadden asked about the differences between the County reports, the City of Carlsbad's Circulation Element and SANDAG projections. Mr. Rosenthal stated that they did not really look at Carlsbad's Circulation Element and that the County's reports were based on buildout projections and SANDAG's projections were based on a 20 year projection. Mr. Rosenthal answered the Committee's questions regarding the SA 680 forecast. He stated that the County's EIR would be available for review the week of 3une 15, 1987 and would have copies available for the Committee to review. PRESENTATION BY NOISE CONSULTANT Chairperson McFadden introduced Vince Mestre of Mestre Greve Associates. Mr. Mestre stated that his firm specialized in acoustics and noise control and have worked on mitigating noise at airports and highways. Mr. Mestre passed out a brief summary that would be helpful to the Committee in understanding noise levels and in making their recommendations. He spoke to the Committee on noise mitigation and presented a slide presentation on some of the noise barriers that his company had worked on. Mr. Mestre answered questions that the Committee had on the different noise barriers in the slide presentation. The Committee took a five minute break at 5:OO p.m. and resumed the meeting at 5:05 p.m. DETERMINATION ON CLASSIFICATION OF RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD Chairperson McFadden stated that the Committee would be looking at the tentative recommendations and the first item was the classification of Rancho Santa Fe Road. A Motion was made and seconded to keep Rancho Santa Fe Road as a prime arterial. The motion was passed, 9-3 (Erwin, Donovan, and Carr). -22- 3une 11, 1987 Circulation Committee Page 4 DETERMINATION ON GENERAL ALIGNMENT OF RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD Chairperson McFadden stated that the Committee would be looking at the general alignment of Rancho Santa Fe Road. Tom Erwin stated that he had received comments and questions written down by Mike Glass, who was not present at the meeting. These comments are attached as part of the minutes of this meeting. A Motion was made and seconded to keep the present alignment of Rancho Santa Fe Road. The motion was passed, 8-4 (Erwin, Donovan, Carr and Pursehouse). DETERMINATION ON ANY NEEDED MITIGATION MEASURES Chairperson McFadden stated that the Committee needed to decide on any short or long range mitigation measures and tentative recommendations. Chairperson McFadden told the Committee that this was the time where the Committee could make recommendations to the opening of Alga and Melrose, possible revision of the Noise Ordinance, and to keep Melrose to complete the extension as a prime. Irv Roston stated that he would recommend that the other eastlwest roads be expedited including the Poinsettia extension to Alga Road, Alga Road to Rancho Santa Fe Road, improvement of Palomar Airport Road from Rancho Santa Fe Road to Interstate 5 and the support of 680 to go through to Leucadia Boulevard up to Interstate 5. 10-2 (Carr, Erwin) Chairperson McFadden asked if anyone on the Committee was opposed to Irv Roston's recommendation. Tom Erwin questioned if the Committee would not be creating the same situation that they are looking at now on Rancho Santa Fe Road by opening these roads up, speaking particularly of Alga Road. Dave Carr stated that he was opposed to the recommendation. Chairperson McFadden stated that since only two Committee members were opposed to this recommendation, that it would go forward. Chairperson McFadden asked for any other recommendations. Barbara Donovan stated that she would recommend that the City adopt a Citywide Noise Ordinance which would include mitigation measures and enforcement of those measures. 11-1 (Schlehuber) -23- 3une 11, 1987 Circulation Committee Page 5 Chairperson McFadden asked if any of the Committee members opposed this recommendation. Clarence Schlehuber opposed the recommendation because he felt that it was covered with the Noise Element. Mr. Schlehuber felt that the Committee should just address traffic noise mitigation which is covered by the Noise Element. Chairperson McFadden asked the Committee if anyone else was opposed to this recommendation. Since no one else was opposed it would go forward as a recommendation. Chairperson McFadden addressed the revision of the Noise Element. Chairperson McFadden felt that it was badly out of date, it does not address current matters and it does not address prime arterials. 12-0 Since no members of the Committee opposed the recommendation it would go forward. Fay Round discussed the automobile and truck traffic that would be on Rancho Santa Fe Road when the SDSU campus opened and the Trash-to-Energy plant opened. Clarence Schlehuber recommended that the Committee encourage another northisouth road east of Melrose/Rancho Santa Fe Road to mitigate the traffic problem. 12-0 Chairperson McFadden asked the Committee if any one opposed the recommendation. It would be included in the recommendations since no one opposed. Tom Erwin made the recommendation that all off-property mitigation address two story properties as they exist and also address building two story properties in the future next to major prime arterials. Irv Roston stated that there are standards set for two story construction by Federal Government on federally insured projects that could be recommended to be adopted by the City for future. Chairperson McFadden asked if any Committee members opposed the recommendation. Clarence Schlehuber stated that the mitigation shouldn't be limited to just two story properties, that it should include one story properties and others. -24- 3une 11, 1987 Circulation Committee Page 6 The recommendation was amended to read: That all off- property mitigation address both one and two story future and existing properties. 12-0 Chairperson McFadden stated that this recommendation would be included. Bob Royce left at 5:30 p.m. Tom Erwin recommended that the City look at an ordinance for toxic waste transportation. 12-0 Chairperson McFadden added that she would like to see the City look at policy on trucks carrying waste products and also the railroad going through town. Chairperson McFadden asked if any Committee members objected to this recommendation. Lefty Anear made comments about not being able to ,regulate trucks going interstate and added that all trucks carry some form of toxic substance. Chairperson McFadden recommended that the Noise Element be revised, consider to recommending the formation of an association of noise impacted property owners, so they could analyze any noise conditions and develop and maintain mitigation structures or program and the City could wave fees for various mitigations. 6-5 (Roston, Schlehuber, Hicks, Anear and Carr) Chairperson McFadden announced that it passed and would be put in the recommendations. Chairperson McFadden announced that there would be a public meeting on Saturday, 3une 20, 1987 at 1O:OO a.m. c The meeting was adjourned at 5:40 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, - MICHAEL 3. HOLZMILLER Planning Director BARBARA NEDROS Secretary to Planning Department -25- -26- -27- c -2 8- CORRECTED MINUTES MINUTES c Meeting of: CIRCULATION COMMITTEE Time of Meeting: 3:30 P.M. Date of Meeting: May 26, 1987 Place of Meeting: Carlsbad Public Safety & Service Center CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Mcfadden called the meeting to order at 3:33 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Chairperson McFadden, Anear, Donovan, Erwin, Morrison, Roston, Royce, Glass, Carr, and Hicks. 3im Hicks arrived late. Absent: Barbara Pursehouse, Clarence Schlehuber, and Fay Round. Staff Members Present: Michael 3. Holzmiller, Planning Director Charles Grimm, Assistant Planning Director Bobbie Hoder, Sr. Management .Analyst Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer Mike Howes, Senior Planner Lance Schulte, Associate Planner Marty Bouman, City Transportation Planning Robert gohnson, Principal Civil Engineer Frank Boensch, Management Analyst Consultant PUBLIC COMMENT 3ohn Waterstradt, 7312 Muslo, Carlsbad, stated that there are still a large group of people out there who are really interested in only the realignment of Rancho Santa Fe Road and not many other things and that they are still ready and willing to work with the land owner, the City or anyone else towards realignment in that area. Mr. Waterstradtsaid that it seems like over the last few months we have been worn down and not been publicly recognized as a group or a unit. Mr. Waterstradt told the Committee that the people are still out there and are really still interested. -29- May 26, 1987 Circulation Committee Page 2 George Soukup, 7432 Trigo Lane, Carlsbad addressed the Committee about his concern of the preceived impression that the succession movement in La Costa is representing all the people concerned with Rancho Santa Fe Road issue. Mr. Soukup stated that this movement may share some similar concerns with a majority of people residing along Rancho Santa Fe Road who are not affiliated with any political group in Carlsbad. Mr. Soukup said that this issue is too important to allow politics to interfere with a swift and just resolution of this problem. He further stated that a non-political group of neighbors are concerned with the safety, pollution, and quality of life for our loved ones. He asked the Committee to rectify past mistakes and poor judgement executed in a prior time and to move the road away from the houses. In conclusion Mr. Soukup felt if everyone worked together, the issue could be solved as it affects the entire City. There being no others wishing to address the Committee, Chairperson McFadden closed the public input and proceeded to the next item. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A motion was made and seconded to approve the Minutes of May 12, 1987 as presented. QUESTION REGARDING ADDITIONAL MATERIAL RECEIVED Chairperson McFadden introduced the third item on the agenda. Charles Grimm stated that staff was able to have Mr. Herm Rosenthal, head of the County's Transportation Planning Section attend the meeting and that Mr. Rosenthal would be available to respond to any questions from the Committee. Chairperson McFadden thanked Mr. Rosenthal for attending the Circulation Committee Meeting. Chairperson McFadden informed the Committee that four members were able to attend the Building Industry Association Breakfast on May 14, 1987, Chairperson McFadden, Barbara Pursehouse, Irv Roston, and Clarence Schlehuber. Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director also attended. Chairperson McFadden asked Irv Roston to give a brief overview on what information was given to the members who attended. -30- May 26, 1987 Circulation Committee Page 3 c c c c Irv Roston, stated that the Breakfast was hosted by the BIA and SANDAG representives spoke to the transportation problem. Mr. Roston indicated that they wanted to make those attending more aware of the election in November where it's intended that a one- half percent sales tax be put on the ballot to provide funds. SANDAG has recommended approval. They further talked about major routes that were a concern in the San Diego region, and the impression was that the transporation problems were bigger than cities local problems, it's really a County-wide problem and further than that it's a state-wide problem and that you can't just look at segments, you need to look at the total picture. Mr. Roston added that the printed material that they passed out at the Breakfast could be copied and distributed to the members of the Committee that did not attend, Mr. Roston felt that it was a very good meeting and stated it would have been nice if they were a little more optimistic and if more money were available. Mr. Roston stated that he asked the man who held the meeting, why not collect more gas tax to accumulate more money. Mr. Roston stated that he was told that the sales tax would get them the money needed alot sooner than the gas tax. Mr. Roston felt the the City of Carlsbad should look into getting a higher gas tax in addition to sales tax. Tom Erwin questioned if the sales tax was an overall sales tax or a sales tax just on gasoline? Irv Roston responded that it was a sales tax, not a gasoline tax, a half of a percent. It will be on the ballot in November. Chairperson McFadden addressed the Committee about materials they had asked for. Chairperson McFadden stated that she could only see three items of their request that have not been fulfilled. One, was information regarding toxic route designations in the City, second, was right-of-way constraints of putting Alga through to Rancho Santa Fe Road, and the third was noise mitigation alternatives. Chairperson McFadden questioned Committee members if there were any matter that they felt were not fulfilled from the list. Mike Glass stated that the Committee members received several items dealing with noise, but thought they had not received a Noise Element. He thought that since the Committee was looking at noise studies that the Committee should have the Noise Element. Mr. Glass stated that he had a copy and felt that other Committee members would benefit from having a copy. -31- May 26, 1987 Circulation Committee Page 4 Chairperson McFadden further clarified that she was available to the Committee members by telephone anytime, but the deadline for agenda items is the Monday before a scheduled meeting. McFadden questioned Committee members if there were any other items they felt they were lacking. Barbara Donovan questioned the material that was being presented to the Committee, are we discussing Rancho Santa Fe Road as it exists today or are we talking in terms of what we would like to see if it is realigned. Chairperson McFadden responded that the Committee was not speaking to alignment today, but we are speaking to the road classification. What road classification do we need there and why does the Committee think so. Majorie Morrison inquired if the exact number of homes that would be impacted by Rancho Santa Fe Road was known. Lance Schulte responded that he had thought that it was calculated earlier and that about 29 homes had property lines along Rancho Santa Fe Road. Mr. Schulte stated that as far as he knew no homes had an address of Rancho Santa Fe Road in that section. Majorie Morrison questioned staff if they knew how many homes would be losing property because of any work done on Rancho Santa Fe Road. Lance Schulte indicated that the dedication occurred at the time the homes were built, and any additional dedications would come from the other side of the road. Chairperson McFadden questioned if there were any more questions on the material the Committee had received. Tom Erwin, questioned if the maximum noise levels for the City were 65 decibels exterior and 45 decibels interior. Mr. Holzmiller stated that his understanding is that under the Uniform Building Code that there is a specific requirement for multi-family projects and they use 45 interior and it has to be mitigated and insulated so that inside the building it is 45 decibels. Mr. Holzmiller indicated that in the Noise Element and in planning for projects along major streets or close to the airport the 65 CNEL decibel level is considered an impact area. If it is a higher level than 65 it is then considered impacted and it needs to be planned so that there is not an unmitigated situation. -32- May 26, 1987 Circulation Committee Page 5 Tom Erwin indicated that it was his understanding that all of these homes or most of the homes along Rancho Santa Fe Road are impacted above those figures. Mr. Holzmiller agreed that there is an existing situation of the homes being impacted above those figures. Mike Glass questioned staff on what the distance is from the center of the road for which there is an the impact above 65? Lance Schulte indicated that in the first noise study that the Committee had was an acoustical analysis which indicated that the distance was 240 feet. c c Mike Glass indicated that he asked that question because if it . was such a long distance it would certainly impact more people than just the homes that back up to the road. Mr. Glass' second question to staff is based on the San Diego County policy. Mr. Glass indicated that they set their policy at 55 - 60 decibels and wondered why the City of Carlsbad set their standard five decibels higher. Mr. Glass also indicated that in each of the studies the Committe received, mitigating measures were recommended, usually in the form of a cement retaining wall. Mr. Glass noted that most of the projects are in and there are no walls along Rancho Santa Fe Road and wondered how were they approved without any mitigating walls installed. Irv Roston indicated that those projects were built prior to the requirement in the City of Carlsbad. Mr. Roston indicated that cities in California adopted requirements on their own as they went along. Mr. Roston stated that he was present when the projects were built and at that time it was not a requirement. Mike Glass stated that the projects he was referring to were in 1984, 1985 and 1986 and they would not be earlier based on the date of the Noise Element which was 1975. Mike Howes stated that those projects Mr. Glass is referring to are La Costa South Phase I, Meadowlands and Park View East and none of those projects have been constructed at this time. Barbara Donovan questioned about the Assessment District Noise Study. Were there not two story homes in this area when the study was done that actual.ly back onto Rancho Santa Fe Road? If so, why did the noise study deal only with single story homes. Ms. Donovan stated that to put in thermal-paned windows and a mechanical ventilating system was a horrendous way to live in an area like this. -33- c May 26, 1987 Circulation Committee Page 6 Lance Schulte indicated that to mitigate noise on the second story or above ground level would require basically a noise mitigation wall about as high as the home. Mr. Schulte indicated that you would be looking at a noise wall about two stories high and that being not practical, you would want to mitigate noise inside the unit not outside the unit. Barbara Donovan questioned who would be responsible for thermal- paned windows, would it be the City's responsibility or incumbent on the homeowner? Charles Grimm indicated that staff would probably put a condition on the project that the developer be responsible for installing double paned windows at the time the homes are built and that for homes already built it would be incumbent on the homeowners. Lefty Anear stated that he recommended to the City Council and suggested that they ban trucks on Rancho Santa Fe Road from 8:OO p.m. to 7:OO a.m. and has never heard anything from them. Mr. Anear indicated that this would probably solve the problem in that area. Chairperson McFadden indicated that they should .write all these observations down so that when the time comes the Committee can make their recommendations to the City Council. Mike Glass referred to the report on the La Costa South Phase I, on the third page, those homes are recent and have the same situation that this new development has. Mr. Glass questioned if the City made any requirements of the developer as far as noise mitigation. Mr. Holzmiller responded that unless any of staff specifically knew the answer that was something they would have do research on. Chairperson McFadden questioned staff about charts in the study and what some of the numbers represented. Chairperson McFadden also questioned why the noise studies deal with one story homes and multi-family and not two story homes. Mr. Holzmiller responded that staff does not have the expertise regarding noise, and what was provided the Committee was just what was previously submitted to the City by noise experts. Mr. Holzmiller felt that if there was a need for someone to come in answer the Committee's questions on noise, staff could arrange for that. -34- May 26, 1987 Circulation Committee Page 7 Chairperson McFadden indicated that she would like to have someone present at a Committee meeting to answer questions on noise mitigation. Tom Erwin questioned staff about setback requirements. c r- Mike Howes stated that the new setback requirement for planned unit developments adjacent to prime arterials would require a minimum setback of 50 feet from the right-of-way. Mr. Howes indicated that the setback would be at least 60 feet from the edge of the pavement to the edge of the residence. Tom Erwin indicated that if you add the setback to the width of the street you would come up with essentially 113 feet from center line which would only mitigate the 65 decibel traffic noise for roads without any trucks. If you add trucks on a prime arterial wouldn't you have to need an additional 50 feet of distance? Mike Howes indicated that either that or another form of mitigation such as a berm or a noise wall. Mr. Howes indicated that you would be looking at a 100 wide foot setback that would be expensive to maintain. Chairperson McFadden indicated she had more questions regarding truck routes. She noted that Rancho Santa Fe Road is not on the list of truck routes. She indicated that the report says all trucks over 14,000 lbs. are prohibited from any street other than truck routes. Chairperson McFadden questioned how much a garbage truck weighs? Bob 3ohnson indicated that he would have to guess at the weight of a garbage truck but that it would certainly exceed 14,000 lbs. Mr. 3ohnson stated that he would like to clarify Chairperson McFadden's statement. Any vehicle that has business in the City can basically use any road in the City. Chairperson McFadden indicated that she was not speaking of home pickups. She questioned whether trucks having no business in town could use any road to pass through Carlsbad. Bob 3ohnson indicated that if they are considered through traffic they would have to stay on an approved truck route. Mr. 3ohnson also indicated that would include garbage trucks if they had through city destinations. If they have some pickups in the City than they can use whatever street to get to that pickup. -35- May 26, 1987 Circulation Committee Page 8 Chairperson McFadden questioned if there are any additional ordinances besides the truck route material the Committee has already received from the Municipal Code. How can we have a truck bypass on Rancho Santa Fe Road if the Code does not designate it as a truck route? Bob 3ohnson indicated the truck bypass was constructed because of an arrangement worked out with the City of San Marcos, the County and the City of Carlsbad to basically allow the garbage trucks to go northbound on Rancho Santa Fe Road and yet bypass the homes that back onto Rancho Santa Fe Road. Lloyd Hubbs indicated that a special Ordinance was passed so that northbound traffic was okay but not southbound traffic. Chairperson McFadden requested a copy of the special ordinance that passed. Mike Glass indicated that as he understood it, the bypass was only temporary. Lloyd Hubbs stated that was what he understood, and that it would depend on other mitigation measures such as the realignment of Rancho Santa Fe Road. Chairperson McFadden indicated if there were no more questions regarding these reports, she would like to introduce Mr. Rosenthal from the County of San Diego. Mr. Rosenthal stated that he is the Principal Transportation Planner for the County of San Diego and was asked by Marty Bouman to appear today. Mr. Rosenthal indicated that the County Circulation Element for the San Dieguito area will be up for public hearing this summer. It will go to the Planning Commission on the 27th and 28th of 3une. The hearing will be held at Rancho Santa Fe School. Mr. Rosenthal talked about the San Dieguito Traffic Study and the ten alternatives that were addressed including one that the City of Carlsbad requested; primarily looking at the Melrose connection with SA 680. Next week sometime the EIR should be out for public review. Mr. Rosenthal indicated he would answer questions that the Committee has. Mr. Rosenthal indicated he would be happy to attend any of the Committee's meeting and answer any questions they might have. Mr. Rosenthal also indicated that as soon as the EIR is out he would send the Committee a couple of copies and hope they might comment on it. Mr. Rosenthal stated he would be present at the Committee's next meeting. -36- May 26, 1987 Circulation Committee Page 9 Chairperson McFadden stated that they were ready to hear about the seven alternatives from Michael Holzmiller and that the Committee would hold their comments until Mr. Holzmiller finished with the overview. Michael Holzmiller gave an overview of the seven alternatives that were done by SANDAG for the Committee. These alternatives were as follows: Delete the Leucadia connection; Delete Melrose, south of Rancho Santa Fe and 680; Delete south Melrose, 680, and the Leucadia connection; Downgrade Rancho Santa Fe Road from a primary thoroughfare to a major and at the same time to delete south Melrose and 680; Delete the extension of Poinsettia and Carrillo Way which on the Circulation Plan provides another direct eastlwest connection in the southern part of the City; Downgrade Rancho Santa Fe Road from La Costa to Questhaven to a two-lane collector, which would be the status quo alternative; Mr. Holzmiller stated to the Committee that once a road is downgraded, it is very difficult to upgrade the road again; Add in San Diego State University in San Marcos. Part of the plan for SDSU is to put in a new connection of Twin Oaks Road down to Questhaven. Mr. Holzmiller indicated that according to the model, it does not appear that SDSU adds that much traffic to the Rancho Santa Fe corridor. Chairperson McFadden questioned whether staff had looked at the overall impact these roads would have on Interstate 5 and Highway 78. Chairperson McFadden stated that it seemed that everytime a road was changed the trips on these two roads increased. Mr. Holzmiller responded that staff did look at Interstate 5 and Highway 78 and that it does impact those roads. The increase was real significant for a section south of La Costa, which increased 50 - 60,000 trips per day. Chairperson McFadden asked if the Committee had any questions on Alternative I. Any question on Alternative 2? Tom Erwin questioned if when staff was talking about La Costa Avenue, was it west of El Camino Real that they were referring to? Mr. Holzmiller responded that was what they referring to. -37- x c May 26, 1987 Circulation Committee Page 10 Lefty Anear questioned Mr. Holzmiller about the deletion of SA 680 and Melrose Avenue. Where are those cars redistributed? Mr.' Holzmiller responded that it would add trips to Rancho Santa Fe Road depending upon where the counts were taken. The traffic is distributed throughout the whole network and will find other alternatives of getting to a destination. If SA 680 and Melrose Avenue are deleted, it will increase traffic on other roads. Staff felt that the increase was not significant, in terms of determining the classification and service level of Rancho Santa Fe Road. Staff did not feel the deletion of Melrose and 680 had a significant bearing on the classification of Rancho Santa Fe Road. Chairperson McFadden asked the Committee if there were any more questions on Alternative 2. Tom Erwin stated that he would like to respond to Mr. Anear's question about Melrose and 680. Alot of the traffic would be put there if the roads were built. The cars are not waiting for the roads to be built. If the roads are opened, that would create a majority of the traffic, as it is now that traffic is non- existent. Lefty Anear questioned if you reduce Rancho Santa Fe Road to a collector, would it reduce the traffic on Rancho Santa Fe Road. Where does that traffic go? Mr. Holzmiller responded that it would go to other roads in the area, for example, it increased traffic on La Costa Avenue and on Alga Road. It probably affected a number of other streets, but these two streets were the most significantly impacted. Irv Roston stated that they know where the traffic goes from La Costa Avenue but where did the traffic go from Alga Road. Mr. Holzmiller stated that the traffic would go down to La Costa Avenue which would also have an impact on El Camino Real. It increases the traffic on all the surrounding streets. Chairperson McFadden asked if there were any questions on Alternative No. 3? Mike Glass questioned if Mr. Holzmiller said that La Costa Avenue was impacted greatly by all seven of the alternatives? -38- May 26, 1987 Circulation Committee Page 11 -. Mr. Holzmiller responded that La Costa Avenue was impacted significantly by all of the alternatives. The seven alternatives would increase traffic on La Costa as follows: No. 1 - 16,000 cars No. 2 - 8,000 cars No, 3 - 16,000 cars No. 4 - 9,000 cars No. 5 - 7,000 cars No. 6 - 10,000 cars No. 7 - 6,000 cars Chairperson McFadden asked if there were any questions on Alternative No. 4? 3im Hicks questioned if Rancho Santa Fe Road was kept as a primary arterial would the level of service be C at buildout? Mr. Holzmiller responded affirmatively. 3im Hicks further questioned if Rancho Santa Fe Road was downgraded to a major would the level of service be a C or D. Mr. Holzmiller responded affirmatively and that at one point, where the counts were projected, it would even get close to an E level of service. 3im Hicks stated that if Rancho Santa Fe Road was left as a primary, the level of service would be better than downgrading it to a major. Chairperson McFadden asked the Committee if there were any questions on Alternative No. 5, No. 6, No. 7. Chairperson McFadden asked Mr. Holzmiller for a copy of the summary of the Alternatives even though it was a worksheet. Chairperson McFadden introduced the last item of business which was to discuss and determine the classification of Rancho Santa Fe Road. Chairperson McFadden wanted the Committee to individually express their feelings on the classification and why. Tom Erwin stated that he felt is was premature to determine a classification on the road. Barbara Donovan stated that she agreed with Mr. Erwin. Mike Glass stated that he concurred with Mr. Erwin and Ms. Donovan. Bob Royce stated that he felt that Rancho Santa Fe Road should stay as a prime arterial. -39- Circulation Committee Page 12 c Marjorie Morrison stated that based on the information the Committee has received and the fact that this area is growing so rapidly, she felt it was necessary to keep Rancho Santa Fe Road as a prime arterial. 3im Hicks stated that he felt safety was his major concern on the alignment and classification of Rancho Santa Fe Road and felt that a primary arterial would be better than major. Irv Roston stated that he felt the Committee would be short sighted if they did not at least keep the Rancho Santa Fe Road right-of-way as a prime arterial. Lefty Anear stated that he concurred that Rancho Santa Fe Road should be kept as a prime arterial. Dave Carr stated that he felt it should be a major because he felt the change in the number of trips was not that significant. Chairperson McFadden stated that she was also concerned about the safety and the accident record on the road as it exists. Chairperson McFadden felt that by dropping the level of service, they are talking about increasing the accidents. Chairperson McFadden also stated that this road is designated as a scenic road in the City and could not see that being fulfilled as a collector or a secondary. Chairperson McFadden stated that she would be in favor of retaining Rancho Santa Fe Road as a prime arterial. Chairperson McFadden asked if anyone would like to make a motion since all the Committee members have spoken on the subject. Marjorie Morrison made the motion that the Committee retain the classification of Rancho Santa Fe Road as a primary arterial. Irv Roston seconded the motion. c Under discussion, Tom Erwin stated that he felt it was inappropriate that the Committee make a decision on this issue prior to a public meeting. Irv Roston stated that he understood Mr. Erwin's concern, but he believed that the suggestion that he made to at least retain the right-of-way for a prime arterial was appropriate. Mr. Roston felt that it would be very short sighted if the Committee did not recommend the right-of-way for Rancho Santa Fe Road as a prime arterial. -40- May 26, 1987 Circulation Committee Page 13 Tom Erwin asked if the Committee could meet with the developer of this area, and he might have some options for the Committee to consider. Mr. Erwin suggested that the developer might be willing to provide the land for a prime even though the road is only a major. Mr. Erwin felt that there were more options for the Committee to explore, and a decision should not be made at this time. Chairperson McFadden stated she would like to comment regarding the public input matter. There has already been a large public hearing with alot of good input. The people and the Council would like something to speak to at the next public input hearing. The Committee was asked to make a recommendation. It does not mean we can't change our recommendations at the final meeting, but the people need something to speak to at the hearing on June 20th. Chairperson McFadden asked the Committee to vote on the motion. AYES: NOES: McFadden Anear Roston Hicks Morrison Carr Donovan Erwin Royce Glass The motion failed due to a tie. Chairperson McFadden asked the Committee if there were any other motions. Mike Glass made a motion that the Committee discuss the status of the road after the Committee has had all public input and at the conclusion of the Committee's meetings rather than at this time. Motion was seconded. Under discussion, Marjorie Morrison stated that she lives on Tamarack Avenue and wanted to talk about the relationship between making Tamarack an east/west connection and the problem with Rancho Santa Fe Road. Ms. Morrison stated that because the City did not plan for the widening of Tamarack, 97 homes were impacted. Ms. Morrison felt the Committee would do a disservice to the future homes along Rancho Santa Fe Road if they did not plan ahead and get land to make Rancho Santa Fe Road a primary. Ms. Morrison felt that with all the information the Committee had received that they could not go to a public hearing without some kind of recommendation for the people to review. -41- c c May 26, 1987 Circulation Committee Page 14 Chairperson McFadden asked the Committee to vote on the motion to delay making a decision on the road classification until after the public hearing. AYES: NOES: Glass Royce Carr Donovan Erwin Anear McFadden Roston Morrison Hicks Chairperson McFadden announced that the motion failed due to a tie. Lefty Anear stated that three people were absent and that could make a difference and that the Committee could address this at the next meeting. Chairperson McFadden stated that the Committee would address this subject at the next meeting. Chairperson McFadden announced that the next meeting would be June 11, 1987 at 3:30 p.m. at the Public Safety and Service Center. The last time she could receive any agenda items would be Monday, 3une 1 from 7 to 9 a.m. Chairperson McFadden invited all the Committee members to attend the City Council meeting on May 26 at 6 p.m. on the Citywide Traffic Impact Study. Lefty Anear stated that a County Circulation Element for the San Dieguito area just came out and said that there were major differences between that Element and the Circulation Element for the City of Carlsbad. Chairperson McFadden suggested that Mr. Rosenthal could speak to the Committee on the differences at the Committee's next meeting. Chairperson McFadden adjourned the meeting at 5 :02 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, MICHAEL 3. HOLZMILLER Planning Director BARBARA NEDROS Secretary to Planning Department -42- MINUTES Meeting of: CIRCULATION COMMITTEE Time of Meeting: 3:30 P.M. Date of Meeting: May 12, 1987 Place of Meeting: Carlsbad Public Safety & Service Center CALL TO ORDER Chairperson McFadden called the meeting to order at 3:30 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Chairperson McFadden, Anear, Donovan, Erwin, Hicks, Morrison, Pursehouse, Roston, Round, Royce, Schlehuber, Glass and Carr. Robert Royce and Marjorie Morrison arrived late. Absent: None. Staff Members Present: Michael 3. Holzmiller, Planning Director Charles Grimm, Assistant Planning Director Bobbie Hoder, Sr. Management Analyst Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer Mike Howes, Associate Planner Lance Schulte, Associate Planner Marty Bouman, City Transportation Planning Robert gohnson, Principal Civil Engineer Frank Boensch, Management Analyst Consultant PUBLIC COMMENT 3ack Spirit, 3340 Cadencia, Carlsbad, questioned if everyone serving on this committee is a current resident of the City of Carlsbad. Mr. Spirit felt that everyone serving on this Committee should be a resident of the City of Carlsbad. Additionally Mr. Spirit questioned what the Committee's objective is because as he understood it, the Committee had no intention of making a recommendation with regard to the alignment of Rancho Santa Fe Road. Further Mr. Spirit questioned if there is expertise on the Committee qualified to make an adequate report with regard to the Committee's objectives. In conclusion Mr. Spirit felt it was important that the Committee state the objectives so the citizens know where their money is being spent and for what purpose, -43- c May 12, 1987 Circulation Committee Page 2 There being no others to address the Committee, Chairperson McFadden closed the public input and proceeded to the next item. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A motion was made and seconded to approve the Minutes of April 30, 1987 with a correction to page 1 of the Introduction. Mike Glass was not the vice-chairman of the Womens Group he was the vice-chairman of the La Costa Community Awareness Group. COMMENTS FROM CHAIRPERSON Chairperson McFadden stated that if the Committee had any additional items they would like added to their next agenda, to telephone her on Monday, May 18, 6:30-9:00 A.M. Chairperson McFadden stated that in regards to the revised meeting schedule, the City Council/Planning Commission joint meeting regarding the citywide traffic report was moved to May 26 and further stated that the meeting will be taped and available to the public at the public library. For clarification purposes Chairperson McFadden read the overall charge and specific charge of the Committee as submitted on April 30 and read the proposed workplan from page 2 of the staff report. Chairperson McFadden clarified Roberts Rules of Order as they pertain to city committees stating that the chairperson can make and vote on motions. Chairperson McFadden stated to the committee that they were all invited to attend the Building Industry Association Breakfast on May 14, 1987 and that the city would pay for their attendance, DISCUSSION AND REVIEW OF TECHNICAL INFORMATION Chairperson McFadden briefly outlined the questions of the Committee which they had telephoned to her. They dealt with the policies of the City, projected costs and schedule of road alignment, safety concerns, and a drive through of corridor for first hand knowledge. -44- _- May 12, 1987 Circulation Committee Page 3 c c c Michael 3. Holzmiller, stated to the Committee that staff is present to answer any questions on the additional technical information that was provided to the Committee. Mr. Holzmiller stated that last Friday the County presented the San Dieguito Traffic Study that was being prepared for the Encinitas, Solana Beach area and indicated that staff has not analyzed the study but a copy is provided to the Committee for their review. Mr. Holzmiller added that staff was not in agreement with a number of the figures but the conclusion is very interesting because it has to do with Melrose and Rancho Santa Fe Road and the corridor is being studied by this Committee. Mr. Holzmiller indicated that a map was provided to the Committee that was prepared by SANDAG which shows the existing traffic volumes on the roads in north county. He further added that these figures are 1985 figures but the map was prepared in 1986. He added that the handout provided represents the 1986 figures for Carlsbad and a map corresponding to these numbers will not be available for a couple of months. Mr. Holzmiller also indicated that a draft scenic corridor study was provided to the Committee but has not been reviewed by City staff yet. As far as Rancho Santa Fe Road being a scenic road, Mr. Holzmiller stated that in the present General Plan it is indicated as a street that should be considered for a scenic corridor designation and this draft scenic corridor study provided is recommending that Rancho Santa Fe Road be designated as a scenic corridor. Chairperson McFadden addressed the Committee in regards to the additional information and proposed workplan for making recommendations as outlined in the staff report. Michael Holzmiller, with the aid of a wall map exhibit, showed the buildout figures. Fay Round inquired about which projects are included on the map and which ones are not, such as San Diego State in San Marcos and their traffic figures, and if anyone was working on this and if there were going to be any estimates available. Michael Holzmiller indicated to the Committee as he understood it that none of the circulation studies that have been prepared for any of the communities have included SDSU. -46- May 12, 1987 Circulation Committee Page 4 Michael Holzmiller added that the Circulation Plan map provided to the Committee was done for the Circulation Element per the 1984 revision and was also updated based upon the density reductions made in Carlsbad and takes into consideration all of the surrounding communities, but their traffic plans only go to the year 2005. The input into this study is the total buildout to the City of Carlsbad but only takes land use up to 2005 for San Marcos, Oceanside and Vista. Fay Round inquired how the trash-to-energy project and Scripps project fit into this plan. Barbara Donovan inquired about Highway 680 and Melrose. Michael Holzmiller responded that the figures used are based on what is projected in terms of traffic volumes that would be using Highway 680 at that time, but the County Study looks at alot of alternatives in respect to Highway 680. Marty Bouman stated that it could not be assumed that Highway 680 would not be built, but that it could be assumed that if Highway 680 is built it would not carry as much traffic as shown in the study. Mike Glass questioned if Highway 680 is not built, will the figures for Rancho Santa Fe and Melrose be smaller? Marty Bouman responded that the only way to determine this would be to study the traffic assignment without the road in. He further added that the study provided to the Committee today is based on a study recently completed by the county and it has nine different alternatives and several of them show Highway 680 missing. Irv Roston indicated to the committee that the county would not have their recommendation until 3une. Michael Holzmiller stated to the committee that staff has the capability through SANDAG of running models to study what would happen if any one of the roads were deleted or the designation changed. Chairperson McFadden inquired as to what the Committee wanted to see done. Irv Roston felt it was important to have a representative from the county present at all future circulation meetings to answer any questions that are out of the jurisdiction of staff. -46- May 12, 1987 Circulation Committee Page 5 Following Committee query regarding traffic patterns Chairperson McFadden, as requested by the committee, asked if they could see proposed alternatives that would show traffic patterns without Leucadia Boulevard connecting to Interstate 5, without proposed I_ Highway 680 and the Melrose Avenue alignment, without Rancho Santa Fe and Olivenhain Roads as major arterials, and without Poinsettia and Carrillo Way. *. Michael Holzmiller stated that each of these alternatives would cost about $500 and would be within the $12,000 budget the City Council allotted to the committee. Mr. Holzmiller further added that these alternatives would be available at the next meeting of May 26. Lance Schulte, Associate Planner gave a brief presentation on the noise information which was provided to the Committee. - Mike Glass inquired if there was anyway a noise study could be done in regards to what actually exists on Rancho Santa Fe Road since there are no existing figures for members to study in order to make recommendations on proposed changes in the road which is now being used as a truck route. Michael Holzmiller indicated that it was his understanding that a previous noise study had been prepared but if not staff could have someone go out and measure this and bring it back to the next meeting. Irv Roston stated that Caltrans has noise studies that perhaps could be available to the Committee and staff would not have to prepare a new study. Clarence Schlehuber requested that staff provide the committee at their next meeting an exhibit showing the alternate alignments on a large aerial photograph. Bob gohnson, Principal Civil Engineer read Section 35703 of the Vehicle Code as it pertains to truck routes. -47- May 12, 1987 C i r cu 1 at ion Comni i t t ee Page 6 - There being no further discussion on this matter the meeting was adjourned at 5:OO P.M. Respectfully Submitted, 7 MICHAEL 3. HOLZMILLER c Planning Director ANITA RAMOS-BONAS Secretary to Planning Department - -48- CORHECTED MINUTES -. MINUTES Meeting of: CIRCULATION COMMITTEE Time of Meeting: 3:30 P.M. Date of Meeting: April 30, 1987 Place of Meeting: City Council Chambers CALL TO ORDER Chairperson McFadden called the meeting to order at 3:33 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Chairperson McFadden, Anear, Donovan, Erwin, Hicks, Morrison, Pursehouse, Roston, Round, Royce, Schlehuber, Glass and Carr. 3im Hicks and Barbara Pursehouse arrived late. Absent: None. Staff Members Present: Charles Grimm, Assistant Planning Director Bobbie Hoder, Sr. Management Analyst Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer Lance Schulte, Associate Planner Marty Bouman, City Transportation Planning Robert gohnson, Principal Civil Engineer Frank Boensch, Management Analyst Consultant INTRODUCTION OF MEETING Chairperson McFadden opened meeting by having all the members appointed to the Circulation Committee give a brief introduction about themselves beginning with: Mike Glass, former president of the La Costa Youth Organization Committee, vice-chairman of the La Costa Community Awareness Group for 3 days and presently serving on Mayor Lewis' Kitchen Cabinet. Fay Round, has lived in La Costa since 1978. Served as one of the planning directors for the Batiquitos Lagoon Foundation. Has done environmental work for Carlsbad and computer work for the Carlsbad Growth ManagementfPublic Facilities Program. -49- c April 30, 1987 Circulation Committee Page 2 Bob Royce, former member of the Circulation Committee. A local architect that has lived in Carlsbad for 8 years and an active member of Carlsbad and Oceanside Chamber of Commerce. Tom Erwin, has lived in Carlsbad since 1979 and presently serving on the Traffic Safety Commission. Girard "Lefty" Anear, former Fire Chief and Council Member for the City of Carlsbad and served on numerous committees. Marjorie Morrison, former member of the Circulation Committee and presently serving on the Parks and Recreation Commission. Has lived in Carlsbad for 20 years. Irv Roston, has lived in La Costa since 1965. - Clarence "Bud" Schlehuber, has lived in Carlsbad since 1977. A local attorney and member of the Planning Commission. 3im Hicks, has lived in La Costa since 1976. A former member of the Circulation Committee and served on the Land Use Element R ev i e w Comin i t tee. Barbara Donovan, has lived in La Costa for 11 years, Chairman of the Parks and Recreation Commission, vice-chairman of the Palomar Airport Advisory Board, Chairman of the Mayor Lewis' Kitchen Cabinet and teacher's aide for 2nd grade. David Carr, has lived in La Costa for 9 years. 3eanne McFadden, served as Co-Chairman of the former Circulation Element Committee, Planning Commissioner, member of the Design Review Board and member of the Child Care Task Force Committee and presently chairperson of Circulation Committee. Chairperson McFadden, turned the meeting over to Charles Grimm for the introduction of staff members. Before the introduction of staff members, Mr. Grimm, Assistant Planning Director, let the Committee know that Mayor Lewis was present. Mr. Grimm introduced the staff members present and their role with the Circulation Committee. Chairperson HcFadden, inquired whether Mayor Lewis had anything to address to the Committee. -50- April 30, 1987 Circulation Committee Page 3 Mayor Lewis commented that he was very glad to finally see the Committee together because it is a very important Group. REVIEW OF COMMITTEE CHARGE Chairperson McFadden, briefly read the overall charge and Specific Charge of the Committee as submitted. There being no discussion among the Committee Members on this item, Chairperson McFadden moved on to the next item. NOMINATION OF VICE-CHAIRPERSON Chairperson McFadden opened the nomination for a vice- chairperson. A motion was made by Fay Round to nominate Marjorie Morrison for vice-chairperson, seconded by Barbara Donovan. 13 AYES. PROCEDURAL GUIDELINES Chairperson McFadden questioned if the Committee had any comments or questions regarding the procedural guidelines and proceeded to read the guidelines as submitted. Fay Round, stated that he would be out of the country for 3 1/2 weeks and asked what the desire of the Committee was since one of the procedural guidelines states that "any member who misses 2 meetings will not be allowed to participate in voting on the findings and recommendations of the Committee." Chairperson McFadden stated that she would like to see him continue on the Committee but would not like to see him vote on the recommendations if he misses two meetings because of the short time limit for the Committee. Bud Schlehuber stated that there is plenty of written material such as minutes provided to the Committee and felt that Mr. Round . is a valued member and that because of his absence from a couple of meetings should not necessarily remove him from the Commit tee. Discussion among the Committee Members took place regarding the upcoming absence of Committee Member Fay Round. -51 - April 30, 1987 Circulation Committee Page 4 c Bud Schlehuber felt that there should be some liberal provision in the rules that if you are excused by the Committee because you have a sufficient reason that you should be able to remain on the Committee. He indicated that other Commissions hold this policy as.a standard rule. Mr. Schlehuber felt strongly about this provision because of the access to material. He felt that it was worthless to have Fay Round here without voting and was not for Mr. Round staying if he was not going to vote. In conclusion he stated that Mr. Round either should be voting or have someone else that can listen and vote but it should be one or the other. A motion was made by Bud Schlehuber that Fay Round has applied for an exemption of the rules and that he be allowed to vote and participate provided that he read the material and seconded by Tom Erwin. - Barbara Donovan stated to the Committee that if this provision is done for one person it should be standard for everyone else. An amendment to a previous motion was made by Bud Schlehuber that anyone with a reasonably good excuse will hold for anyone else on the Committee and will be exempt from procedural guidelines No. 1. Marjorie Morrison felt that the Committee was present for a reason and felt it was very important that everyone be present at all meetings. Being no further discussion among the Committee Members a vote was made on the amendment to the original motion. 4 AYES, 9 NOES. Amendment to original motion failed. A motion was made that Fay Round specifically would be excused from procedural guidelines No. 1. 4 AYES, 9 NOES. Motion failed. Irv Roston, felt that the Commission should appoint someone else. A motion was made and seconded that the City Council be directed to appoint someone else to the Circulation Committee. 10 AYES, 2 NOES. Following Committee query, Chairperson McFadden continued reading the remaining procedural guidelines. -52- I. April 30, 1987 Circulation Committee Page 5 Irv Roston questioned the purpose of procedural guideline no. 2 as to whether the Committee will overrun staff with questions. Chairperson McFadden responded to Mr. Roston that staff does not have time to give private circulation element lessons but that she is available if you give her a call. Chairperson McFadden continued with Procedural Guideline No. 3. - - - Bud Schlehuber felt that if people are interested enough to come to the meeting, a total time for speakers of 15 minutes is not fair and he was willing to give a little more time and let everybody speak for 3 minutes rather than just cut people off. Rarbara Donovan had a problem in regards to testimony as stated in procedural guideline no. 4. She felt that at the beginning of each meeting people who are at the meeting might have something important to add at the end of the meeting and to hold over for two meetings for them to be able to speak again was not good idea and felt there should be a way where 15 minutes should be added at the end too. - Marjorie Morrison indicated that during their former meetings people submitted requests to speak ahead of time. She questioned if a great influx of speakers were expected where you would want to hold it to the 15 minute. c Chairperson McFadden added that the reason for this was because people do come and do wish to speak out and they are not speaking on agenda items they are speaking regarding the whole problem and this is the reason this is wide open to them. Marjorie Morrison felt it is a real problem with the person who really wants to speak and just happens to be the sixth person and then the Committee has to tell them that the time is up. She also indicated that if that person took the time and effort to come to the meeting the Committee should make an effort to try and hear them at that time. For clarification purposes, Marty Orenyak stated to the Committee that the 15 minute time frame is prescribed by state law to meet the requirements of the Brown Act. 15 minute period is mandated, you must allow people to speak for 15 minutes. -53- April 30, 1987 Circulation Committee Page 6 Chairperson McFadden felt that 15 minutes was sufficient time and written input is more than welcome. A motion was made and seconded that public testimony should be limited to 3 minutes per individual but all individuals who request to speak will be allowed only one time per individual. A motion was made and seconded that members of public at the beginning of the meeting be allowed to speak for 3 minutes with no time limit, Motion passed. Chairperson McFadden continued with Procedural Guideline no. 5. Charles Grimm stated that if a member of the Committee was unable- to attend a meeting that he or she contact Anita Ramos-Bonas at 438-1161. Chairperson McFadden continued with Procedural Guideline no. 6. Irv Roston questioned guideline no. 6 - why a member of the Committee cannot add something to the agenda without going through the procedure. Chairperson McFadden responded that a Committee.Member could ask the Committee if a certain subject could be considered at a next meeting. An item cannot spontaneously be added. Chairperson McFadden continued on with Procedural Guideline no. 7. A motion was made and seconded to change Procedural Guideline no. 7 to read as follows: "7. Members of the City Council and Planning Commission other than those appointed to the Committee will be welcome to attend meetings, they may not participate in discussion, unless invited by Chairman or Committee, or vote on matters before the Committee.'' Motion passed. Chairperson McFadden continued on with Procedural Guideline no. 8. Chairperson McFadden added that a quorum shall consist of seven (7) committee members and the meetings shall be conducted under Robert Rules of Order. -54- April 30, 1987 Circulation Committee Page 7 There being no further discussion on this topic a motion was made and seconded to adopt the Procedural Guidelines as amended. Motion passed. OVERVIEW OF CIRCULATION ELEMENT AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO GENERAL PLAN Charles Grimm, Assistant Planning Director, with the aid of transparences gave a brief background on the Government Code, purpose of the Circulation Element and provided basic information on traffic. Mr. Grimm added that the Circulation Element is a portion of which this Committee is charged to review is one of 9 mandatory elements and the four purposes of the Committee would be: 1) Coordinate the Circulation System with the planned land use; 2) to promote the efficient and safe movement of vehicles and people; 3) to promote the efficient use of existing facilities; and 4) protect environmental quality. STAFF EXPLANATION OF AVAILABLE TECHNICAL BACKGROUND INFORMATION Lance Schulte, Associate Planner, briefly went over all of the material submitted to the Committee. Lefty Anear requested that staff provide the Committee with a copy of the large regional map that SANDAG provides. Chairperson McFadden added that the maps the Committee requested be reduced and included in their next packet. Barbara Pursehouse arrived at 4:25 P.M. Barbara Pursehouse, former Circulation committee member. Has lived in Carlshad for 9 years. A motion was made and seconded to make the following changes to the calendar: Time: Old Dates: New Dates: 3:30 - 5:OO May 14, 1987 May 12, 1987 3~30 - 5:OO May 28, 1987 May 26, 1987 1o:oo - 12:oo --- June 20, 1987 -55- April 30, 1987 Circulation Committee Page 8 Based on the changes in meeting dates, Fay Round would only miss one meeting. A motion was made and seconded to withdraw previous motion regarding the replacement of Fay Round. Motion passed. PUBLIC INPUT Fred Morey, 2618 Abedul Street, Carlsbad, indicated that the general public should also be provided with agenda packet if they request it. Lefty Anear responded that all material available to the - Committee should be made available at the two libraries for the general publics review. 3im Popovich, 7436 Trigo Lane, Carlsbad, inquired why the realignment of Rancho Santa Road Road was not going to be discussed or resolved at this Committee as he had understood. Chairperson McFadden responded that the Committee would be speaking generally to realignment but would not be engineering this matter. Dana Hungerford, 3341 Cuesta, Carlsbad, inquired about material being available for use at home for review. There being no further discussion on this topic the meeting was adjourned at 5:04 Q.M. Respectfully Submitted: - Planning Director ANITA RAMOS-BONAS Secretary to Planning Department -56- - Appendix EXHIBIT D REPORT Meeting of: CIRCULATION COMMITTEE - PUBLIC INPUT MEETING - T ime of Meeting : 1O:OO A.M. Date of Meeting: 3une 20, 1987 Place of Meeting: Carlsbad Public Safety & Service Center - CALL TO ORDER c Chairperson McFadden called the meeting to order at 10:02 A.M. Present: Chairperson McFadden, Anear, Donovan, Erwin, Morrison, Carr, Round, Pursehouse, Schlehuber, Glass, and Hicks. Robert Royce arrived late. Absent: Irv Roston. Staff Members Present: Michael 3. Holzmiller, Planning Director Charles Grimm, Assistant Planning Director Bobbie Hoder, Sr. Management Analyst Robert gohnson, Principal Civil Engineer Frank Boensch, Management Analyst COMMENTS BY THE CHAIR Chairperson McFadden introduced the Circulation Committee to those present at the meeting. She also introduced staff members present. Chairperson McFadden explained the handout that was available to all present at the meeting. She pointed out the different renderings on the walls, and explained why the Council appointed the Committee, and that they were to report their findings and recommendations back to the City Council. MaJorie Morrison reviewed the Committee's tentative recommendations and the majority and minority opinions from the Committee of each recommendation. Chairperson McFadden reviewed the guidelines for public input. She then opened the meeting for public comments. PUBLIC COMMENT Bernard Pollack, 7595 Dehesa Court spoke as a resident of that community and also as a member of the Board of Directors of -58- 3une 20, 1987 Circulation Committee Page 2 Hillside Patio Homes. Mr. Pollack stated that if the Committee went through with a realignment, he felt that Rancho Santa Fe Road should be moved to the canyon. Lauren King, 3341 Fosca Street, stated that her recommendation was to put the realignment into the canyon. She felt that the homeowner's in the area had bought homes in a peaceful, quiet neighborhood and that by widening Rancho Santa Fe Road as proposed would be putting their homes by another Interstate 5. Ms. King felt that if Rancho Santa Fe Road was put in as proposed, then the City should reimburse every homeowner that has invested money in that area. She felt that by putting Rancho Santa Fe Road in as proposed the value of the property in that area would depreciate. - 3ohn Waterstradt, 7312 Muslo Lane, stated that he had been to several of the Committee's meetings. Mr. Waterstradt told the Committee that if they built a noise wall behind his house according to the noise consultant who was present at the Committee's last meeting, the wall would have to be 14 feet tall to mitigate the sound. He stated that some consideration needs to focused on the fact that there are other issues, technical issues to be looked at. Mr. Waterstradt felt that this was an opportunity to do something for everyone, those who travel Rancho Santa Fe Road and those who live by it. That opportunity is to recommend that the road be moved a half mile to the east to create a win win situation for everyone. 3ack Spirit, 3340 Cadencia Street, stated that in making the recommendations, that the Committee should take into consideration that the easement given for Rancho Santa Fe Road was given before it was designated as a prime arterial route, and is strictly for landscaping and public service use. Mr. Spirit referred to the recent opinion by the Supreme Court holding the city liable if there is any loss of property. If Rancho Santa Fe Road is put in as a prime arterial the homeowner's along that road would lose some property. Mr. Spirit mentioned that the Mag Properties have threatened a lawsuit and that the property owners have been given that right due to the decision by the Supreme Court. Homer Hupf, 3341 Cadencia Street stated that he thought that ' ,411en Recce had a good plan for the Rancho Santa Fe Road alignment, to move it away from the current houses. Mr. Hupf agreed that Rancho Santa Fe Road was an unsafe two lane road and felt that if the road is left where it is and widened, then there would be a six lane unsafe highway. Mr. Hupf feels that there is -59- June 20, 1987 Circulation Committee Page 3 some kind of driving force to leave Rancho Santa Fe Road right where it is, and felt that the citizens do not know all the reasons for leaving Rancho Santa Fe Road as it is. Allen Recce, 7442 Trigo Lane stated that he had been working on the realignment of Rancho Santa Fe Road for two years. Mr. Recce stated that he read in the Melrose Alignment Study that Rancho Santa Fe Road was built as a country road and now we are talking about making it a prime arterial regional road. He stated that he was told that some portions of Rancho Santa Fe Road would have to remain as a major arterial because some portions are locked in. Mr. Recce referred to a draft Agenda Bill done by the City of Carlsbad (attached as part of this report along with a petition that Mr. Recce submitted). Mr. Recce also submitted a letter from the La Costa Awareness Group. - He felt it was a community problem and not just a problem for the homes that back onto Rancho Santa Fe Road. Dr. 3oseph Dunn, 3352 Del Rio Court, stated that he is on the Board of Directors of Hillside Patio Homes and represents the homeowners who purchased homes in the community at a time when the Master Plan did not have Rancho Santa Fe Soad designated as a prime arterial. He talked about the impact this would have on their lifestyles and property values. He asked the Committee to consider an alignment in the canyon. Richard Fisher, 7321 Muslo Lane, stated that he wanted to commend those Committee members that voted for realignment. The road realignment doesn't just affect the homes backing Rancho Santa Fe Road but the whole community. He asked that the Committee look at realignment. He stated that he would like to see the road aligned away from where it presently is, if it is made a prime arterial. 3oe Fishbaugh, 3345 Del Rio Court, stated that his backyard was Rancho Santa Fe Road. Mr. Fishbaugh stated that he wouldn't want to but a house next to 1-5 and all the noise but that the City is doing just that to the homeowners now with making Rancho Santa Fe Road a prime arterial. 3ohn Waszczak, 7252 Esfera, stated that there were two points that they were asked to comment on, 1) alignment - the road does not belong where it is. The road should be realigned as far east as possible, 2) four lanes versus six lanes - Mr. Waszczak felt that four lanes were plenty, and that the Committee should be addressing the real issue with Encinitas, which is the Melrose Avenue connection. He felt that the six lane Melrose Avenue should be put in, then only four lanes would be needed on Rancho Santa Fe Road. -60- June 20, 1987 Circulation Committee - Page 4 Jackie Scanlon, 7324 Muslo Lane, felt that they had bought into a very lazy, quiet community and now they are faced with a major freeway in their backyard. Mrs. Scanlon felt the City made a mistake five or six years ago when the City sold the property to the La Costa Ranch Co. She asked the Committee to look at the realignment and to consider how the residents felt. 3ames DiLuca, 7961 Calle Posada, wanted to share with the Committee some of the concerns of many parents in the development of Colinas de Oros. Mr. DiLuca suggested that the Committee look at making Rancho Santa Fe Road a major arterial, lower the speed limit, and make it a four lane highway instead of six lanes along with a realignment. The parents fear for the safety of the children walking to school or crossing Rancho Santa Fe Road. He - felt that the City of Carlsbad is providing a pipeline from San Marcos to Encinitas. Mr. DiLuca submitted a petition to the Committee (which is attached to this report). A. 3. Veitch, 7326 Muslo Lane, stated that the current condition of Rancho Santa Fe Road is unacceptable. Mr. Veitch feels that Rancho Santa Fe Road is carrying too much traffic at this time. He asked the Committee to look again at a realignment of Rancho Santa Fe Road and to reconsider making it a prime arterial. Tim Stripe, 3345 Fosca, asked the Committee to support Mr. Recce's proposal 1) that the road be realigned a half mile east and 2) that the road be limited to four lanes. Mr. Stripe asked the Committee, that before they make their recommendations to Council, that they look at alternatives for financing this project. Alan Kindle, 2662 El Aguila Lane, stated that they were witnessing a social tragedy. He talked about the City not needing Carrillo Way as a major arterial. He felt there was no justification for running 24,000 cars a day through the valley. He stated that the homeowners association has filed traffic mitigation exceptions to the EIR that is under review for Scripps ' Hospital. Mr. Kindle stated that the people of this community are not going to let the City do to them, what it has done to the people on Rancho Santa Fe Road. No one else wished to speak. Chairperson McFadden stated to those present that they could submit written comments. In summarizing the meeting, she noted that there were fifteen speakers covering a broad range of concerns regarding both alignment and road classification. -61- 3une 20, 1987 Circulation Committee Page 5 Chairperson McFadden adjourned the meeting at 10:55 a.m. since there were no further comments. ATTACHMENTS 1) Agenda Bill, Petition and Letter submitted by Allen Recce 2) Petition submitted by games DiLuca 3) Written comments submitted Barbara Nedros Minutes Clerk -62- ClTY OF CARLSBAD - AGENDA BILL - AB# MTG. 09/23/86 DEPT. A.D. - DEPT. HD. i. I t- TITLE: - QRAri- - RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD 0- 'k?. ? CITY ATTY- ,l CITY MG R.- > .. 1,- ' +: ALIGNMENT STUDY 1. By minute motion, find that the existing alignment, with the addition of a sound attenuation Wall, shall remain the adopted alignment; or 2. Direct staff to proceed with necessary processing to realign the road per the La Costa Ranch Company's request. ITEM EXPLANAT ION On May 20, 1986, Council approved an agreement with' Wiildan Assoc'iates to do an alignment study along Rancho Santa Fe Road from La Costa Avenue to 1,500 feet north of Cadencia Street. The consultant completed the study on July 31, 1986 and included three alternatives: - A. Existing alignment. This is essentially a straight line from La Costa Avenue north immediately adjacent to single family homes on the west side. 8. Old Rancho Santa Fe Road. This road veers east at La Costa Avenue to a maximum of 1,000 feet east of the existing alignment and curves back to the existing alignment 1,500 feet north of Cadencia Street. C. La Costa Avenue/Melrose Drive. This wsuld require traffic to turn east on a reconstructed La Costa A\*oT;iie and then turn north on Melrose Drive which would intersect Rancho Santa Fe Road 1,500 feet north of Cadencia Street. Alternative A (existing) has the advantages that it meets all standards for a prime arterial, has the best alignment, is the shortest route, the lowest construction cost ana does the least damage to undeveloped properties. The disadvantage is the noise impact on existing homes along the west side. Alternative 8 (old alignment) has the advantages that it meets most standards for a prime arterial and reduces noise impact on existing homes. The disadvantages are that it adds three curves, intersection spacing will be below standard, it is longer and costs more. Also, the property on the northeast corner of Rancho Santa Fe Road and La Costa Avenue (proposed shopping center) will be severed and become more difficult to develop. e Alternative C (La Costa) has the disadvantages of two added intersections, noise impacts on homes being constructed on the -63- Page 2 of Agenda Bill No. - Dhr7- south side of La Costa Avenue, a longer route and higher construction costs than either Alternative A or 8 and probably substantial traffic congestion on both La Costa Avenue and Mision Estancia. On August 25, 1986, the La Costa Ranch Company presented another alternative which the City staff and Willdan have '. reviewed. This plan (Alternative 0) is similar to the old alignment except that it veers east from La Costa Avenue a maximum of 2,400 feet then follows the future alignment of Melrose Drive until it comes back to Rancho Santa Fe Road at Questhaven Road, 5,800 feet north of Cadencia Street. Aligqment 0 has th~,$~~anta~k!at $t&e,aA. standards for ap rime art 1 n s~~,.p~~fi-ai-.i,t,,redes noise uaaf, .M. _errjstri+-Ames. It has the disadvantge OF being the 1Eroute (one-half mile longer than existing), - -.p- --- highest construction cost, will impact the property at la Costa Avenue and will probably require some land use changes. After reviewing all these alteynatives. the consultant ._ _I recommends rn e existing aliqnm&-leta* .plq&ntains t: Tne - shortest, most direct path; it is ek-mo ."I -_ _.-).- construct and it josces-- -tt-~g---&st~ damage_--t-o ".,, -undeveloped ProPztY is ';iternat iwe is.,,qelecA.gd, staff-_r_ecommends a the inst-allatfLntz an accoustical wall which will red uce most - but not all - of th_e traffic noise to 1_ -- acceptable levels. +u Xsrub - Alternative B (old alignment) is not recommended because it disrupts the planned commercial development, costs more, has less than standard intersection spacing and while it reduces noise to existing homes, it will impact future homes and commercial development. 'Alternative C (La Costa) is unacceptable because of the two right angls turns it introduces which will cause congestion. Also, it is costly and would have a noise impact on new homes . now being built. -64- - Page 3 of Agenda Bill No. Plan are required, Also, a change in the Circulation Element of tn e General Plan would be required. Finally, since the FISCAL IMPACT A rough estimate of Street construction costs (excluding utilities and right-of-way) for each alternative is as follows: Alternative A S 2,300,000 (includes accoustical wall) Alternative 8 $ 3,500,000 Alternative C $ 4,500,000 Alternative D $ 7,000,000 (not directly comparable - rebuilds road 4,300 fket further north) E XH I9 ITS 1. Location Map 2. Alignment Study (including Accoustical Study) -65- LOCATION MAP I I. A - Existing B - Old Alignment C - La Costa/Melrose D - La Costa Ranch Proposal NO SCALE PROJECT NAME PROJW NO- RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD ALIGNMENT STUDY 3190 EXHIBIT I PETITION TO THE CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL WE THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF LA COSTA ARE PETITIONING THE CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL TO CONSIDER CONSTRUCTING THE LA COSTA/MELROSE EXTENSION AS THE PRIME ARTERIAL THROUGH SOUTHERN CARLSBAD AND THAT THIS ROAD BE BUILT BEFORE EXPANSION OF RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD. OF OUR COMMUNITY AND THE 1’ - if ’ [ y; 7&+:7 /,\if L ’6; /\ /*p., L‘ XJ 7;7 ’ NAME ADDRESS PHONE NAME ADDRESS PHONE -67- .- I PETITION TO THE CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL c c c WE THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF LA COSTA ARE PETITIONING THE CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL TO CONSIDER CONSTRUCTING THE LA COSTA/MELROSE EXTENSION AS THE PRIME ARTERIAL THROUGH SOUTHERN CARLSBAD AND THAT THIS ROAD BE BUILT BEFORE EXPANSION OF RANCHO WE ARE CONCERNED WITH THE QUALITY OF OUR COMMUNITY AND THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF OUR NEIGHBORS. SANTA FE ROAD. .-- A -68- . PETITION TO THE CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL r i r r WE THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF LA COSTA ARE PETITIONING THE CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL TO CONSIDER CONSTRUCTING THE LA COSTA/MELROSE EXTENSION AS THE PRIME ARTERIAL THROUGH SOUTHERN CARLSBAD AND THAT THIS ROAD BE BUILT BEFORE EXPANSION OF RANCHO WE ARE CONCERNED WITH THE QUALITY OF OUR COMMUNITY AND THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF OUR NEIGHBORS. SANTA FB ROAD. NAME/ / ADDRESS ' PHONE r I -69- PETITION TO THB CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL r ! i WE THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF LA COSTA ARE PETITIONING THE CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL TO CONSIDER CONSTRUCTING THE LA COSTA/MELROSE EXTENSION AS THE PRIME ARTERIAL THROUGH SOUTHERN CARLSBAD AND THAT THIS ROAD BE BUILT BEFORE EXPANSION OF RANCHO WE ARE CONCERNED WITH THE QUALITY OF OUR COMMUNITY AND THE SANTA FE ROAD. . HEALTH AND SAFETY OF OUR NEIGHBORS. 434-73&3 ADDRESS PHONE r NAME ADDRESS PHONE r i i NAME ADDRESS PHONE -70- PETITION TO THE CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL WE THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF LA COSTA ARE PETITIONING THE CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL TO CONSIDER CONSTRUCTING THE LA COSTA/MELROSE EXTENSION AS THE PRIME ARTERIAL THROUGH SOUTHERN CARLSBAD AND THAT THIS ROAD BE BUILT BEFORE EXPANSION OF RANCHO WE ARE CONCERNED WITH THE QUALITY OF OUR C0I"ITY AND THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF OUR NEIGHBORS. SANTA FE ROAD. v- Y I s4 CapCcDd Cde L)W - 3bs6 NAME ADDRES~ PHONE $&qGGSe077 24038 WWM t?/~CcE- 9k-2- 6lC3 NAME ADDRESS PHONE 6kJA. ~4-d 6/50 PHONE p- & 3WSP N 4ME ADDRESS -71- . PETITION TO THE CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL WE THB UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF LA COSTA ARE PETITIONING THE CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL TO CONSIDER CONSTRUCTING THE LA COSTA/MELROSE EXTENSION AS THE PRIME ARTERIAL THROUGH SOUTHERN CARLSBAD AND THAT THIS ROAD BE BUILT BEFORE EXPANSION OF RANCHO SANTA FB ROAD. . WE ARE CONCERNED WITH THE QUALITY OF OUR COMMUNITY AND THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF OUR NEIGHBORS. 1 ADDRESS PHONE 754.; n$L/, P7 - 7L -/si? c, ADDRESS PHONE L< J$r- go711 NAME i ADDRESS PHONE - I I, ADDRESS PHONE NAME cq- d?L- 71)o NAME \ ADDRESS PHONE ( ADDRESS- PHONE -72- PETITION TO THE CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL WE THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF LA COSTA ARE PETITIONING THE CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL TO CONSIDER CONSTRUCTING THE LA COSTA/MELROSE EXTENSION AS THE PRIME ARTERIAL THROUGH SOUTHERN CARLSBAD AND THAT THIS ROAD BE BUILT BEFORE EXPANSION OF RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD. WE ARE CONCERNED WITH THE QUALITY OF OUR COMMUNITY AND THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF OUR NEIGHBORS. n ADDRESS PHONE NAME ADDRESS PHONE NAME ADDRESS PHONE NAME ADDRESS PHONE NAME ADDRESS PHONE NAME ADDRESS PHONE PHONE NAME ADDRESS NAME ADDRESS PHONE NAME ADDRESS PHONE NAME ADDRESS PHONE . NAME ADDRESS PHONE NAME ADDRESS PHONE NAME ADDRESS PHONE NAME ADDRESS PHONE -73- PETITION TO THE CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL WE THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF LA COSTA ARE PETITIONING THE CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL TO CONSIDER CONSTRUCTING THE LA COSTA/MELROSE EXTENSION AS THE PRIME ARTERIAL THROUGH SOUTHERN CARLSBAD AND THAT THIS ROAD BE BUILT BEFORE EXPANSION OF RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD. .. WE ARE CONCERNED WITH THE QUALITY OF OUR COMMUNITY AND THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF OUR NEIGHBORS. - R/ L 37/73 7Jb -rq& CTd NAME \\ ADDRESS PHONE ADDRESS PHONE 7S9S /A L 74-8 ZFL4 ADDRESS PHONE 436- 460s NAME ADDRESS PHONE ADDRESS PHONE NAME NAME ADDRESS PHONE NAME ADDRESS PHONE NAME ADDRESS PHONE NAME ADDRESS PHONE NAME ADDRESS PHONE NAME. ADDRESS PHONE PHONE NAME ADDRESS -74- PETITION TO THE CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL WE THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF LA COSTA ARE PETITIONING THE CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL TO CONSIDER CONSTRUCTING THE LA COSTA/MELROSE EXTENSION AS THE PRIME ARTERIAL THROUGH SOUTHERN CARLSBAD 'AND THAT THIS ROAD BE BUILT BEFORE EXPANSION OF RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD. . WE ARE CONCERNED WITH THE QUALITY OF OUR COMMUNITY AND THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF OUR NEIGHBORS. & 7Z93737L NAME ' ADDRESS PHONE NAME ADDRESS PHONE NAME ADDRESS PHONE PHONE NAME ADDRESS NAME ADDRESS PHONE NAME ADDRESS PHONE NAME ADDRESS PHONE NAME ADDRESS PHONE NAME ADDRESS PHONE NAME ADDRESS PHONE NAME ADDRESS PHONE -75- PETITION TO THE CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL WE THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF LA COSTA ARE PETITIONING THE CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL TO CONSIDER CONSTRUCTING THE LA COSTA RANCH .,EXTENSION AS THE PRIME ARTERIAL THROUGH SOUTHERN CARLSBAD . WE ARE CONCERNED WITH THE QUALITY OF OUR COMMUNITY AND THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF OUR NEIGHBORS. NAME ADDRESS PHONE NAME ADDRESS PHONE ’ . ADDRESS PHONE NAME NAME ADDRESS PHONE NAME ADDRESS PHONE NAME ADDRESS PHONE -76- I- - PETITION TO THE CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL WE THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF LA COSTA ARE PETITIONING THE CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL TO CONSIDER CONSTRUCTING THE LA COSTA RANCH .EXTENSION AS THE PRIME ARTERIAL THROUGH SOUTHERN CARLSBAD 'WE ARE CONCERNED WITH THE QUALITY OF OUR COMMUNITY AND THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF OUR NEIGHBORS. y)6- qk 0 PHONE ADDRESS PHONE 753 - 7#SZ PHONE ADDRESS NAME ADDRESS PHONE NAME ADDRESS PHONE NAME ADDRESS PHONE NAME ADDRESS PHONE NAME ADDRESS PHONE PHONE NAME ADDRESS -77- PETITION TO THE CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL WE THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF LA COSTA ARE PETITIONING THE CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL TO CONSIDER CONSTRUCTING THE LA COSTA .RANCH ,EXTENSION AS THE PRIME ARTERIAL THROUGH SOUTHERN CARLSBAD t WE ARE CONCERNED WITH THE QUALITY OF OUR COMMUNITY AND THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF OUR NEIGHBORS. - ‘PdOdE 333s P ADDRESS NAME ADDRESS PHONE -78- r - PETITION TO THE CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL WE THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF LA COSTA ARB PETITIONING THE CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL TO CONSIDER CONSTRUCTING THE LA . 1:. COSTA RANCH .EXTENSION AS THE PRIME ARTERIAL THROUGH SOUTHERN - CARLSBAD - .WE ARE CONCERNED WITH THE QUALITY OF OUR COMMUNITY AND THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF OUR NEIGHBORS. I \ - -_ PHONE NAME ADDRESS PHONE NAME ADDRESS PHONE i' - *.,. PETITION TO THB CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL -- I i r r i c i r i r i WB THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF LA COSTA ARE PETITIONING THE CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL TO CONSIDER CONSTRUCTING THE LA CARLSBAD COSTA RANCH ,EXTENSION AS THE PRIME ARTERIAL THROUGH SOUTHERN r- .WE ARE CONCERNED WITH THE QUALITY OF OUR COMMUNITY AND THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF OUR NEIGHBORS. NAME ADDRESS PHONE 753- 4-06 N ADDRESS PHONE L 7S3-#& 7318 2bie4?# PHONE NAME fl ADDRESS ADDRESS PHONE $5347 37- 'zs347 33 ADDRESS ' PHONE PHONE ' 3341 && Jf NAME ADDRESS -80- \. PETITION TO THB CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL WE THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF LA COSTA ARE PETITIONING THE CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL TO CONSIDER CONSTRUCTING THE LA COSTA/MELROSE EXTENSION AS THE PRIME ARTERIAL THROUGH SOUTHERN CARLSBAD AND THAT THIS ROAD BE BUILT BEFORE EXPANSION OF RANCHO WE ARE CONCERNED WITH THE QUALITY OF OUR COMMUNITY AND THE SANTA FE ROAD. 3326 e& 80. WAY /ADDRESS PHONE CJ W NAM PHONE 3a5e!i?Ao k(cuI NAME ADDRESS F@-sg3a-. PHONE 333f fi f G;4u G ,r ADDRESS // // PHONE ff N&E ' ADDRESS - PHONE 6Qhx16h s 333sPii~ 8 ADDRESS " NAME /2/& L&& c3-.3d PHONE NAME ADDRESS -81- PETITION TO THE CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL WE THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF LA COSTA ARE PETITIONING THE CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL TO CONSIDER CONSTRUCTING THB LA COSTA/MBLROSE EXTENSION AS THE PRIME ARTERIAL THROUGH SOUTHERN CARLSBAD AND THAT THIS ROAD BE BUILT BEFORE EXPANSION OF RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD. HEALTH AND SAFETY OF OUR NEIGHBORS. . WE ARE CONCERNED WITH THE QUALITY OF OUR COMMUNITY AND THE -82- PETITION TO THE CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL WE THE UNDEBSIGNED RBSIDENTS OF LA COSTA ARE PETITIONING THE CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL TO CONSIDER CONSTBUCTING THB LA COSTA/MELROSE EXTENSION AS THE PRIME ARTERIAL THROUGH SOUTHERN CABLSBAD AND THAT THIS ROAD BE BUILT BEFORE EXPANSION OF RANCHO SANTA FB BOADO , WE ARE CONCERNED WITH THE QUALITY OF OUR COMMUNITY AND THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF OUR NEIGHBORS. NAME ADDRESS PHONE NAME ADDRESS PHONE NAME ADDRESS PHONE NAME ADDRESS PHONE -83- PETITION TO THE CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL r i WE THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF LA COSTA ARE PETITIONING THE CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL TO CONSIDER CONSTRUCTING THE LA COSTA/MELROSE EXTENSION AS THE PRIME ARTERIAL THROUGH SOUTHERN CARLSBAD AND THAT THIS ROAD BE BUILT BEFORE EXPANSION OF RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD. . WE ARE CONCERNED WITH THE QUALITY OF OUR COMMUNITY AND THE . HEALTH AND SAFETY OF OUR NEIGHBORS. I 1 /722 - + .7i- .3 - 3.L .? 2- ,?JyT -4, "' Lf / PHONE NAME ADDRESS NAME ADDRESS PHONE NAME ADDRESS PHONE NAME ADDRESS PHONE PHONE NAME ADDRESS NAME ADDRESS PHONE NAME ADDRESS PHONE - t -84- PETITION TO THE CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL WE THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF LA COSTA ARE PETITIONING THE CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL TO CONSIDER CONSTRUCTING THE LA COSTA/MELROSB EXTENSION AS THE PRIME ARTERIAL THROUGH SOUTHERN CARLSBAD AND THAT THIS ROAD BE BUILT BEFORE EXPANSION OF RANCHO QANTA FE ROAD. WE ARE CONCERNED WITH THE QUALITY OF OUR COMMUNITY AND THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF OUR NEIGHBORS. -86- .- April 13,1986 c -- I Mr. Allen Racce La Costs Concerned Citizens Dear Mr. Recce: Thank you for meetins with our group the first Saturday in April and discussing your plan for realignment of the northern portion of Rancho Santa Fe Road. Your ideas and proposals were met with enthusiasm and support by our members. The La Costa Community Awareness Group (LACCAG) is very concerned with Rancho Santa Fe Road and its impact on our neighbfirhoods. Our concern is with the community not being further divided up by high volume expressways and the potential for still more traffic being diverted into an already less than adequate circulatlon system. LACCAG members voted unanimously to support your plan that wourd link an extension of La Costa Ave. to an as yet to be completed Melroae extension. We understand that in your plan, the existing,narrow two-lane portion of Rancho Santa Fe Road north of the La Coata Ave. intersection would be downgraded to a residential street or eliminated altogether. We continue to wish you success in your efforts. Please keep us informed of your progress. Best Regards, Don Wakefield Chairman in Costa Community Awareness Group -86- 57/2€€ 7 . * 'A I CI 7Y j -87- NO. - / 2 3 - - 5 - j7 rlg -19 bl /e" .I-- ) /3 SE#R 7UR€ n I - .. .- A- CM. i -3 I 5 '8 - , .- 4 If r .- I 12 i3 U - CI 7Y -89- 5 IGNR 7V R€ S'TREE 7 CI 7Y Lc cc 'i 7 CARL 5 #3,4 0 J -E 55 MPH SPEEb OM17 ZU 6- LA#€ AR?€PY c 'I . S772€€ 7 , C17Y 1 I -91- SIGNC) NEE C! 7Y I tlP -92- - 57/2€E7 I -I 2 . .. - t/ / --I 3 -I 'P .- i -93- . - .. .- ._ --- -.. -- . ~ .. . . . . . - . . v- S7RH 7 n A i -94- S?R€€ 7 i u I 1 i- CI 7Y -95- - NO. J 7 57R€€ 7 C17Y 920% I -96- Y 5 - 12 i3 - c, 7Y -97- NO. I - ‘tip & f f ___ I I I, ,/ i I If I/ I: I' !' . . . h- I COMMENTS : - -1 00- - . . ' COMMENTS: -102- NAME ADDRESS COMMENTS : > r -1 03- . . COMMENTS: -1 04- - . .' . COMMENTS: -105- NAME &- 24 ,A- ADDRESS COMMENTS : -106- &&- -z - -107- -1 08- -1 09- -1 10- 4 MERlT PROPERTY MANAGEMENT INC. June 2, 1987 The Honorable Mark V. Pettine Council Member, City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-1989 RE: Rancho Santa Fe Road Dear Mr. Pettine: l- The Colinas de Oro Homeowners Association strongly opposes the ptOpOSed plan for Rancho Santa Fe Road which would include a six-lane road and a 55 mph speed limit. The homeowners in this area purchased their homes in an attempt to enjoy the benefits of living in an area such as Carlsbad. The intrusion of this added congestion and noise, in addition to increasing the hazards of the area make this proposed plan unacceptable to the homeowners. - - A proposed compromise would include a four-lane road with a 45 mph maximum speed limit and a ban on large truck traffic. We look forward to hearing from you regarding this issue. For the Board of Directors, Laura E. Wineholt Account Executive LEW : TO 24422 Ave de la Carlota Suite 460 Laguna H~lls. CA 92653 714~951-4464 8001428-5588 8950 Villa La Jolla 9rtve Suite 121 2 La Jolla. CA 92037 61 91457-0200 61 91284.0333 61 91753-4868 - 3350 East Birch Street Suite 103 Brea CA 92621 714/528-0422 800/962-6229 -111- MERIT PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC. June 2, 1.987 The Honorable Ann J. Kulchin Mayor Pro Tem, City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-1989 RE: Rancho Santa Fe Road Dear Mayor Kulchin: The Colinas de Oro Homeowners Association strongly opposes the proposed plan for Rancho Santa Fe Road which would include a six-lane road and a 55 mph speed limit. The homeowners in this area purchased their homes in an attempt to enjoy the benefits of living in an area such as Carlsbad. The intrusion of this added congestion and noise, in addition to increasing the hazards of the area make this proposed plan unacceptable to the homeowners. A proposed compromise would include a four-lane road with a 45 mph maximum speed limit and a ban on large truck traffic. We look forward to hearing from you regarding this issue. For the Board of Directors, Laura E. Wineholt Account Executive LEW:TO 19 24422 Ave de la Carlota Suite 460 Laguna Hills. CA 92653 714/951-4464 800/428-5588 8950 Villa La Jolla Drive Suite 121 2 La Jolla. CA 92037 9 619/457-0200 61 9/284-0333 61917,553-4866 3350 East Birch Street Suite 103 Erea CA 92621 714i528-0422 800/962-6229 -112- c I 1 -113- c June 15, 1987 Jeanne B. McFadden Chairman, Circulation Study Committee City Hall 1200 Elm Ave. Carlsbad, CA 92008 Dear Mrs McFadden, I am writing this letter to the members of the Carlsbad City Council, as well as to the Chairman of the Circulation Study Committee. My purpose is to make you aware of the enclosed letter from Mashburn Sanitation Co. which I, and my neighbors in Encinitas, recently received. The action by the City of Carlsbad prohibiting trucks on a regional highway is going to cost Mashburn customers about $50,000 a year. It's coming straight out of our pocketbooks. Multiply that by the added costs to the people of Solana Beach, Del Mar, Cardiff, Rancho Santa Fe, Leucadia, Olivenhain and Carlsbad and the tremendous economic impact becomes clear. All this to satisfy a handful of selfish people in La Costa who made a mistake, and now want all the rest of us to pay for it. Those people knew, or certainly should have, of .an existing situation, and chose to ignore it. They purchased homes at undermarket prices without bothering to ask questions that any prudent home buyer would ask. The decision now should not be yours, or ours. It should be theirs. Let them move. Most likely they will still make'a profit. What has happened is grossly unfair and un-democratic. The majority is not being listened to. Please start listening now. Very truly yours, Mr. & Mrs Rick Scaramella 1710 Orange Blossom Lane Encinitas, CA 92024 -1 14- C a 1 P m C r, 3 -t I- b. I - r. C m C 3 c 1 UP om 110 5 -0” no 0 3 x 51 o mn h - 1 n 0 m m m : r i 8 P 0 ID ID P Y P 0 C Y P Y Y - 0 I-. I- w - n- VI e. J n rr4 05 UJ mx EO mc POW Dm om0 5m c orrr G VI0 Clcr 2-1- rrx orm OkO PD.0 0100 D m P’ J mz a qn rr nca 1 T Lo <c rr P m 0% -9 Die u3 100 OW k10 U mu C <J (Do ai L VI om -0 <1 c nY 100 .c 1 C G L. m m 0 z l+ n 00 mc 1 m rr u 3 G r. 3 9 Drrc rm t om 510 rrm rr c D rt m rr S 0 21 21 0 * C I-. m a ri mo ma vlr Y rr 0 r.Y JO mc 01 1 E rr n 0 rt rr Y 10 I- O -1 15- NAME COMMENTS: Rancho Santa Fe road has a very simple, good for everyone, solution. That solution is moving the road to the canyon location. This solution has been endorsed by everyone affected by the need to return to "normal", and only finds detractors from individuals NOT living with the final decision. Do civil engineers have backyards and barbecues in mind as they talk straight lines? NO! Do shopping centers have the rights of children to go to the park when they complain of curbs and corners and square footage? NO! Are staff and council really aware of the panic homeowners have as property values go down, sometimes trapping folks that had planned their present abode as their final one? NO! Your committee has a very large responsibility to take what could literally rip south Carlsbad apart and make a simple decision that will still be in place 100 years from now. Give us a neighborhood with a park, where people enjoy their homes, yards, and living in Carlsbad. -1 16- - - ne 25, 1987 Dear Traffic Circulation Commit tee, We, the undersigned, are La Costa residents. We are unable to attend today's meeting regarding the expansion of Rancno Santa Fe Road We firmly believe the designation of this road to allow 40,000 vehicles a day is hazardous to our families' health and well being Our property value will decrease, traffic congestion, noise and air pollution will increase Please consider our opposition Address Phone number A -1 17- .June 25, 19-5 Dear Traf f 1 c Circulation Cornrm tee, We, the undersigned, are La ~3% residents. we are ci~!a,h:e !,? a;'.?~,cf today's meeting regarmg the expansion of Rancho Santa Fe 2oar; firmly believe the designation of this road to allw 40,WO ,vehicles. a cab; is hazardous to ow families' health and well being. Our proi?ert!/ \.ql~e will decrease, traffic congestion, noise and air poilution will increase. Please consider our opposition Name Address -118- Phone number NAME ADDRESS / . COMMENTS: June 12, 1987 Mayor Bud Lewis and City Council City Hall 1200 Elm Avenue .Carlsbad, CA 92008 , Dear Mayor and Members of the Council: As residents of La Costa, we are writing this letter to express our concern and address several issues regarding the impending decision you will collectively make on behalf of our community regarding the proposed realignment of Rancho Santa Fe Road. We would like to outline the following facts in support of your consideration to realign the road to the easternmost location as designed by the engineering studies: 1. The noise, health, safety and aesthetic impact resultant from the road in its present location and current traffic volumes adversely affects our entire community, not only those homes which front directly adjacent to Rancho Santa Fe Road. 2. Considering that studies indicate that approximately only 15% of this current traffic are Carlsbad residents, this is a regional problem which dictates a regional solution. Residents of La Costa are unfairly being burdened with contesting this issue which primarily benefits other communities. Seemingly they should contribute to the financial burden as well. c 3. While purchasing our home in 1986, we learned that the appraised value had been adjusted downward approximately $9,000.00 due to the then current noise levels on Rancho Santa Fe Road (our' home is over 175 ft. from the centerline of the road). 4. We went forward with the purchase even though the sales price exceeded the appraised value of our home. based on articles we had read regarding the city and developer's support of the residents recommendations to move the road east where the original haster plan had designed. Other factors which supported our dicision to buy were our neighbors confidence in Mayor Lewis and members of the City Council who indicated a willingness to support the relocation, and the progress in that direction which had been made to date. This decision was -120- . June Page 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 12, 1987 2 As a registered architect, I sincerely suspect that although proposed sound attenuation solutions may bring noise levels to legal limits, they will do little to allow those affected to enjoy our back yards or leave our windows open. This condition is particulary true for the existing homes to the north which are positioned on a bank above the road. Proposed sound/safety walls will do nothing to solve air quality health problems, nor aesthetic condsiderations for the two story homes. La Costan residents in support of Proposition E were given the impression that with its passing, funds would be available to move the road to the east. Public support of Proposition E and other issues such as the Hosp Grove and Bataquitos Lagoon preservation projects suggest a major concern for the quality of life in our community. To propose a 6 lane freeway through a residential neighborhood is absurd. Discussion of increasing the width of the road to 4 lanes or 6 lanes in completely baffling since the La Costa section is fed in either direction by 2 lane roads. In summary, we appeal to you, the elected officials which represent our community to enhance the quality of life in our community by supporting the solution to realign the location of Rancho Santa Fe Road to its eastern most design location. In order to mitigate costs associated with this design and construction, a 4 lane road with land dedicated for future expansion if needed could be planned. Secondarily, a timely decisi,on will allow the developer to proceed with his housing starts and begin to recover his development costs for improvement of the road. Thank you for the opportunity to express our thoughts and concerns regarding this issue, and we look forward to your favorable consider- Sandra L. Blomberg 3334 Bajo Court La Costa, CA 92009 -121-