HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-01-18; City Council; 15580; Colina Roble Rancho Santa Fe Road RedesignationCITY OF CARLSBAD -AGENDA BILL
AB# ,&f@ TITLE:
MTG. /l/8/00 COLINA ROBLE - GPA 98-08
(RANCH0 SANTA FE ROAD REDESIGNATION)
DEPT. PLN #
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
DEPT. HD.
CITY ATTY. bip
CITY MGR
That Council ADOPT Resolution No. dam- 23 APPROVING the Negative Declaration and
General Plan Amendment for the Colina Roble (Ranch0 Santa Fe Road redesignation).
ITEM EXPLANATION:
On December 1, 1999, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and recommended
approval with a 6-O vote (Neilsen absent) of a General Plan Amendment to the Circulation Element.
The proposal involves the changing of the General Plan designation for the southern portion of
Ranch0 Santa Fe Road from a Major Arterial to a Secondary Arterial. The change in designation
would cover the roadway from its intersection with Olivenhain Road to the southern city boundary.
The downsizing of this portion of Ranch0 Santa Fe Road was studied and discussed in conjunction
with two previous discretionary actions, namely the tentative tract maps for Shelley (CT 90-03/EIR
90-06) and Colina Roble (CT 98-02). The traffic studies for these maps, along with new regional
traffic modeling conducted by SANDAG, indicated a lessening of traffic volumes along the southern
portion of Ranch Santa Fe Road. Therefore, the projects were conditioned to construct Ranch0
Santa Fe Road to a modified secondary arterial standard, while dedicating and grading to the
General Plan designation.
Engineering staff has been working with the engineers of work for the Shelley and Colina Roble
projects and has concluded that all improvements necessary to accommodate the expected traffic
volumes can fit within a standard right-of-way width (84 feet) or an enhanced right-of-way (88 feet).
The proposed improvements would include two lanes in each direction with a raised median, thus
allowing traffic volumes up to 33,000 average daily trips. Current buildout estimates for traffic
volumes range from 20,000 to 22,000 average daily trips. The Secondary Arterial designation also
allows for more frequent intersections, increasing the access options at the Shelley project.
The proposed General Plan Amendment for a portion of Ranch0 Santa Fe Road is consistent with
the General Plan, the Growth Management Program, and all other applicable ordinances,
regulations and policies. Therefore, staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of
Colina Roble - GPA 98-08.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The proposed construction of Ranch0 Santa Fe Road to Secondary Arterial standards has been
reviewed in two previous environmental documents, namely the Environmental Impact Report for
the Shelley project (EIR 90-06) and the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Colina Roble project
(CT 98-02). The potential environmental impacts due to the proposed reclassification of the
roadway were analyzed in the Negative Declaration for this General Plan Amendment, dated July
26, 1999. The Negative Declaration stated that no adverse environmental impact to the physical,
biological or human environments would result due to the reclassification of Ranch0 Santa Fe Road.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 11 requires the guarantee of financing for Ranch0
Santa Fe Road. The City has explored the formation of a Community Facilities District to fund the
,mprovement of 75 feet of the right-of-way of Ranch0 Santa Fe Road. While the district has not yet
I
, 1 .-i
PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. /I $W
-
formed, all projects within Zone 11 are required to enter into a Prepayment Agreement for their
obligation of the funding of Ranch0 Santa Fe Road. The remaining portion of the right-of-way not
covered by the CFD fee will be financed by the fronting property owners, namely Shelley and Colina
Roble. Therefore, no fiscal impacts should occur as a result of the redesignation of Ranch0 Santa
Fe Road.
EXHIBITS:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
City Council Resolution No. &2000 - ;23
Location Map
Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4667 and 4668
Planning Commission Staff Reports, dated November 3, November 17, and December 1,
1999
Excerpts of the Planning Commission Minutes, dated November 3, November 17, and
December 1, 1999.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 2ooo-23
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO
CHANGE THE DESIGNATION OF A PORTION OF RANCH0
SANTA FE ROAD, LOCATED BETWEEN OLIVENHAIN ROAD
AND THE SOUTHERN CITY BOUNDARY, IN LOCAL FACILITIES
,MANAGEMENT ZONE 11.
CASE NAME: COLINA ROBLE
CASE NO.: GPA 98-08
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Code, the Planning
Commission, did on November 3, November 17, and December 3, 1999, hold duly noticed
public hearings as prescribed by law to consider a Negative Declaration and General Plan
Amendment; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, on the 18th day of
January , 2000, held a duly noticed public hearing to consider said General Plan
Amendment and at that time received recommendations, objections, protests, comments of all
persons interested in or opposed to GPA 98-08; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City
of Carlsbad, California, does hereby resolve as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
2. That the City Council APPROVES City Council Resolution No. 2003-23 and
that the findings of the Planning Commission as set forth in Planning Commission Resolutions
No. 4667 and 4668, on file with the City Clerk and made a part hereof by reference, are the
findings of the City Council.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad on the 18th day of January , 2000, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Lewis, Hall, Finnila and Nygaard
NOES: None
ABSENT: ~ Council Member Kulchin
ATTEST:
LORRAINE M. WOOD, City Clerk
(SEAL)
-2-
EXHIBIT 2
COLINA ROBLE
GPA 98-08
EXHIBIT 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
.27
28
PLANNING’COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4667
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION ON
PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED WITHIN THE
EXISTING AND FUl+UkE RIGHT-OF-WAY OF RANCH0
SANTA FE ROAD, BETWEEN ITS INTERSECTION WITH
OLIVENHAIN ROAD AND THE SOUTHERN CITY
BOUNDARY IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE
11.
CASE NAME: COLINA ROBLE
CASE NO.: GPA 98-08
WHEREAS, Colina Roble, L.L.C., “Developer”, has filed a verified application
with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as
Existing and future public right-of-way for Ranch0 Santa Fe
Road, from its intersection with Olivenhain Road to the
southern City boundary
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with said
project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 3rd day of November, 1999,
on the l7th day of November, 1999, and on the 1st day of December, 1999, hold a duly noticed
public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors
relating to the Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-- A’
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission hereby RECOMMEND APPROVAL of the Negative Declaration
according to Exhibit “ND” dated July 26, 1999, and “PII” dated June 1, 1999,
attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
Findhs:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
a. it has reviewed, analyzed and considered Negative Declaration (GPA 98-08) the
environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any comments
thereon prior to RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the project; and
b. the Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with requirements of
the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the
Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and
c. it reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of
Carlsbad; and
d. based on the EIA Part II and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence
the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 1st day of December, 1999, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Heineman, Commissioners Compas, L’Heureux,
Segall, Trigas, and Welshons
NOES:
ABSENT: Commissioner Nielsen
ABSTAIN:
COURTNEY E. HEINEMAN, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST: .
PC RESO NO. 4667 -2-
7
City
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Address/Location: Ranch0 Santa Fe Road, from Olivenhain Road to the southern City
boundary, City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of
California
Project Description: Reclassification of the General Plan roadway designation for
Ranch0 Santa Fe Road, between Oliver&am Road and the southern
City boundary, from a major arterial to a secondary arterial, thus
reducing the right-of-way width and required street improvements.
The City of Carisbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and
the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, a
Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on the
environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in the
Planning Department.
A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning
Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the public are
invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 20 days of date
of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Michael Grim in the Planning Department at
(760) 438-l 161, extension 4499.
DATED: JULY 26,1999
CASE NO: GPA 98-08
CASE NAME: COLINA ROBLE
PUBLISH DATE: JULY 26,1999
Planning Director
2075 La Palmas Dr. l Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 - (760) 438-l 161 l FAX (760) 438-0894 63
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: GPA 98-08
DATE: ,Iune 1.1999
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME:- Roble
2. APPLICANT: Colina Roble. LLC
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 3573 Sunrise Dr! Suite 221. Tuscan AZ
85718 (520) 299-2179
4. DATE EL4 FORM PART I SUBMITTED: Sentember 10.1998
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Reclassification of the General Plan roadway designation for
Ranch0 Santa Fe Road, between Olivenhain Road and the southern City boundary, from a
major arterial to a secondary arterial, thus reducing the right-of-way width and required
street improvements.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
0 Land Use and Planning [XI Transportation/Circulation 0 Public Services
0 Population and Housing 0 Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems
0 Geological Problems
cl Water
0 Energy & Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics
Cl Hazards 0 Cultural Resources
q Air Quality cl Noise cl Recreation
0 Mandatory Findings of Significance
Rev. 03/28/96 ?
-
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
Cl
cl
0
IXI
cl
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at
least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An Negative
Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
1 find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier pursuant to applicable
standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier, including
revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore,
a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
Planner Signature Date
Date I I .
2 Rev. 03/28/96
FWIRONMENTA~. IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 ,requires that the City
conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant
effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following
pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human
factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to
use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative
Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
a A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are
adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each
question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information
sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A
“No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or
it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
l “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the
potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted
general standards and policies.
l “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation
of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a
“Less Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the
City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the
effect to a less than significant level.
l “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect is significant.
0 Based on an “EIA-Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant
effect on the environment, but fl potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable
standards and (bj have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated
Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon
the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or
supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior
environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional
environmental document is required (Prior Compliance).
l When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required
to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement of
Overriding Considerations” has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR.
a A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that
the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment.
3 Rev. 03/28/96
l If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an
EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and
those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this
case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated”
may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared.
l An EIR & be prepared if “Potentially. Significant Impact” is checked, and including
but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has
not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier FIR pursuant to applicable standards, and
the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than
significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant impact has
not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce
the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part II analysis it is not
possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or
determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant
effect to below a level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the
form under DISCUWON OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVAT,UATIOl$ Particular attention
should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined
significant.
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
I. LAND USE ANDPLANNING. Would the proposal:.
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #(s): #l, pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18, #2)
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over
the project? (#l, pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18, #2)
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the
vicinity? (#l, pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18, #2)
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g.
impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from
incompatible land uses? (#1, pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18,
w e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)? (#l, pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18, #2)
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (#I, pgs 5.5-l - 5.5-6, #2)
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly
or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an
undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)? (#l, pgs 5.5-l - 5.5-6, #2)
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (#1, pgs 5.5-l - 5.5-6, #2)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Cl
cl
cl
Cl
0
Cl
0
0
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
0
Cl
Cl
Cl
0
0
Cl
0
Less Than No
Significant Impact
Impact
cl [XI
0 [XI
cl (XI
cl El
cl lxl
0
cl
cl [xl
/4
Rev. 03/28/96 4
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result
in or expose people to potential impacts involving:
4
b)
4
4
4
f)
g)
h)
9
Fault rupture? (#l, pgs 5.1-l - 5.1-15, #2)
Seismic ground shaking? (#l, pgs 5.1-l - 5.1-15,
w
Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
(#l, pgs 5.1-I - 5.1-15, #2)
Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l, pgs 5.1-l
- 5.1-15, #2)
Landslides or mudflows? (#l, pgs 5.1-l - 5.1-15,
w Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or till? (#l,
pgs 5.1-I - 5.1-15, #2)
Subsidence of the land? (#l, pgs 5.1-I - 5.1-15,
w Expansive soils? (#1, pgs 5.1-l - 5.1-15, #2)
Unique geologic or physical features? (#l, pgs 5.1-
1 - 5.1-15, #2)
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
4
‘4
cl
g)
h)
i)
Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or
the rate and amount of surface runoff? (#I, pgs
5.2-l - 5.2-l 1, #2)
Exposure of people or property to water related
hazards such as flooding? (#l, pg. 5.2-l - 5.2-11,
w Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? (#l, pgs 5.2-l - 5.2-I I, #2)
Changes in the amount of surface water in any
water body? ($4, pgs 5.2-l - 5.2-11, #2)
Changes in currents, or the course or direction of
water movements? (#I, pgs 5.2-l - 5.2-l 1, #2)
Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or
through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capability? (#l, pgs 5.2-l - 5.2-l 1, #2)
Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
(#l, pgs 5.2-l - 5.2-11, #2)
Impacts to groundwater quality? (#I, pgs 5.2-l -
5.2-11, #2)
Substantial reduction in the amount of
groundwater otherwise available for public water
supplies? (#l, pgs 5.2-l - 5.2-l 1, #2)
Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
cl q
q
cl
cl
q
cl
cl cl
q
cl
q
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
Cl
cl
0
Cl
Cl
Cl
Cl
Cl
q Cl
Cl
Cl
0
Cl
q
cl
q
Cl
Cl
Cl El
cl El
q IXI
cl ix/
0 lxl
cl Ix]
Cl ,a Cl (x1 0 El
Cl Ix]
q (XI
0 El
Cl IXJ
q IXI
q El
q
q
q
El
[XI
[XI
5 Rev. 03128196
/3
-
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
4
b)
4
4
Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation?
Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants?
Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or
cause any change in climate? (#l, pgs 5.3-l - 5.3-
12, #2)
Create objectionable odors? (#l, pgs 5.3-l - 5.3-
12, #2)
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
4
W
- Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
4
d)
e)
f)
g>
Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g. farm equipment)? (#1, pgs 5.7-l - 5.7-
22, #2)
Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby
uses? (#l, pgs 5.7-l - 5.7-22, #2)
Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
(#l, pgs 5.7-l - 5.7-22, #2)
Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
(#1, pgs 5.7-l - 5.7-22, #2)
Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)? (#1, pgs 5.7-l - 5.7-22, #2)
Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#l, pgs
5.7-l - 5.7-22, #2)
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal
result in impacts to:
4
b)
4
4
d
Endangered, threatened or rare species or their
habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish,
insects, animals, and birds? (#l, pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24,
372) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
(#l, pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24, #2)
Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#I, pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-
24, #2)
Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal
pool)? (#l, pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24, #2)
Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#l, pgs
5.4-l - 5.4-24, #2)
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal?
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
(#l, pgs 5.12.1-l - 5.12.1-5, #2)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
lx
Ix]
0
q
IXI q
0
0
0
0
q
0
cl
q
Cl
0
0
-
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
cl
cl
0
cl
0
0
cl
0
q
0
q
0
cl
0
0
cl
Cl
Less Than
Significant
Impact
0
cl
0
0
cl
0
cl
cl
0
0
0
,O
0
q
0
0
0
No
Impact
q
0 El
IXI
0 IXI
[XI
El
El
IXI
lx
lxl
IXI
(XI
El
IXI
w
Rev. 03128196
-
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
b)
4
Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (#1, pgs 5.12.1-l - 5.12.1-5,
9
Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of future value to
the region and the residents of the State? (#l, pgs
5.12.1-l - 5.12.1-5, #2)
Ix. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
4
W
cl
4
e)
A risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazardous substances (including, but not limited
to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? (#l, pgs
5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-3, #2)
Possible interference with an emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan? (#I, pgs
5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-3, #2)
The creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazards? (#I, pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-3, #2)
Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? (#l, pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-3, #2)
Increase fue hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees? (#1, pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-3, #2)
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#l, pgs 5.9-l -
5.9-15, #2)
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#1, pgs
5.9-l - 5.9-15, #2)
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an
effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered
government services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? (#l, pgs 5.12.5-I - 5.12.5-6, #2)
b) Police protection? (#l, pgs 5.12.5-l - 5.12.5-6, #2)
c) Schools? (#l, pgs 5.12.5-l - 5.12.5-6, #2)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
(#1, pgs 5.12.5-l - 5.12.5-6, #2)
e) Other governmental services? (#1, pgs 5.12.5-l -
5.12.5-6, #2)
XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? (#l, pgs 5.12.1-l - 5.12.1-5,
w
b) Communications systems? (#l, pgs 5.12.1-l -
5.12.1-5, #2)
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? (#l, pgs 5.12.1-l - 5.12.1-5, #2)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
cl
cl
0
0
0
0
-0
0
0
q
-
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
0
0’
cl
0
0
0
0
0
Cl
0
0
0
0
cl
0
0
cl
Less Than
Significant
Impact
cl
cl
cl
El
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
Cl
cl
cl
0
cl
cl
cl
cl
No
Impact
IXI
IXI
lzl
lz
IXI
[XI
lz
lxl
El
El
lz
IXI
IXI
El
IXI
7 Rev. 03128196
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
XIII.
d) Sewer or septic tanks? (#l, pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5,
#a
e) Storm water drainage? (#l, pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-
5, #2)
f) Solid waste disposal? (#l, pgs 5.12.1-l - 5.12.1-5,
#2) g) Local or regional water supplies? (#l, pgs 5.12. l-l
- 5.12.1-5, #2)
AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#l,
5.1 l-l - 5.1 l-5, #2)
b) Have a demonstrated negative aesthetic effect?
(#l, 5.1 l-l - 5.11-5, #2)
c) Create light or glare? (#I, 3.11-l - 5.1 l-5, #2)
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
xv.
XVI.
a)
b)
c)
d)
4
Disturb paleontological resources? (#l, pgs 5.8-l -
5.8-10, #2)
Disturb archaeological resources? (#l, pgs 5.8-l -
5.8-10, #2)
Affect historical resources? (#l, pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-10,
w
Have the potential to cause a physical change
which would affect unique ethnic cultural values?
(#l, pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-10, #2)
Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? (#l, pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-10, #2)
RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? (#l, pgs
5.12.8-I - 5.12.8-7, #2)
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#l, pgs
5.12.8-1 - 5.12.8-7, #2)
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish
or wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or restrict
the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal
or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
cl
cl
cl
q
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
cl
0
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
0
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
Less Than
Significant
Impact
cl
0
cl
cl
cl
Cl
cl
cl
0
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
No
Ix1
lxl
El
IXI
El
IXI
lxl
(XI
El
(XI
(x1
Ix1
IXI
Ix1
IXJ
8 Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current projects, and
the effects of probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which
will cause the substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
Potentially Potentially
Significant Significant
Impact Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Cl cl
cl cl
Less Than No
Significant Impact
Impact
cl /xl
cl lxl
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Development of subject portion of Ranch0 Santa Fe Road, namely between Olivenhain Road and
the southern City boundary, has been reviewed on two previous occasions. The. first occasion
was in the Master Environmental Impact Report for the 1994 General Plan Update (MEIR 93-
01). This document reviewed the potential impacts of buildout of the City’s General Plan,
including transportation and air quality impacts. The second previous environmental review on
the subject property occurred with the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Colina Roble
development (CT 98-02). This document reviewed the potential environmental’ impacts
associated with the development and occupation of a 28 unit single family development on 35
acres, including the improvement of Ranch0 Santa Fe Road.
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
The proposal involves a General Plan Amendment to the Circulation Element of the General Plan
pertaining to a portion of Ranch0 Santa Fe Road. The proposal would reclassify that portion of
Ranch0 Santa Fe Road between Olivenhain Road and the southern City boundary from a major
arterial to a secondary arterial designation. The subject portion of Ranch0 Santa Fe Road is
designated as a major arterial for several reasons. It was intended to receive traffic from a
County highway (Highway 680) which would have connected the community of Ranch0
Bernard0 with Ranch0 Santa Fe Road. The subject portion of Ranch0 Santa Fe was also
anticipated to provide north-south circulation between Olivenhain Road in the north and
Encinitas Boulevard in the south, as an alternative to El Camino Real.
The County of San Diego recently eliminated Highway 680 from the County’s Circulation
Element. This action also served to reduce the need to accommodate high traffic volumes on the
subject portion of Ranch0 Santa Fe Road and other roadway segments in the area. In addition to
the County’s actions, the City of Encinitas recently downgraded the classification of Ranch0
Santa Fe Road, between their northern City limits and Encinitas Boulevard, to a local street.
This action reduced the roadway’s effectiveness in providing a north-south circulation
connection alternative to El Camino Real. By reducing the classification of the subject portion
of Ranch0 Santa Fe Road, the .roadway would then taper down from its prime arterial
classification north of Olivenhain Road, to a local classification south of the southern City
boundary. This roadway transition scenario is more preferable than a major arterial changing to
a local street at one intersection.
9 Rev. 03/28/96
With regard to traffic demands, recent traffic generation and distribution models of the area
indicate that the expected traffic volumes on Ranch0 Santa Fe Road at buildout of the City are
lower than previously predicted. This traffic reduction is a result of the actual residential
development in the area being less dense than anticipated in the City’s General Plan. With the
deletion of Highway 680, the reduction in traffic capacity in Encinitas, and the reduced
anticipated traffic demand, the downsizing of the subject portion of Ranch0 Santa Fe Road does
not adversely impact circulation in the area and creates no significant environmental impacts.
Since the proposed reclassification of the Ranch0 Santa Fe Road would serve to reduce the right-
of-way and the width of improvements, the construction impacts would be lessened. No
development is proposed with this roadway reclassification. All roadway improvements ,will be
constructed in conjunction with the associated tentative map (CT 98-02), which has been
previously reviewed for potential environmental impacts.
PHYSICAT, ENVIRONMENT
The requested change to the Circulation Element roadway classification will not have a direct
impact on the physical environment. All of the potential physical impacts due to the construction
of the roadway have been previously reviewed through the proposed residential subdivision (CT
98-02). According to projected traffic volumes, the proposed reclassification will not create
demand or need for additional roadway construction or cause traffic congestion.
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated
1994 General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles
traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive
organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfiu, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are the
major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since the
San Diego Air Basin is a “non-attainment basin”, any additional air emissions are considered
cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in the
updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region.
To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a variety
of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions
for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures
to reduce vehicle tips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand
Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including mass
transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5)
participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and
appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the
design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is
located within a “non-attainment basin”,
“Potentiaily Significant Impact”.
therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is marked
This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the
preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City
Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for air
quality impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent
projects covered by the General Plan’s Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no
further environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the /8 10 Rev. 03128196
. -
C
Planning Department.
h
The roadway is currently in place and expansion of the roadway to its ultimate alignment and
width will occur concurrent with construction of the Colina Roble residential development. No
construction is associated with this roadway redesignation. The reclassification of the roadway
decreases the width of the improved right-of-way, thereby lessening the area of potential impacts.
No impacts to biological resources will occur due to the proposed General Plan Amendment to
the Circulation Element.
AN ENVIRONMENT . .
The proposed roadway reclassification will have no negative impact on the traffic circulation in
the area. According to a traffic study prepared by WPA Traffic Engineering, Inc. and dated
March 12, 1999, the anticipated traffic volumes along the subject portion of Ranch0 Santa Fe at
buildout of the City do not exceed the levels of service performance standards of the City’s
Growth Management Program. No impacted intersections exist near the project area.
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated
1994 General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate
to accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely
impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These
generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad
Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections
are projected to fail the City’s adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout.
To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerous
mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include 1)
measures to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to
develop alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks,
pedestrian linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation
strategies when adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or
State Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to
control. The applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either
been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the
failure of intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore,
the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is
consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the
recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included
a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for circulation impacts. This “Statement Of
Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan’s
Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulation
impacts is required.
11 Rev. 03/28/96
LIST OF MITXGATING MFsASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORTNG PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)
APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEAST JRES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURkS AND
CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
Date Signature
12 Rev. 03/28/96
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4668
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE CIRCULATION
ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN ON PROPERTY
GENERALLY LOCATED WITHIN THE EXISTING AND
FUTURE RIGHT-OF-WAY OF RANCH0 SANTA FE ROAD,
BETWEEN ITS INTERSECTION WITH OLIVENHAIN ROAD
AND THE SOUTHERN CITY BOUNDARY IN LOCAL’
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 11.
CASE NAME: COLINA ROBLE
CASE NO: GPA 98-08
WHEREAS, Colina Roble, L.L.C., “Developer,” has filed a verified application
with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as:
Existing and future public right-of-way for Ranch0 Santa Fe
Road, from its intersection with Olivenhain Road to the
southern City boundary
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a General Plan
Amendment as shown on Exhibit “GPA 98-08” attached hereto, COLINA ROBLE - GPA 9%
08 as provided in Government Code Section 65350 et. seq. and Section 21.52.160 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 3rd day of November, 1999,
* on the 17th day of November, 1999, and on the 1st day of December, 1999, hold a duly noticed
public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request;
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
relating to the General Plan Amendment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, as follows:
4 That the above recitations are true and correct.
A h
W That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of COLINA ROBLE GPA 98-08, based on the
following findings:
Findinm:
1. The proposed amendment to the Circulation Element of the General Plan is
consistent with the other elements of the General Plan, in that the projected land
uses will generate less traffic than originally anticipated, the reduction in right-of-
way width increases the amount of open space adjacent to the Colina Roble
subdivision, and the reduction in traffic volumes will result in less roadway noise
impacts to surrounding properties.
2. 9 The proposed reclassification of the southern portion of Ranch0 Santa Fe Road will
maintain acceptable levels of service for both the roadway segments and the
10 intersections along Ranch0 Santa Fe Road.
11 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting ofthe Planning
12 Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 1st day of December, 1999, by the
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Heineman, Commissioners Compas, L’Heureux,
Segall, Trigas, and Welshons
NOES:
ABSENT: Commissioner Nielsen
ABSTAIN:
COURTNEY E. HEINEMAN, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
25
26
27 Planning Director
28
PC RESO NO. 4668 -2-
GENERAL PLAN MAP CHANGE GPA: 98-08
draft q final 0
Project Name: Colina Roble 1 Related Case File No(s):
Property/Legal Description(s): Existing and future right-of-
way for Ranch0 Santa Fe Road, from its intersection with
Olivenhain Road to the southern City boundary.
G.P. Map Designation Change Approvals
Property ?om: To: Council Approval Date:
A. Ranch0 Santa Fe Major Arterial Secondary Arterial Resolution No:
B. Effective Date:
C. Signature: D.
Attach additional pages if necessary
23
- -
EXHIBIT 4 The City of Carlsbad Planning Department
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION @
Item No. 6 0
Application complete date: October 19, 1998
P.C. AGENDA OF: November 3,1999 Project Planner: Michael Grim
Project Engineer: Clyde Wickham
SUEI JECT: GPA 98-08 - COLINA ROBLE - Request for a General Plan Amendment to
change the designation from Major Arterial to Secondary Arterial for that portion
of Ranch0 Santa Fe Road between Olivenhain Road and the southern City
boundary, in Local Facilities Management Zone 11.
.I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 4667,
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director
and ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 4668, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL
of General Plan Amendment GPA 98-08, based upon the findings contained therein.
II. INTRODUCTION
The proposal involves changing the General Plan designation for a portion of Ranch0 Santa Fe
Road from a Major Arterial to a Secondary Arterial. The portion of Ranch0 Santa Fe Road
proposed for change is located between Olivenhain Road and the southern City boundary. The
downsizing of the roadway was studied and discussed in conjunction with two previous
discretionary actions: Shelley and Colina Roble. As elaborated below, the proposed downsizing
of the roadway is consistent with the City’s Growth Management Ordinance and is appropriate
for the expected population growth and traffic circulation patterns in the area. Staff has no issues
with the proposed General Plan Amendment.
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
Colina Roble LLC is requesting an amendment to the Circulation Element of the General Plan to
change the designation of a portion of Ranch0 Santa Fe Road from a Major Arterial to a
Secondary Arterial. That portion proposed for redesignation is located between Olivenhain Road
and the southern City boundary. The redesignation to a Secondary Arterial would reduce the
width of public right-of-way dedications from 102 feet to 84 feet and reduce the width of
ultimate street improvements from 82 feet to 64 feet. The number of lanes would remain at two
each direction, with a total of four traffic lanes. Opposing traffic on major arterials must be
separated by a raised median, whereas secondary arterials may have a either a raised or painted
median.
The Major Arterial designation for the southern portion of Ranch0 Santa Fe Road has been in
place since its annexation into the City in 1984 (GPA 67(D), E-2.34). The concept of
reclassifying the roadway was studied and discussed during the processing of two subdivisions
GPA 98-08 - COLINA ROBLE
November 3,1999
Page 2
with frontage on the southern portion of Ranch0 Santa Fe Road, namely Shelley (CT 90-03/EIR
90-06) and Colina Roble (CT 98-02). The traffic studies for those two projects, along with new
regional traffic modeling conducted by SANDAG, all indicated a lessening of traffic along the
southern portion of Ranch0 Santa Fe Road. Therefore the projects were conditioned to construct
Ranch0 Santa Fe Road to Secondary Arterial standards, while grading and dedicating according
to the roadway’s General Plan designation.
There are several reasons for the lessening of traffic along the southern portion of Rancho. Santa
Fe Road. The County of San Diego recently eliminated Highway 680 from the County’s
Circulation Element. This action serves to reduce the amount of traffic entering the area, thereby
reducing the necessary roadway improvements. In addition, the City of Encinitas recently
changed the designation of Ranch0 Santa Fe Road, south of Carlsbad, to a local street. This
raised potential traffic volume and capacity compatibility issues with a Major Arterial roadway
leading into a local street. This action also eliminated Ranch0 Santa Fe Road as a north-south
circulation alternative to El Camino Real or Interstates 5 and 15. The resulting traffic pattern
leads the majority of the southbound traffic westward onto Olivenhain Boulevard to El Camino
Real, rather than into Encinitas and onto a local street.
The Colina Roble Circulation Element GPA project is subject to the following regulations:
A. General Plan;
B. Growth Management Ordinance (Chapter 21.90 of the Zoning Ordinance).
IV. ANALYSIS
The recommendation of approval for this project was developed by analyzing the project’s
consistency with the applicable policies and regulations listed above. The .following analysis
section discusses compliance with each of these regulations/policies utilizing both text and
tables.
A. General Plan
The only element of the General ,Plan that pertains to the proposed redesignation of Ranch0
Santa Fe Road is the Circulation Element. The downsizing of Ranch0 Santa Fe Road would
decrease the width of the public right-of-way and the street improvements, thereby decreasing
the physical extent of the roadway as well as future noise impacts. The roadway redesignation is
internally consistent with the applicable policies and programs of the Circulation Element in that
the roadway must still comply with the adopted Growth Management performance standards for
circulation facilities (please see Section IVB). The proposed reclassification of Ranch Santa Fe
Road is therefore consistent with the applicable portions of the General Plan.
B. Growth Management Ordinance
The effect of changing the designation, and thereby reducing the traffic capacity, of the southern
portion of Ranch0 Santa Fe Road was studied with regard to potential impacts to the Growth
Management performance standards. According to traffic studies conducted by WPA Traffic
Engineering, Inc., dated March 12, 1999, the anticipated level of service along the southern 3’
GPA 98-08 - COLINA ROBLE
November 3,1999
Pane 3
portion of Ranch0 Santa Fe Road after reclassification would be between an “A” and “C”,
depending on which regional growth forecast is used. The anticipated level of service for
affected intersections along Ranch0 Santa Fe Road would be a “D”. These levels of service fall
. within the acceptable range of service mandated by the Growth Management program.
V. ENVIRONMENTAL, REVIEW
The proposed construction of Ranch0 Santa Fe Road to Secondary Arterial standards has been
reviewed in two previous environmental documents, namely the Environmental Impact Report
for the Shelley project (EIR 90-06) and the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Colina Roble
project (CT 98-02). The potential environmental impacts due to the proposed reclassification of
the roadway were analyzed in the Negative Declaration for this General Plan Amendment, dated
July 26, 1999. The Negative Declaration found that no adverse environmental impacts to the
physical, biological or human environments would result due to the reclassification of the
southern portion of Ranch0 Santa Fe Road.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4667
2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4668
3. Location Map
4. Disclosure Statement
5. Background Data Sheet
MG:mh
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Applicant’s statement or disclosure of certain ownership interests on all applications which will require
discretionarv action on the Dart of the Citv Council or anv aDDointed Board. Commission or Committee.
The following information MUST be disclosed at the time of application submittal. Your project cannot
be reviewed until this information is completed. Please print.
Note:
Person is defined as “Any individual, firm, co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal
organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, in this and any other county, city and county, city
munkpality, district or other political subdivision or any other group.or combiition acting as a unit.”
Agents may sign this document; however, the legal name and entity of the applicant and property owner must be
provided below.
1. APP&ICANT (Not the applicant’s agent)
Providt the COMPLETE. LEGAL names and addresses of & persons having a financial
interest in the application. If the applicant includes a corooration or DartIXrShiD. include the
names, title, addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares. IF NO
INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES. PLEASE INDlCATE NON-
APPLICABLE (N/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW. If a publiclv-owned coruoration, include the
names, titles, and addresses of the corporate offkers. (A separate page may be attached if
necessary.)
Person-M-
Title Manager
Address3573 East Sunrise Dr. 8221
Tucsdn, AZ 85718
Carp/Part Colina Roble LLC
Title ---
Address ---
2. OWNER (Not the owner’s agent)
Provide the COMPLETE, LkGAL names and addresses of & persons having any ownership
interest in the property involved. Also, provide the na?Gre cf the legal ownership (i.c,
partnership, tenants in common, non-profit. corporation, etc.). If the ownership includes a
corporation or oartnershio, include the names, title, addresses of all individuals owning more
than 10% of the shares. IF NO INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES,
PLEASE INDICATE NON-APPLICABLE (N/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW. If a publiclv-
owlled comoration, include the names, titles. and addresses of the corporate offkers. (A separate
page may be attached if necessary.)
Person Harold Wiegand
Title Manager
Address P.0. BOX 998
Dixon, CA 95629
Corp/Pae Wiegand Properties Partnership
Title ---
Address ---
2075 Las Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-l 576 - (760) 438-11610 FAX (760) 438-0894 @
3. 1. .NON-PROFIT Od- JVIZATION OR TRUST
If any person identl 1 .J pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a normrotn organization or a trust. list the
names and addresses of ANY person serving as an officer or director of the non-profit
organization or as trustee or beneficiary of the. .
Non Profit/Trust ‘. --- Non Profit/Trust ---
Title --- Title ---
Address --- Address ---
4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of Cit!, staff.
Boards, Commissions, Committees and/or Council within the past twelve (12) months?
cl Yes cl X No If yes, please indicate person(s):
NOTE: Attach additional sheets if necessary.
orrect to the best
Harold Wiegand David M. Bentley
Print or type name of owner Print or type name of applicant
Signature of owner/applicant’s a& t if applicable/date
Robert C. Ladwig - LADWIG DESIGN GROUP, INC.
Print or type name of owner/applicant’s agent
Additional owner:
John Wiegand Carl Wiegand
2352 Altisma Way
Carlsbad, CA 92009
415 S. Almond
Dixon, CA 95620
Dan Wiegand
359 Via Andalusia
Encinitas, CA 92024
H:ADMIN\COUNTER\DISCLOSURE STATEMENT 5/99 Page 2 of 2 d8
h -
BACKGROUND DATA SHEET
CASE NO: GPA 98-08
CASE NAME: Colina Roble
APPLICANT: Colina Roble. L.L.C.
REQUEST AND LOCATION: Reauest for an amendment to the Circulation Element of the
Gneeral Plan, chancling that nortion of Ranch0 Santa Fe Road between Olivenhain Road and the
southern Citv boundary from a Maior Arterial to a Secondarv Arterial.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: n/a
APN: n/a Acres: n/a ProposedNo. of Lots/Units: n/a
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
Land Use Designation: Maior Arterial roadwav
Density Allowed: n/a Density Proposed: n/a
Existing Zone: n/a Proposed Zone: n/a
Surrounding Zoning, General Plan and Land Use:
Zoning General Plan Current Land Use
Site n/la n/a nla
North n/a n/a n/a
South n/a n/a n/a
East n/a n/a n/a
West n/a n/a n/a
PUBLIC FACILITIES
School District: Encinitas Elementarvktn Diecruito HS Water District: Olivenhain
Sewer District: Leucadia Countv
Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity): n/a
Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated: n/a
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
lxl Negative Declaration, issued June 9. 1999
III Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated
0 Other,
- -
The City of Carlsbad Planning Department
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Item No. 1 0
Application complete date: October 19, 1998
P.C. AGENDA OF: November 17,1999 Project Planner: Michael Grim
Project Engineer: Clyde Wickham
SUBJECT: GPA 98-08 - COLINA ROBLE - Request for a General Plan Amendment to
change the designation from Major Arterial to Secondary Arterial for that portion
of Ranch0 Santa Fe Road between Olivenhain Road and the southern City
boundary, in Local Facilities Management Zone 11.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 4667,
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director
and ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 4668, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL
of General Plan Amendment GPA 98-08, based upon the findings contained therein.
II. BACKGROUND
This item was originally scheduled to be heard at the November 3, 1999 meeting and was
continued to allow staff to re-review the original documents that formulated the original
recommendation. That review has been completed.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4667
2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4668
3. Staff Report dated November 3, 1999, with attachments
The City of Carlsbad Planning Department
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Item No. 0 2
Application complete date: October 19, 1998
P.C. AGENDA OF: December 1,1999 Project Planner: Michael Grim
Project Engineer: Clyde Wickham
SUBJECT: GPA 98-08 - COLINA ROBLE - Request for a General Plan Amendment to
change the designation from Major Arterial to Secondary Arterial for that portion
of Ranch0 Santa Fe Road between Olivenhain Road and the southern City
boundary, in Local Facilities Management Zone 11.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the ‘Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 4667,
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director
and ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 4668, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL
of General Plan Amendment GPA 98-08, based upon the findings contained therein.
II. BACKGROUND
At the Planning Commission meeting of November 17, 1999, staff presented details of the
expected traffic volumes and necessary roadway improvements for the portion of Ranch0 Santa
Fe Road between Olivenhain Road and the southern City boundary. The Planning Commission
requested that the item be continued to December 1, 1999 to allow staff to provide additional
information and graphic aides. These documents have been prepared.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4667
2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4668
3. Staff Report dated November 3, 1999, with attachments
PLANNING COMMISSION November 3,1999
EXHIBIT 5
Page 2
COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE ON lTEMS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA:
None
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Assistant Planning Director, Gary Wayne stated staff is requesting the continuance of three items.
Continuance of Items #4 would allow SANDAG to have an opportunity to comment on the proposal. Continuance #6, which is a general plan amendment for Colina Roble, would allow staff
to re-review the documents that lead to the initial recommeqdation for the downgrading of Ranch0
Santa Fe in this area. Finally, the continuance of Item #7 is being requested because the item
was incorrectly noticed. The noticing needs to be corrected to afford the public the full possibility
of comment.
Mr. Wayne stated that the continuance on Item ##4 was .being requested until the first of
December. Item #6 and Item #7 continuance is being requested until November 17, 1999.
Commissioner Welshons pointed out that the applicant for Item #6 was in the audience and wanted to know if staff had discussed the continuance of the item with the applicant.
Bob Wojcik, Deputy City Engineer, explained that the applicant had been contacted and the
applicant had no problem with the continuance..
Chairman Heineman asked the applicant if he would be able to attend the Hearing on November
17, 1999 if the item was continued tonight.
The applicant, Robert C. Ladwig, responded’that he would be able to attend the November 17,
1999 Planning Commission meeting.
Chairperson Heineman asked if there was anyone in the audience who came to speak on Items #4, #6 or #7 tonight who would have a problem returning on the dates recommended for the
continuances.
4. CUP 99-17- PACIFIC BELL WIRELESS - Request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow ’ an unmanned telecommunications facility consisting of an antenna and ground mounted
equipment at 2747 Loker Avenue West in the P-M Zone in Local Facilities Management
Zone 5,
6. GPA 98-08 - COLINA ROBLE - Request for a General Plan Amendment to change the
designation from Major Arterial to Secondary Arterial for that portion of Ranch0 Santa Fe
Road between Olivenhain Road and the southern City boundary, in Local Facilities
. Management Zone 11.
7. CT 98-231PUD 98-081SUP 98-1OlHDP 98-25 - LA COSTA GREENS - Request for
approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program, Tentative Tract Map, Planned Unit Development, Special Use Permit, and Hillside Development Permit to grade and develop a nine lot, five unit residential planned
development on a 1.19 acre site located on the north side of La’Costa Avenue between El
Camino Real and Viejo Castilla Way, within Local Facilities Management Zone 6.
MOTION:
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Compas, and duly seconded, that the Planning
Commission continue Agenda Item ##4,, until December 1, 1999 and
continue Agenda Items #6 and #7 until November 17,1999.
PLANNING COMMISSION November 17,1999 Page 3 . ’
1. GPA 98-08 - COLINA ROBLE - Request for a General Plan Amendment to change the
designation from Major Arterial to Secondary Arterial for a portion of Ranch0 Santa Fe Road
between Olivenhain Road and the southern City boundary, in Local Facilities Management Zone
11.
Bob Wojcik, Deputy City Engineer, presented Item #1 as follows: It is a request for a General Plan
‘Amendment to change the designation of Ranch0 Santa Fe Road from a major arterial to a modified
secondary arterial designation between Olivenhain Road and approximately Calle Acervo, the southern
limit of the City.
Mr. Wojcik indicated that the previous build out projections for Ranch0 Santa Fe Road south of Olivenhain
Road was 37,300 vehicles per day, based on Zone 11 traffic analysis. This was the old Zone ‘11 traffic plan at the time Highway 680 was still being considered. A subsequent buildout projections from the
SANDAG Series 7 computer model, shows that the ADT on that portion of Ranch0 Santa Fe will be 24,900. The Series 8 model, which the City of Carlsbad did not adopt, shows 19,000 ADT. A special
Encinitas model shows 23,000 ADT.
He stated that the maximum roadway capacity for vehicles per day on a two lane (one-way in both
directions) is 16,670. For a major arterial, 3 lanes in both directions, maximum vehicles per day are
44,450. A secondary has two lanes in both directions and the maximum vehicles per day are 33,400. The
customized model for the City of Carlsbad has not gone to City Council for full adoption, is 22,400 which is
close to Encinitas ADT and just slightly below the old Series 7 model.
Mr. Wojcik stated that the capacity differed from the Engineering Standard for a secondary of 40,000 vehicles per day, because the modified condition of Ranch0 Santa Fe Road will be built in that section.
The lane configurations will be 3 foot parkway, 5 foot bike lane, two 12 foot lanes, a raised 4 foot median (this is the modification), two more 12 foot lanes, 1 more 5 foot bike lane and a ten foot parkway. The
capacity increases from the 20,000 for the secondary to the 33,000, because the difference between a
major arterial, which has the capacity of the 40,000, and a secondary arterial is the median. Typically, the
median for a major arterial is 18 feet in width. This modification to the secondary standard does place a
median, where normally a secondary arterial does not have a median. This modification to the secondary standard does put in a 4 foot raised median. Normally a secondary arterial does not have a median. In
addition, wherever there are intersections along this roadway a left turn pocket will also be constructed.
There will be two lanes in both directions virtually unobstructed due to the left turn pockets.
Mr. Wojcik referred to the diagram on the screen indicating that the two subdivision projects along the
roadway are Shelley and Colina Roble. On Shelley there are two intersections in between Calle Acetvo and Olivenhain Road. On Colina Roble there is one intersection. From Calle Acetvo to the first
intersection of the Shelly property the intersection spacing is approximately 1100 feet. The intersection spacing starting from the Shelly property to the south of Colina Roble is 900 feet. The typical required
intersection spacing for a secondary arterial *is 600 feet. From Colina Roble to the next intersection the
intersection spacing is 500 feet, because of the wetlands on both side of the roads. Due to the left turn
pockets the capacity on the roadway will not be effected by this intersection spacing of 500 feet. From the
northerly intersection of Shelly to Olivenhain Road there is approximately an intersection spacing of 1,100 feet.
Mr. Wojcik stated that, when the fee district for Ranch0 Santa Fe Road was developed there were two reasons why this section of Ranch0 Santa Fe Road was proposed for downgrading: 1. The land prices
were down and the value of the land ratio to the cost of the improvements was not cost effective; and 2.
Wetland preservation.
Mr. Wojcik advised the Commission that improving this area to comply with the requirements for a major arterial would cause great negative impact to the environment. Both projects are conditioned to dedicate
and grade to whatever the circulation element designation is on the ‘roadway. If this project is graded to
102 foot instead of the 84 foot it would impact the wetlands, adding to the cost of the projects.
- -
PLANNING COMMISSION November 17,1999 Page 4
In conclusion, Mr. Wojcik stated that the Engineering Department is recommending that the General Plan Amendment be approved, because there will be an excess of approximately 11,000 vehicles per day on
the roadway to still meet the Growth Management levels of service for roadways.
Michael Grim, Senior Planner stated that Staff reviewed the project with respect to the applicable policies
of the General Plan and the Growth Management Ordinance, it was found to be consistent with both. In
addition, an environmental review was performed in accordance with CEQA and a Negative Declaration
was issued on July 26.1999 and received no public,wmment.
Commissioner Trigas asked if Hwy. 680 would ever wme back, and if Encinitas decided to change their portion of the roadway, would that have an impact on our roadway.
Mr. Wojcik stated the unlikelihood of 680.. He has spoken with the Traffic Engineer in Encinitas and was
told that nothing new was coming from Encinitas. The Traffic Engineer did say that several years ago there was a proposal to change the designation on their side of the roadway to a modified secondary
collector, this would be two lanes in both directions, however, it was tabled at the City Council and has
remained tabled. The only improvements that have been done in the Encinitas area are left pockets at
intersections, but it still remains one lane in both directions. If Encinitas did decide to revert to a modified
collector it does match Carlsbad’s modified secondary, two lanes in both directions and left turn pockets.
Commissioner L’Heureux asked if the intersection had signals.
Mr. Wojcik replied that the intersections did not have signals as a result of the signal warrant analysis.
Commissioner Segall requested clarification between the difference of a major arterial and secondary
arterial.
Mr. Wojcik explained that the difference between a secondary and major arterial is 18 feet where the
median would be installed. We are proposing a modified secondary, because we will be maintaining the
84-foot of roadway with a four foot raised median and a 3 foot parkway on the West Side.
Commissioner Segall did not believe that the numbers of the footage added up when taking the left turn
pockets into account. He wanted to know if the left turn lanes were for both east and west.
Mr. Wojcik informed the Commission that there was no mention on the approved tentative maps as to
restrictions of left turns nor a specific condition prohibiting left turns at any of the intersections. In addition,
the intersection, with the one exception being short 100 feet, does meet the secondary arterial standard
requirements. Because of the left turn pockets, which will get the turning vehicle out of the travel way, the
capacity is closer to a major arterial. He did concur that both projects would have right and left turns in and out allowed. Referring to the overhead monitor drawings, Mr. Wojcik informed the Commission that
the drawing did not show the full design of the roadway and the left turn pockets.
Mr. Wojcik stated in order to have the left turn lanes, the roadway would have to be widened by five feet at the left lane pockets. This would result in the right-of-way at the left turn pockets being 89 feet. The sum
of the five-foot parkway would be reduced. The through lanes are typically reduced by one foot to eleven feet through-lanes and the left turn lane would then be ten feet. The additional right-of-way that would be
required as well as the reduction of the parkway on the east side gives that 10 foot left turn lane, which is
standard.
To clarify further, Mr. Wojcik stated that from 89 to 84 feet gives five feet and eliminating the five-foot
parkway on the east side gives the needed 10 feet.
Commissioner Segall wanted to know if cars would be able to make safe left turns without signal intersections. He noted that there were four different left turns’ within that short distance and that the
speed limit was 55 miles per hour.
34
PLANNING COMMISSION November 17,1999 Page 5
Mr. Wojcik stated that the portion of road in question was relatively straight and flat; sight visibility is more than necessary. He stated that the speed limit would be based on the traffic studies as required by State
Law once the new improvements are in place. Typically, the recommended speed limit would be five
miles per hour below what the speed survey indicates.
Commissioner Compas asked if there would be anything in the 4-foot median.
Mr. Wojcik replied there would not.
Commissioner Compas asked clarification on the 33,000 maximum ADT and the probability of it being
exceeded. He also wanted to know how the entrance for the Olivenhain Water District would be handled.
Mr. Wojcik did not foresee the ADT exceeding the projections. The Olivenhain Water District will come to
the City for improvements to their site. Once this is done we will get the right of way from them; have
them construct their portions of the roadways; and modify their driveways.
Commissioner Welshons wanted to Know what the stacking capabilities were with the left turn pockets.
Mr. Wojcik stated the detail designs based on the traffic survey had not been done as of this time, and
stacking capability had not been determined.
Commissioner Welshons stated that without the proper exhibits, final design, sample design of the project,
ADT for various entrances couples with the many unknown variable it was difficult to assess the project. She wanted to know if there was urgency for approval of this project.
Mr. Wojcik stated that the urgency was with the developers who wanted to prepare the detailed design
plans for the roadway and subdivision to begin grading after the winter season. If this had to be graded to a major arterial, a new environmental review, which would undoubtedly, impact the wetlands, therefore
additional discussions and negotiations would have to take place with resource agencies.
Commissioner Welshons wanted to know the engineering threshold between a major and a secondary
arterial for ADT.
Mr. Wojcik stated that the ADT for a standard secondary arterial is 20,000 and the ADT for a major arterial
is 40,000. The ADT for the modified secondary arterial, which is being proposed, is 33,340.
Commissioner Welshons wanted to now why there were no sidewalks on the west side of the road and if the Commission could require sidewalks there.
Mr. Wojcik replied that he did not know why sidewalks were not on the west side of the road, but assured the Commission they could require the sidewalks. The parkway on the east side would be narrowed.
Commissioner Welshons asked if cars making right turns into the Shelly property would be blocking the
through-lane of traffic.
Mr. Wojcik indicated that the 12 foot park lane and the 5 foot bike lane allowed a car to turn without blocking traffic.
Commissioner Welshons indicated that Encinitas shared part of the intersection at Calle Acervo. She
wanted to know if this intersection would be widen to four lanes and if the intersection at Olivenhain Road and Ranch0 Santa Fe Road had been designed.
Mr. Wojcik concurred that it was a shared signalized intersection and would be widened to four lanes at
the southerly City boundary line, up to Olivenhain and widening at Olivenhain for the turn lanes. He stated that with the fee district design, there was a proposed preliminary design. The new traffic models would
indicate the latest traffic model predictions regarding the turn movements, in order to determine how many
left turn lanes would be needed. This is the detailed design work that would take place after a project is approved.
PLANNING COMMISSION November 17,1999
-
Page 6
Commissioner Welshons asked if a U-turn could be made using the left turn pockets.
Mr. Wojcik suggested that the Traffic Engineer would have the answer to her question.
Commissioner Welshons stated that the models are directing southbound traffic to use El Camino Real.
She added that part of the traffic that travels on Ranch0 Santa Fe is using the north/south route to go east
to 15, and questioned how one addressed the reality of traffic going eastbound.
Mr. Wojcik stated the traffic model showed major intersections on the roadways, whether a roadway was
signalized or not, what the posted speed limits was, and the surrounding area land use. He advised the Commission that the model did take into account all of these items and it factored in the realityof the way
the roads were being used.
Commissioner Nielsen wanted to know if the models took into consideration the extension of Melrose and
the size of the new project in San Marcos.
Mr. Wojcik replied that the extension of Melrose was taken into consideration and the model also included
the new San Marcos project, homes numbering in the thousands. Staff did get the traffic reports from San Marcos to include in the model. The traffic projections are for buildout of the entire area and buildout
accounts for Melrose going through to Vista.
Commissioner Nielsen wanted clarification of the justification for the modified secondary arterial.
Mr. Wojcik stated that the land prices have risen, but the additional roadway width of a major arterial is not needed. Attached to a major arterial is also the additional cost to the City of maintaining the landscaping
on the median and the impact to the wetlands.
Commissioner Segall wanted clarification on what the Commission was being asked to approve tonight.
Mr. Wayne stated that the Commission was only making a recommendation to change the designation from a major arterial to a modified secondary arterial. The details spoken of are left up to final design and
warrants that would be created by other projects. Whether or not an intersection is warranted would be subject to changes in a map condition. The Commissions’ action is on the designation, not on where
intersections are to be placed. It is a General Plan level recommendation. He asked if Staff had the conditions of approval for Colina Roble.
Mr. Wojcik stated that he had reviewed the conditions of Colina Roble and Shelly. He said that the
conditions of approval did not address limiting access to right-in right-out only, nor, did the’ approved
Tentative Map show any indications of prohibitions of left turns into the project.
Mr. Wayne reiterated that the Commission was only making recommendations regarding the designation and the real details were left to design. There are modified rights-of-way all over the city, i.e. La Costa
Avenue. The requirements from the Wildlife Agencies are that the improvements be done in the least
environmentally damaging manner.
Mr. Wojcik stated that the newly completed portion of La Costa Avenue by the lagoon is designated as a major arterial, however it was built with an a-foot median. The projected buildout capacity on La Costa
Avenue is 31,000 ADT. Left turn pockets are routinely put in projects without impacting the designation of the roadway.
Commissioner Trigas asked if the project could be designated a modified major instead of a modified
secondary and would that wording give the Commission more flexibility for future changes. She also
asked for clarification as to the sidewalk issue.
Mr. Wojcik visually showed there would not be a difference but the classification of a major arterial
requires an intersection spacing of 1,200 feet instead of 600 feet. He indicated that there was enough
room on the west side for a sidewalk. The curb, gutter and sidewalk on the west side is paid for by the developer,
-
PLANNING COMMISSION November 17,1999 Page 7
The change does not make a difference in the fee district cost estimates.
Chairman Heineman asked if a major arterial would impact the wetlands.
Mr. Wojcik replied a major arterial would definitely impact the wetlands.
Mr. Grim explained that the Shelly project was processed with an environmental impact report, which
assessed Ranch0 Santa Fe Road as being constructed as a secondary arterial with 84 feet of improvements. Re-circulation of an environmental impact report may be necessary if major arterial
improvements are deemed necessary.
Commissioner Nielsen wanted to know why the project was processed as a ‘sewhdary, since it was
designated as a major.
Mr. Grim stated that as a result of the traffic studies and engineering design reports it was determined that
a major arterial was not needed.
Commissioner Nielsen wanted to know if this project remained a major arterial, if Colina Roble could build.
Mr. Wojcik indicated that, as designed, it could not.
Mr. Grim stated that if Colina Roble went forward as.a major designation, a very large standards variance
would have to be issued for intersection spacing. He also indicated that on a major arterial, left turn lanes
would typically be at a signalized intersection.
Mr. Wojcik stated the approved exhibit indicated that on Ranch0 Santa Fe Road a 102-foot right-of-way
dedication and an 84 foot roadway was proposed. This would limit the impact on the wetlands. The
condition is written to dedicate what the circulation element designation is at the time and construct to
secondary arterial standards.
Commissioner Welshons wanted to know if this Item was approved as worded, would dedication be
according to the Circulation Element. She indicated again that it was hard to visualize the project without
exhibits and in order to make findings she needed to understand how it would operate.
Mr. Wojcik indicated that it would have to be dedicated to whatever the circulation designation element is.
He further suggested that the approval should specify that it is a modified secondary arterial designation
with the reduced right-of- way.
Robert C. Ladwig, applicant, 703 Palomar Airport Road, Carlsbad, indicated that final design and plan-
check was in progress now for the Colina Roble subdivision. Shelly is now entering that phase. The details of the intersections are worked out in final design. Mr. Ladwig is in agreement with the modified
secondary arterial with the four-foot raised median. In conclusion, he stated that the current traffic studies and traffic projections indicate that the ultimate roadway for a modified secondary arterial will handle in
excess of the projected traffic of the roadway. He asked the Commission to approve the staff recommendations on this project.
Commissioner Welshons wanted to know when the exhibit map was generated.
Michael Campbell, PDC, 701 B Street, San Diego, indicated that the Shelly project was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission approximately one year ago and approved by the City Council of
Carlsbad in December 1998. The map was submitted in June or July 1999 and the basic design has not
changed. .
Commissioner Nielsen asked if curb, gutter and sidewalks were planned for both sides of the road for both
projects.
Mr. Campbell replied that curb, gutter and sidewalks were planned for the Shelly project.
37
PLANNING COMMISSION November 17,1999 Page8 ’
Mr. Ladwig stated that the Colina Roble project was conditioned to tie into the existing street and pay the
fee of $10,250 per unit for the fee district. PDC is in charge of the design for the entire roadway from the
Olivenhain Road to the south City limits,
Mr. Wojcik apologized to Commission for not knowing that the detailed design of the project existed.
Commissioner Segall asked the applicant if he would be impacted if the item were continued until
December 1,1999.
Mr. Ladwig stated that it would not impact him.
Chairperson Heineman opened public testimony. As there was no one wishing to testify, public testimony
was closed.
Commissioner Compas wanted clarification on the sidewalk issue as related to this project.
Mr. Wojcik indicated that staff was recommending that sidewalks be installed on both sides of the street.
Commission Welshons asserted that the Commissioners needed exhibits indicating how the secondary
modified arterial would function, what the dedication would be and where the intersections would be
placed in order to cast an informed vote on the item.
MOTION:
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Segall and duly seconded, that the Planning
Commission continue GPA 98-08 - Colina Roble to the meeting of December 1,
1999 in order to receive additional information on the project.
VOTE:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
7-o-o
Heineman, Compas, L’Heureux, Segall, Trigas, Welshons, Nielsen None
None
38
h
2. GPA 98-08 - COLINA ROBLE - Request for a General Plan Amendment to change the
designation from Major Arterial to Secondary Arterial for that portion of Ranch0 Santa Fe
Road between Olivenhain Road and the southern City boundary, in Local Facilities
Management Zone 11.
Mr. Wayne, stated that Agenda Item #2 was a continued Public Hearing item. It is a request for a General Plan Amendment, to downgrade a section of Ranch0 Santa Fe Road between Olivenhain and the
southern City boundary from a major arterial to a secondary arterial.
Michael Grim, Senior Planner, presented the project as follows: This is a General Plan Amendment to the
circulation element, to change the designation of a southern portion of Ranch0 Santa Fe Road from a
major arterial to a secondary arterial. The portion of Ranch0 Santa Fe Road extends from the southern
PLANNING COMMISSION December 1.1999 Page 8
City boundary northward to the intersection with Olivenhain Road. The designations in the General Plan
are to guide Planning and Engineering on what the roads will be used for and what their ultimate use will
be, which allows staff to calculate how large the road needs to be and what improvements are needed. A
major arterial is intended to provide intra-city circulation and connections to freeways and regional roads.
A major arterial is prohibited from having access to adjacent properties unless there is no other
alternative, and in accordance with that prohibition there is a minimum intersection spacing of 1200 feet.
The secondary arterial serVes to move traffic between collector streets and larger arterials or the freeway. Limited access to adjacent properties can be provided, and the minimum intersection spacing for a secondary arterial is 600 feet.
Mr. Grim, stressed that the following information was typical and could be adjusted by the City Engineer as necessary for safe and adequate circulation: A major arterial typically has a 102 fobt right-of-way with
an 18 foot wide median; a secondary arterial typically has an 84 foot right-of-way. Both of the arterial roadways would include 2 travel lanes in each direction, with bike lanes, curbs, gutters, sidewalks and
some parkway.
Mr. Grim indicated that the issues before the Commission regarding the General Plan Amendment are:
1. Would the redesigned roadway provide for safe and efficient movement of people’s goods and
services?
2. Can all of the improvements necessary to accommodate this adequate circulation fit within the proposed road right-of-way width? 3. Will the re-designated roadway support the existing and future traffic volumes, including any regional
buildout projections?
Mr. Grim referred to a diagram, indicating that the proposed design includes two travel lanes in each
direction, a bike lane for each side, a sidewalk for each side, a parkway adequate to handle streetlights, fire hydrants and utilities. The proposed modification of the typical secondary arterial includes a raised
median of four feet with a left turn lane of ten feet. This configuration can work for a signalized or non-
signalized intersection.
In conclusion, Mr. Grim stated that the proposed, modified secondary arterial designation could
accommodate all of the necessary improvements that are needed to support the traffic. The roadway is
still under design and all three of the above mentioned issues can be met as follows: 1. The modified
secondary arterial can accommodate up to 33,000 ADT; 2. The modified secondary arterial does allow for more frequent intersections, which will provide for two-way access to both entrances into the Shelly
development and more access to the surrounding areas; 3. The secondary arterial designation provides a
more logical transition to the local street designation in Encinitas; 4. The narrower right-of-way and
grading does allow for increased wetland preservation.
Chairman Heineman asked the applicant if he wanted to proceed with the hearing, as there were only 6
Commissioners present. The applicant indicated that he wished to proceed with the hearing.
Commissioner Segall wanted to know why the project was being proposed.
Mr. Grim referred to previous approvals, stating that when the tentative maps for Shelley and Colina Roble
projects were presented, traffic engineering began looking at plans to decide what level of physical improvements would be needed on the roadway to provide access. It was determined then, and the two
maps were conditioned to build Ranch0 Santa Fe Road to a secondary arterial standard.
Commissioner Segall asked for the definition of regional buildout projections.
Mr. Grim indicated that staff did not just look at Carlsbad’s traffic analyses, but did get buildout projections from SANDAG for surrounding areas.
Commissioner Compas asked how many cars could be accommodated on a major arterial.
Mr. Grim stated that the typical standard for a major arterial was 40,000 ADT.
PLANNING COMMISSION December 1.1999 Page 9
Commissioner Trigas expressed concern and asked if in the event of a 680, could additional right-of-way
be obtained.
Mr. Grim stated that neither map is Lounting on the right-of-way reduction to make development plans
work and additional right-of-way could be obtained if needed in the future.
Commissioner Welshons asked the projected buildout volume on El Camino Real.
Mr. Wojcik stated that El Camino Real is a primary arterial roadway, with3 lanes in both directions with
60,000 ADT, the buildout projection exceeds 40,000 per day.
Commissioner Welshons wanted to know the level of service if the proposed project reached the 33,000
ADT and at what point would the roadway fail.
Mr. Wojcik indicated that the roadway segments don’t fail, first as related to growth management standards. The intersections would fail before the roadway segments. Monitoring of the intersections
including Ranch0 Santa Fe and Olivenhain, are ongoing.
Commissioner Welshons referred to the area owned by the water district, located between the water district and the feed barn, asking what the zoning designation was.
Mr. Grim indicated that the zoning designation wasR-1 lO,OOO/RLM in the General Plan,
Commissioner Welshons asked what traffic designation Leucadia Blvd would be from the freeway.
Mr. Wojcik stated that the intersection did have a median and would be toward a major arterial standard,
but it has two lanes of traffic in both directions.
Commissioner Welshons asked about the stacking capabilities and wanted clarification as to the expected speeds on the road. /
Mr. Wojcik indicated that because of the widened median, the storage for the left turn pockets could be
increased. It will not have the speed of a major secondary. The speed study will determine what the
posted speeds will be.
Commissioner Welshons asked if there would be a signal at the northern entrance of the Shelly property.
Mr. Wojcik stated that a traffic report indicating warrant analyses had been conducted and it was
determined that a signal was not warranted at that intersection or the one to the south.
Commissioner Welshons wanted to know how many homes were at the northern section. She also asked for examples of roadways that were exceptions to major rule of 1,200 feet.
Mr. Wojcik indicated that there were at least two variances along Poinsettia because of intersection
spacing due to topography and property ownership.
Commissioner Segall asked if any thought had been given to designing medians that would allow emergency vehicles to get onto the other side of the median.
Mr. Wojcik stated there were two problems with designing a median that could be crossed: 1. General public using median as a turn-around; and 2. Traffic going across the median which could cause a head-
on collision. The 9 inch curbed median prevents cars from wandering into the opposite lanes.
Commissioner Trigas asked if the surrounding cities defined the roads in the same manner as Carlsbad.
Mr. Wojcik indicated that there was not a common language, but traffic volumes were studied to determine
what a road should be designated as.
’ ,
h h
PLANNING COMMISSION December 1,1999 Page 10’
Applicant Bob Ladwig, 703 Palomar Airport Road, Carlsbad, addressed a question that had been
presented earlier by Commissioner Welshons, indicating that 60 homes would be on the northerly
entrance and 160 on the southerly one with two exits, He thanked staff for their assistance and requested
that the Commission, adopt the staffs rewmmendation and move the project forward.
Chairman Heineman opened public testimony. As there was no one wishing to speak, public testimony
was closed.
MAIN MOTION:
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Compas, and duly seconded, that the Plan,ning Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 4667
recommending approval of a Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 4668
recommending approval of General Plan Amendment GPA 98-08 based
on the findings contained therein.
VOTE:
AYES: NOES:
ABSTAIN:
6-O
Heineman, Compas, L’Heureux, Segall, Trigas, Welshons . .
None
None
Mr. Wayne stated that the action of the Commission on Agenda Item #2 was advisory in nature.
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
(2010 & 2011 C.C.P.)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of San Diego
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident
of the County aforesaid: I am over the age of
eighteen years and not a party to or interested in the above-entitled matter. I am the principal clerk
of the printer of
North County Times
This space is for the County Clerk’s Filing Stamp
formerly known as the Blade-Citizen and The Times-Advocate and which newspapers have been adjudged newspapers of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of
San Diego, State of California, for the cities of
Escondido, Oceanside, Carlsbad, Solana Beach
and San Diego County; that the notice of which
the annexed is a printed copy (set in type no
smaller than nonpareil), has been published ir each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit:
Proof of Publication of
Public Hearing
1 f r
3
Jan. 8, 2000
I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury tha
the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated at San mcos , California
this 10th day
of Jan. 2000
.t(
MB”wyw~~ pqy,T JyJQ Ipie Jl
Existing&d f&k pud&’ fig Road‘ from its intersection, @*’ southerg Cii boutida@’ ‘1; rtti,“l <-, k t I p,, ,* f” _
Those persoris wishing to sphak on this proposal Are cordialb Inytted to $tend-the public hearing. Copies of the staff repotl wrll@ avaIlable on and after January 14,200O. If yo@@ an) questtons, please call Mike Grim tn -.- the Planning Department at (760) 436-l I$1 , extension 4499. :. ‘+
lf yofll,ohal!,enge tlzis item in court,
I! ov‘ maj be Wit@ to raising o@ hose &Us i;&$ed by someone else at the pubic au‘ $r K ea&. .d@c&ed in $his notice,;or in w corms rf undehce deliwere@ to @ of Ca’ sbad.‘Citv .CJ&k’s Offi& I
/ Signature
NORTH COUNTY TIMES
Legal Advertising
-
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
GPA 9%OS- COLINA ROBLE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a
public hearing at the City Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad,
California, at 6:00 p.m., on Tuesday, January l&2000, to consider a request for a
General Plan Amendment to change the designation from Major Arterial to Secondary
Arterial for that portion of Ranch0 Santa Fe Road between Olivenhain Road and the
southern City boundary, in local Facilities Management Zone 11 and more particularly
described as:
Existing and future public right-of-way for Ranch0 Santa Fe Road, from its
intersection with Olivenhain Road to the southern City boundary.
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public
hearing. Copies of the staff report will be available on and after January 14,200O. If you
have any questions, please call Mike Grim in the Planning Department at (760) 438-l 161,
extension 4499.
If you challenge this item in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues raised
by you or someone else at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written
correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad City Clerk’s Office at, or prior to, the
public hearing.
PUBLISH: January 8,200O
CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL
‘. -c-/ .// :--= <_,’ P .n ,Lgz -L.‘C /& -%/. _ -Lb ‘--90 r;- ;a
COLINA ROBLE
GPA 98-08
City of Carlsbad
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad will
hold a public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad,
California, at 6:00 p.m. on Wednesday, November 3, 1999, to consider a request for a
General Plan Amendment to change the designation from Major Arterial to Secondary
Arterial for that portion of Ranch0 Santa Fe Road between Olivenhain Road and the
southern City boundary, in Local Facilities Management Zone 1 land more particularly
described as:
Existing and future public right-of-way for Ranch0 Santa Fe
Road, from its intersection with Olivenhain Road to the
southern City boundary
Those persons wishing to speak on -this proposal are cordially invited to attend the
public hearing. Copies of the staff report will be available on and after October 28,
1999. If-you have any questions, please call Mike Grim in the Planning Department at
(760) 438-l 161, extension 4499.
If you challenge the General Plan Amendment in court, you may be limited to raising
only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this
notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad at or prior to the
public hearing.
CASE FILE: GPA 98-08
CASE NAME: COLINA ROBLE
PUBLISH: OCTOBER 21,1999
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PLANNING DEPARTMENT *
2075 Las Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-l 576 l (760) 438-l 161 l FAX (760) 438-0894 49
(Form A)
TO: CIT-Y CLERK’S OFFICE
FROH: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
RE: PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST
Attached are the materials necessary for you to notlde
GPA 98-08 - COLINA ROBLE
for a public hearing before the City Council.
Please notice the item for the council neetlng of First Available Hear%
in 2000 .
Thank you.
l/8 PAGE AD
December 23, 1999
Date
Smooth Feed Sheet9 Use template for 5160@
CARLSBAD UNIF SCHOOL DIST SAN MARCOS SCHOOL DIST
801 PINE AVE 1 CIVIC CENTER DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008 SAN MARCOS CA 92069
SAN DIEGUITO SCHOOL DIST
701 ENCINITAS BLVD
ENCINITAS CA 92024
CITY OF ENCINITAS 505 S VULCAN AVE
ENCINITAS CA 92024
CITY OF VISTA
PO BOX 1988
VISTA CA 92085
CALIF DEPT OF FISH & GAME
STE 50
330 GOLDENSHORE
LONG BEACH CA 90802
LAFCO
1600 PACIFIC HWY
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE
2730 LOKER AVE WEST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PUBLIC WORKS/COMMUNITY
SERVICES
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PROJECT PLANNER
MIKE GRIM
LEUCADIA CNTY WATER DIST
1960 LA COSTA AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92009
CITY OF SAN MARCOS
1 CIVIC CENTER DR
SAN MARCOS CA 92069-2949
BOB LADWIG
STE 300
703 PALOMAR AIRPORT RD
CARLSBAD CA 92009
REGIONAL WATER QUALITY
STE B
9771 CLAIREMONT MESA BLVD
SAN DIEGO CA 92124-1331
AIR POLLUTION CNTRL DIST
9150 CHESAPEAKE DR
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
CA COASTAL COMMISSION
STE 200
3111 CAMINO DEL RIO NO
SAN DIEGO CA 92108
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING
DEPT
ENCINITAS SCHOOL DIST
101 RANCH0 SANTA FE RD
ENCINITAS CA 92024
OLIVENHAIN WATER DIST
1966 OLIVENHAIN RD
ENCINITAS CA 92024
CITY OF OCEANSIDE
300 NORTH COAST HWY
OCEANSIDE CA 92054
I.P.U.A. SCHOOL OF PUBLIC ADMIN AND URBAN STUDIES
SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY
SAN DIEGO CA 92182-4505
SANDAG
STE 800
401 B STREET
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
SD COUNTY PLANNING
STE B
5201 RUFFIN RD
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
VALLECITOS WATER DIST
788 SAN MARCOS BLVD
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
: CITY OF CARLSBAD
MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
I3 & AVERY@ Address Labels laser 5160@