HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-06-27; City Council; 15803 Exhibit 4; Written Correspondenceio ay;-oo
i-tEW d%
DIEGO COUNTY I DO HEREBY SIGN THIS PETITION REQUESTING P
THAT THE COMMUNITY KNOW As "PONTO" BE REMOVED FROM
THE PROPOSED SOUTH CARLSBAD COASTAL REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECT. AND THAT THE THREATENED USE BY THE COUNCIL OF
THE EMINENT DOMAIN RULING FOR THE ENTIRE COASTAL AREA
BE WIT".
' BEING A LEGALLY REGISTED VOTERS RESIDING IN SAN
r1g03
3 ' BEING A LEGALLY REGISTED VOTERS RESIDING IN SAN
DIEGO COUNTY I DO HEREBY SIGN THIS PETITION REQUESTING
THAT THE COMMUNITY KNOW AS "PONTO" BE REMOVED FROM
THE PROPOSED SOUTH CARLSBAD COASTAL REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECT. AND THAT THE THREATENED USE BY THE COUNCIL OF
THE EMINENT DOMAIN RULING FOR THE ENTIRE COASTAL AREA
BE WIT".
kRlNT NAME /SIGNATURE WRESS bATE I
c
* BEING A LEGALLY REGISTED VOTERS RESIDING IN SAN
DIEGO COUNTY I DO HEREBY SIGN THIS PETITION REQUESTING
THAT THE COMMUNITY KNOW AS "PONTO" BE REMOVED FROM
THE PRQPOSED SOUTH CARLSBAD COASTAL REDEWLOPMENT
PROJECT. AND THAT THE THREATENED USE BY THE COUNCIL OF
THE EMINENT DOMAIN RULING FOR THE ENTIRE COASTAL AREA
BE WITHDRAWN.
' BEING A LEGALLY REGISTED VOTERS RESIDING IN SAN
DIEGO COUNTY I DO HEREBY SIGN THIS PETITION REQUESTING
THAT THE COMMUNITY KNOW AS "PONTO" BE REMOVED FROM
THE PROPOSED SOUTH CARLSBAD COASTAL REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECT. AND THAT THE THREATENED USE BY THE COUNCIL OF
THE EMINENT DOMAIN RULING FOR THE ENTIRE COASTAL AREA
BE WITHDRAWN.
(PRINT NAME blGNAllJRE DRESS 1
tt ' BEING A LEGALLY REGISTED VOTERS RESIDING IN SAN
DIEGO COUNTY I DO HEREBY SIGN THIS PETITION REQUESTING
THAT THE COMMUNITY KNOW AS "PONTO" BE REMOVED FROM
THE PROPOSED SOUTH CARLSBAD COASTAL REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECT. AND THAT THE TKREATENED USE BY THE COUNCIL OF
THE EMINENT DOMAIN RULING FOR THE ENTIRE COASTAL AREA
BE WITHDRAWN.
[PRINT NAME ~IGNATURE ADDRESS bATE 1
City Council June 21st-2000. Fax 760-720-6917.
City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Dr.,
Carlsbad, Ca. 92008
Attn: City Clerk
Re. South Carlsbad Coastal Redevelopment Project.
The proposed Project is scheduled to be heard at the City Council hearing on June 27th and as a property owner on Ponto Drive I have concerns about the Redevelopment Plan. In Section V (c)
1. Participation by owners, the Plan provides for participation
in the redevelopment of property in the project area by owners as long as it is in conformity with the Plan. But, the Plan refers to a Master or Specific Plan which has to be prepared and adopted to permit uses and to facilitate the redevelopment of the properties.
The problem with the Plan is there is no time limit as to when
the Master Plan for the Project or the Ponto Area will be
completed and approved by the Commission.
It is requested that the following condition be included in
the Development Plan or the Implementation Plan for the Project:
"The Master Plan or Specific Plan for the Ponto Area shall be
completed and approved by the City 18 months after the adoption
of the Redevelopment Agency"
This condition would enable properties owners in the Ponto Area
to proceed with their redevelopment of their properties in a
reasonable time frame and not have to wait several years for
the City to approve the Master Plan that is required before they can get approval of their redevelopment plans.
Sincerely,
President, Ponto Storage, Inc. 6/21/00 cc bf. fax 720-6917(CC).
mail..bf. 7290 Ponto Dr, Carlsbad, Ca. 92009. 438-2140-Fax
931-6816.
ECEIVED
IUN 2 3 2000
CRRLSBAD CHAMBER OF COMM. 760 931 9153 P.01/01 JUN-23-2000 12:16 t! JUNE 23, 2000 AGENDA ITER1 ##
NANCTDEIlMER c: Mayor city Council
City Manager
CIL. 92009 City Attorney
7258 DR.
mIcm CXXRJIQ'L -0
Roger and Betty Fox
3905 Park Dr.
Carlsbad, Calif. 92008
Home Phone 760 720 3793
Email rbfoxfanetscape .net
Warren I Mitchell, Group President,
Regulated Business Units, Sempra Energy.
101 AshSt.
San Diego, CA 92 10 1-30 17
cs Mayor
City Councll
City Manager
City Attorney
City Clerk
hvh PL &&d'3h&
9 G
Dear Sir:
I have recently learned that the City of Carlsbad has started a
Redevelopment District that would run along the coast fiom the San
Dieguito Lagoon to north of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon. The early plans
are to re-align the Coast Highway and tear down the existing power plant
building plus building a smaller building for you to put in smaller but more
efficient power generating equipment.
I am concerned about all of this for several of reasons. 1 LIKE the current
building and think it would be perfect for painting or tiling huge murals of
some sort --- possibly an ocean scene with whales, dolphins, and all sorts of
sea creatures. I used to be an aircraft pilot and it was always comforting to
see the power plant as an obvious landmark. There will be a growing need
for electricity in the future so why couldn't the current generating equipment
be replaced with more efficient new equipment that would produce more
power.
Another concern is the presence of the aqua-farm in the lagoon that grows
delicious muscles, abalone, and other edible sea creatures and depends on
the warm water coming from the power generating plant.
1 am interested in knowing what your plans may be regarding the above.
Sincerely yours,
Roger E. FQX.
F%ye. zc
CC: Carlsbad City Council.
SOlRMRR
HOM€OUIN€RS RSSOCIRTION, INC.
~ ~~~~
6532 Eosy Street Carlsbad, CA 94009 HECEIV&
(6 1 9) 438-2236
June 15,2000 -
cc:
Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director
Lloyd Hubbs, Public Works Director
Eric Munoz, Senior Planner, Carlsbad
Planning Department
Mr. Bud Lewis, Mayor
Carlsbad City Council
1200 Carlsbad Village Dr.
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Carlsbad Boulevard Realignment and the proposed South Carlsbad Coastal
Redevelopment Project
Dear Mr. Lewis:
This letter is on behalf of the Solamar Homeowners’ Association representing a senior
community located on the coast highway just south of Palomar Airport Road. Our deep
concern with implementation of current plans for Carlsbad Boulevard realignment has
become more immediate with the South Carlsbad Coastal Redevelopment Project hearing
scheduled for a June Council meeting.
We have actively pursued the progress of the Carlsbad Boulevard realignment study since
being advised of Phase I. Subsequently, we participated in the survey presented at the
Phase I1 public meeting. Our observations and careful research into the proposed
realignment have identified several concerns including serious threats to quality of life and
property values for residents adjacent to Carlsbad Boulevard. These concerns, numerous
other problems with the consultant report and some associated solutions are set forth in the
attached Solamar Report that was submitted to the Carlsbad Planning Department on
September 13, 1999.
We are sure you will find the Solamar Response to the Carlsbad Boulevard Realignment
Studv - Phase I and Phase I1 Public Meeting (Solamar Report) a comprehensive,
informative, and valuable document. It should assist you in deriving a sound and balanced
plan for the realignment. While there are numerous positive aspects to the realignment
projections, there are obvious questions that must be answered prior to moving ahead. The
Solamar Report Conclusions and Recommendations, pages 14- 1 5, will help in averting
flaws in the proposed realignment design.
Page 1 of2
6/15/2000
We were gratified that our concerns were acknowledged and key recommendations
endorsed by the Planning Department in a letter to us dated November 22, 1999. We have
enclosed and highlighted the most relevant sections of the Planning Department response
letter to the Solamar Report. We believe it is important to share with you our report and
the Planning Department response to the Solamar Report as you become more deeply
involved in detailed realignment plans and implementation.
We would appreciate any help you can give us in resolving our concerns and stand ready to
provide you with additional information that you might need. We would be pleased to
meet with you individually or as a group prior to the Redevelopment Project hearing to
brief and discuss the Carlsbad Boulevard Realignment project and the Solamar Response
to the Consultant Report.
Sincerely,
Ted Dederick, ED.D
Chairman, Solamar Committee
On Carlsbad Blvd. Realignment
Telephone 438-2386
Vice President, Solamar Board of
Directors
Enclosures (2)
Page 2 of2
6/15/2000
@ METROPOLITAN MwD WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
Ofice ofthe Board of Directors RECEIVED
June 2,2000 JUN 07 2000
CITY OF CARLSBAD YOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
The Governing Body
Carlsbad Housing and Redevelopment Commission
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008- 1989
To Whom It May Concern:
South Carlsbad Coastal Redevelopment Project (Revised)
Enclosed is a certified copy of Resolution 8691 electing to receive allocation of taxes pursuant to
provisions of the Community Redevelopment Law.
This resolution was adopted by the Board of Directors of The Metropolitan Water District of
Southern California at its meeting of April 11,2000.
Very truly yours,
Dawn Chin
Executive Secretary
DChg
(EDMS 003899346)
Enclosure
700 N. Alarneda Street, Los Angeles, California 90012 0 Mailing address: Box 54153, Los Angeles, California 90054-0153 0 Telephone (213) 217-6000
RESOLUTION 8691
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
OF THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT
OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ELECTING TO
RECEIVE ALLOCATION OF TAXES PURSUANT
TO PROVISIONS OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT LAW
WHEREAS, subdivision (a) of Section 33676 of the Community Redevelopment Law
(Sections 33000 et seq., of the Health and Safety Code of the State of California), provides that any
affected taxing agency, such as Metropolitan may elect to be allocated, in addition to the portion of taxes
allocated to Metropolitan pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 33670 of said Law, that portion of the
tax revenues otherwise allocated to a redevelopment agency pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section
33670 attributable to an increase in Metropolitan Is tax rate which occurs after a redevelopment plan
becomes effective;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Directors of The Metropolitan
Water District of Southern California that Metropolitan hereby elects to be allocated, in addition to the
portion of taxes allocated to Metropolitan pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 33670 of the
Community Redevelopment Law, any portion of the tax revenue otherwise allocated to the South
Carlsbad Coastal Redevelopment Project (Revised) in the City of Carlsbad pursuant to subdivision (b) of
said Section 33670 which is attributable to any increase in Metropolitan's tax rate which occurs after the
tax year in which the ordinance adopting the South Carlsbad Coastal Redevelopment Project (Revised)
in the City of Carlsbad, becomes effective.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Executive Secretary is hereby directed to file
forthwith certified copies of this resolution with the governing body of the Redevelopment Agency, the
Redevelopment Agency of the City of Carlsbad, and the Auditor-Controller and the Tax Collector of the
County of San Diego.
I HEREBY CERTIFY, that the foregoing is a full, true, and correct copy of a resolution
adopted by the Board of Directors of The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California at its
meeting held April 11,2000.
66 Executive Secretary
The Metropolitan Water District
of Southern California
SOlRMRR
HOM€OWN€RS RSSOCIATION, IN(. - t-
6532 Easy Street Carlsbad, Cf3 92009
September 13,1999
(61 9) 438-2836
Mr. Eric Munoz, Senior Planner
Carlsbad Planning Department
Carlsbad Community Development Building
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, CA. 92009-1 576
Dear Mr. Munoz:
Enclosed is the SOLAMAR RESPONSE TO THE CARLSBAD BOULEVARD
REALIGNMENT STUDY-PHASE I and PHASE II PUBLIC MEETING. The Board
of Directors, the Solarnar Committee on Carlsbad Boulevard Realignment and
residents provided input to the response.
Solarnar believes the Carlsbad Boulevard Realignment project presents the City-
of Carlsbad with an opportunity and an obligation to balance the need for
revenue with the General Plan Open Space & Conservation Element. The result
of a balanced approach will be community support rather than resident alienation
and outcry. The goal of the Solamar Response is to assist and cooperate with
the City in achieving an equitable and balanced realignment design.
Following receipt and study of this repoit, the Committee expects to meet with
you and others involved in the planning to discuss the issues at hand. Please
call Ted Dederick with your available meeting times at 438-2386.
We appreciate the opportunity to actively participate in the planning process
before and at the City Council Open House in December 1999. Again, thank you
for your courteous and efficient cooperation with Solarnar.
Since rely,
+
Ted Dederick, Ed.D
Chairman, Solamar Committee
On Carlsbad Blvd. Realignment
Frances Bonner
President, Solamar Board of
Directors
Cc: Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director
Lloyd Hubbs, Public Works Director
Steve Jantz, Associate Engineer
Bill Magdych, Consultant - URS Greiner Woodward Clyde
.
SOLAMAR RESPONSE TO
THE CARLSBAD BOULEVARD
and
PHASE II PUBLIC MEETING
REALIGNMENT STUDY - PHASE I
Solamar Homeowners Association, Inc.
Solamar Committee On Carlsbad Boulevard Realignment
6532 Easy Street
Carlsbad, CA 92009
(760) 438-2236
September 13, 1999
C' TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1 The Problem ........................................................................... 1
Section 2 Background ........................................................................... 2
Section 3
Section 4 Visual Impact ........................................................................lO
Section 5
Section 6
Acoustical Impact .................................................................. 4 .
Economic Impact .................................................................. 12
Conclusions and Recommendations .................................. 14
References ...................................................................................... 16
SECTION ONE THE PROBLEM
Review of the Carlsbad Boulevard Realiqnment Study: Phase I-Opportunities
and Constraints Final ReDort and information presented at the Phase II Public
Meeting (Julv 28, 19991 results in the following response by the Solamar Board of
Directors, the Solamar Committee on Carlsbad Boulevard Realignment
(SCCBR) and residents:
1.1. Residents support well-Dlanned development of the area including
revenue-generating projects where space and constraints allow.
Residents have returned Feedback Forms as requested after
thorough educational efforts by SCCBR and communication with
both the Carlsbad Planning and Engineering Departments.
1.2. The crucial area of concern is SURPLUS AREA #3-NORTH
PONTO BEACH STUDY AREA. Preliminary maps show the
SOUTHBOUND Lane not only moved close to the Northbound
Lane but AT THE SAME GRADE. Use of the same grade level for-
the Southbound has little scientific or environmental foundation.
Furthermore, the Northbound Lane grade is unacceptable in
specific areas. Both Lanes are ideally suited to use existing,
natural hillsides as noise buffers and viewshed protection.
I .3. Discrepancies between the Carlsbad General Plan Open Space &
Conservation Element and the Phase I Final Report are too blatant
to be ignored or “easily mitigated‘ as stated in the ReDort.
1.4. Three (3) major impacts on Solamar and surrounding areas are
presented in this report:
Acoustical Impact
Visual Impact
Economic Impact
This report demonstrates that if the same grade level is used for the Southbound
Lane as is currently used by the Northbound Lane, the economic value and
quality of life will be DEGRADED BEYOND REPAIR.
I
SECTION TWO c BACKGROUND
Solamar became a resident owned senior park in 1988 with two basic objectives
in mind:
To provide an alternative to consistent planned rent increases.
0 To preserve and protect homesites and the quality of life Solamar
residents have enjoyed since the early 1950’s.
After two years of negotiation with the park owner, Carlsbad Planning Dept.,
Planning Commission, California Coastal Cornmission, Department of Real
Estate and several others, the conversion to resident condominium ownership of
Solamar finally was completed.
Unexpected additional expenses posed a series of obstacles that resulted in
severe financial problems for residents, many of whom relied solely on Social
Security for income, and qualified for low interest government loans. Some
additional expenses were required by the City of Carlsbad as a condition for
approval of the park conversion. However, residents complied with and went
well beyond city requirements to make Solamar an asset to our Carlsbad
community. Examples include the following:
Water lines were brought in under the Santa Fe railroad from Avenida
Encinas.
c
0 The clubhouse was completely renovated.
0 All streets in Solamar were replaced.
0 Retaining walls, drainage systems and repaving projects were
completed to control erosion problems.
Gas, water and sewer lines were repaired or replaced.
Landscaping was incorporated to improve Solamar appearance from
within and without.
Despite the personal hardship posed by these very expensive projects,
homeowners realized the need and provided funding via personal assessments
on at least three occasions. Solamar residents have demonstrated a “good
neighbor” attitude and deserve respect and consideration in development of the
realignment project plan.
2
c SECTION iW0 BACKGROUND
Enjoyable residential living in the Solamar community is constantly under
pressure from many sources:
0 Increased noise and air pollution from Highway 1-5, Avenida Encinas
and railroad traffic.
0 Occasional foul air pollution from the Encina sewage treatment plant.
0 Flaqrant disregard of required flight patterns and increased air traffic
from Palomar Airport.
0 Major hotel and time-share condominium construction immediately
north and south of our park.
Solamar residents have been encroached upon from north, south and east, even
from the air above our park.
Throughout all of this intrusion Solamar residents have recognized that
population growth and development are facts of life. When given the opportunity,
Solamar has worked cooperatively with the City to try to reduce negative impacts
on Solamar. Consistently, and continuing in the present, residents have
upgraded the entire Solamar Community through individual home remodeling
and improvements plus extensive park repairs and development.
c
Solamar residents take their civic responsibilities seriously and for many years
have demonstrated a continuing “grass roots” effort to improve the Solamar
Community appearance, function and livability. Given this history of civic
responsibility and pride, Solamar‘s concerns with the Carlsbad Boulevard
realignment project, can not, in all conscience, be ignored nor taken lightly.
3
SECTION THREE ACOUSTICAL IMPACT
The proposed realignment of Carlsbad Boulevard will result in very signifEant
increases in noise levels for Solamar residents. This -resultant intrusion of
unwanted noise will degrade the quality of life and reduce economic values of
Solamar residences. The residents of Solamar have experienced a degradation
of their quality of life already. The continuing growth of traffic on 1-5 and the
increasing number of aircraft flights directly over Solamar are resulting in a noisy
environment. The projected realignment will exacerbate what is an
acknowledged worsening situation. Generally, the Phase I Report has
overlooked or minimized the effect on Solamar.
The City noise standard has already been exceeded; yet, based on questionable
data, the Phase I Report finding is that “. . . no significant environmental constraint
has been identified that would preclude the project from being constructed. ”
(WCIA, 1998a, p. ES-I) However, an obvious conclusion is that the doubling of
a noise source, already above an acceptable level, does not result in an
7naudible”difference as is stated in the Final Report. Nor-should it be stated that
making a bad condition worse should be tolerated because it is already
excessive. (WCIA 1998a, p. 3-2)
It is reasonable to anticipate that the City will attempt to adhere to its own self-
imposed noise standards by maintaining lower Carlsbad Boulevard grade levels
and ample distances from existing residences. It is not reasonable to undertake
this project design as currently planned since residential noise standards are
already exceeded and measurements are one year old.
While the Phase I Report would lead one to believe that little mitigation is
necessary (WCIA, 1998a, p. 3-2), the following statements are made: “Mitigation of the trafic noise to meet Cify standards can be easily achieved. ” (WCIA,
1998a, p. 4-1) Suggested means include the construction of berms, soundwalls,
dual-glazing of windows (WCIA, 1998a, p. 3-1 1) and fencing with vegetation
trained to cover (WCIA, 1998a, p. 3-14).
r
The installation of dual-glazed windows is prohibitive for families on a limited
income. Moreover, they are effective only if left closed. The elimination of
natural ventilation would necessitate air conditioning, an additional large expense
that would contribute its own noise to the problem. The report makes no mention
of how communities would be compensated for expenses incurred in the
mitigation of increased noise levels. The construction of either soundwalls or
covered fencing would degrade visual quality, something the report claims to
want to avoid (WCIA, 1998a, p.3-14).
4
C’ SECTION THREE ACOUSTICAL IMPACT
The Carlsbad Boulevard Realignment Phase I - Opportunities and Constraints -
Final Report (WICA, 1998a) presents findings that are internally contradictory,
and by dismissing obvious problems, presents an unrealistic and inaccurate
picture of the proposed realignment’s acoustical impacts. These contradictions
and inaccuracies are detailed in the following paragraphs that cite the Phase I
Final Report and the Report Appendix titled Noise Assessment - Final Report
NICA. 1998b).
3.1
3.2
3.3
Noise Definitions
“Noise is defined as unwanted sound. . . agencies have
established criteria to protect public health and safety to . . .
minimize annoyance.” (WCIA, 1998b, p. 1-1)
Noise Rea u la tions
“. . . for residential land uses, . . . noise levels above 60 but below
70 dBA CNEL are normally unacceptable and require analysis and-
mitigation. Construction of residential land uses is discouraged
where noise level of 70 dBA CNEL or higher would be experienced”
(WCIA, 1998b, p. 1-4) and “should generally not be undertaken”
(WCIA, 1998b, Section 2, Figure 3).
Ambient Noise Survev
“During the measurement survey, traffic on Carlsbad Boulevard
was found to be the primary source of noise in the area. Existing
noise levels near residences along Carlsbad Boulevard were found
to range from 55 to 65 dBA Leg.’, (WCIA, 1998b, p. 2-1)
It should be noted that Lgq is an averaaed representation of sound
energy level. It is in no way intended to demonstrate the effect of
the L measurements, the highest sound levels impacting the
community. One must consider that the measurements resulting in
the modest 55-65 dBA range were &I made during optimal time
frames for lowest daytime traffic noise levels.
rnax
Field Reports
Data provided below is for Short Term noise measurements
reportedly made within the Solamar community. (WCIA, 1998b,
Appendix A)
5
SECTION THREE
LOC.
ST-4
ST-5
ST-7
ACOUSTICAL IMPACT
Date Times Le, L,, Traffic Traffic
NorthB SouthB
8/19/98 13:05 - 13~20 57.0 66.? 144 70
8/19/98 13:25 - 13140 55.1 77.2 131 186
8/20/98 10~15- 10~30 60.7 74.4 -
It should be emphasized that L is an average measurement and eq tends to distort the actual noise perceived by residents. The three
measurements were made between 10:15 a.m. and 1:40 p.m.
Consequently, data is selective and cannot portray a realistic
picture of the acoustics affecting Solamar. Heavy and peak periods
have been omitted from the study. The Northbound and
Southbound traffic flows are roughly equivalent, something that
should be considered if traffic is to be relocated closer to existing
housing.
Reference to Fiaure 3 provides information that demonstrates that
a range of 60-70 dB CNEL is considered ”Normally Unacceptable”
(WCIA, 1998b, Section 2, Figure 3) for community noise exposure.
Further, in regard to land use compatibility, it also states that new
construction, under these conditions, “. . . should generally be
discouraged. lf new construction or development does proceed, a
detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements must be made
and needed noise insulation features included in the design. ”
(WCIA, 1998b, Section 2, Figure 3)
This issue needs to be addressed: If homes should not be built
adjacent to existing excessive traffic noise, then there should be a
similar constraint to moving excessive traffic noise adjacent to
existing homes. Solamar homes predate the proposed Carlsbad
Boulevard realignment planning and construction.
The only long-term noise measurement (LT-I) shows a noise level
of 66 dBA CNEL. (WCIA, 1998b, p.2-5) Since that figure
represents an average, Lmax would have to be at an unacceptably
high level as well.
The Phase I report states that there is “no significant environmental
constraint. . .” (WCIA, 1998a, p. ES-1 and p. 4-1). At the same
time, it informs us that “. . .the City’s exterior noise standard may
be exceeded at the Solamar Mobile Home Park. . . .” (WCIA,
1998a, p. ES-1) To soften that statement, it is noted that noise
6
SECTION THREE ACOUSTICAL IMPACT c
3.4
r‘
levels will be decreased by 0-2 decibels on the West Side of the
Southbound lanes. Somehow, this leads to a report conclusion that
“NO measures are necessary to reduce increases in noise levels . . . .” (WCIA, 1998a, p. 3-2).
The doubling of traffic adjacent and close to Solamar would resuft
in a significant negative impact and is a very definite constraint on
the realignment as currently proposed. The fact that noise levels
adjacent to the beach would be decreased is totally irrelevant. The
reported projected increases in noise levels are unrealistically low
and defy logic.
“Many of the residences within the Solamar neighborhood are
elevated in relation to Catisbad Boulevard.” (VVCIA, 1998b, p. 2-1)-
This difference in elevation should be maintained for the
Southbound lane and extended by lowering both lanes at the north
end of Solamar.
“Motor vehicles traveling on Carlsbad Boulevard are currently the
major contributors to the noise environment in the vicinity of the
project.” (WCIA, 1998b, p. 2-1) It is clear then that the proposed
realignment would amplify that noise source.
Presently, most of Solamar is in the shadow zone of the
southbound traffic. The existing topography of the land facing
Solamar favors the mitigation of noise levels. It also serves to
partially protect residents from the noise environment of ST-6 (north
of Solamar) where excessive noise measurements were as follows:
L = 65.1 and L = 80.7. (WCIA. 1998b, p. 2-5) Further lowering
of both lanes at the north end of Solamar would help reduce traffic
noise and protect Solamar from the condition like that at ST-6
where the North and Southbound lanes adjoin one another.
eq max
Lanakai Noise Levels
Discussion of Lanakai noise levels is included because the Lanakai
situation approximates what is planned for Solamar. In Lanakai, as
in the planned realignment in front of Solamar, no sound barrier
exists and North and Southbound lanes are somewhat proximal.
7
SECTION THREE F
Measurement I Lea Lm,
ACOUSTICAL IMPACT
Lmin
Three sets of measurements were made at one Lanakai location;
two were to establish the consistency and repeatability of
measurements, the other to measure a long-term time-weig hted
noise level. (WCIA, 1998b, p. 2-5)
Identification
ST- 1
ST-8
LT- 1
64.1 73.1 44.1
64.2 73.4 44.1
63 (24 hr.)
67 (Peak)
66 (CNEL)
As should be anticipated, a high correlation exists between
readings ST-1 and ST-8. Demonstrating the high correlation was
the purpose of taking two measurements in the same location.
However, even though time-weighted, the LT-1 measurement of 66
dBA CNEL is markedly high given that it covers a 24 hour period.
Again, the City standard is 60 dBA CNEL. The data provide
evidence that the current pre-project condition is unacceptable.
Even without movement of the highway, future increases in traffic
are likely to elevate the noise level above 70 dBA.
3.5 Potential Effects And Proiect Feasibility
“Twenty of the 24 modeled receptor sites . . . are above the City of
Carlsbads recommended exterior noise standard of 60 dBA
CNEL.” (WCIA, 1998b, p. 4-1) In order to establish the validity of
the data, one should examine the remaining four receptor sites
identified with exterior noise levels below the City standard: R-7, R-
8, R-8.5 and R-20. (WCIA, 1998b, p. 4-1)
- R-7: This site is located in a shadow zone from both the
North and Southbound lanes. It has the lowest measurement of
any of the five modeled receptor sites in Solamar.
R-8, R-20: On Figures 4 and 5 (WCIA, 1998b), these sites
appear to be removed from the highway and in areas shielded from
traffic noise by vegetation.
R-8.5: On Figure 4, this site appears to be removed from the
highway and shielded from traffic noise by a berm.
8
c SECTION THREE ACOUSTICAL IMPACT
r
I'. . . noise levels at R-4, which is representative of residences in the
Solamar neighborhood overlooking Carlsbad Boulevard, would
increase from 62 dBA CNEL in the existing case to 65 dBA CNEL
in fhe future-without-project case. " (WCIA, 1998b, p. 4-2) This
increase is incompatible with the City's Noise Environments Matrix - - Figure 3. (WCIA, 1998b)
The projection of 65+ dBA is an underestimation but exceeds the
City standard by 5 dBA. Since increases in dBA are logarithmic,
this increase in noise level of 50% is substantial, not ". . .just
perceptible. " CJvcIA, 1998a, p. 3-1 1) For the sake of clarification,
the Washington State Department of Transportation is quoted: I'. . .
a sound level of 70 is fwice as loud to the listener as a level of 60. . ." and therefore represents a 100% gain.
". . . fhe project would contribute approximately one decibel fo the
future noise level. " (WCIA, 1998b, p. 4-3) ". . . a change in noise
level of 7 decibel is inaudible . . . " (WCIA, 1998b, p. 4-2) Given
that traffic immediately in front of Solamar would at least double
initially, and become even more excessive in the future, the study
nonetheless declares that the project would create an inaudible
difference.
Contrary to the preponderance of the Phase I Final ReDort "findings" and
"conclusions" the report does signal some hope for residents along Carlsbad
Boulevard. The Report states "The project's alignment and elevation is expected
to evolve as the project proceeds. '' and the report states ". . . mitigation
measures. . . should be based upon refined design information. " (WCIA, 1998a,
p. 3-1 1). This indicates an open-mindedness that is encouraging to affected
residents.
3
9
c SECTION FOUR VISUAL IMPACT
Review of Carlsbad Boulevard Realignment Study-Visual Analysis prepared by
Wallace, Roberts and Todd (WRT, 1998) and summarized in the ,Phase I Final
Report clearly shows negative impact to Solamar. Also, the stated facts and
logic result in a negative impact on views for drivers on the Northbound and the
Southbound Lanes.
Importantly, the Wallace report often contradicts the Carlsbad General Plan
ODen Space 8 Conservation Element. Wallace (WRT 1998, P.2) describes
findings as “the basis for the definition of visual quality as it applies to the
realignment of Cadsbad Boulevard‘. The report lists five Goals of the General
Plan, which repeatedly require “open space, a sense of natural spaciousness,
‘ visual relief to the cityscape, buffers between incompatible land uses and
Green ways”.
Specifically, the following is noted:
4.1 If the Southbound and Northbound lanes run close together at the
same Northbound qrade elevation, the view for drivers, bluff
dwellers and Solamar residents is the same: FOUR LANES OF
CARS, TRUCKS AND MOTORCYCLES DRIVING AT
APPROXIMATELY 50 mph. The planned median does nothing to
mitigate the visual scene. At this grade, attempts to screen traffic
results in blocking ocean views for the Northbound traveler and
Solamar residents.
4.2 Wallace, et al state, I’ Vegetation appropriately planted along the
Carlsbad Boulevard corridor can serve to both screen private
development from the public view and frame valuable views of the
private property owners” (WRT, 1998, p. 12). The Realignment
Plan cannot have it both wavs; “framing“ results in blocked views
for Solamar Homeowners and Northbound travelers.
4.3 If both the North and Southbound Lanes, separated by a 12 foot
median, are at the same qrade level, then a substantial amount of
ocean view is LOST. For example, from Oceanview Drive directly
adjacent to the current bus stop, the raised Southbound Lanes
would eliminate a minimum of one-third of the ocean view includinq
whitewater views.
4.4 With both lanes at the same grade level, travelers in the
Southbound lanes gain more view but those in the Northbound
lanes view because, looking west toward the ocean, they only
10
SECTION FOUR c VISUAL IMPACT
see two lanes of traffic speeding along the Southbound Lane. The
net result is no gain in visual enhancement. If there is no gain in
visual enhancement, there is no visual cost-benefit.
4.5 Wallace, et a1 state, “The least valued views are of areas of
uniformly buitt structures” (WRT 1998, p. 13). Therefore, the
obvious conclusion is to keep the road level at the lowest possible
grade to block travelers from viewing Solamar mobile homes while
enabling views of the ocean and natural bluffs. Lowered lanes with
attractively terraced hillside visual buffers offer the best solution to
visual conflicts. The terraced buffers have the added benefit of
acoustical mitigation.
Again, the visual impact to Solamar and travelers is of vital importance in terms
of cost-benefit to the City of Carlsbad and project support from residents. The
Southbound Lane, if lowered South of Solamar Drive where traffic is visible,
provides a blueprint for Planninq, even if lanes are moved closer together.
11
c
SECTION FIVE ECONOMIC IMPACT
Solamar is a senior community. Residents have worked hard to be able to afford
their retirement homes. For many Solamar residents, their homes represent the
major part of their assets. Carlsbad Boulevard realignment threatens the value
of these assets.
The Realignment Study and information presented at the Public Meeting focused
on City revenue generation through commercial uses for surplus property gained
through the realignment. However, there has been no discussion of the
significant economic losses that will be suffered by Solamar residents who own
homes directly impacted by view deterioration and increases in the noise level.
These losses will be pronounced and severe if the Southbound Lane is moved
close to the Northbound Lane and raised to the same wade level.
5.1
5.2
5.3
Solamar Property Valuation Factors
Other sections of this response highlight the deleterious acoustical
and visual impacts that will be suffered by Solamar residents under
the planned options for Carlsbad Boulevard Realignment. Higher
property values for Solamar residences directly adjacent to
Carlsbad Boulevard are derived from the generally unimpeded
ocean view and the fact that traffic noise is somewhat controlled.
The traffic noise level is partially buffered by the current distance
between the Southbound Lane and the Northbound Lane and by a
Southbound Lane grade level that rapidly descends well below the
Northbound grade level.
Solamar Lot Values
Solamar lots facing Carlsbad Boulevard are currently valued in the
range of approximately $1 00,000 - $1 50,000 higher than lots on
non-ocean facing Solamar streets. Non-ocean facing lots are
approximately $50,000 to $100,000 higher than lots located in
owner purchased mobile home parks that are inland.
Potential Loss Of Property Values To Solamar Residents
Obstructed ocean views and increased noise levels due to
Carlsbad Boulevard easterly realignment and raised grade level are
likely to reduce all Solamar property values by 10% - 15%. Values
for residences facing Carlsbad Boulevard are likely to be reduced
by an additional 15% or more. The economic loss to Solamar
homeowners will easily total in excess of $1,000,000.
12
c' SECTION FIVE ECONOMIC IMPACT
If Carlsbad Boulevard realignment proceeds as planned, financial restitution for
reductions in Solamar homeowner's property values becomes a priority concern.
Increased City revenue achieved at the expense of current property owners is
unfair. Realignment plans must be modified to minimize negative impacts on
existing residents.
3
13
SECTION SIX CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS c
r
F
The findings noted in this report are disturbing to say the least. In an effort to
work co-operatively with the City of Carlsbad and the Planning and Engineering
Departments, a list of conclusions and recommendations follows. The purpose
of this Response is to facilitate communication and to provide useful input into
the realignment plans for Carlsbad Boulevard.
Conclusions and Recommendations focus on Solamar’s crucial area of concern:
SURPLUS AREA #3-NORTH PONTO BEACH STUDY AREA. Specific problems
are the easterly placement of the Southbound Lane and the equal grade
elevations of both the North and Southbound Lanes. The Conclusions and
Recommendations apply not only to Solamar; many applv eauallv to the
Northbound traveler.
6.1 CONCLUSIONS
6.1.1 The Carlsbad General Plan ODen SDace & Conservation Element -
lists goals, which repeatedly require “open space, a sense of
natural spaciousness, visual relief to the cityscape, buffers between
incompatible land uses and Greenways. ” The road elevation is
crucial to these goals. Discrepancies between the General Plan
and the realignment plan are serious and not easilv mitiaated.
6.1.2 Noise levels will increase drastically. If the Southbound-Lane is
raised to the Northbound Lane level, the amount of traffic noise will
double. This 100 per cent increase does not include noise from
predicted traffic increases due to population growth.
6.1.3 The City Standard for noise level is 60 dBA. Currentlv, the
Standard is exceeded and no attempt to mitigate the existing
violation is planned.
6.1.4 Possible noise mitigation measures proposed will result in many
Solamar residents living in air-tiqht homes with views nrosslv
disturbed bv barriers desiqned to decrease noise. Restitution from
the City for Solamar resident expenses is an issue.
6.1.5 The easterly placement of the Southbound Lane is acceptable but
onlv if the grade elevation is kept low enouah that cars and trucks
are not visible from Solamar residences. If traffic is not visible, the
noise level is effectively reduced due to natural hillside barriers.
6.1.6 The planned median does not effectively mitigate noise. “Framing“
results in blocked views for Solamar and Northbound travelers.
14
SECTION SIX (- CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1.7 The ocean view is reduced by at least one-third at the North end of
Solamar. Where extensive median framing is placed, the view is
blocked 100 percent.
6.1.8 Travelers looking east will see the mobile home park rather than ua
sense of relief from cityscape” as required in the General Plan.
6.1.9 All Solamar property values could be reduced a minimum of 10 to
15 percent. Values for residences facing Carlsbad Boulevard will
likely be reduced an additional 15 per cent for a total reduction of
30 per cent. The economic loss to Solamar homeowners easily
could total well in excess of $1,000,000. Financial restitution will
become an issue for the City of Carlsbad.
6.2 RECOMMENDATIONS
6.2.1 The crucial element in the realignment plan is: The South and
Northbound Lanes must be kept at a grade that assures that no
traffic is visible to either the Northbound traveler or Solamar
residents. This action alone solves the problems outlined in the
Conclusions section. The Southbound Lane, if lowered South of
Solamar Drive where traffic is visible, offers a blueprint for danninq
both the North and Southbound Lanes. In this blueprint, the
easterly movement of the Southbound Lane poses no problems.
6.2.2 Reduce the speed limit to 35 MPH to additionally control noise
levels and increase safety. The speed limit will become uniform all
along Carlsbad Boulevard where multiple pedestrian and traffic
signals exist. The increases in pedestrian traffic from the Hilton
Hotel, Seapointe, and residential developments, along with rapidly
increasing vehicle traffic, require this safety precaution now.
Elimination of large truck traffic also is important.
15
REFERENCES c
Wallace, Roberts & Todd (WRT). 1998. Visual Analysis. Carlsbad Boulevard
Realignment Study .
Woodward-Clyde International-Americas (WCIA). 1998a. Phase I Final Report. (1 Carlsbad Boulevard Realignment Study
Woodward - Clyde International - Americas (WCIA). 1998b. Noise Assessment
Report. Carlsbad Boulevard Realignment Study
3
16
November 22,1999
Ted Dederick
Solamar Homeowners Association
6532 Easy Street
Carlsbad, CA 92009
RESPONSE TO SOLAMAR REPORT DATED SEPTEMBER 13,1999
The City has received and reviewed thc above referenced Report submitted in regards to the
Carlsbad Boulevard Realignment Study. The Report outlines noise, visual and economic
impacts that Solamar feels would result if certain dcsign clcnicnts, most notably the grade
elevation of the southbound lanes, are not carefully considered.
While several specific points were raised in thc Solamar Rcport with regards to specific
niethodologies or conclusions contained in the consultant prepared Phase I Report, the overall
conclusion that the realignment concept is feasible is still valid. (Certain issues as they pertain to
Solamar, however, are suitable for reconsideration.) For example, if the Council decides to
pursue the realignment project, one of thc major undertakings at that point would be the initiation
of an Environmental Inipact Report. During the scoping and preparation of that future EIR,
Solamar's specific comments regarding points of noise measurement, for example, could be
made so that the future EIR consultant will(focus on producing a document that is supported by
the community'\,as far as being accurate and reasonable in its methodologies.
The bottom line of the Solaniar Report seems to center on the fact that if the southbound lanes of
Carlsbad Boulevard were kept to the lowest grade possible as it traveled southbound, great
strides would be taken to significantly reduce the noise, visual and ,economic impacts cited.
Whik there may be design or environmental issucs or constraints south of Solaniar iliat would
need to be considered, the Solamar Report Iras raised the awareness of staff as to the specific
issues, impacts and opportunities that concern Solaiiiar.
As a result of the submitted Solamar Report, be assured that staff will consider the lowest grade
elevations possible for the southbound lanes during any fiiture EIR process for the Boulevard.
This objective will be communicated throughout the balance of the Study efforts and assuming
there are no insurmountable environmental issues, staff will use the EIR process to consider any
roadway design that will accomplish the multiple objectives involved.
The submitted Solamar Report is cornprehcnsive, eloquent and compelling. The thoughtful and
intelligent articulation of your concerns will assist staff in designing a project that will receive
the most community support.
2075 La Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 - (760) 438-1 161 - FAX (760) 438-0894 @
RESPONSE TO SOLAMAR REPORT
November 22, 1999
PaPe 2
Feel free to contact myself or Steve Jantz at 438-1 161 extension 4441, or 4354, respectively, if
you have any questions. Thanks again for your commitment to the community and participation
in the Carlsbad Boulevard Realignment Study.
Sincerely,
ERIC MUNOZ
Senior Planner
L.. -. Mickael Holzmillzr, ?1mnir,g Dircctoi
Steve Jantz, Associate Engineer
Bill Magdych, URSGWC
Krista Bartsch, URSGWC
MIRACOSTA COMMUNlTY COLLEGE DI!BRICT
One Barnard Drive, Oceanside. CA 32056 (760) 757-2121 Fax (760) 795-6609
Visit us on the Internet: http://wan..minl-osta.cc.ca.us
June 26,2000
Ms. Deborah Fountain
Carlsbad Housing and Redevelopment Department
2965 Roosevelt Street, Suite B
Carlsbad, CA 92008-2815
Dear Ms. Fountain:
The Board of Directors of the MiraCosta Community College District would like to work with you to
develop and include specific plans for the development of joint educational programs to provide for
community educational needs within the South Carlsbad Redevelopment Plan. We are requesting that
the Redevelopment Plan include stated goals for the development of joint educational programs
between the District and the Redevelopment Agency, including the exploration of plans and goals such
as the identification of a site which may include the use or dedication of City land for a coastal marine
research center or a high technology training center to be operated as a MiraCosta Community College
District facility. We believe expressly state goals would provide the District and the Redevelopment
Agency a mechanism for meeting our joint educational and economic development goals.
We understand the purpose of the Redevelopment Plan is to enhance and support our respective
communities. Our communities and their citizens include graduating young adults, from, for example,
Carlsbad High School and Oceanside High School. We as a college community, like the
Redevelopment Agency, must focus on serving the educational and economic development needs of
these constituents. These needs are inextricably tied together. Therefore, as noted above, we are
requesting that specific statements of goals be set forth in the Redevelopment Plan to assure that our
District and the Agency will have a blue print for working together into the twenty first century. The
educational and economic needs of constituents would indeed be enhanced by the development of a
coastal marine research center or high technology training center in the Plan area.
As we have discussed, as an educational facility dedicated to the needs of its students, our Board of
Directors is extremely concerned about the financial impact the South Carlsbad Redevelopment Plan
Adoption will have on MiraCosta College and our ability to serve our students/ those students, of
course, are your citizens. Because the redevelopment of the project area under consideration will rely
on tax increment revenue to finance the Project Area Improvement, our District will lose 63.8% of its
share of the tax increment revenue, which could be as much as $20 million over the 45-year life of the
plan. This loss means that, on the average, our educational programs will be able to accommodate 100
fewer full time students per year form the coastal area. Our graduating high school seniors and other
young and older adults in our communities most certainly will be disadvantaged.
We do not believe it is the intention of the South Carlsbad Redevelopment Plan to allow such
disadvantages to the educational opportunities of our constituents. In addition, because our District
must focus on serving an increasing college-age population while considering rising costs, we are
compelled to request your assistance.
Adoption of the South Carlsbad Redevelopment Plan without expressly stated goals and plans for an
educational component to be developed in conjunction with the MiraCosta Community College District
will truly hurt the education programs of MiraCosta College - your community college. It is axiomatic
OCEANSIDECAMPUS SAN bo CMWS ADULT bNt”G &MAW
One Barnard Drive, Oceanside, CA 92056 3333 Manchester Ave., Wi-by-the-Sea, CA 92007 320 N. Home Street, Oceanside, CA 92054
(760) 757-2121 Fa (760) 795-6609 (760) 944-1149 Fax (760) 634-7875 (760) ’57-2121 Fax (760) 795-8730
. ..-
that educational disadvantages are economic disadvantages. Therefore, we respectfully request the
opportunity to work with you for the purpose of specifically including in the Redevelopment Plan a
statement of plans and goals for the development of coordinated educational facilities.
We cannot overstate the belief of our Board of Directors that our children's and our young adults'
education is our future. As your community college, MiraCosta can provide exciting, forward looking
educational opportunities. We would like to work with you to develop a city-college partnership with
statements of plans and goals to facilitate cooperation through the years. With clearly stated plans and
goals together we will enhance and not diminish the goal of MiraCosta College to educate the children
and adults of our community.
Sincerely,
L. Edwin Coate
Vice President
Business and Administrative Services
MiraCosta College
LEC:gh