1992-08
RESOLUTION NO. OE92-08
A RESOLUTION OF THE OLD ENCINITAS
COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD DENYING A
DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION
FOR AN ENCINITAS TRANSIT STATION
LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF VULCAN AVE.
BETWEEN ENCINITAS BLVD. AND E STREET IN OLD ENCINITAS
(CASE NUMBER 91-039-DR)
WHEREAS, the City of Encinitas, the North San Diego County
Transit Development Board, and the County of San Diego have entered
into an agreement relative to the development of a transit station
in the City of Encinitas; said agreement provides that the City
shall exercise project design review through the City's design
review application process; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to said agreement, design review plans and an
application package were submitted to the City on March 10, 1992,
for construction of a transit station located on the west side of
Vulcan Ave., on the rail right-of-way of Santa Fe Railway, Inc.,
property more particularly described as Parcels 10 and 11, S.B.E.
Map 804-37-10H (San Diego County Assessor's parcels 258-190-por.
22, and 23); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 115041, 15042, 15050(b), 15096
and 15381 of the State Guidelines of the California Environmental
Quality Act, the City of Encinitas is a Responsible Agency in the
consideration of this project; the North San Diego County Transit
Development Board is the Lead Agency, and prepared and submitted an
environmental impact report and other discussion material relevant
to environmental issues, which report and materials were
distributed to the Community Advisory Board members; and
WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was conducted on said
application on April 13, 1992; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing the Community Advisory Board
considered, without limitation:
1. The staff report and attachments dated April 2, 1992
2. The application, project plans received March 10, 1992
3. The environmental review record including the
environmental impact report certified by the North San
Diego County Transit Development Board and additional
environmental information provided by the applicants
4. Oral evidence submitted at the hearing;
5. Written evidence submitted at the hearing; and
WHEREAS, at the close of said hearing the Old Encinitas
Community Advisory Board made the following findings pursuant to
Chapter 23.08 of the Encinitas Municipal Code:
ADP/cbj/CBJMISC-91039CBR.1(4/29/92-1) 1
(SEE ATTACHMENT "A")
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Old Encinitas Community
Advisory Board of the City of Encinitas that application 91-039-DR
per the application and plans received March 10, 1992, is hereby
denied.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 11th day of May, 1992, by the following
vote, to wit:
AYES: Birnbaum, Steyaert, Cowen
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Cartwright, Lewis
ABSTAIN: None
~~ )
Chairman of
the Old Encinitas
Community
Advisory Board
ATTEST:
~~
Tom Curriden
Associate Planner
ADP/cbj/CBJMISC-91039CBR.1(4/29/92-1) 2
I
ATTACHMENT "A"
FINDINGS FOR DESIGN REVIEW (CHAPTER 23.08 MUNICIPAL CODE)
Case :# 91-039-DR
Resolution OE92-08
Findings: The following regulatory conclusions must be addressed
by the Old Encinitas Community Advisory Board pursuant to Chapter
23.08 of the Encini tas Municipal Code. The finding that any of the
concluslons apply warrants denial of the proposed project:
23.08.074 A. The project design fails to take into account the
constraints and opportunities of the site.
Facts: The project is proposed to be located exclusively on rail
right-of-way between Vulcan Ave. and private properties on the east
side of First St., south of Encinitas Blvd. . Facilities proposed
include passenger rail platforms and related amenities, automobile
parking, and a bus route transfer facility. The basic layout of
these facilities is based on a concept plan identified in earlier
planning stages, subject to design review.
Discussion: The project design based on the identified concept
plan is substantially limited by the constraints of size and shape
of the development site. The proposed bus facility in particular,
proposed east of the rail tracks between D and E streets on .8
acres and subject to the operational objectives of the transit
operator, is substantially limited in its design layout. The
proposed design solution does not include screening and design
treatment of the bus facility as required for environmental
mitigation, and as encouraged by the City's design guidelines.
Conclusion: The proposed project design fails to take into account
constraints of size and dimension of the site in providing design
screening and treatment; this regulatory conclusion applies.
23.08.074 G. The project circulation system fails to minimize
conflicts between vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic.
23.08.074 H. The project ingress, egress, or internal circulation
would have an adverse effect on traffic conditions on adjacent
streets.
Facts: The proposed project location is the existing street grid
of Vulcan Ave., Encinitas Blvd., D and E streets, and other
surrounding streets. The project would generate automobile, bus,
and other trips which would add additional traffic to the projected
future build-out traffic level in the project site area. Vulcan
ADP/cbj/CBJMISC-91039CBR.1(4/29/92-1) 3
Ave. is designated to include bicycle lanes.
Discussion: Traffic studies have been provided which indicate that
the project area street system, with the proposed project and
recommended street improvements, would operate at acceptable levels
of service; and that there would be no significant negative impacts
to pedestrian and bicycle traffic flows. These findings are based
on particular and technical definitions of level of service and
significance. However, public testimony has been offered that
project area street intersections are among the highest accident
rate intersections in the City. D and E streets are recognized as
pedestrian corridors associated with Pacific View School, and as
significant auto traffic routes during peak-hour traffic. The
project would add auto and bus trips and bus maneuvering to Vulcan,
D and E streets. To accommodate the proposed project, street
improvements on Vulcan Ave. would be reduced to minimum standards.
Testimony noted that no other bus facility in the region operates
on as small a site as the bus facility proposed with this project.
The Board notes that the project relies on the surrounding streets
for maneuvering around the bus facility, which in conjunction with
rail operations can exacerbate peak-hour traffic on D and E
streets. It may not be necessary for all of the bus routes
currently proposed to use this station to operate at this location
in order to provide adequate bus/train interface.
Conclusion: With the addition of traffic and bus trips in the
project area and the reduction of street improvement standards, the
Board is of the opinion that the project has not minimized the
potential for traffic conflicts, and that an adverse effect on
traffic conditions on the adjacent streets would result.
23.08.076 E. The project is not harmonious with or is functionally
incompatible with adjacent properties in one or more of the
following aspects: 1. Color scheme; 2. Location of structures on
the site; 3. Architectural features or ornaments; 4. Type and
quality of exterior materials; and 5. Location and use of open
space.
23.08.076 F. The project would adversely affect the quality of
lighting and noise environment on adjacent properties.
Facts: The project is adjacent to commercial land uses on its west
side, and residential and commercial uses to the east across Vulcan
Ave. The environmental impact report for the project recommends
the mitigation measure of design buffering along its eastern edge
to reduce the "nuisance impact" of project visibility and increased
noise to sensitive residential land uses east of the project. Per
project environmental documentation, the projected future noise
environment in the project area is over thresholds of significance
for residential areas.
ADP/cbj/CBJMISC-91039CBR.1(4/29/92-1) 4
Discussion: The project as currently proposed is able to provide
some topographic and landscape buffering along Vulcan Ave. from
Encinitas Blvd. to D Street, but not from D to E Street. The
environmental record establishes that project-generated noise would
not be in excess of defined thresholds of significance for
additional noise in an area already in excess of desirable
residential noise, such that the purpose of buffering would be to
reduce the "nuisance" level of project impact in terms of
visibility and noise. Public testimony as well as the
environmental impact report focus on the necessity of such a design
element to avoid impacts and to maintain desirable community
character in this area of downtown Old Encinitas.
Conclusion: The inability of the project as currently proposed to
provide landscaping or other buffering along the eastern edge of
the proposed bus facility is determined by the Board to constitute
inharmonious and functionally incompatible design in relation to
location of project facilities and use of project open space. The
project as proposed would adversely affect the quality of noise
environment on adjacent properties by increasing noise in an area
already subject to adverse noise levels, without providing the
mitigation of visual buffering.
23.08.072 C. The project would adversely affect the health, safety
or general welfare of the community.
Facts: Note each of the above established facts. In addition to
other environmental analyses submitted with this project, air
quality analyses have been provided addressing localized air
quality impacts.
Discussion: The above discussion and findings establish a record
regarding the general welfare of the community in relationship to
the effects which would be created by this proposed project. The
submitted air quality analyses determine that gaseous, particulate,
and odor emissions resulting from this project would not be
significant, in terms of impact onto adjacent residential uses.
This finding is based on particular and technical definitions of
significance. Public testimony, however, addressed the potential
harmful effects of diesel emissions, and noted the public and
pedestrian environment immediately surrounding the project site in
addition to the adjacent residential area. The Board notes that
the potential use of natural gas buses is not addressed in the
project as presently proposed or in submitted air quality analyses.
Conclusion: The Board concludes that air emissions immediately
adjacent to the project in public and pedestrian corridors
constitutes an adverse health impact; and that the above findings
establish an adverse effect on the general welfare of the
community.
ADP/cbj/CBJMISC-91039CBR.1(4/29/92-1) 5