WHAT KILROY SAYS

WHAT KILROY DOESN'T SAY

In a January 2012 Informational Meeting, Kilroy’s representative claimed that it might spend millions of dollars addressing Carmel Valley’s existing traffic problems. He further said that in connection with their proposed project, they might install at their expense an adaptive traffic control system such as QuicTrac, which was recently installed along San Marcos Blvd. “Data was collected across the Boulevard’s four peak travel times [before and after the system was installed], yielding dramatic results up to 46.0% less traffic delay, 39.1% fewer stops, 7.8% less fuel consumption……”

That sounds really great, doesn’t it?

A visit with San Marcos’ traffic engineers shows it’s not quite the whole story. Although a limited-scope study did reflect a 46.0% reduction in delay times in the eastbound direction of San Marcos Blvd during the sampled peak PM periods, Kilroy’s representative failed to mention that there was an increase in delay times of 31.6% in the westbound direction in the same period, or a 46.9% increase in delay times in the westbound peak AM period.

There was no explanation of what “traffic delays” represent (it’s the amount of time a car was stopped or driving less the 5 MPH), nor that traffic delays are not considered by San Marcos traffic engineers to be the most important metric. Rather, total travel time across a specified length of the road was considered most important. While the study showed the total travel time eastbound received some relief in total travel time in peak periods (-2.7% to -13.6%), it showed only slight improvement to actual worsening (-4.9% to +4.4%) in westbound peak periods.

The following is excerpted from a report to the San Marcos City Council (click image for larger view.)

San Marcos traffic engineers’ overall conclusion was that the adaptive signal system was reasonably effective during non-peak periods, but made relatively little difference when traffic approached road capacity. Their biggest problem, just like it would be on Del Mar Heights Rd., was that freeway ramp metering is timed to keep traffic moving on the freeway--not to accommodate traffic backing up on arterial roads intersecting the freeway.

2010 Brochure: “When Carmel Valley was planned decades ago, our property was zoned for offices with no height limit. This zoning envisions a tall building surrounded by a sea of surface parking….a BETTER USE would be a Main Street for Carmel Valley.”

There are 16 office projects in Carmel Valley that have similar building to land area limitations to Kilroy’s site—15 were built with 3 or 4 stories. There are obvious economic reasons for not building a single tall building in the middle of a large land parcel. “Zoning” might envision a tall building surrounded by a sea of surface parking, but knowledgeable people don’t.

Kilroy’s proposed project, on the other hand, would have 2 10-story buildings (25% taller than any office or residential building in Carmel Valley), 1 8-story building, and 4 5-story buildings.

The whole project totals nearly 4X the current allowable building size.

The rendering below from the plans presents a vision a sea of tall buildings surrounding roads, sidewalks and a scattering of small islands of hardscape/minimally landscaped common areas.

2010 Brochure: “We have designed a public park and lookout at the highest point in the property. From there a grand staircase descends onto Main Street, making it easily accessible by foot".

75% of the so-called park (green shaded area) is an existing community bike path. It may be at the highest point in the property, but all views are blocked by the proposed 10-story and 5-story residential buildings , and even going down the “grand staircase” tunnel (red line) between these buildings, all one would be able to see would be the 4-level parking garage above the cinema and the 10-story office building above the parking garage.

2010 Brochure: “Nestled Office Building. A mid-rise office building has been placed at the lowest elevation of the property, decreasing its prominence and maximizing view sheds.”

The difference in elevation between the site’s highest point along High Bluff Dr. and its lowest point along El Camino Real is approximately 48’.

The plans show a 10-story residential building standing approximately 115’ higher than High Bluff Dr. as well as two office buildings along El Camino Real reaching to a height of approximately 140’ and 95’ respectively higher than High Bluff Dr. With all the buildings along Del Mar Heights Rd. being 5 stories, there will be no view sheds at all from High Bluff Dr. and Del Mar Heights Rd.

Every access point from these two roads will have views only of taller buildings with no view shed of the scenic hills in the background. Here's an elevated view of the High Bluff corner, with the new 10 story residential tower on the right:

2010 Brochure: “Elkus Manfredi’s [the architects] inspired design integrates all the elements necessary to create a unique place that will capture the essence of Carmel Valley and define our community.”

The essence of Carmel Valley is that of a suburban master planned community that was designed to be essentially self-contained. It is known as an attractive community with excellent schools and good accessibility to all areas of San Diego.

The One Paseo-Main Street proposal, which will require a major change to the Community Plan on the last significant undeveloped land parcel in Carmel Valley, would create a project that has 9X more building area (not including parking structures) per acre than the Del Mar Highlands Town Center. It would be nearly 4X its existing allowable building area. It would generate more than 4X as many automobile trips per day as the existing entitlement would. The 10-story buildings would be much taller than any nearby buildings, and the likely types of retail uses would draw from well outside the Carmel Valley community.

The existing essence of Carmel Valley would be compromised and the town center of the community would be re-defined with urban downtown densities, but without the road infrastructure or mass transit facilities that typically accompany such density.

Kilroy's web site: "Over and over, we heard that Carmel Valley needs a central gathering place for local residents with a mix of compatible uses…The property is uniquely situated to create a central gathering place – at the center of an already mixed-use neighborhood – with a variety of shops, restaurants, residential alternatives and office employment"

From this description, would you know that only 1 acre of land was designated as the “Main Plaza Lot.” This represents only 4.5% of the entire One Paseo site. You can see the plaza below. For reference, the red square is about 1/2 acre...

Would you know that this lot includes what would typically be included as setbacks for the 10-story office building, the 8-story office building and the two-story retail building that form three sides of this lot—the other being the busy interior Main Street? If a typical 15’ setback for landscaping and sidewalks were deducted from the 1 acre lot, it would net about 0.7 acres.

Would you know that this is almost exactly the size of a dedicated cul de sac street off Del Mar Heights Rd. , which the developer is asking the City of San Diego to vacate?

So, the developer is taking land that it would otherwise not be able to build and land that belonged to the City of San Diego, paving it over and calling it a “central gathering place.”

So, in exchange for allocating 4.5% of its site to the central gathering place, it is asking for a nearly 4X greater building entitlement.

Is this a fair deal for the community???

Doesn’t this sound like the developer is tossing the community a “bone” while trying to walk away with the steak?