Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2006-11-14; City Council; 18790 Part II; Robertson Ranch Master Plan
EXHIBIT 5 The City of Carlsbad Planning Department A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Item No. P.C. AGENDA OF: May 31, 2006 Application complete date: N/A Project Planner: Barbara Kennedy Project Engineer: Jeremy Riddle SUBJECT: EIR 03-03/MP 02-03/GPA 02-04/LFMP 14(B)/HMP 06-04 - ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN and CT 02-16/HDP 02-07/SUP 02-05 - ROBERTSON RANCH EAST VILLAGE MASTER TENTATIVE MAP - Request for: 1) a recommendation for certification of an Environmental Impact Report, and recommendation of adoption of the Candidate Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and a request for a recommendation of approval for the Robertson Ranch Master Plan, General Plan Amendment, Zone 14 Local Facilities Management Plan Amendment, and Habitat Management Plan Permit for Incidental Take consistent with the City's Habitat Management Plan for the Robertson Ranch Master Plan; and 2) a request for approval of a Master Tentative Tract Map, Hillside Development Permit, and Floodplain Special Use Permit for the 176 acre East Village of the Robertson Ranch Master Plan. The Robertson Ranch Master Plan encompasses a 398 acre site located north of El Camino Real, east of Tamarack Avenue, and east and west of College Boulevard, and east and west of Cannon Road in Local Facilities Management Zone 14. I. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission: 1) ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 6105 RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION of EIR 03-03 and RECOMMENDING ADOPTION of the Candidate Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 6106, 6107, 6108, and 6109 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of MP 02-03, GPA 02-04, LFMP 14(B) and HMP 06-04 - ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN; and, 2) ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions No. 6110, 6111 and 6112 APPROVING CT 02- 16, HDP 02-07 and SUP 02-05 - ROBERTSON RANCH EAST VILLAGE MASTER TENTATIVE MAP; based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. EIR 03-03/ MP 02-03/GPA 02-04/LFMP 14(B)/HMP 06-04 - ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN and CT 02-16/HDP 02-07/SUP 02-05 - ROBERTSON RANCH EAST VILLAGE MASTER TENTATIVE MAP May 31,2006 Page 2 II. INTRODUCTION The Robertson Ranch project area consists of 398 acres located in the northeast quadrant of the City located within Local Facilities Management Zone 14. The property owners have prepared a Master Plan for the site to provide for the orderly development of a variety of land uses. A Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared which analyzes potential impacts to the environment which may be caused by the development of the site. The Master Plan's proposed land uses include a maximum of 1,383 residential dwelling units of various product types and lot sizes, a 13 acre (net) village commercial center with a community facilities component, an RV storage area, a 13.5 acre (net) public park, over 140 acres of open space preserve, and additional community recreation open space. The proposal includes a number of discretionary actions for approval of the Master Plan and approval of the East Village Master Tentative Map as follows: 1) The Robertson Ranch Master Plan requires adoption of a new master plan for the property entitled the Robertson Ranch Master Plan, together with a General Plan Amendment, a Local Facilities Management Plan Amendment for Zone 14, a Habitat Management Plan Permit, and certification of a Program Environmental Impact Report prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and adoption of the Candidate Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. 2) The developer of the East Village of Robertson Ranch is requesting approval of a Master Tentative Tract Map, a Hillside Development Permit, and a Floodplain Special Use Permit to allow for subdivision of the East Village into Planning Areas and to allow for mass grading and installation of major infrastructure improvements. There is one unresolved Master Plan issue with regard to Planning Area 22 (PA 22) which is currently planned for development of 20 courtyard homes. Staff is recommending that PA 22 be designated as an "Unplanned Area" for reasons outlined in Section IV.A. of the staff report. Other than this item, there are no outstanding staff issues and all necessary findings can be made for the requested approvals. III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND The Robertson Ranch Master Plan project area is generally located on the north side of El Camino Real, east of Tamarack Avenue, east and west of College Boulevard, and west of the Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park. The 398 acre site consists of rolling hills and high terraces with three distinct drainages traversing the site on the west, central and eastern portions of the site. The site is also traversed by two SDG&E utility easements containing high voltage electrical transmission lines, poles and associated access roads. The majority of the project site consists of agricultural lands and the property has been farmed since about 1928. In addition to agricultural lands, the site contains a variety of native vegetation communities including chemise chaparral and Diegan coastal sage scrub communities located on the higher slopes and canyons of the site, with riparian habitat located within the natural drainages. Calavera Creek, a tributary EIR 03-03/ MP 02-03/GPA 02-04/LFMP 14(B)/HMP 06-04 - ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN and CT 02-16/HDP 02-07/SUP 02-05 - ROBERTSON RANCH EAST VILLAGE MASTER TENTATIVE MAP May 31,2006 Page 3 to Agua Hedionda Creek, runs north to south along the eastern boundary of the site and through an existing box culvert under College Boulevard and Cannon Road. The site supports a number of sensitive plant and animal species, including California Gnatcatcher and Least Bell's Vireos. Land uses surrounding the site include undeveloped/agricultural land to the south and east, established residential subdivisions located to the north, west and south, and the Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Estates located along the Master Plan's southeastern boundary. The Robertson Ranch property is divided into two ownerships. The East Village, which contains about 178 acres, is owned by a partnership of Me Millan Companies and Brookfield Homes. The remaining 220 acres in the West Village are owned by the Robertson family. The project site was rezoned in 2003 from L-C (Limited Control) to P-C (Planned Community). The purpose of the previous L-C zone designation was to provide an interim zone for areas where planning for future land uses has not been completed. The intent and purpose of the P-C zone includes, among others, to provide for and encourage the orderly implementation of the City's General Plan by providing a flexible regulatory procedure to encourage creative planning of coordinated communities. The P-C zone requires adoption of a master plan prior to approval of any permits for development on the property. A detailed description of the components of the Robertson Ranch Master Plan is included in the analysis section (IV. A. - Master Plan) of the staff report. A Program EIR has been prepared for the Robertson Ranch Master Plan and includes an analysis of potential environmental impacts associated with the following issue areas: Land Use, Traffic/Circulation, Air Quality, Noise, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology/Soils, Paleontological Resources, Agricultural Resources, Hazardous Materials and Hazards, Grading and Aesthetics, Hydrology/Water Quality, Population/Housing, and Public Services and Utilities. The EIR concludes that the project will result in: (1) significant unavoidable impacts to Transportation/Circulation and Air Quality (Long-term Mobile Emissions); (2) significant impacts to Air Quality (Short-term Construction), Noise, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology/Soils, Paleontological Resources, Hazardous Materials and Hazards, Grading and Aesthetics, Hydrology/Water Quality, and Public Services and Utilities that can be mitigated to a less than significant impact level; and (3) impacts considered in the EIR but found to be less than significant. (See Section V. Environmental Review, of this report for a more detailed discussion of the EIR analysis). The Master Plan and East Village development proposals will require the following discretionary actions: • Certification of a Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR 03-03) The Program EIR constitutes all environmental review required for approval of this Master Plan and all related discretionary actions. 303 EIR 03-03/ MP 02-03/GPA 02-04/LFMP 14(B)/HMP 06-04 - ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN and CT 02-16/HDP 02-07/SUP 02-05 - ROBERTSON RANCH EAST VILLAGE MASTER TENTATIVE MAP May 31,2006 >- Page 4 • Master Plan CMP 02-03) Master plans are required for properties over 100 acres in size and which are located in the Planned Community (P-C) zone. • General Plan Amendment (GPA 02-04) A General Plan Amendment is required to amend the General Plan Land Use designations within the project site to be consistent with the land uses proposed by the Master Plan document. • Amended Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 14 (LFMP 14(B)) Pursuant to the City's Growth Management Program (Title 21, Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code (CMC)), a Local Facilities Management Plan (LFMP) amendment has been filed for Zone 14 concurrently with this Master Plan. The amendment addresses the public facilities, infrastructure requirements, capital improvements and financing mechanisms which will be required to adequately serve the project. • Habitat Management Plan Permit (HMP 06-04) A Habitat Management Plan Permit is required for Incidental Take consistent with the City's Habitat Management Plan. • Master Tentative Map (CT 02-16) A Master Tentative Map has been filed concurrently with this Master Plan for the portion of the site identified as the "East Village". • Hillside Development Permit (HDP 02-07) Hillside Development Permits are required for all neighborhoods proposed on land with a slope gradient of 15 percent or greater and a slope height greater than 15 feet hi accordance with Chapter 21.95 of the CMC. • Special Use Permit - Floodplain (SUP 02-05) A Floodplain Special Use Permit shall be applied for at the time the related Master Tentative Tract Map is submitted and shall be obtained before construction or development begins within any area of special flood hazards, area of flood-related erosion hazards, or areas or mudslide hazards established in Section 21.110.070 of the CMC. The proposed project is subject to the following plans, ordinances, standards and policies: • Environmental Protection Procedures (Title 19) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) • General Plan • Habitat Management Plan (HMP) • Planned Community (P-C) Zone, Chapter 21.3 8 of the CMC • Growth Management, Chapter 21.90 of the CMC • City Council Policy 43 - Proposition E "Excess Dwelling" Unit Bank EIR 03-03/MP 02-03/GPA 02,-04/LFMP 14(B)/HMP 06-04 -ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN and CT 02-16/HDP 02-07/SUP 02-05 - ROBERTSON RANCH EAST VILLAGE MASTER TENTATIVE MAP May 31,2006 ,. PageS • Planned Development Ordinance, Chapter 21.45 of the CMC • City Council Policy 20 - Street Naming and Addressing Policy • El Camino Real Corridor Development Standards • Subdivision Ordinance, Title 20 of the CMC • Hillside Development Regulations, Chapter 21.95 of the CMC • Floodplain Management Regulations, Chapter 21.110 of the CMC 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. The format follows the discretionary actions being requested to permit the development of the Robertson Ranch Master Plan and East Village Master Tentative Map projects. The Environmental Review analysis is discussed in the last section of the staff report. A. Master Plan The intent and purpose of creating a master plan is to encourage the orderly implementation of the General Plan by the comprehensive planning and development of large tracts of land. A master plan provides a flexible regulatory procedure to encourage the creative and imaginative planning of coordinated communities involving a mixture of residential densities and housing types, open space, community facilities, and where appropriate, commercial and industrial areas. All master plans are required to reserve a site (or sites) for community facility uses which benefit the community as a whole by satisfying social/religious/human service needs. The Master Plan will provide a framework to allow for the coordination of planning efforts between the developer and the City to provide for the orderly development of all necessary public facilities to ensure their availability concurrent with need. The Master Plan also provides some assurance to the developer that later development will be acceptable to the City provided that such plans are in accordance with the approved Master Plan. The Robertson Ranch Master Plan is envisioned as a balanced, master planned community integrating residential, commercial, recreational and open space land uses on 398 acres of undeveloped and agricultural lands in the City of Carlsbad. The project design is strongly driven by the City's adopted Habitat Management Plan (HMP), Planned Development Ordinance (PD), City Council Policy 44 - Neighborhood Architectural Design Guidelines, City Council Policy 66 - Livable Neighborhoods Policies, and the "Ahwahnee Principles" for livable communities. The HMP identifies the site as an important component of the city's overall open space preserve system and the project has been designed to preserve approximately 140 acres of open space on site, including riparian habitat and Coastal sage scrub habitat. The Master Plan establishes "Link B," a north-south oriented wildlife movement corridor between "Core Areas" 2, 3 and 4, which traverses the project site. The accommodation of the HMP corridor results in a community consisting of two villages, featuring a range of land uses, housing opportunities, commercial and community facility uses, recreational facilities, and open space. The Master Plan's proposed land uses include a maximum of 1,383 residential dwelling units of various product types and lot sizes, a 13 acre (net) village commercial center with a community facilities component, an RV EIR 03-03/MP 02-03/GPA 02-04/LFMP 14(B)/HMP 06-04 - ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN and CT 02-16/HDP 02-07/SUP 02-05 - ROBERTSON RANCH EAST VILLAGE MASTER TENTATIVE MAP May 31,2006 Page 6 storage area, a 13.5 acre (net) public park, over 140 acres of open space preserve, and additional community recreation open space. Pursuant to Chapter 21.38 of the CMC (Planned Community Zone), adoption of the Master Plan will establish the type and intensity of land use and the zoning and development standards for the property. Table 1, Robertson Ranch Master Plan Land Use Summary, provides the acreage and land use tabulations for the Master Plan. TABLE 1 - ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN LAND USE SUMMARY LAND USE Residential development Low-Medium Density RLM (0-4 du/ac) Medium Density RM (4-8 du/ac) Medium-High Density RMH (8-1 5 du/ac) High Density RH( 15-23 du/ac) Residential Subtotal EAST VILLAGE Gross Acreage 69.0 acres 9.0 acres 7.1 acres 85.1 acres WEST VILLAGE Gross Acreage 24.3 acres 57.6 acres . 30.1 acres 112.0 acres TOTAL Gross Acreage 24.3 acres 126.6 acres 9.0 acres 37.2 acres 197.1 acres Non-Residential RV Storage CF (Community Facilities) Community Recreation (OS) Village Center (L/CF) (Local Shopping Center/ Community Facilities) Public Park(OS) Water Quality Facility (OS) Open Space Preserve (OS) Non-Residential Subtotal Gross Acreage 1.7 acres - - 2.9 acres 72.4 acres 77.0 acres Gross Acreage 3.3 acres 1.1 acres 15.1 acres 13. 9 acres - 68.1 acres 101.5 acres Gross Acreage 3.3 acres 2.8 acres 15.1 acres 13.9 acres 2.9 acres 140.5 acres 178.5 acres Major Roadways PROJECT TOTAL 162.1 acres*213.5 acres* 22.4 acres 398.0 acres * Not including major roadways Chapter 21.38, Planned Community Zone, specifies the required contents of all master plans. Requirements include a map of the property boundaries, land use map, open space program, development process, infrastructure improvements, grading scheme, development standards, and an analysis of the project's fiscal impact on the City. The Robertson Ranch Master Plan provides the necessary components within five chapters plus appendices. The following is a general listing of the contents of each chapter and the appendices, including a summary of the Fiscal Impact Analysis prepared for the project. EIR 03-03/MP 02-03/GPA 02.-04/LFMP 14(B)/HMP 06-04 - ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN and CT 02-16/HDP 02-07/SUP 02-05 - ROBERTSON RANCH EAST VILLAGE MASTER TENTATIVE MAP May 31,2006 Page? Chapter I - Introduction: The introduction includes the historical context, the purpose and intent of the Master Plan, a description of the project site, an overall description, the entitlements needed to implement the Master Plan and subsequent projects, and the authority granted by the Master Plan. Chapter II - Detailed Plan Description: This chapter discusses the planning context for the Master Plan and how the "Awhanee Principles" techniques for livable communities are integrated into the Master Plan. The relationship of the project to the City's General Plan and Zoning regulations are discussed. This chapter provides a detailed description of the proposed land uses and outlines the general development review process. General provisions are also included to guide future development within the Master Plan. Chapter III - Development and Regulatory Provisions: The Development Standards and Land Use Regulations for each of the 23 Planning Areas are provided in this chapter. Detailed Design Guidelines, which are included in the second half of the chapter, address the project design theme, architectural design and standards, and landscape guidelines for the Master Plan. Chapter IV - Public Facilities and Infrastructure Plan: This chapter discusses the relationship of the project to the amended Zone 14 LFMP, and includes detailed descriptions of the project's circulation plan, sewer plan, water and reclaimed water plan, drainage plan, solid waste disposal, fire protection, and gas and electric services. Chapter V - Master Plan Implementation Measures: This section of the document discusses the relative timing of the improvement and financing programs needed to implement the project, and focuses on the procedures required for the implementation and amendment of the Master Plan. Appendices: The appendices include the following information: Appendix A - Master Plans consistency with the General Plan, Appendix B - Awhanee Principles Appendix C - Hillside Ordinance Compliance Appendix D - Consistency with the El Camino Real Corridor Development Standards Appendix E - Legal description for the Master Plan. Fiscal Impacts Analysis: A fiscal impact study was prepared for the Robertson Ranch Master Plan, entitled Fiscal Impact Analysis of Master Plan, dated October 12, 2005, and is on file with the Planning Department, and copies have been provided to the Planning Commission. In summary, the study shows that the ultimate build-out of the Robertson Ranch Master Plan as proposed will result in City revenues which fall short of City expenditures required to provide City services to the residents within the Robertson Ranch community. The report states that the negative fiscal impacts are due primarily to the predominance of residential land uses in the Master Plan. As reflected in the General Fund operating budget, the City of Carlsbad has chosen to provide high standards of municipal services for its residents, funded in part by large revenues generated by commercial retail and hospitality developments. As a result, the General Fund expenditures for public services provided to the City's residences exceed revenues generated by them. EIR 03-03/MP 02-03/GPA 02.-04/LFMP 14(B)/HMP 06-04 - ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN and CT 02-16/HDP 02-07/SUP 02-05 - ROBERTSON RANCH EAST VILLAGE MASTER TENTATIVE MAP May 31,2006 PageS The following discussion provides a summary of the land use components and features of the Master Plan. Issues resolved through the Master Plan include land use compatibility, residential density, commercial and community facilities uses, circulation, drainage, infrastructure and development standards specific to the Robertson Ranch Master Plan versus those that are otherwise applied to the remainder of the City. Residential The Master Plan proposes a maximum of 1,383 dwelling units in a variety of product types and densities with a net residential density of 4.6 dwelling units per acre. New General Plan Land Use Designations are proposed that will reflect the precise locations of the residential uses, non- residential land uses, and open space preserve. New residential land uses range from Low- Medium Density (RLM) to High Density (RH) to reflect the clustering of the allowed residential development in areas outside of the open space preserve, as required by the City's Habitat Management Plan. The proposed residential development includes a broad range of lot sizes, product types, and densities which will further enhance the diversity of housing opportunities within the community. A summary of the residential development is included in Table 2 below: TABLE 2 - RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY Product Type 5,000 sf lots* 6,000 sf lots 7,500 sf lots 1 0,000 sf lots Courtyard homes Multi-family (Medium Density) Multi-family (High Density) Total Number of Units East Village 304 - - - 107 - 143 554 West Village 55 143 45 25 - 27 534 829 Total 359 143 45 25 107 27 677 1,383 * 4,500 sf lots are allowed adjacent to Cannon Road within PA 18. Affordable Housing The project is required to comply with the City's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, Chapter 21.85 of the CMC. The ordinance requires that fifteen (15%) percent of the total residential units shall be available to "Lower-income" households, defined as, "...households...whose gross income does not exceed eighty (80%) percent of the median income for San Diego County as determined annually by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development". As proposed, the Robertson Ranch Master Plan would be obligated to provide a maximum of 207 dwelling units which are affordable to lower-income households, based on the maximum number of allowed units (1,383 dwelling units) within the project. The actual number of required lower- income units will be based on the final number of approved dwelling units. Each Village will be responsible for providing their share of affordable units which is anticipated to be 83 units in the East Village and 124 units in the West Village. The designated sites for affordable housing are Planning Area 15 in the East Village and Planning Areas 7, 8, and/or 13 in the West Village. In addition, the West Village will provide 56 moderate-rate units as a requirement for the allocation 308 EIR 03-03/MP 02-03/GPA OZ-04/LFMP 14(B)/HMP 06-04 - ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN and CT 02-16/HDP 02-07/SUP 02-05 - ROBERTSON RANCH EAST VILLAGE MASTER TENTATIVE MAP May 31,2006 Page 9 of excess dwelling units as discussed in more detail under Section IV.C. of the staff report. Site Development Plans for the affordable units will need to be approved concurrently or in advance of any development proposals for market-rate units. The affordable units will need to be constructed according to the schedule contained in the Affordable Housing Agreements for the East and West Villages. Village Center The City's General Plan identified a "floating" land use designation for a Commercial Shopping Center within the project area. To meet this requirement, Planning Area 11 (PA 11) is designated as a 13.0-acre (net) site for development-as a "Village Center" which combines the Master Plan's community facilities requirement with commercial uses. It is intended that PA 11 will provide 5.0 acres of community facilities uses together with a minimum of 8.0 acres of neighborhood commercial uses. It is estimated that a maximum of 175,000 square feet will be developed as community facilities/commercial retail joint use. In addition to these uses, PA 11 may incorporate mixed-use residential units on the second story using units allocated to the West Village or elsewhere on the project site. Community Facilities requirements for the Master Plan are based on Section 21.25.070 of the CMC which specifies that the number of acres of Community Facilities required by master planned developments is calculated as 2.0 acres, plus 1% of the unconstrained acreage of the site. Accordingly, the project site contains a total of 299.9 unconstrained acres, including the 5.7-acre Option Parcel. Therefore, the maximum requirement for Community Facilities is 1% of 299.9 acres (3.0 acres) plus 2.0 acres, for a total of 5.0 acres of community facilities uses. Development of community facilities must include child daycare, and may include churches, charitable services, social clubs, or other uses allowed by a conditional use permit. The Community Facilities site may also include the relocation of the Robertson Ranch House and creation of a museum. The consolidation of community facilities and neighborhood commercial uses within a single planning area is intended to reflect the Ahwahnee Principles, which encourage the establishment of a "center focus" that combines commercial, civic, and cultural uses. Also, in conformance with the Ahwahnee Principles, the center focus will encourage the attention and presence of people, and will be located within easy walking distance of transit stops and the residences it will serve. To reduce the appearance of commercialization along the El Camino Real Corridor, design guidelines have been built into the Master Plan to insure that there are adequate buffers so the scenic qualities of the corridor are not compromised. Additionally, the site will not have direct access from El Camino Real, in that access into the commercial area will be from Street "Z" and a local collector road within the West Village development area. RV Storage Section 21.45.060 of the CMC (General Requirements for Planned Development) requires that a minimum of 20 square feet of RV Storage Area be provided for each dwelling unit in a planned development. Of the total project dwelling units, a maximum of 554 of the dwelling units located in the East Village and 759 of the units in the West Village of the Master Plan are proposed to be constructed as Planned Developments. This results in a total maximum requirement of approximately 0.6 acres of RV storage for the Master Plan. Planning Area 2 (PA EIR 03-03/MP 02-03/GPA 01-04/LFMP 14(B)/HMP 06-04 - ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN and CT 02-16/HDP 02-07/SUP 02-05 - ROBERTSON RANCH EAST VILLAGE MASTER TENTATIVE MAP May 31,2006 Page 10 2) within the West Village measures approximately 3.3 gross acres (2.0 net acres) in size and is provided to meet the RV Storage requirements for the entire Master Plan. RV Storage areas provided in PA 2 that exceed the Master Plan requirements may be made available to the general public for a fee. It is anticipated that the RV Storage site in PA 2 will be constructed in conjunction with the East Village developments. However, in the event that PA 2 is not constructed concurrently with the East Village, a temporary RV Storage Facility may be provided within any single-family neighborhood of the East Village, or in another location acceptable to the City, subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Parks and Community Recreation Facilities The Master Plan provides a variety of active and passive recreational opportunities throughout the development area. The developers of the Master Plan are required to dedicate 9.8 acres of park land, with an option for the City to purchase a minimum of 4.1 additional acres for the purpose of developing a City park with three soccer fields. The park is located within Planning Area 12 (PA 12) near the northwest intersection of Cannon Road and El Camino Real. In addition to the City park, a number of private recreational facilities are proposed throughout the Master Plan. The Master Plan has been designed so that both the East and West Villages provide a centralized recreation facility measuring no less than 1.0 net acre (Planning Areas 4 and 19). These centralized community recreation areas will serve all residential neighborhoods within the respective villages, and will include both active and passive recreation facilities which could include recreational buildings, patio verandas for gatherings, swimming pools, spas, tennis courts, tot lots, basketball courts, shuffle board, horseshoe pits, and parking. The Planned Development (PD) requirements also require the provision of a minimum of 200 square feet of community recreation facilities per unit for planning areas subject to the PD requirements. The Master Plan also includes a special requirement for multi-family planning areas to provide 100 square feet of passive and active recreation areas per unit. At least 25% of the area will be provided in the form of pocket parks or common passive recreation areas, while 75% of the area shall be allocated for active facilities such as tennis courts, horseshoe pits, or tot lots. It is anticipated that the total recreation area provided pursuant to the Master Plan requirements will be (at a minimum) 3.52 net acres in the East Village and 3.98 net acres in the West Village. These community recreation facilities exceed the community recreation requirements of the Planned Development Ordinance. The exact size and location of all of the required recreation areas will be determined at the time of tentative map or site development plan approval for each Planning Area. Trails and Pedestrian Circulation System The Master Plan provides for a variety of Pedestrian Circulation and Trail alternatives that include Circulation Element Trails and Recreational Trails which are both City-wide trails; and Enhanced Parkways and Neighborhood Connections which are community trails. Circulation Element Trails are proposed along one side of the Major Arterial Roadways (Cannon Road and College Boulevard) and will be constructed of stabilized decomposed granite (DG) and will be located within a 30-foot wide landscape buffer. Similarly, Recreation Trails will be constructed with stabilized DG, but will be located along the Master Plan's single-loaded roadways, through a to EIR 03-03/MP 02-03/GPA 01-04/LFMP 14(B)/HMP 06-04 - ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN and CT 02-16/HDP 02-07/SUP 02-05 - ROBERTSON RANCH EAST VILLAGE MASTER TENTATIVE MAP May 31,2006 >. Page 11 the park site (PA 12) and in several key locations within the open space preserve areas. The use of Recreational Trails within or across the HMP open space has been minimized to reduce the potential for impacts to sensitive habitat types. Where feasible, Recreation Trails within the open space will be located congruent .to existing trails or utility access roads. In addition to the City-wide trails, the Master Plan provides for two types of community trails. Enhanced Parkways, located along the Master Plan's modified major and secondary arterial roads (Streets "A," "0," and "Z") and along several of the collector and local roads, will include meandering sidewalks located within expanded landscape buffers. These Enhanced Parkways form the backbone of the pedestrian circulation plan and provide pedestrians with connections to the various project amenities, such as community facilities, the village center, and community recreation areas. These Enhanced Parkways are complemented by the other trail types and sidewalks located within the Master Plan community. The second type of community trails consists of Neighborhood Connections. Neighborhood Connections will be reviewed with the tentative subdivision maps or site development plans for the various Planning Areas. These connections will provide informal links between neighborhoods as well as provide neighborhood links to surrounding features such as community recreation areas, bus stops, Recreation Trails, and Circulation Element Trails. The Master Plan states that Neighborhood Connections should achieve the following goals: • Provide pedestrian connections between neighborhood cul-de-sacs; • Provide direct links to bus stops from adjacent neighborhoods; • Provide direct links to Circulation Element Trails; • Provide informal pedestrian connections between neighborhoods; and • Provide informal pedestrian connections to and through community recreation areas and pocket parks. Open Space Preserve The City of Carlsbad HMP identifies this site as an important wildlife movement corridor between two of the core habitat areas. The HMP shows a critical linkage between "Core Area 3" which contains the Calavera Heights and Carlsbad Highlands Mitigation Banks and "Core Area 4" which includes the Agua Hedionda Lagoon and upland habitats to the east. Portions of this link currently contain agricultural lands and the Parkway Nursery operations. Therefore, the developers of the Master Plan will be required to revegetate and restore a large part of the preserve area as a habitat area. In addition to creating this new linkage, the development will also be preserving most of the other significant habitat that exists on the site. The site contains Diegan coastal sage scrub, riparian, and chaparral habitat, including habitat used by the California Gnatcatcher. The project design preserves over 140 acres of open space, including 2.9 acres within a water quality facility, 2.3 acres of eucalyptus groves adjacent to Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park, and approximately 138.2 acres of open space preserve area. The project's compliance with the City's HMP is described in more detail in Section IV.F. of the staff report. Circulation The developer of the East Village is required to construct full width improvements along College Boulevard and Cannon Road including two thru-lanes each way, an 18-foot raised median, bike EIR 03-03/MP 02-03/GPA 01-04/LFMP 14(B)/HMP 06-04 - ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN and CT 02-16/HDP 02-07/SUP 02-05 - ROBERTSON RANCH EAST VILLAGE MASTER TENTATIVE MAP May 31,2006 Page 12 , lanes, and parkway. Access to the East Village Planning Areas will be via two new signalized intersections at Streets "A" and "O". The developer of the West Village is required to construct El Camino Real to its ultimate planned prime arterial width, with three thru-lanes in each direction, an 18-foot raised median, turn lanes at Tamarack Avenue, Cannon Road and Street "Z", and bike lanes. A new signalized intersection at Street "Z" (Lisa Street) will provide access to the West Village development areas. The extensions of Edinburg Drive and Glasgow Drive, local streets at the north boundary of the Master Plan, are also proposed. In order to address neighborhood concerns regarding traffic impacts to the neighborhoods, traffic calming features will be incorporated into future developments to slow the speed of traffic and to discourage cut-thru traffic in and out of the existing neighborhoods. Access to PA 1 will be via an extension of Kelly Drive at the existing signalized intersection and at a secondary access point on Tamarack Avenue. To address the potential of cut-through traffic at this corner, the Master Plan specifies that the 27 homes within PA 1 may be developed as a gated community. Drainage A number of drainage improvements will be constructed with the Robertson Ranch Master Plan which will address many of the flooding issues raised by the adjacent Rancho Carlsbad Home Owners Association (RCHOA) and residents. Several facilities currently exist, including Facility BJA (36" RCP within College Boulevard Reach B and outlets to the east into existing Detention Basin Facility BJB) and Facility BJB located in the "panhandle" portion of the Master Plan. Facility BJB was built as part of a regional solution to the existing flooding that occurs in the Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park. Detention basin BJB and Calavera Creek drains into an existing 11-foot x 7-foot culvert crossing under Cannon Road. As part of the development of the East Village, a new culvert, designed as an 84" RCP, is proposed to be built along the north side of Cannon Road. The 84" RCP is designed to intercept approximately 500 cubic feet per second of storm run-off from the existing 11-foot x 7-foot culvert. The 84-inch RCP serves to reduce flood waters to the RCHOA by shifting certain flood waters from the north portion of Calavera Creek to the underground 84-inch RCP in Cannon Road. The 84-inch RCP will still allow low storm flows to feed to Calavera Creek to maintain the riparian habitat. The 84-inch RCP would also intercept runoff from the East Village development. The 84-inch RCP will outlet north of Cannon Road near El Camino Real where the flow would continue through a culvert under El Camino Real to the Agua Hedionda Lagoon. Low flows in the 84-inch RCP will be routed into a water quality facility south of Cannon Road (PA 20) and then flow under Cannon Road through existing culverts. These facilities, along with other desiltation basins and storm drain facilities with the West Village development are discussed in more detail in Chapter IV of the Master Plan. Phasing The Robertson Ranch Master Plan is intended to be developed in a logical sequence in five main phases over a period of approximately 7-10 years. The first phase of development will occur within the East Village together with dedication of the open space in PA 23D, 23E, and 23F. Dedication of the park site is also required with the first phase of development. Grading within EIR 03-03/MP 02-03/GPA 02-04/LFMP 14(B)/HMP 06-04 - ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN and CT 02-16/HDP 02-07/SUP 02-05 - ROBERTSON RANCH EAST VILLAGE MASTER TENTATIVE MAP May 31,2006 Page 13 the habitat corridor of Phase II (PA 23 C) is required soon after expiration of the Parkway Nursery lease pursuant to the HMP concurrence letter on file with the City of Carlsbad. The West Village may be developed in one or more phases. Dedication of the open space in PA 23A & 23B will be required with the first discretionary application for the West Village. Because portions of the West Village may remain as open space and/or under agricultural production for some time in the future, the Master Plan has designated a number of the West Village development areas as having an "Interim Land Use Overlay" (Figure II-5) until such time that the "Final Land Uses" are implemented. The purpose of the Interim Land Use Overlay is to allow for the immediate development of portions of the Master Plan, while allowing agricultural and open space uses to continue during the interim period. Each phase of the Master Plan can be graded independently, with overlapping timeframes as may be determined by the developer and the City. City standards require that all public facility performance standards identified in the Zone 14 Local Facilities Management Plan must be complied with by each individual phase of development. Construction of the affordable housing units for the East and West Villages will be provided in relation to the timing of the market-rate units, pursuant to the terms of the affordable housing agreements for each Village. A recreational vehicle storage site (PA 2) will serve both the East and West Villages. This RV storage site (or alternative temporary facilities) must be provided prior to the occupancy of residential units within the planned development neighborhoods. Planned Development Consistency Analysis The Master Plan has been designed to comply with the regulations contained within the Planned Development Ordinance and RD-M zone, with the exception of several modifications related to setbacks, parking, and recreational open space. These deviations provide additional flexibility for creative design solutions within the future residential development areas. For example, detached "courtyard homes" are proposed within Planning Areas 21 and 22. The zoning ordinance does not currently include standards that encourage development of this product type. In other instances, the Master Plan requirements provide additional standards for development such as additional landscape buffers or recreation area requirements. A comparison of the proposed modifications contained within the Master Plan is provided as Attachment 13 of the staff report. Architectural Review Process for Detached Single-Family Units To determine compliance with the provisions of the Master Plan a Tentative Map and Site Development Plan (SDP) is required for development of single-family detached dwelling units on lots with a minimum lot area of 7,500 square feet or larger, and a Tentative Map and Planned Development Permit (PUD) is required for small lot projects with minimum lot sizes of 4,500 square feet but less than 7,500 square feet. A Tentative Map can be processed separately, with the SDP or PUD amendment processed at a later date for the architecture and plotting. The Planning Commission shall be the final decision making body (unless appealed) for any SDP or PUD amendment processed after approval of the tentative map, regardless of the number of units in the previously approved tentative map. Consistent with the CMC, Tentative Maps proposing 50 units or less shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission and Tentative Maps proposing 51 units or 313 EIR 03-03/MP 02-03/GPA 01-04/LFMP 14(B)/HMP 06-04 - ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN and CT 02-16/HDP 02-07/SUP 02-05 - ROBERTSON RANCH EAST VILLAGE MASTER TENTATIVE MAP May 31,2006 Page 14 more shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission and forwarded to the City Council for review. Design Theme The two villages of Robertson Ranch are linked through consistent landscaping and architectural themes. Design guidelines and development standards contained within the Master Plan ensure high quality development and a community identity. The Architectural Design Guidelines utilize architectural elements consistent with traditional European and early California design themes. The Landscape Design Guidelines establish the project's character and ensure a high quality development by providing thematic continuity throughout the entire community. Community elements such as entries, streetscapes, walls and fences, as well as land use transition areas, establish the design theme for the community by reinforcing the design hierarchy and visually defining community areas and boundaries. City Council Policy 20 - Street Naming and Addressing Policy The Master Plan is proposing that public and private street names within the East and West Village of the Master Plan may deviate from the provisions of City Council Policy 20 - Street Naming and Addressing Policy. Policy 20 requires streets within "Area 2" to reflect topographical characteristics. Because street names are limited to a total of 16 letters and spaces, and most of the easily recognizable topographic names have already been used, it has become challenging to create new street names. Therefore, in addition to the allowed "topographical characteristics" theme, the Master Plan proposes the following additional themes: 1) the East Village streets will reflect a trail theme, and 2) the West Village streets will reflect an historic theme. Both trail-themed and historically-themed street names shall be subject to approval by the Planning Director. Hillside Development Consistency The conceptual grading plan for the Master Plan has been reviewed for consistency with the Hillside Development Ordinance as shown in Appendix C of the Master Plan. Two areas of concern are development of steep slopes and grading volumes. The conceptual grading plan shows that grading will occur outside of steep slope areas (40% slope or greater), with the exception of grading for circulation element roadways. In order to minimize grading and visual impacts along El Camino Real, the Master Plan includes provisions for any retaining walls to be constructed with a natural bluff or rock face so that the wall will blend in with the natural surroundings. Grading volumes for the Master Plan overall are anticipated to be within the "potentially acceptable" range of 8,000 to 10,000 cubic yards per acre and grading within the development areas will be designed in terraced pads to follow the natural topography of the site, where feasible. When viewed as separate projects, the East Village grading quantities are considered within the "acceptable range" as discussed in the Hillside Regulations section of the staff report (Section IV.G). It is anticipated that the West Village grading will fall within the "potentially acceptable" range, which will require a specific finding of justification of the grading volumes by the Planning Director and City Engineer at the time that discretionary permits for the West Village are reviewed. It is anticipated that this justification can be made due to; (a) increased volumes associated with flat pads required for higher density uses (increased affordability) on EIR 03-03/MP 02-03/GPA 02-04/LFMP 14(B)/HMP 06-04 - ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN and CT 02-16/HDP 02-07/SUP 02-05 - ROBERTSON RANCH EAST VILLAGE MASTER TENTATIVE MAP May 31,2006 Page 15 PA 7 and 8, (b) increased volumes associated with flat pads required for commercial and community uses on PA 11, and (c) thru-street vehicular connectivity required between existing El Camino Real (vertical elevation set) and existing Calavera Hills connecting streets (vertical elevation set). Because the City goals of increased variety of housing types and affordability, commercial and community land uses and internal circulation connectivity would be achieved, the potentially acceptable grading volume could be deemed acceptable. El Camino Real Corridor Scenic Corridor Guidelines Consistency Planning Areas within the Master Plan which are adjacent to El Camino Real are subject to the El Camino Real (ECR) Scenic Corridor Guidelines; The Master Plan development standards related to architecture, setbacks and other design guidelines have been reviewed for consistency with the ECR guidelines, as demonstrated in Appendix D of the Master Plan. Planning Area 22 One of the major areas of controversy during the planning process for the Robertson Ranch Master Plan has been the opposition of the RCHOA and its residents to the development of PA 22 with 20 residential units. In order to address this concern, several optional land uses are included in the Master Plan for this area. The optional uses include: potential relocation site for Fire Station #3, an RV storage facility, Senior Housing, or Manufactured Housing. These land uses were found to be compatible with the proposed Medium Density Residential (RM) General Plan Land Use Designation. The Rancho Carlsbad site also has an RM land use designation. PA 22 is located on the east side of Cannon Road, adjacent to a site known as the "Option Parcel", which was designated as a potential site for the relocation of the Rancho Carlsbad RV storage and garden area. The relocation of the RV storage and garden facilities will be necessary with the future construction of College Boulevard "Reach A" and Basin BJ, both of which are required with the construction of the Cantarini Ranch and Holly Springs projects. However, it was recently brought to the attention of staff that the RCHOA is pursuing an alternative site for relocation of their RV storage and garden area. Therefore, an opportunity exists to take a more comprehensive approach to the planning and development of PA 22 together with the Option Parcel. The Master Plan anticipated that the Option Parcel could be rejected as the RCHOA RV relocation site and included a provision for the annexation of the Option Parcel into the Master Plan. The P-C zone allows areas within a master plan to be reserved for future planning, provided such areas do not exceed 40% of the entire master plan area. Future planning of these areas would require an amendment to the Master Plan. Therefore, staff is recommending designation of PA 22 as an "Unplanned Area". A condition to this effect has been added to Resolution No. 6106 for the Master Plan. B. General Plan Amendment The project site is currently designated by the General Plan for Residential Low-Medium Density (RLM) over the majority of the site. Medium Density (RM) residential development land uses are designated on the western corner of the site adjacent to El Camino Real and Tamarack Avenue and a portion of the slope adjacent to Tamarack Avenue is designated as Open Space (OS). The site also contains "floating" land use designations of Local Shopping Center EIR 03-03/MP 02-03/GPA 02.-04/LFMP 14(B)/HMP 06-04 - ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN and CT 02-16/HDP 02-07/SUP 02-05 - ROBERTSON RANCH EAST VILLAGE MASTER TENTATIVE MAP May 31,2006 Page 16 (L) and Elementary School (E). The "floating" designations are not considered specific to a particular parcel, but rather indicate the general vicinity where the use could occur within the site. The proposed General Plan Amendment would revise the land use designations within the Master Plan area to RLM, RM, RMH (Medium High Density), RH (High Density), Community Facilities (CF), Local Shopping Center (L), and OS. There are a number of reasons for the changes in the land use designations. The Elementary School land use designation was deleted from the Master Plan after the City received correspondence from the Carlsbad Unified School District (UCSD) declining purchase of the school site: Therefore, the school site designation was replaced with the alternative RH land use designation. A new CF zone will be included to reflect the P-C zone requirement for all new master plans to reserve a site for community facilities. A new designation of OS will be added to the Master Plan area to reflect the location of a new 13.9 acre public park, two community recreation areas, and approximately 140 acres of open space preserve area. The areas proposed for preservation and restoration were determined in consultation with the Wildlife Agencies (see HMP discussion in Section IV.F. of the staff report). Because over 35% of the total land area is required to be preserved as open space, the City's policies allow a "clustering" of the project's allowable densities within the areas proposed for development. This clustering of densities results in the need for a General Plan Amendment to reflect the various residential densities, open space preserve areas, and non-residential land uses. The following table compares the existing land use designations with the proposed land use designations. TABLE 3 - GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION COMPARISON CHART General Plan Land Use Designation RLM (0-4 du/ac) Medium-Low Density Residential RM (4-8 du/ac) Medium Density Residential RMH (8- 15 du/ac Medium-High Density Residential) RH (15-23 du/ac) High Density Residential E - Elementary School L - Local Shopping Center CF - Community Facilities OS -Open Space (Parks) OS - Open Space (Natural Open Space) Major Roadways Existing Acreage (gross) 363.5 acres 14.2 acres 0 0 10 acres 0* 0 0 10.3 acres 0 Proposed Acreage (gross) 24.3 acres 126.6 acres 9.0 acres 37.2 acres' 0 8.3 acres 10.1 acres 16.6 acres 143.4 acres 22.4 acres "floating designation" - no acreage specified EIR 03-03/MP 02-03/GPA 02.-04/LFMP 14(B)/HMP 06-04 - ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN and CT 02-16/HDP 02-07/SUP 02-05 - ROBERTSON RANCH EAST VILLAGE MASTER TENTATIVE MAP May 31,2006 Page 17 C. City Council Policy 43 - Proposition E "Excess Dwelling" Unit Bank The Master Plan proposes a maximum of 1,383 dwelling units which will require an allocation of 400 dwelling units (du's) from the City's Excess Dwelling Unit Bank. Originally 1,122 units were anticipated for the project area for Growth Management purposes, based on the original Zone 14 LFMP. However, based on a more precise constraints analysis, it was determined that the allowable residential density was 951 units. When the CUSD rejected the 10 acre school site, an additional 32 units were added (10 acres x 3.2 du/ac) for a total of 983 units. Although the request represents an increase of approximately 42% over the allowed 983 units, it also represents an increase of 19% over the original Growth Management dwelling unit assumption of 1,122 dwelling units. City Council Policy 43 allows for a transfer of Excess Dwelling Units to "qualifying" projects in any quadrant, so long as the number of residential units built in each quadrant does not violate the dwelling unit limitations established by Proposition E (Growth Management Plan). In order to "qualify" for an allocation of excess units, the project must possess one of several characteristics (see Attachment 14 - City Council Policy 43). The proposed Master Plan meets two of these criteria: • Housing made affordable to lower or moderate income households. • Transit-oriented, "smart growth" development projects where increased residential density is being placed in close proximity to major transit facilities, employment opportunities and commercial support services. The number of excess dwelling units to be allocated is at the sole discretion of the City Council, and is based on the importance of the characteristics the project possesses. The location of the project and the compatibility of increased density with existing adjacent residential neighborhoods is also an important consideration. The excess dwelling units would be allocated to the areas proposed for high density housing where the project's 15% Inclusionary Housing requirements (East Village: 83 du's; West Village: 124 du's) are located. City staff also requested an increase in the density of the multi-family development areas above the City's Growth Management Control Point of 19 du/ac up to a minimum of 20 du/ac to help meet the City's Regional Fair Share of Affordable Housing. These units would be a mix of affordable (income-qualified) and market-rate units. Although not all of the units are for "income qualified" households, the units are considered "affordable" by the State Department of Housing and Community Development, as they are proposed at densities of at least 20 du/ac. The reasoning follows that because it is generally necessary to construct smaller units in high-density developments, these units are more "affordable" than a single-family residence. A total of 677 of the Master Plan's 1,383 units (49 %) are proposed at densities of 20 -23 du/ac. The high-density units within the West Village are strategically located near the commercial core and community facilities site and would also be adjacent to bus transit facilities located on El Camino Real. Similarly, the high density units in the East Village are located close to the public park site and are in close proximity to bus transit facilities on Cannon Road. The Master Plan will provide some employment opportunities within the village commercial center and the high- density units are located within 1.5 miles of the City's industrial core, within 2.5 miles of EIR 03-03/MP 02-03/GPA 02-04/LFMP 14(B)/HMP 06-04 - ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN and CT 02-16/HDP 02-07/SUP 02-05 - ROBERTSON RANCH EAST VILLAGE MASTER TENTATIVE MAP May 31,2006 Page 18 Carlsbad Company Stores/Car Country Carlsbad, and within 3 miles of Plaza Camino Real. All of these areas represent local major employment opportunities which can be easily accessed by bus. None of the proposed high-density multi-family areas are located adjacent to existing single- family neighborhoods. The Master Plan proposes that the development areas surrounding the high-density multi-family sites will transition into medium density development and then into medium-low residential development where it adjoins the existing single-family residences (medium-low density) north of the West Village. Primary access to the multi-family areas will be via signalized intersections on El Camino Real at "Street "Z" and Cannon Road at Street "A". Traffic impacts were a primary issue for the Master Plan and the EIR prepared for the project indicates that the surrounding streets are adequate to handle the proposed increased density of 400 dwelling units. With the allocation of 400 Excess Dwelling Units, the Master Plan would exceed the Growth Management Control Point in two ways. First, it would exceed-the allowable density of 983 units. However, the General Plan Land Use Designations will be changed to reflect the clustering of the project's residential density, to designate the non-residential areas (CF and L) and to re-designate over 35% of the property as open space. Nevertheless, if the overall residential density of the Master Plan was calculated based on net developable land area (299.85 acres), the resulting average density would be about 4.6 dwelling units per acre. Secondly, the proposed high-density multi-family development areas are proposed at densities that exceed the Growth Management Control point of 19 du/ac. However, these areas do not exceed the top end of the RH range of 23 du/ac. Chapter 21.90 (Growth Management) allows residential development to exceed the Growth Management Control Point in certain circumstances. The required findings and rational are discussed below: 1. The project will provide sufficient additional public facilities for the density in excess of the control point to ensure that the adequacy of the City's public facilities plans will not be adversely impacted. The public facilities requirements for the Robertson Ranch Master Plan have been analyzed and public facilities can and will be provided for the densities in excess of the control point. The City's public facility plans will not be adversely affected by the proposed allocation of 400 dwelling units from the City's Excess Dwelling Unit Bank. 2. There have been sufficient developments approved in the quadrant at densities below the control point to cover the units in the project above the control point so that the approval will not result in exceeding the quadrant limit. A number of residential development projects have been approved in the Northeast Quadrant at densities less than were projected by the Growth Management Quadrant Caps. Among the larger of these projects are the Carlsbad Highlands property (824 units less), the Cantarini EIR 03-03/MP 02-03/GPA 02.-04/LFMP 14(B)/HMP 06-04 - ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN and CT 02-16/HDP 02-07/SUP 02-05 - ROBERTSON RANCH EAST VILLAGE MASTER TENTATIVE MAP May 31,2006 Page 19 Ranch and Holly Springs projects (374 units less), and the Calavera Nature Preserve (56 units less). These and other unrealized excess dwelling units have been deposited in the City's Excess Dwelling Unit Bank. There are adequate units in the bank (3,146 units as of April 2006) for the requested allocation and the transfer of these units would not exceed the Proposition E dwelling unit cap of 9,042 dwelling units for the Northeast Quadrant. The Zone 14 LFMP estimates current residential build-out for the Northeast Quadrant to be 7,696 dwelling units including the Master Plan proposal of 1,383 units. 3. All necessary public facilities required by this 'chapter will be constructed or are guaranteed to be constructed concurrently with the need for them created by this development and in compliance with the adopted City standards. The Zone 14 LFMP amendment prepared for this project analyzed the public facilities that will be needed in order to accommodate development within Zone 14. There are eleven public facility performance standards in the Growth Management Program and the Robertson Ranch Master Plan project will be required to comply with these adopted performance standards as a condition of approval for any development project within the Master Plan. Consistent with Program 3.8 of the City's certified Housing Element, all of the dwelling units, which are not utilized by developers in approved projects, are deposited in the City's Excess Dwelling Unit Bank. These excess dwelling units are available for allocation to other projects, such as the Robertson Ranch Master Plan. Allocation of these units would be consistent with the Housing Element goals and would help to satisfy the City's share of the regional housing need. D. General Plan Consistency The proposed project is consistent with the applicable policies contained within each relevant element of the General Plan. The following table indicates compliance with the General Plan: EIR 03-03/MP 02-03/GPA 01-04/LFMP 14(B)/HMP 06-04 - ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN and CT 02-16/HDP 02-07/SUP 02-05 - ROBERTSON RANCH EAST VILLAGE MASTER TENTATIVE MAP May 31,2006 Page 20 TABLE 4: GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY GP ELEMENT/GOAL/ OBJECTIVE/POLICY COMPLIANCE LAND USE Overall Land Use Pattern Goal A.2. - Provide for an orderly balance of both public and private land uses within convenient and compatible locations throughout the community and ensure that all such uses serve to protect and enhance the environment, character and image of the City. Goal A.3. - Provide for land uses which through their arrangement, location and size, support and enhance the economic viability of the community. Policy C.4 - Encourage clustering when it is done in a way that is compatible with existing adjacent development. Policy C.7.5 - Extend existing bicycle and pedestrian trails and greenbelts provided for in various elements of the General Plan. Growth Management and Public Facilities Goal A.I.- Ensure the timely provision of adequate public facilities and services to preserve the quality of life of residents. Residential Goal A/Objectives B.1/B.3 - Provide for a variety of housing types and density ranges and neighborhoods with a sense of community. Provide safe attractive residential housing with a variety of housing types, styles, and price levels. Objective B.5 - Focus new development on residents rather than the automobile. The Master Plan provides commercial, residential and recreational land uses which have been sited for compatibility and convenience to the residents of Robertson Ranch and the surrounding community. The Master Plan preserves over 140 acres of natural open space, which helps to protect and enhance the environment, character and image of the City. The commercial and community facility land uses have been located within a convenient walking distance of the residential neighborhoods they will serve, in close proximity to El Camino Real, a prime arterial, and near public transit, which will help ensure the economic viability of future businesses. The GPA provides for the shift of dwelling units out of the conservation areas resulting in a clustering of the development. Higher density neighborhoods are located near the major circulation roadways, transit stops, and the commercial area, while the lower density neighborhoods are located near the existing, lower-density residential development. The project provides a network of multi-use trails along the streets and open space areas and provides a link to the Citywide trail system. The Master Plan will be developed consistent with the Zone 14 LFMP and will provide all necessary public facilities concurrent with need. The project provides a variety of housing types and density ranges to meet the economic and social requirements of residents. The variation in housing types will help to create a diverse neighborhood fabric while compatibility of the various residential land uses will be assured through complementary landscape themes and architectural styles. The development proposal is designed with the focus on residents instead of the automobile by designing pedestrian friendly tree-lined streets, by including criteria for pedestrian connectivity, and including a network of open space multi-use trails that are integrated into the overall project design. EIR 03-03/MP 02-03/GPA OZ-04/LFMP 14(B)/HMP 06-04 - ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN and CT 02-16/HDP 02-07/SUP 02-05 - ROBERTSON RANCH EAST VILLAGE MASTER TENTATIVE MAP May 31,2006 Page 21 Policy C.I- Encourage low and moderate income dwelling units to meet the objectives of the City's Housing Element. Policy C.4 - Limit medium and higher density residential development to those areas where they are compatible with the adjacent land uses. Policy C.ll - Pedestrian and bicycle linkages should connect with major transportation corridors and the Carlsbad Trail System. Policy C.I6 - Require new subdivisions to create a unique sense of identity and community. Community Facilities Goal A - Provide land for child daycare facilities, places of worship, and other community services facilities. Environmental Goal A - Protect and conserve natural resources and fragile ecological areas. Policy C.7 - Require comprehensive environmental review in accordance with CEQA guidelines. The East and West Villages will each be required to meet the City's 15% Inclusionary Housing Requirement. Additionally, 56 moderate income units will be included in the West Village site in consideration for the allocation of excess dwelling units to the Master Plan. The multi-family residential neighborhoods are located in areas where they are compatible with the adjacent land uses, and where adequate and convenient commercial services and public support systems are or will be adequate to serve future residents. The new residential development will provide pedestrian and bicycle linkages which connect with major transportation corridors and the proposed Carlsbad Trail system. The Robertson Ranch Master Plan will create a unique sense of identity and community through quality architecture, street design, trail systems, open space areas and landscaping. A minimum of 5.0 acres of Community Facilities services will be provided within the Village Center to meet the needs of future residents. The project protects and conserves natural resources and fragile ecological areas by providing over 140 acres of open space identified within Link "B" of the HMP. The project's impacts to natural resources have been analyzed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act through the preparation of an EIR. CIRCULATION Streets and Traffic Control Goal A.8 - Promote, encourage and accommodate a variety of transportation modes as alternatives to the automobile. Objective B.I - Provide adequate circulation infrastructure concurrent with or prior to the demand for such facilities. Objective B.I/Policies C.16/C.18 - Provide circulation infrastructure concurrent with or prior to the demand for such facilities. A pedestrian and bicycle circulation plan is proposed that will provide access from all areas with the Master Plan and will connect to existing and proposed public transportation stops along circulation element roadways. The Zone 14 LFMP and Master Plan identify the circulation infrastructure needs, including traffic signals, and phasing requirements for installation of the circulation facilities necessary for development of the Master Plan. The project will dedicate and improve all circulation facilities required by the project, including circulation arterial roadways, concurrent with demand. EIR 03-03/MP 02-03/GPA 02--04/LFMP 14(B)/HMP 06-04 - ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN and CT 02-16/HDP 02-07/SUP 02-05 - ROBERTSON RANCH EAST VILLAGE MASTER TENTATIVE MAP May 31,2006 Page 22 NOISE Land Use Goal A. I/Policy C.5 - Ensure that land uses are not significantly impacted by noise and enforce the City's policies regarding acceptable noise levels for residential development. Residential neighborhoods located along Cannon Road, College Boulevard, and El Camino Real have been identified as being potentially impacted by roadway noise. These neighborhoods will be required to comply with noise mitigation measures to ensure that the City's maximum exterior noise level of 60 dBA CNEL and maximum interior noise level of 45 dBA CNEL is not exceeded. HOUSING ELEMENT Goal 2 - Develop new housing with a diversity of types, prices, tenures, densities and locations and in sufficient quantity to meet the demand of anticipated City and regional growth. Objective 2.1 - Allow development of sufficient new housing to meet Carlsbad's share of the total regional housing need as identified by SANDAG. A variety of housing types and densities will be provided including multi-family units, courtyard homes, and single- family residences. For-sale and rental units will be available within the community. 15% of the total number of units will be made available to lower-income households. An additional 56 units (4% of the total number of DUs) will be made available in the West Village to moderate-income households. The Master Plan proposes 677 units within five planning areas to be developed at densities of 20 du/ac or greater. The provision of these high density multi-family units together with the 56 moderate—rate units helps to meet the City's share of the regional affordable housing needs as identified by SANDAG. OPEN SPACE & CONSERVATION Open Space Planning and Protection Policy C.4 - identify open space for protection, management, and potential enhancement to maintain and increase its value as wildlife habitat. Special Resource Protection Objective B.10 - Develop a plan for maintenance of sensitive environmental resources. Policy C.6 - Designate buffers next to sensitive environmental areas. Trail System Policy C.3 - Obtain an irrevocable offer of dedication (I.O.D.) for trails proposed as part of the Carlsbad trail System. Fire Risk Management Goal A.I/Objective B.2 - Provide environmentally sensitive mitigation to minimize risks presented by native wildland open space. The project will result in the preservation of over 140 acres of open space that will establish and maintain a regionally significant multi-species wildlife corridor consistent with the City's HMP, provide a citywide trail segment, and will rezone the open space areas to the Open Space zone. The project has been conditioned to require the proposed wildlife habitat preserve to be managed and financed in perpetuity consistent with an approved management program. The project provides a minimum 60-foot wide buffer to protect the adjacent open space from the developable portions of the residential lots. 100-foot wetland buffers are provided adjacent to wetland habitat areas, except in areas where a reduced width is agreed to by the Wildlife Agencies. The project requires an I.O.D. for all Trail Segments identified in the Citywide Trail System and a permanent easement for public use of all community trails. The fire risk presented by adjacent natural open space is mitigated by requiring 60-foot fire suppression buffers within the boundaries of the development area which do not encroach into the "hardline" open space preserve areas. EIR 03-03/MP 02-03/GPA 02.-04/LFMP 14(B)/HMP 06-04 - ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN and CT 02-16/HDP 02-07/SUP 02-05 - ROBERTSON RANCH EAST VILLAGE MASTER TENTATIVE MAP May 31,2006 Page 23 Water Quality Objective B.2/Policy C.3 - Design storm water conveyance systems which do not adversely impact sensitive environmental resources. Policy C.22 - Protect slopes and channels from erosion and storm water runoff. Cluster development on the least environmentally sensitive portions of the site. The project incorporates storm water quality control measures (BMPs) consistent with a conceptual Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan prepared for the project to avoid adversely impacting sensitive water resources. The project has been designed to comply with applicable site design principals including clustering development on the least environmentally sensitive portions of the site; by creating and restoring riparian corridors, wetlands and buffer zones; and by limiting the disturbance of natural drainage systems to the greatest extent possible. PARKS & RECREATION Park Development Policy C.I - Ensure that any and all parkland dedications shall be developable and usable for park purposes. Policy C.8 - Require the individual developers of master planned communities to provide pocket parks and active recreational facilities unique to each development. The Robertson Ranch Master Plan will be required to dedicate 9.8 acres of usable parkland within PA 12, with an option for the City to purchase a minimum of 4.1 additional acres. Within each Village there will be a minimum 1.0-acre (net) centralized Community Recreation Facility that will provide passive as well as active types of recreational activities, including, but not limited to, a public swimming pool, tennis courts, basketball courts, and/or picnic areas. Additionally, all planned development and multi-family Planning Areas will have pocket parks or common recreation areas to serve as active or passive space where residents can gather. PUBLIC SAFETY Flood Hazards Policies C.3/C.5 - Require all drainage facilities to comply with the City's "Standard Design Criteria" and ensure compliance with Titles 18 and 20 pertaining to drainage and flood control structures. The project is required to install properly sized drainage facilities to handle the 100-year flood conditions and to ensure compliance with Titles 18 and 20 pertaining to drainage and flood control structures. E. Growth Management - Local Facilities Management Plan LFMP 14(B) An amendment is proposed to the Local Facilities Management Plan (LFMP) for Zone 14 to reflect the proposed changes in land use which result in modifications to the demand for urban public facilities from those originally assumed. The plan has been prepared in accordance with Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. The proposed document would be the first Amendment to the Zone 14 LFMP to be considered since approval of the original Zone 14 LFMP on October 6, 1990. A previous amendment unrelated to the Robertson Ranch project, LFMP 14(A), was withdrawn. The main properly owners in Zone 14 are the owners of Robertson Ranch who control approximately 403 gross acres or approximately 49 percent of the land area of Zone 14. Approximately 375 acres within Zone 14 are currently dedicated as open space in the Calavera Nature Preserve and the Lake Calavera mitigation site. The remaining 42 EIR 03-03/MP 02-03/GPA 02-04/LFMP 14(B)/HMP 06-04 - ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN and CT 02-16/HDP 02-07/SUP 02-05 - ROBERTSON RANCH EAST VILLAGE MASTER TENTATIVE MAP May 31,2006 Page 24 acres in the zone are owned by the CUSD and is designated on the City's General Plan as a potential High School site. All of the property owners in the zone concurred with the preparation of the proposed amendment. The impacts of build-out hi Zone 14 are based on a projection of a maximum of 1,383 dwelling units, 175,000 square feet of commercial and community facility uses, 2.3 acres of RV storage, approximately 16 acres of parks, (which will all occur within the Robertson Ranch Master Plan) and an additional 3 acres of RV storage and 42 acres of High School designated property outside of the Master Plan area. The remaining land within Zone 14 is open space. The proposed zone plan covers the entire zone and analyzes the requirements for the 11 public facilities included within the Growth Management Program. For each of the eleven public facilities, the plan lists the required performance standard, provides a facility planning and adequacy analysis, required mitigation, and financing sources for any required mitigation. Special conditions of the LFMP amendment include payment of sewer connection fees and sewer connection improvements, water facilities, payment of drainage fees, storm drain improvements including an 84" storm drain on the north side of Cannon Road, construction of drainage basins, circulation element improvements (El Camino Real, Cannon Road and College Boulevard), dedication of parkland, and dedication and management of the HMP open space. The zone will be in compliance with the required performance standards by satisfying the general and special conditions listed in the zone plan. The impacts of the build-out of the Robertson Ranch Master Plan are summarized in the following table: TABLE 5: ROBERTSON RANCH LFMP ZONE 14 SUMMARY Standard City Administration Library Waste Water Treatment Parks Drainage Circulation Fire Open Space Schools Sewer Collection System Water Impacts 4,808.28 square feet 2,564.41 square feet 1,518 EDU 9.8 acre park dedication requirement 13.5 acre park site Agua Hedionda Lagoon Watershed 1 7,596 ADT Station 3 and 5 Increase of 140 acres of HMP open space Carlsbad Unified School District K-5: 223.2, Middle: 112.7, HS: 132.6 1,518 EDU 333,960 GPD Compliance Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes * The Master Plan is 400 dwelling units above the Growth Management Dwelling Unit allowance of 953 dwelling units for the subject property. As discussed in Section IV.C. of the staff report, a transfer of 400 units from the City's Excess Dwelling Unit Bank is required for the Master Plan. F. Habitat Management Plan (HMP 06-04) The project site is partially located within Core Area #3 and Link B as shown on the HMP Focus Planning Areas Map. Link B is an important connection between Core Area #3 (Lake Calavera, EIR 03-03/MP 02-03/GPA OZ-04/LFMP 14(B)/HMP 06-04 - ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN and CT 02-16/HDP 02-07/SUP 02-05 - ROBERTSON RANCH EAST VILLAGE MASTER TENTATIVE MAP May 31,2006 Page 25 Calavera Heights & Carlsbad Highlands Mitigation Banks) and Core Area #4 (Agua Hedionda Lagoon and surrounding upland habitats). The project has been reviewed for consistency with the Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan (HMP) for Natural Communities and approval of a Habitat Management Plan Permit (HMP 06-04) is required for Incidental Take consistent with the City's Habitat Management Plan. Development of the site will occur primarily in the existing agricultural areas and non-sensitive upland habitats. The majority of the wetland and riparian habitats will be preserved along with conservation of over 67% of the sensitive upland habitats (Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub and Chamise Chaparral). The applicant has negotiated an HMP "hardline" preserve design for the Robertson Ranch Master Plan that has conceptually been deemed acceptable to the Wildlife Agencies. The HMP conservation goals for this area include: 1) Establish, Enhance and Maintain Habitat Linkage, 2) No-Net-Loss of Wetlands Functions and Value, and 3) Coastal Sage Scrub Preservation, Restoration and Enhancement. The project has been determined to meet these HMP standards which include the following: • Conservation of at least 67% of Coastal Sage Scrub • Creation of a linkage which should utilize patches of existing habitat • Avoid removal of natural habitats that are contiguous with open space on adjacent parcels • Maintain and enhance the wildlife movement potential between core areas using sensitive design of any road or utility crossing of Linkage B (e.g. bridging, under crossing) • Conserve all riparian habitats on-site • Prohibit fill or development within the existing floodplain, except where required for Circulation Element roads, Drainage Master Plan facilities, or other essential infrastructure • Conserve any narrow endemic plant populations • Set back development 100 feet from existing wetland habitats and encourage habitat restoration or enhancement in the riparian buffer areas. The Master Plan will preserve approximately 140.5 acres of open space, including re-vegetated manufactured slopes, detention basins, Diegan coastal sage scrub habitat, and riparian and wetland habitats. In accordance with the standards contained in the adopted Habitat Management Plan (HMP), the Master Plan permanently preserves and protects more than 67% of the existing 71.6 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub habitat existing on the site and provides for the permanent conservation of "Link B" as a 500 to 600-foot wide Wildlife Corridor. Additionally, the project exceeds the HMP requirements by providing a 400 to 500-foot wide east-west wildlife corridor, utilizing an existing 12 feet wide by 6 feet high arched soft-bottom culvert under-crossing of College Boulevard, which was not envisioned by the adopted HMP. All development will be setback 100 feet from wetland habitat, except in areas where a buffer of lesser width is agreed to by the Wildlife Agencies. The project is required to mitigate for biological impacts as specified in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for EIR 03-03 (Robertson Ranch Master Plan Program EIR). Upon completion of project grading and improvements, ownership of the open space conservation area will be transferred to a qualified natural lands management entity. The developers of the East and West Villages are conditioned to provide a non-wasting endowment EIR 03-03/MP 02-03/GPA 02-04/LFMP 14(B)/HMP 06-04 - ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN and CT 02-16/HDP 02-07/SUP 02-05 - ROBERTSON RANCH EAST VILLAGE MASTER TENTATIVE MAP May 31,2006 Page 26 or other financial guarantee acceptable to the City to provide for management and conservation of the open space lands in perpetuity. G. Subdivision Ordinance (CT 02-16) The Subdivision Ordinance, Title 20 of the Municipal Code, requires the filing of a tentative tract map for the division of property into five or more lots. Calavera Hills II, LLC, the owner of the East Village, has filed a Master Tentative Tract Map for division of the property into 10 lots on 176.36 acres. The subdivision will create a number of development areas and open space lots, consistent with those shown on the Master Plan "Land Use Map. In general, the lots consist of open space preserve areas (PA 23D, 23E & 23F), community recreation open space (PA 19), open space for a water quality facility (PA 20), lots for the future development of the medium, medium-high and high density planning areas (PA 14 thru 18, PA 21 and PA 22), and a lot (Lot 8) consisting of excess land on the north side of Cannon Road that fronts the future park site in PA 12. In addition to creating lots for the development areas, the subdivision will allow the master developer to retain ownership of the recreation area in PA 19, and will provide separate lots for the open space preserve areas as required by the City's HMP. The remainder of the developable lots will require the approval of separate tentative maps to create the residential lots or air-space condominium maps within the neighborhoods. The Master Tentative Map also includes the major infrastructure improvements and grading. The infrastructure improvements include frontage improvements for both sides of Cannon Road from College Boulevard to El Camino Real (including median improvements) and installation of traffic signals at the intersections of Cannon Road and "A" St. and "O" St; frontage improvements for both sides of College Boulevard (including median improvements); bus stop improvements; sewer, water and drainage improvements including installation of an 84" storm drain line along the north side of (and parallel with) Cannon Road; water quality facility (PA 20); and community trails along the roadways. The Master Tentative Map shows the final map, grading, and improvements occurring in one phase of development consistent with the phasing identified in the Master Plan. The proposed grading is evaluated in the following section of this report covering the Hillside Development Permit (HDP 02-07) for the East Village Master Tentative Map. As designed and conditioned the Master Tentative Map complies with all City requirements, including the Subdivision Ordinance and the State Subdivision Map Act. The project as conditioned would provide all necessary improvements and all findings required by Title 20 can be made and are contained in the Planning Commission Resolution for CT 02-16. H. Hillside Regulations (HDP 02-07) A Hillside Development Permit is required for the East Village Master Tentative Map because the property contains slopes of 15 percent and greater with elevation differentials greater than 15 feet. The purpose of this permit is to review the proposed development for conformance with the Hillside Development Regulations, Chapter 21.95 of the CMC. The development proposal is in conformance with the purpose and intent in addition to the other provisions of the regulations. EIR 03-03/MP 02-03/GPA OZ-04/LFMP 14(B)/HMP 06-04 - ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN and CT 02-16/HDP 02-07/SUP 02-05 - ROBERTSON RANCH EAST VILLAGE MASTER TENTATIVE MAP May 31,2006 Page 27 Development of Natural Slopes Over Forty Percent Gradient The hillside slope conditions and undevelopable areas have been identified on the project constraints map for the Master Tentative Map. Approximately 8.58 acres are comprised of natural or manufactured slopes having gradients above 40%. In instances where grading will occur, the 40% slopes are exempt from the hillside regulations because they were previously graded, because grading is required for a Circulation Element roadway, or because the slopes have less than 15 feet in elevation difference and an area of less than 10,000 square feet. The remaining grading for the East Village will not result in impacts to steep slopes covered by the Hillside Regulations since the steeper topography is preserved within the open space lots. Volume of Grading The standards require that volumes of grading be minimized. The relative acceptability of hillside grading volume falls into the following three categories: 1) Acceptable: 0 -7,999 cubic yards per acre (cu/ac), 2) Potentially Acceptable 8,000 - 10,000 cy/ac, and 3) Unacceptable greater than 10,000 cy/ac. Grading quantities for the East Village, are balanced and result in an acceptable grading volume of 7,787 cy/ac after adjustments are made to exclude grading associated with Circulation Element roadways (College Boulevard and Cannon Road widening), and remedial grading. Slope Height Manufactured slopes may not exceed 40 feet in height unless either an exclusion is provided pursuant to CMC Section 21.95.130 or a modification is granted pursuant to Section 21.95.140. No slopes are proposed to exceed a height of 40 feet. Contour Grading The Hillside Development Regulations require contour grading of all manufactured slopes which are greater than 20 feet in height and two hundred feet in length and which are located adjacent to or are substantially visible from a Circulation Element road, collector street, or useable public open space area. The project complies with this standard in that the graded slopes located along College Boulevard all slope down from the roadway and are not visible. Although slopes located along Cannon Road are all less than 20 feet high, these slopes will be contour graded. Additionally, grading throughout the subdivision has been minimized where possible and has been designed to blend into the existing slopes. Screening Manufactured Slopes All manufactured slopes will be landscaped in accordance with the City's Landscape Manual with the exception of perimeter slopes that will be revegetated with naturalizing species to avoid the introduction of invasive species into adjacent natural areas. Additional Standards The project also complies with or requires that future neighborhood development plans meet the remaining standards of the Hillside Development Regulations including landscaping, hillside and hilltop architecture, slope edge building setbacks, and drainage. These items will be reviewed with subsequent discretionary actions for the individual Planning Areas. EIR 03-03/MP 02-03/GPA 02--04/LFMP 14(B)/HMP 06-04 - ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN and CT 02-16/HDP 02-07/SUP 02-05 - ROBERTSON RANCH EAST VILLAGE MASTER TENTATIVE MAP May 31, 2006 - Page 28 I. Floodplain Regulations (SUP 02-05) The Floodplain Management Regulations are included in Chapter 21.110 of the Municipal Code. The purpose of this chapter is to promote the public health, safety and general welfare, and to minimize public and private losses due to flood conditions in specific areas. Both the East and West Villages of the Master Plan contain areas that are designated as a special flood hazard area inundated by a 100-year flood. However, the purpose of SUP 02-05 is to review the development associated with the Master Tentative Map for the East Village. A separate SUP will be submitted in conjunction with any West Village development applications that involve grading within the central habitat corridor (PA 23C) and park site (PA 12). Several areas in the East Village that are located adjacent to Calavera Creek are within the special flood hazard area inundated by a 100-year flood. A 100-year flood is defined as a flood which has a one percent annual probability of being equaled or exceeded. A Special Use Permit is required to be obtained in addition to any other required permits or entitlements before construction or development begins within any area of special flood hazard. The development areas partially within the limits of the 100-year flood are PA 20, which is a water quality facility; PA 23E and PA 23F, which are proposed as open space; and PA 22 which is proposed for development of 20 residential units. The proposed grading within the regulatory floodplain triggered a requirement for the applicant to ensure that flood elevations along Calavera Creek were not raised as part of the Robertson Ranch project. Special concern was required to ensure that flood elevations along the adjacent property (Rancho Carlsbad) were not exacerbated as a result of this project. A study entitled: 'Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis for Robertson Ranch', dated February 20, 2006 was prepared by Howard Chang, Ph.D, PE. This study evaluates existing channel and flood conditions traversing the Robertson Ranch property and addresses the proposed grading of PA 12 and PA 22. This study also identifies the design criteria and benefits in constructing the 84- inch RCP. Based on the results of the study, flood elevations are not increased along the Calavera Creek boundary. The Developer is conditioned to process necessary documents with FEMA (e.g.: Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR)) to ensure that properties within this subdivision are removed from the existing regulatory floodplain. Once the grading and drainage improvements are in place, a LOMR will be processed through FEMA to formally designate these limits. Based on the study provided, the necessary findings to approve the Floodplain Special Use Permit for the East Village Master Tentative Map can be made. V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW A Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for the Robertson Ranch Master Plan in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines, and the Environmental Protection Procedures (Title 19) of the CMC. The Program EIR addresses the environmental impacts associated with all discretionary applications for the proposed project, including ultimate build-out of the entire project. City staff prepared an environmental impact assessment for the project to determine the areas of potential impact and issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP) on May 7, 2004. The NOP was distributed to all EIR 03-03/MP 02-03/GPA OZ-04/LFMP 14(B)/HMP 06-04 - ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN and CT 02-16/HDP 02-07/SUP 02-05 - ROBERTSON RANCH EAST VILLAGE MASTER TENTATIVE MAP May 31,2006 Page 29 Responsible and Trustee Agencies, as well as other agencies, and members of the public. Staff scheduled two separate public scoping meeting sessions in order to increase opportunities for public input. Notices of the first scoping meeting were sent to all property owners within a 600- foot radius of the project boundaries as well as being published in the North County Times and posted on large meeting notice signs at two highly visible locations on the project site. The first public scoping session took place on May 18, 2004 at the Faraday Center. The second scoping meeting was held at the request of the Rancho Carlsbad HO A at their recreation center on May 26, 2004 for residents only. At the scoping sessions, the public was invited to comment on the scope and content of the EIR. Written responses were received and these comments were taken into consideration prior to developing a detailed scope of work for the EIR. The Robertson Ranch Program EIR analyzed the following areas of potential environmental impact: Land Use Paleontological Resource Traffic/Circulation Agricultural Resources Air Quality Hazardous Materials and Hazards Noise Grading and Aesthetics Biological Resources Hydrology/Water Quality Cultural Resources Population/Housing Geology/Soils Public Services and Utilities Additionally, the Draft Program EIR includes other sections required by CEQA including an Executive Summary, Project Description, Cumulative Effects, Effects Found Not to Be Significant, and Growth Inducing Effects and Alternatives. Six alternatives are considered in the EIR. The alternatives include the "no project" alternative, a "no Specific Plan" alternative, a reduced Biological Impacts Alternative, a Reduced Scale Project, Senior Housing and Fire Station alternatives for PA 22, and a PA 1 Community Facilities Alternative. On October 4, 2005, the Draft Program EIR was published and the City notified interested Responsible and Trustee Agencies, as well as other interested agencies. The "Notice of Completion" commenced an initial 45 day public review and comment period initially expiring on November 16, 2005. At the request of a member of the public, the City extended the public review and comment period an additional two weeks until December 1, 2005. The "Notice of Completion" advised that the Draft Program EIR was available for review at four locations: the City of Carlsbad Planning Department; the City Clerk's Office; the Carlsbad Dove Library; and the Georgina Cole Library. Complete copies were also available for purchase, with or without the appendices and on CD, through the Planning Department. The analysis contained in the EIR concluded that all significant impacts would be mitigated to below a level of significance with the exception of significant direct and cumulative impacts to Traffic/Circulation and Air Quality (Long-Term Mobile Emissions). Direct impacts, also referred to as primary effects, are those caused by the project and that occur at the same time and place. In contrast, cumulative impacts refer to two or more individual impacts that, when considered together, are considerable or that compound or increase other environmental impacts. The cumulative impact of several projects is the change in the environment that results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other, closely related past, present, or EIR 03-03/MP 02-03/GPA 01-04/LFMP 14(B)/HMP 06-04 - ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN and CT 02-16/HDP 02-07/SUP 02-05 - ROBERTSON RANCH EAST VILLAGE MASTER TENTATIVE MAP May 31,2006 Page 30 reasonably foreseeable future projects. The cumulative impacts all arise from the marginal contribution the proposed project will make, when combined with the impacts from existing and other future projects, to pre-existing conditions that fail to meet applicable traffic and air quality standards currently. A total of 104 comment letters were submitted prior to the close of the public review period. Responses were prepared for each of the letters and mailed to the commenters on May 12, 2006. The response transmittal letter also provided notice of availability of the Final Program EIR. The Final Program EIR includes a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). The MMRP is also attached to the Planning Commission Resolution No. 6105 for the Program EIR. Under CEQA, before a project which is determined to have significant, unmitigated environmental effects can be approved, the public agency must consider and adopt a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15043 and 15093. The primary purpose of CEQA is to fully inform the decision makers and the public of the environmental effects of a proposed project and to include feasible mitigation measures and alternatives to reduce any such adverse effects below a level of significance. However, CEQA recognizes and authorizes the approval of projects where not all adverse impacts can be fully lessened or avoided. The Lead Agency must explain and justify its conclusion to approve such a project through the Statement of Overriding Considerations setting forth the proposed project's general social, economic, policy or other public benefits which support the agency's informed conclusion to approve the project. The CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for impacts to Traffic/Circulation and Air Quality (Long-term Mobile Emissions) are attached to the Planning Commission Resolution for the Program EIR. ATTACHMENTS; 1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6105 (EIR 03-03) 2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6106 (MP 02-03) 3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6107 (GPA 02-04) 4. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6108 (LFMP 14(B)) 5. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6109 (HMP 06-04) 6. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6110 (CT 02-16) 7. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6111 (HDP 02-07) 8. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6112 (SUP 02-05) 9. Location Map 10. Background Data Sheet 11. Local Facilities Impact Assessment Form 12. Disclosure Statements 13. Comparison of Planned Development Regulations with the Robertson Ranch Master Plan 14. City Council Policy 43 - Proposition E "Excess Dwelling" Unit Bank 15. Letters and e-mails from the public 16. Final Program EIR for Robertson Ranch dated April 2006, (previously distributed; copy on file in the Planning Department) 17. Zone 14 Local Facilities Management Plan Amendment, dated May 1, 2006, (previously distributed; copy on file in the Planning Department) EIR 03-03/MP 02-03/GPA 02,-04/LFMP 14(B)/HMP 06-04 - ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN and CT 02-16/HDP 02-07/SUP 02-05 - ROBERTSON RANCH EAST VILLAGE MASTER TENTATIVE MAP May 31,2006 Page 31 18. Robertson Ranch Master Plan, dated May 2006, (previously distributed; copy on file in the Planning Department) 19. Fiscal Impact Analysis of Master Plan, dated October 12, 2005, (previously distributed; copy on file in the Planning Department) 20. Exhibits "A" - "KK" for East Village Master Tentative Map dated May 31, 2006 21. Response to Comments for the Final EIR BACKGROUND DATA SHEET CASE NO: EIR 03-Q3/MP 02-03/GPA 02-Q4/ LFMP 14(BVHMP 06-04 and CT 02- 16/HDP Q2-07/SUP 02-05 i; CASE NAME: ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN and ROBERTSON RANCH EAST VILLAGE MASTER TENTATIVE MAP APPLICANT: Calavera Hills II. LLC REQUEST AND LOCATION: Certification of a Program Environmental Impact Report and approval of a Master Plan, General Plan Amendment, Zone 14 LFMP Amendment, and Habitat Management Plan Permit for the 398 acre Robertson Ranch Master Plan and approval for a Master Tentative Map for the Robertson Ranch East Village located north of El Camino Real, east of Tamarack Avenue, east and west of College Boulevard, and east and west of Cannon Road. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: See "EIR Exhibit A", as attached to Planning Commission Resolution No. 6105, herein incorporated by this reference. APN: 208-010-36, 168-050-47, -54 & -56 Acres: 398 acres Proposed No. of Lots/Units: N/A GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING Existing Land Use Designation: RLM. RM. OS, Floating Designations of "L" and "E" Proposed Land Use Designation: RLM. RM. RMH. RH, OS. L. and CF Density Allowed: 0-4 du/ac Density Proposed: 4.6 du/ac Existing Zone: P-C Proposed Zone: P-C Surrounding Zoning, General Plan and Land Use: Zoning General Plan Site North South East West P-C Current Land Use RLM, RM, OS, L and E Agriculture/Open Space P-C RLM and OS P-C, C-2, RMHP, R-l, and OS RMHP and L-C P-C, R-l and OS RLM, RM, L, and OS RM, RLM, H and OS RLM, RM and OS Residential/Open Space Residential/Commercial /Mobile Homes/OS Rancho Carlsbad MHP, Agriculture/OS Residential/OS Revised 01/06 . LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM Coastal Zone: Q Yes [X] No Local Coastal Program Segment: N/A Within Appeal Jurisdiction: [~~| Yes 1X1 No Coastal Development Permit: [~~1 Yes [X] No Local Coastal Program Amendment: [~1 Yes IXI No Existing LCP Land Use Designation: Proposed LCP Land Use Designation: Existing LCP Zone: Proposed LCP Zone: PUBLIC FACILITIES School District: Carlsbad Unified Water District: Carlsbad Sewer District: Carlsbad Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity): 1,518 EJDU ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT Categorical Exemption, Negative Declaration, issued. /\ Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated April 2006 Other, Revised 01/06 CITY OF CARLSBAD GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM i . LOCAL FACILITIES IMPACTS ASSESSMENT FORM (To be Submitted with Development Application) PROJECT IDENTITY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT: FILE NAME AND NO: EIR 03-Q3/MP 02-03/GPA 02-04/ LFMP UfBVHMP 06-04 and CT 02- 16/HDP 02-07/SUP 02-05 - ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN and EAST VILLAGE MASTER TENTAIVE MAP LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE: 14 GENERAL PLAN: RLM. RM. RMH. RH. L. CF and OS ZONING: P-C DEVELOPER'S NAME: Calavera Hills II. LLC ADDRESS: 2750 Womble Road San Diego. CA 92106 PHONE NO.: 619-336-3138 ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.: 208-010-36, 168-050-47. -54 & -56 QUANTITY OF LAND USE/DEVELOPMENT (AC., SQ. FT., DU): 398 acres -1 383 dwelling units, 13 acre village center, RV storage, 13.5 acre public park, community recreation areas, and 140 acres open space preserve. ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE: A. City Administrative Facilities: Demand in Square Footage = 4,808.28 sq ft B. Library: Demand in Square Footage = 2,564.41 sq ft C. Wastewater Treatment Capacity (Calculate with J. Sewer) N/A D. Park: Demand in Acreage = 9.8 acres E. Drainage: Demand in CFS = 590 CFS Identify Drainage Basin = Agua Hedionda Lagoon (Identify master plan facilities on site plan) F. Circulation: Demand in ADT= 17,596 APT (Identify Trip Distribution on site plan) G. Fire: Served by Fire Station No. = 3 and 5 H. Open Space: Acreage Provided = 140 acres I. Schools: CUSP K-5: 223.2, Middle: 112.7.HS 132.6 J. Sewer: Demands in EDU 1.518 EDU Identify Sub Basin = 14A. 14B (Identify trunk line(s) impacted on site plan) K. Water: Demand in GPD = 333.960 GPP L. The project is 400 units over the Growth Management Dwelling unit allowance. The additional units will need to be allocated from the City's Excess Pwelling Unit Bank. City of Carlsbad Planning Department DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Applicant's statement or disclosure of certain ownership interests on all applications which will require discretionary action on the part of the City Council or any appointed 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 municipality, district or other political subdivision or any other group or combination 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. APPLICANT (Not the applicant's agent) Provide the COMPLETE. LEGAL names and addresses of ALL persons having a financial interest in the application. If the applicant includes a corporation or partnership, 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 publicly-owned corporation, include the names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached if necessary.) see attachedPerson Title. Corp/Part. Title Address Address 2. OWNER (Not the owner's agent) Provide the COMPLETE. LEGAL names and addresses of ALL persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. Also, provide the nature of the legal ownership (i.e, partnership, tenants in common, non-profit, corporation, etc.). If the ownership includes a corporation or partnership, 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 publicly- owned corporation, include the names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached if necessary.) Person, Title_ Corp/Part_ Title see attached Address Address 1635 Faraday Avenue « Carlsbad, CA 92OO8-7314 • (760) 6O2-46OO - FAX (76O) 6O2-8559 3. NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION OR TRUST If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a nonprofit 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 City staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees and/or Council within the past twelve (12) months? Yes No If yes, please indicate person(s):. NOTE: Attach additional sheets if necessary. I certify that all the above information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Signature of owrier/date /fT^/P Signature of applicant/date f ST Don MitchellDon Mitchell Print or type name of owner Print or type name of applicant Signature of owner/applicant's agent if applicable/date Print or type name of owner/applicant's agent H:ADMIN\COUNTER\DISCLOSURE STATEMENT 5/98 Page 2 of 2 Disclosure Statement 1. Applicant 2. Owner Calavera Hills II, LLC 2750 Womble Road San Diego, CA 92106 N/A McMillin Companies, LLC 2750 Womble Road San Diego, CA 92106 N/A Brookfield Tamarak, LLC 12865 Pointe Del Mar Del Mar, CA 92014 N/A Calavera Hills II, LLC 2750 Womble Road San Diego, CA 92106 Joint Venture between McMillin Companies, LLC and Brookfield Tamarak, LLC N/A McMillin Companies, LLC 2750 Womble Road San Diego, CA 92106 Joint Venture with Brookfield Tamarak, LLC N/A Brookfield Tamarak, LLC 12865 Pointe Del Mar Del Mar, CA 92014 Joint Venture with McMillin Companies, LLC N/A City of Carlsbad Planning Department DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Applicant's statement or disclosure of certain ownership interests on all applications which will require discretionary action on the part of the City Council or any appointed 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 municipality, district or other political subdivision or any other group or combination 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 . APPLICANT (Not the applicant's agent) Provide the COMPLETE. LEGAL names and addresses of ALL persons having a financial interest in the application. If the applicant includes a corporation or partnership, 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 publicly-owned corporation, include the names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached if necessary.) Person Title Corp/Part_ Title Address \OL-b Address (O. OWNER (Not the owner's agent) Provide the COMPLETE. LEGAL names and addresses of ALL persons having any ownership interest in the properly involved. Also, provide the nature of the legal ownership (i.e, partnership, tenants in common, non-profit, corporation, etc.). If the ownership includes a corporation or partnership, 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- owned corporation, include the names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached if necessary.) Person Title Corp/Part Title Address go.Address 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4-60O • FAX (760) 602-8559 S3? NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION OR TRUST If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a nonprofit 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 ta/Slfc. k. V&*& IPO^T Non Profit/TrustUfe f&ftg^fft-M feMt£T (<fJ5 Title CtXlPUSieg- Title. _ AddressAddress l?\k#> CA. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees and/or Council within the past twelve (12) months? Yes No If yes, please indicate person(s):. NOTE: Attach additional sheets if necessary. I certify tha above information is true and correct to the 06 Signature of owner/date Print or type name of owner Signature of applicant/date Print or type name of applicant Signature of owner/applicant's agent if applicable/date Print or type name of owner/applicant's agent H:ADMIN\COUNTER\DISCLOSURE STATEMENT 5/98 Page 2 of 2 City of Carlsbad Planning Department DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Applicant's statement or disclosure of certain ownership interests on all applications which will require discretionary action on the part of the City Council or any appointed Board, Commission or Committee. ^— I I .1- I •••!•! ••••!—I — I —^—^—^—^—|^— I .^—^^ - . - .— I. ..P- . I , .1.1..... — . I • i .11 —^^—I. „ ... | . .^^••^^•j 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 municipality, district or other political subdivision or any other group or combination 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. 2. APPLICANT (Not the applicant's agent) Provide the COMPLETE. LEGAL names and addresses of ALL persons having a financial interest in the application. If the applicant includes a corporation or partnership, 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 publicly-owned corporation, include the names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached if necessary.) Person Title Corp/Part_ Title Address Address OWNER (Not the owner's agent) Provide the COMPLETE. LEGAL names and addresses of ALL persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. Also, provide the nature of the legal ownership (i.e, partnership, tenants in common, non-profit, corporation, etc.). If the ownership includes a corporation or partnership, 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 publicly- owned corporation, include the names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached if necessary.) Person Title CD - Corp/Part. Title Address Address 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92OO8-7314 • (760) 602-46OO • FAX (760) 602-8559 3. NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION OR TRUST If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a nonprofit 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 fel^lfc H Yssurf 1PM?T Non Profit/Trust *&£ foOEPreTaN fotrtll^T ITV5 Title Qo~HZ2 _ Title Address Z^pg? ft^o 9***&^ Address 4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees and/or Council within the past twelve (12) months? Yes ( | No If yes, please indicate person(s):_ NOTE: Attach additional sheets if necessary. I certify tha^AffJhe'above information is true and correct to the bes>efnmknowledge. Signature of owner/date Signature of applicant/date Print or type name of owner Print or type name of applicant Signature of owner/applicant's agent if applicable/date Print or type name of owner/applicant's agent H:ADMIN\COUNTER\DISCLOSURE STATEMENT 5/98 . Page 2 of 2 ay/ Attachment 13 May 31,2006 COMPARISON OF THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS WITH THE ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN Standard Planned Development Regulations Robertson Ranch Master Plan PRODUCT TYPE: SMALL-LOT PUD Community Recreational Space 200 sf per unit 200 sf per unit 'The required passive and active' recreation facilities within a Planning Area shall include a minimum 10,000 sf recreation area. A portion of the recreation requirement may be satisfied through an enlargement of the Community Recreation site (PA 4 and 19) in excess of the base 1.0 acre required per the Master Plan. Storage Space Minimum Lot Size Lot width Lot Coverage2 Minimum Rear Yard Setback Minimum Side Yard Setback Private Rear Yard Single Story Requirement (City Council Policy 44) The required storage space may be designed as an enlargement of the required parking structure. 5,000 sf May be reduced to 3,500 sf when the site is designated RMH and is adjacent to a Circulation Element Roadway. 5,000 sf lot or greater: 50 ft Less than 5,000 sf. lots: 40 ft Single-story: 60% of net pad area. Two-story on 5,000 sf. lots or greater: 40% of net pad area. Two-story on less than 5,000 sf. lots: 50% of net pad area. 20% of lot width. 10% of lot width. 18 ft x 18 ft Alley loaded: 15 ft x 15 ft 15% single-story or A minimum of 10% single-story and 15% reduced single-story Required storage space may include the space within the garage. 5,000 sf 4,500 sf lots allowed adjacent to Cannon Road, a Circulation Element Roadway, due to the location of the 84" RCP. 50ft Single-story or modified single- story: 60% of the net pad area. Two-story: 45% of the net pad area. 10ft 5ft Single-story or modified single story homes: 15 ft X 15 ft Two story: 18 ft X 18 ft At least 20% of the homes in these planning areas shall be designed as single-story. Alternatively, a total of 25% of the homes in each neighborhood shall be designed as either single-story or modified single- story2 homes, provided that no fewer than 15% of the homes in the planning area are designed as single-story homes. 2 Modified Single-Story homes shall conform to the following criteria: A minimum of 60% of the area of the roof shall be single story. A two-story element may be added in the central portion of the front and rear elevation. For modified single-story, the livable space on the second floor shall not exceed 25% of the first floor lot coverage. Attachment 13 May 31,2006 Standard Planned Development Regulations Robertson Ranch Master Plan PRODUCT TYPE: COURTYARD HOMES OR ATTACHED MULTI-FAMILY Minimum Lot Size Driveway (Project) Community Recreation Space N/A Parking/sidewalks may be required in a project driveway. 200 sf per unit. No Minimum - Airspace Condominium development. Parkways/sidewalks will not be required in motor courts which provide access to garages. 200 sf per unit/ 3 The required passive and active recreation areas shall have a minimum width and depth of 50 ft. A minimum of 10,000 sf of community recreation area shall be provided on-site. A portion of the recreation requirement may be satisfied through an enlargement of the Community Recreation site (PA 4 and 19) in excess of the base 1.0 acre required per the Master Plan. Storage Space Building Height The required storage space may be designed as an enlargement of the required parking structure. Small lot single family and two- family dwellings: 30 ft Multi-family units: 35 ft Required storage space may include the space within the garage. Detached Courtyard Homes4 or Two-Family Units: 30 ft and two stories with a minimum roof pitch of 3: 12. Multiple Family Attached: 35 ft and three stories with a minimum roof pitch of 3:12. Single-story units are not proposed for the Courtyard Homes. Minimum Building Setbacks, Private or Public Street* Minimum Building Setbacks, Driveway or Motor court • To front porch: 1 1 ft • To residence: 10 ft • To street side yard: 10 ft • Side entry garage: 10 ft • Direct entry garage: 20 ft • Residence: 8 ft fully landscaped. • Garage: 5 ft • To front porch: 10 ft • To residence: 10 ft • To street side yard: 10 ft • Side entry garage: 10 ft • Direct entry garage: Standard shall not apply (no direct access from street to garage). • Residence: 5 ft from motorcourt or driveway at first floor with a zero foot setback at second floor. • Garage: 3 ft from motorcourt or driveway to garage door. Attachment 13 May 31,2006 Standard Minimum Building Separation Resident Parking Private recreational Space Exclusive Use Areas Planned Development Regulations • 20 ft average, with a minimum 10 ft between structures. 1 covered and 1 uncovered space per unit. lOftx 10ftpatioor6ftxlOft balcony. N/A Robertson Ranch Master Plan • Minimum 25 ft between buildings on paseos (porches from each building may encroach up to 6 ft into this separation for a total of 12ft). • Minimum 10 ft between structures. • Garage: 30 ft between opposing garage doors. Two-car garage per unit (min. 20 ft x 20 ft). Projects of more than 10 dwelling units: 6 ft x 10 ft covered porches will be provided. At least 100 sf of exclusive use area shall be provided abutting each dwelling unit with a minimum dimension of 10 ft in any direction. PRODUCT TYPE: HIGH DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY - CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT Standard Community Recreation Space Planned Development Regulations 200 sf per unit. Robertson Ranch Master Plan 150 sf per unit5 5 100 sf per unit shall be provided on-site. A portion of the recreation requirement may be satisfied through an enlargement of the Community Recreation site (PA 4 and 19) in excess of the base 1.0 acre required per the Master Plan. Storage Space Minimum Building Setbacks, Private or Public Streets* Minimum Building Setbacks, Driveway or Motor Court The required storage space may be designed as an enlargement of the required parking structure. • To front porch: 1 1 ft • To residence: 10 ft • To street side yard: 10 ft • Side entry garage: 10 ft • Direct entry garage: 20 ft • Residence: 8 ft fully landscaped. • Garage: 5 ft Required storage space may include the space within the garage. • To front porch: 10 ft • To residence: 10 ft • To street side yard: 10 ft • Side entry garage: 10 ft • Direct entry garage: 20 ft • Residence: 5 ft at first floor with 0-ft setback on the second floor. • Garage: 3 ft from roadway to garage door. Attachment 13 May 31,2006 Standard Planned Development Regulations Robertson Ranch Master Plan Minimum Building Separation 20 ft average, with a minimum 10 ft between structures. Minimum 10 ft between buildings. The front faces of buildings shall be a minimum of 20 ft apart.6 Minimum 30 ft between opposing garage doors. Entries, stairs, and balconies may encroach up to 6 ft within these setbacks, provided a minimum 10-ft separation between structures is maintained. Patios may encroach within these setbacks without restriction, provided a 10-ft separation between structures is maintained. Resident Parking 1 covered and 1 uncovered space per unit. Two spaces per unit in any of the following forms: • 1-car covered garage at 12 ft x 20 ft (min.) and one designated uncovered space; • Two separate one car garages (min. 12 ft x 20 ft each); • 2-car covered tandem garage at 12 ft x 40 ft (min.); or • 2-car covered side by side garage at 20 ft x 20 ft (min.) Private Recreational Space 10 ft x 10 ft patio or 6 ft x 10 ft balcony. Each unit shall include one of the following: Patio: 100 sf (min. dimension of 8ft) Balcony: 60 sf (min. dimension of 6 ft) PRODUCT TYPE: HIGH DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY - Apartments Standard Community Recreation Space Planned Development Regulations N/A Robertson Ranch Master Plan 100 sf per unit shall be provided on site. Apartment units shall be subject to the RD-M zone development standards and are not subject to the Planned Development Requirements. CITY OF CARLSBAD COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT General Subject: Specific Subject: Proposition E "Excess Dwelling" Unit Bank Established Policy for Number And Allocation of Proposition E "Excess" Dwelling Units Policy No. Date Issued Effective Date Cancellation Date Supersedes No. 43 Page 1 of 2 4/26/05 4/26/05 43. 12/17/02 Copies to: City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, Department Heads and Division Heads, Employee Bulletin Boards, Press, File PURPOSE: To establish the City Council's policy regarding the number and the criteria for allocation of "excess" dwelling units which have become available as a result of residential projects being approved and constructed with less dwelling units than would have been allowed by the density control points of the Growth Management Plan approved by voters on November 4,1986, as Proposition E. EXCESS DWELLING UNITS Dwelling units that become "excess" shall be added to the then-existing citywide balance (excess dwelling unit bank). Excess units may be allocated to projects located in any quadrant so long as the number of residential units built in each quadrant does not violate the dwelling unit limitations established by Proposition E. STATEMENT OF POLICY Although it is not mandatory to use the excess dwelling units, the City Council authorizes consideration of allowing the excess units to be allocated to future "qualifying," residential projects. In order to "qualify" for an allocation of excess units, a project shall possess one or more of the following characteristics: t 1. A project that includes a request for a density bonus made pursuant to and in compliance with state density bonus law. 2. Housing units made affordable to lower or moderate income households. 3. Senior citizen housing. 4. Housing located in the Village Redevelopment Area or the South Carlsbad Coastal Redevelopment Area. 5. Transit-oriented, "smart growth" development projects where increased residential density is being placed in close proximity to major transit facilities, employment opportunities and commercial support services. 6. Projects approved for a land use change from non-residential to residential or projects containing a mix of residential and non-residential. 7. The property has a General Plan designation of Residential Low Density (RL) or Residential Low- Medium Density (RLM) and the base zone of the property would permit a slightly higher yield of units than would be allowed by the RL or RLM General Plan designation; provided, the proposed density does not exceed the maximum density of the RL or RLM density range by more than an additional 25 percent. CITY OF CARLSBAD COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT General Subject: Specific Subject: Proposition E "Excess Dwelling" Unit Bank Established Policy for Number And Allocation of Proposition E "Excess" Dwelling Units Policy No. Date Issued Effective Date Cancellation Date Supersedes No. 43 Page 2 of 2 4/26/05 4/26/05 43. 12/17/02 Copies to: City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, Department Heads and Division Heads, Employee Bulletin Boards, Press, File 8. The growth management control point (GMCP) density for the property results in a unit yield that includes a fractional unit of .5 or greater. In this circumstance, a fraction of a unit may be granted in order to achieve, but not to exceed, the next whole unit; provided, the maximum density of the applicable General Plan land use designation is not exceeded. The number of excess units allocated to a particular "qualifying" project shall be at the sole discretion of the City Council, Planning Commission or Planning Director as appropriate and shall be based on the importance of the characteristic possessed by the projects or, where a project possesses multiple characteristics, the number and importance of the characteristics. In approving a request for allocation of excess dwelling units, the City Council shall consider the location of the requesting project and the compatibility of increased density with existing adjacent residential neighborhoods in accordance with the applicable principles of the General Plan. HISTORY: Action Originally Adopted Amended Amended Amended Date February 2, 1990 April 22. 1997 December 17, 2002 Summary Established a formal policy for the allocation of "excess" dwelling units under the dwelling unit limitations of Proposition E. Refined the priority list of projects that qualify for an excess dwelling unit allocation. Established the number of available excess dwelling units at a balance of 2800 units (this was a reduction to the number of units in excess dwelling unit bank). Eliminated the individual city-quadrant dwelling unit bank balances, and instead established a citywide excess dwelling unit bank. Revised the list of projects that qualify for an excess dwelling unit allocation, including the elimination of the^riority" system. Modified list of projects that qualify for an excess dwelling unit allocation, including the addition of a provision to allow, projects to round up above the growth management control point by a fraction of a unit. 3*11 Barbara Kennedy - Robertson Ranch Page 1.,. K <_-.* ;_£ 1, , „ ...,afi u—__»_. , ,—uji^,.,. —ssa_—_i & &S3 tf a & ,—u—ijsaet 2 L_ , **..*&. .V. . From: "Tim Cunningham - Cunningham Tax Service" <cunningtax@excite.com> To: <bkenn@ci.carlsbad.ca.us> Date: 03/14/2006 10:12:35 AM Subject: Robertson Ranch I am writing to express complete dismay that the City would allow this to go through. El Camino Real has become a nightmare in the past few years and this is only going to make it worse. Also, Carlsbad High School is overflowing with a crowded population. Where do you expect both the traffic and students to go? 5 South will be heavily impacted as well as you cannot move on it as it is now (in the Summer especially). I was upset enough at Bressi Ranch. This is just going to add to the misery. When will you guys stop? Our quality of life has just completely deteriorated with all this non-stop building on every piece of land. Timothy J Cunningham Carlsbad Resident Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! 03/28/2006 12:10 FAX 7607294928 AGOSTI March 28, 2006 To: Council Members - City of Carlsbad Marcella Escobar-Eck (City Planning Director) Barbara Kennedy (City Planning Project Manager-Robertson Ranch) RE: Robertson Ranch We have lived in the older section of Calavcra Hills on Edinburgh Drive since 1986. Please consider our concerns about the proposed Robertson Ranch project. We realize growth is inevitable, but if we don't voice our concerns (not necessarily complaints) then they cannot be effectively evaluated. The City's allowed zoning ordinance of 954 homes will undoubtedly impact Carlsbad's human habitat. But a 42% increase beyond that with an additional 429 homes in this location would be an extraordinarily poor decision. The negative consequences of excessive traffic, noise, school crowding, pollution and safety are twofold, since they are already occurring. Since the opening of College Ave: S Traffic on Tamarack (mornings & afternoons), El Camino Real, and Cannon are already excessive. I challenge any City Planning employee or Councilperson to drive this area of surface streets during morning and afternoon school and work hours. Sometimes., it can take up to 10 minutes to go 1 mile in these areas. In the mornings, simply getting onto El Camino Real via Cannon or Tamarack is a challenge in itself. The additional 850 cars (to the approximate 2,000 cars from 954 homes) would significantly worsen the negative traffic impacts of what the area is currently zoned for. (Rezoning doesn't improve any of the impacts.) S Already, the City of Carlsbad has had to take action for the increased traffic and safety issues on Glasgow between Edinburgh and Carlsbad Village Drive near Calaveras Park. Even with the 954 homes, this is an unavoidable issue that will escalate and also present itself to Edinburgh Drive. S What mitigation efforts arc planned to avoid kids getting killed drivers while riding their bicycles and skateboards? Kids riding from Calaveras Park now don't observe the stop sign at Edinburgh and Glasgow. A traffic light at this location is unacceptable, and a traffic light at Edinburgh and Tamarack won't resolve the problem either. With the extension of Edinburgh and Glasgow, it is simply a matter of time before somebody will be killed. S Access to Hwy 78 from College is not only a traffic nightmare, but unsafe. Excessive traffic on College occurred shortly after it opened and goes right by Calavera Hills Elementary. In addition to significant traffic congestion, safety has 03/28/2006 12:10 FAX 7607294928 ' AGOSTl become a problem. Fewer kids are walking to and from school, and traffic accidents have increased (at Lake & College). For years, access to Hwy 78 has been a tremendous challenge for Carlsbad residents. Access from College improved temporarily, but is no longer convenient due to the substantial traffic congestion on College. For the addition of 954 homes alone, the City of Carlsbad must effectively work with City of Oceanside to improve these conditions. Oceanside 1$ not the sole owner of this problem; Carlsbad owns it too, S The Reclamation project for extension of Marron Road and future dense development is also going to worsen the traffic problems. The additional cars from Robertson Ranch and this project do not improve the human habitat. Again, the City of Carlsbad must effectively work with the City of Oceanside as both cities own the problems these projects create. Many residents in my neighborhood have concerns about overcrowding of schools. (Again, I challenge any City Planning employee or Councilperson to get through the traffic on El Camino Real in the mornings to get kids to Kelly school.) Why do the majority of schools appear to be located in the northern sections of Carlsbad? Robertson Ranch was supposed to include a school, possibly a high school? Another school in Robertson Ranch is not an effective resolution to the City's schools problem. S Is it logical that kids and families from the La Costa area drive such a distance? *S Is it logical to put additional schools in the areas already heavily concentrated with schools? S Isn't it logical to build a second high school in a more centralized and southern part of Carlsbad? Robertson Ranch originally called for a "Village Center — Commercial - Community Center" Many residents avoid the Von's Center across from the mall because it is such a zoo. The Quarry Creek Center in Oceanside is nice but the traffic on College to get there is worsening, and business is occurring in Oceanside, not Carlsbad. Open land would be ideal; however, a "Village Center - Commercial - Community Center" would be much better than a sea of homes. Sincerely, Jill Agosti 4730 Edinburgh Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92010 760-729-4928 I Barbara Kennedy - Fwd: "Robertson Ranch Project" L-..vf ..-suv... -- , -•* —I i a 1 >—. - — .M n__ From: Don Neu To: Barbara Kennedy Date: 04/03/2006 7:34:49 AM Subject: Fwd: Robertson Ranch Project In case you had not received this e-mail yet. >» "Irasema Perrot" <pcsostraining@sbcglobal.net> 04/02/06 7:48 PM >» I am writing to state my opposition to the Robertson Ranch Project. Our schools are overcrowded, traffic is horrific, not to mention what will happen to the water supply in this area with another 1300+ homes. All this construction is destroying our quality of life. Please stop the insanity and maintain what is left of Carlsbad. Thank you, Irasema "Ira" Perrot If your computer isn't talking to you - you'll be glad you've "contacted us! (760) 434-3509 <http://www.pcsostraining.com/> www.pcsostraining.com Barbara Kennedy, AICP Associate Planner Dear Barbara, Thank you for taking the time to speak with me regarding Robertson Ranch. I am sorry it has taken me some time to get back to you but I have been working very long weeks lately and time is very precious to me. In regards to my first concern to the viability of securing Edinburgh from becoming a major thoroughfare used to bypass the traffic at the corner of Tamarack and El Camino: I appreciate the fact that your department intends to use traffic impediments to try and control traffic down this street. I feel it may work at off peak driving times; however, with each new traffic light on College/Cannon, you are diverting more traffic onto Edinburgh during the morning and evening rush hours. I don't believe your department intended Tanglewood to be the thoroughfare it has become, yet it happened. There are many school children who walk to school during the morning rush and cross Edinburgh and this could lead to injuries and possible deaths if your department is wrong in their assumptions, and I believe they are. Drivers trying to get to work will not want to deal with the longer lights on Tamarack and Cannon when they can roll through stop signs on Edinburgh with little cross traffic. I know your department is trying to balance many concerns; but, the safety of the residents of the community must be a priority. Glasgow, on the other hand, does not appear to have the same issues as it doesn't lead as directly to El Camino. I feel Edinburgh should remain a dead end or at least not connect to El Camino or Cannon. Maybe it could be diverted onto Glasgow so that drivers realize that by taking either street, they will not be gaining any time. Secondly, why is the city adding density to achieve the 15% affordable housing mandate. If 954 units were mandated under the city density law, then make 15% of the 954 units affordable housing. Higher density will translate to more traffic, more local noise and water pollution, and it is against the current city planning ordinances. Adding housing to achieve the 15% rule is just an unacceptable argument. I hope that in an election year the council will consider the residents of the established community when voting on these concerns. I appreciate your time and look forward to your reply. Charlie & Nancy Gates 4725 Edinburgh Carlsbad, Ca 92010 iBarbara Kennedy - Robertson Ranch Project Page 1*~~Kwm!*&i? ^»^.»-^~r^™»-««a«^^_^X^^^^ ^.i.,..,.^.,,^ .....-„„ * .^ .-.*..,-., ...^^.^ .'^wiar^i.^-s- ^roie-raaag.-^^^ *?-.-HE--~ iSma: WF^ii , , ", ffr' ?*•• ~ - , ft* , — iff -"— * "M™- " -"" - *—- -"•"«• ' -.-.-•-«*»»• ' *•«—« aaj-- v WN<......W,,,-, From: "Irasema Perrot" <pcsostraining@sbcglobal.net> To: <bkenn@ci.carlsbad.ca.us>, <council@ci.carlsbad.ca.us> Date: 04/25/2006 8:36:49 AM Subject: Robertson Ranch Project I am writing to state my opposition to the above mentioned project. Carlsbad is currently over-built. Our schools are crowded and our traffic has become as bad as Orange and LA counties. We moved here 18 years ago and have seen our open areas built out. With the completion of Bressi Ranch the congestion on Palomar Airport Road and El Camino Real will be horrific. Last week traffic was backed up from El Camino Real at Canon all the way to the 78 Freeway. This will only get worse. Recently, a 4.5 mile commute from Tamarack to Faraday, took over 30 minutes, a commute that used to take me 7 minutes. It is also my understanding that the the city is planning to open Glasgow to El Camino Real. Has anyone in city hall checked out who lives on Glasgow Drive? It is full of young families with small children. These families will now have to contend with more dangerous traffic. It is unconscionable what has happened in this city. Irasema Perrot (760) 434-3509 From: " Frances Caminer" <jfcaminer@adelphia.net> To: <Bkenn@ci.carlsbad.ca.us> Date: 05/01/2006 3:25:25 PM Subject: Re: Robertson Ranch We-the residents at the Colony at Calavera- are very concerned about the traffic impact we will experience when Edinburgh is extended for cars to be able to reach that area. We have many children playing in their front yard also walking home from school. We want to come to the council meetings to express our feelings. Thank you for reading this Email-the best and fastest way to communicate these days Frances Caminer CC:<council@ci.carlsbad.ca.us> J Barbara kenriedy_:^ Rot^son R^chJDevelopment _ Page 1 From: ASHOK BHARDWAJ <acd1313@sbcglobal.net> To: <bkenn@ci.carlsbad.ca.us> Date: 05/02/2006 7:02:24 PM Subject: Robertson Ranch Development As a concerned resident of carlsbad, I Really believe that opening of the Glasgow drive to the Robertson Ranch has a negative impact on the Calavera Hills colony. The Safety of the children in our neighborhood is of a deep concern. By opening small roads traffic increases, as more and more commuters find out the short cut. We Hope the city would reconsider allowing high density housing in this area which will increase traffic both for El Camino Real and College Blvd. As you are aware both of these main roads are heavily congested during peak times. Very truly Ashok Bhardwaj 4740 Inverness Ct Carlsbad, Ca 92010 CC: <council@ci.carlsabd.ca.us> CITY OF OCE/XIMSIDE PLANNING DEPARTMENT April 28, 2006 Barbara Kennedy Carlsbad Planning Department 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 RE: Transportation Analysis for the Robertson's Ranch EIR Ms. Kennedy: Thank you for sending the revised traffic section of the Robertson Ranch EIR. The City of Oceanside remains concerned regarding the findings outlined in the traffic analysis. Comments are outlined below: 1. Existing Conditions: a. The City of Oceanside does not recognize the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology used for intersection analyses under existing conditions. The study should use the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology for analysis of intersections within the City of Oceanside for all scenarios. b. The City of Oceanside requires that daily volume to capacity ratio methodology be used to analyze Oceanside street segments for all project scenarios. c. Our records show that the existing daily traffic volume on College Boulevard south of Plaza Drive is approximately 49,000 ADT. The EIR shows 15,000 ADT for College Boulevard south of Plaza Drive. Count data sheet enclosed. d. The study area should be expanded to include the intersections of El Camino Real at the eastbound and westbound SR78 on-/off-ramps and El Camino Real at Vista Way. 2. Year 2010 Conditions: a. The projected 2010 ADT of 38,000 on College Boulevard between Lake Boulevard and SR 78 is below existing ADT. Moreover, the SANDAG Combined North County Sub-Area Model forecast for 2010 shows approximately 58,000 ADT on College Boulevard south of Plaza Drive. CIVIC CENTER 300 N. COAST HIGHWAY OCEANSIDE, CA 92054 TELEPHONE 760-435-3520 FAX 760-754-2958 b. While the study shows failing conditions without the project at the intersection of College Boulevard at Plaza Drive, the increase in delay with the project is over 2 seconds and is therefore a significant project impact. The project will be required to, at a minimum, contribute their fair share toward mitigations that are acceptable to the City of Oceanside. The City of Oceanside does not agree with the statement "Due to the fact that the significant cumulative impacts identified are primarily a result of regional traffic, the City of Oceanside should be responsible for these improvements." This statement is not acceptable. c. The City of Oceanside requires that the daily volume to capacity ratio methodology be used to analyze Oceanside street segments for all project scenarios. 3. Year 2030 Conditions: a. The study should include buildout network alternatives with and without Marron Road. b. Figures 7-1 and 7-2 show no Marron Road connection between El Camino Real and College Boulevard, while Figure 7-3 shows Marron Road connecting El Camino Real and College Boulevard. The report should clearly state whether Marron Road is assumed to connect El Camino Real and College Boulevard. c. It is unclear in the report why 2030 ADTs on College Boulevard between SR 78 and Lake Boulevard are lower than existing ADTs. This should be justified in the report. However, the SANDAG Combined North County Sub-Area Model forecast for 2030 shows approximately 61,000 ADT on College Boulevard south of Plaza Drive. d. The City of Oceanside requires that daily volume to capacity ratio methodology be used to analyze Oceanside street segments for all project scenarios. e. The intersection of College Boulevard at Lake Boulevard is projected to operate at LOS F with and without the project. The increase in intersection delay with the project is over 2 seconds and is therefore considered a significant project impact. The City of Oceanside does not agree with the statement "Due to the fact that the significant impacts identified are primarily a result of regional traffic and the unknown extension of Marron Road, the City of Oceanside has the responsibility for providing the construction of a third southbound through lane at this intersection. " College Boulevard, south of Lake Boulevard is designated in the City's circulation element as a four-lane major arterial. f. While intersection delay at College Boulevard and Vista Way is slightly less than 2 seconds with the project, the City of Oceanside requires a fair share contribution toward measures to reduce intersection delay during the peak hours. The project should contribute their share toward adaptive traffic signal hardware upgrades at this intersection. The City of Oceanside does not agree with the segment ADTs shown for College Boulevard in all scenarios. The methodologies utilized in the study for existing intersection analyses and for segment analyses are not recognized by the City of Oceanside. The revised study identifies significant project impacts to key intersections on College Boulevard south of Vista Way but recommends that the City of Oceanside mitigate those impacts. The traffic study should be revised as outlined in this letter and the project should be responsible for mitigating their impacts to Oceanside streets and intersections. Please feel free to contact me at your convenience as I would like to have an opportunity to discuss our comments and concerns with you. You may call me direct at (760) 435-5091 or you can send e-mail to iamberson@ci.oceanside.ca.us. Sincerely, John Amberson, Transportation Planner cc: Peter Weiss, Public Works Director Jerry Hittleman, Acting Planning Director enclosures: Segment Count Data Sheets for College Boulevard from Vista Way to Lake Boulevard I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i COPY'/olumes for: Tu Location: AM Period 00:00 00:15 G'J'30 00:45 01:00 01:15 01:30 01:45 02:00 02:15 02:30 02:45 03:00 03:15 03:30 03:45 04:00 04:15 04:30 04:45 05:00 05:15 05:30 05:45 06:00 06:15 06:30 06:45 07:00 07:15 07:30 07:45 08:00 08:15 08:30 08:45 09:00 09:15 09:30 09:45 10:00 10:15 10:30 10:45 11:00 11:15 11:30 11:45 Tota> Voi. jgffitib, ;/7.v^» **[*,<? * ssdav. January 25, 2005 / City: College 6lVd-__ NB 42 48 29 30 25 31 9 19 14 24 23 21 16 S 18 25 21 23 16 24 30 46 68 102 95 155 203 270 318 351 314 372 312 363 482 440 327 277 271 317 313 383 315 310 339 287 394 :•"•'<•'-£< SvlS*3S£~ fw^S 149 84 32 67 84 246 723 1355 1597 1192 1321 1 370 5270 •«5-£tSSf|f jp">V>(^- nd:84 SB 18 17 13 19 16 IS 9 8 0 1Z 7 13 9 25 14 21 24 41 43 75 89 138 192 226 259 277 310 378 470 495 642 552 516 639 564 528 425 430 335 304 30S 335 356 320 305 288 403 T3C -';^:~.--'. > = :--"; ht"Vyn Vjci'a^V/y aw 3f"jrj pjaja/j-iayryjar EB VVB 67 216 48 132 40 122 69 136 183 267 645 891 1224 1947 2159 ' 3514 2247 3844 1494 2666 1316 2637 1331 2701 iO?3? 13095 AM 56.7%*-*:$.S';; •.",• „.:,>,; :-;::,1;38.5%. ~*'^^-^^^^~r-^^r^'^--'^':" .\*"'*-!;t:?J""'-V':^s!-'«S5r--^?/^: -j,v7-*jO -:-'^ 'v--"^l-'--&-7-"- -"": . ---•^-.-^--v--:~— v v5;*KS--- :^234?'^fe' '^^-•v"^C?i^i^''^^44T:0.91 ''~i'~ '•' -•.•'•-':''•.- :- '5^52 Oceanslde PM Period 12:00 12:15 it.jW 12:45 13:00 13:15 13:30 13:45 14:00 14:15 14:30 14:45 15:00 IE: 15~ 15:30 15:45 16:00 16:15 16:30 16:45 17:00 17:15 17:30 17:45 18:00 18:15 18:30 18:45 19:00 19:15 19:30 19:45 20:00 20:15 20:30 20:45 21:00 21:15 21:30 21:45 22:00 22:15 22:30 22:45 23:00 23:15 23:30 23:4S NB 391 371 451 484 391 336 342 357 421 431 438 494 422 432 457 506, 488 521 594 604 535 563 532 488 417 506 476 379 302 310 239 205 229 212 211 242 205 202 157 141 146 119 108 88 73 81 48 -TA . 1697 1426 1.784 ' 1817,' 22C7, 2118 1778 1056 894 705 461 24? 16166 NE 24456 53.1% =16:30 -^1296 O'B<S ^ SB 356 360 ,401 399 375 367 366 356 420 453 443 .430 405 4^2 435 450 330 372 420 441 511 488 512 460 356 360 440 405 356 302 256 240 211 156 140 130 155 133 105 112 105 88 60 50 40 30 35 40 - - ; - EB we 1516 1464 1746 1732 1563 1971 1561 1154 637 506 303 145 H296 Daily Totais SB EB WE / 25121 (^ PM 46.9% IM?::~ , ,-t'f : a*l97f^"~ ' 056 3213 2890 '< • 3530 •. j 3549 , 3770 4089 3339 2210 1531 1211 764 388 """ '" '-\'x \ Combined i 49S77 Vs>_^^ ^^s .,€1.5% ,-^fcis ,4186 1.00 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 r ).-Volumes for: Tuesday January 25, 2095 Location: College Siva: — S/e-Piaza/haymai AM Period 00:00 00:15 00:30 00:45 01:00 01:15 01:30 01:45 02:00 02:15 02:30 02:45 03:00 03:15 03:30 03:45 04:00 04:15 04:30 04:45 05:00 05:15 05:30 05:45 06:00 06:15 06:30 06:45 07:00 07:15 07:30 07:45 08:00 08:15 08:30 08:45 09:00 09:15 OS:30 09:45 10:00 10:15 10:30 10:45 11:00 11:15 11:30 11:45 Tots! Vol. NB 25 30 33 20 21 18 15 14 22 25 21 15 8 11 15 20 21 25 15 18 30 55 60 105 112 156 204 256 304 355 320 356 336 360 405 440 331 256 260 304 335 380 324 305 334 289 345 350 108 68 83 54 79 250 728 1335 1541 1151 1344 1318 Sr,cf~.- vO:> SB 13 11 8 6 8 10 15 11 5 7 e. 8 10 15 15 21 20 30 40 88 101 140 188 205 224 225 245 331 356 450 486 504 556 488 504 552 420 405 334 299 305 320 340 305 331 288 405 334 EB i < 38 44 26 62 178 634 1025 1796 ' 2100 1458 1270 1358 9989 AM ^^^^3T|OtU«3fMSiS . HBV Mi€*fCity: Oceanside 1^% WE PM Period NB ' ' 146 112 109 116 257 884 1753 3131 3641 2609 2614 2S76 1SG4S '_ 12:00 12:15 12:30 12:45 13:00 13:15 13:30 13:45 14:00 1«:15 14:30 14:45 15:OC 15:15 15:30 15:45 16:00 16:15 16:30 16:45 17:00 17:15 17:30 17:45 13:00 18:15 18:30 18:45 19:00 19:15 19:30 19:45 20:00 20:15 20:30 20:45 21:00 21:15 21:30 21:45 22:00 22:15 22:30 22:45 23:00 23:1S 23:30 23:45 399 380 4G5 445 405 336 355 364 420 405 442 485 430 456 460 505 522 555 604 '664 550 560 530 405 420 552 445 356 330 305 256 201 199 202 211 240 205 188 140 105 130 105 88 90 67 77 50 Af- 1629 1461 \ 1752 • 18S1'' 2346 2045 1773 1092 852 638 413 234 160S6 NB 24145 SB 367 356 ',344 356 '377 360 356 335 430 456 445 420 399 405 442 405 350 388 435 405 '540 501 552 456 360 388 450 445 442 405 345 331 256 225 201 168 160 156 105 120 105 78 68 66- 60 35 33 35 mfimm wMSpii Pi sAjfeSS*IsfB;S1:^^--J w^pr • £ J^ Pfpct 2 : 05 -4022r004 ' , E3 WB 1423 3052 1428 2889 , 1 1751 ' 3503 ' 1 1651 • , 3502 , 1578 3924 2049 4094 16*3 - 3416 1523 2615 850 1702 541 1179 317 730 163 397 :H9l7 31CC3 Daily Totsts ,-'^~ ^ SB EE WB Combined i 24906 : 49051 / PM V ^/ ^fV^bn T :^-:^^£~^i;:^^--:;T!^^ ? - - ------- (jSjflAG,; CJ/U ~CK£d^ IAA uu <3Md Ouu QJUL C had- CL Illl Illl g? LLHLbJ A MPH amd. k&fij . StLGJULt -tk6; ^f uittJ- tf&CQJU ~tkJL> TT cJ KL-l_CJizm A Q Illl eft j, ffJU Illl -that- -tkt&L a-fa&Lj hjjgjLJL, A fl.M . fyjji^ f-Jjo^. Igjiol c^jQ fl^fo-A ^ III Illl Illl >ap&iJ ). ufb arm &L&L _ $ ^5" Pit CL PL y O&U) L&L (A£UX&, -*-/-CL£ I/U&AJ£^ j-OM* . <$irz> &S1L&2JL&V s III I Illl Ill 11111 a±: <fl UMi* Illl Illl Dr. and Mrs. Donald Wofford 4757 Edinburgh Dr. Carlsbad, CA. 92010 (760)720-1618 May 9th, 2006 Dear Planning Committee, I am writing this letter in regards to the Robertson Ranch project. First let me tell you that I have been a Carlsbad resident living hi the original house we bought some eighteen years ago. Although we had many opportunities to move, because we loved the neighborhood and the city, we never did move. Each time someone asked where we lived, I was proud to say Carlsbad. Needless to say, Carlsbad has evolved over time. For the most part we have been pleased with the growth. The Robertson Ranch project is puzzling though. Why would Carlsbad consider increasing the Growth Management Plan Standards by somewhere around 40%. It is my understanding that instead of around 950 homes being built you are planning on building 1350. As a family with two young children, I find it alarming that my street will be significantly impacted with far more cars using Edinburgh Dr. Furthermore, I understand that you have not formally looked into the impact on Glasgow and Edinburgh Dr. We moved into this house because of the neighborhood. We felt it would be a great place to raise a family. There is a weekly baseball game in the street that all the kids on the block participate in. I fear that our quaint little neighborhood is going to turn into a major artery with far more traffic. Safety and our quality of life will be negatively impacted. I urge you to look at this project with great care. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact my wife or myself. Sincerely, T> I Dr. Donald Wofford £*/W To of en Q _u£d j CJ OJCLL ; — cm 4^3jy^ _~ ..... "~ ccrmlAM >M^ c>a o<%' ^\j$jml^^ L _ 4*mte^^ ^ * \ —lr" ^f\/S /^ \" J j ,2- JLL^^ ^^ ^TLJ I _!_ To (T vL. , . tuo^AjL-UiiM k^L _uiitk_QB 4 "tZ/yUJ^ , j T A . jQ,-/"- _jCy^ U 0 .\^&>^J*^^M& sMJmh4£^j&3^^ d\ &&A&) uAJUt&s ttkjb"try ' £\ k#|L5* tk- (1/ ** IfiJuMLj^^o^^ i • A ~—'f- * t j i • ^MJ^^^UJ^LJA^ .. . * J • . , . U _4tSu^^_fiai sJdLteJ^Lril^^ 14JULO_ S» a d- i^t "tko^ )G^y-^ A^-M^e rz^. ^ _ o _r / » _Ql^g_._ Jto&Ae^ _. ~~~ " {Q^M^J^JL..<3 rj^u*3^^ 7__£^^_jib^>^ "/l/v^/l U-— » •« . j-J^ _M0H ._^^cJIL.j!flL^_i4uL^ u o • ; • 'O^^i^MK^j 'L~ — ~~- - - — ." i Q - y. *4~ <—&* ; ! .^_fiykl^S^SS^_^M^ ,__oX._^^.i^^^,_Ak^ L^U^^t^A^^^^^^ ^^^^^-^^^-^^^M&J&tiM^^^ ... _ _ 4^Mt^_ 4iL^ 1 A I tx f ] « J ^—J ^ ^ J ...-.. >CJ ^"^ ^^^^^^ CL MJSsL&Z} ' 'iib ^fcfc&yk_A / ^^^^M^M^JUiL^ ^ ^3 : Barbara Kennedy-Robertson'Ranch Development PagVl ' . +«f «w- . .-. ^~*>--.-;".-,-: .-"-.-• v»~-y-M<.^F->-^*^KgaasiF »«•_.*. — .» . - r , * — - . ._, ,_ _ t _ T „_, . .. ^-£ X__L 32^! >.»....i..-- -»-7^- EB *»*w;>- *y..gaar ,.,- „ ,- __. - ..mrm* i-.i"*-^-..... ?•¥., --. - ....... X. ..,«»._ ^ From: "Wofford Robin A." <RWofford@WPKT.com> t To: <bkenn@ci.carlsbad.ca.us>, <council@ci.carlsbad> Date: 05/18/2006 10:52:07 AM Subject: Robertson Ranch Development Dear Planning Commission and Esteemed Members of the City Council: I write this letter as a long time citizen and tax payer of Carlsbad California. My husband and I moved to Carlsbad in 1988. We have lived at our current address on Edinburgh Drive since 1989. We have two young children and often tell our friends and family we are blessed to have chosen Carlsbad as a place to raise our family. Over the years we have watched Carlsbad grow from a quaint seaside village into a complex, unfortunately over crowded city. While I have been a proponent of growth it appears we are over estimating the capacity this city has to absorb more people and traffic. I understand that the Planning Commission and City Council are considering increasing the size of the Robertson Ranch development by more than 40%, from 950 homes to 1350. I question how such extreme growth adds to the quality of life of any of our citizens, let alone those that will move into the new development. It seems only the developer will benefit from this one and leave the citizens of Carlsbad to deal with the over crowded streets, schools, parks and libraries. I believe the commission and the City Council are entrusted to look out for all of the citizens and are smart enough to know when to say, enough is enough. Now is that time. I understand the temptation to grow, generate tax revenue and fees. However, it appears it must be done consistent with the Growth Management Plan of our City. As elected officials you are obligated to follow that plan. To that extent I have been advised that the additional housing units you are considering exceed the Growth Management Plan by 40%. Why would anyone want to exceed the plan by that much? Also, has there been any study to determine the impact such growth will have on traffic in our neighborhood? As Bud Lewis has said "Small roads opened up turn into major arteries". I am told no study has been done of the traffic impact on Glasgow and Edinburgh Dr. If you have not had the opportunity to visit our neighborhood let me tell you a little about it. We are a tight knit community, working hard to raise lots of children. We have seen children grow and move out, and a lot of new young couples move in with their babies because this is a great place for children to grow and play. Our home has at least 5 to 10 neighborhood children come in and out every weekend. We jokingly refer to our front yard as "Lord of The Flies" when it is filled with young neighborhood boys playing stickball, football, basketball and hide and seek. As we know "boys will be boys" and those games find them running across Edinburgh Dr. all the time. If that road became a major thorough fare open to commuter traffic the danger it would impose is frightening! In writing this letter I am asking each and everyone of you to consider the safety of these children and the many more to come. Please stick to the growth plan and be aware of the impact opening access to this : Barbara Kennedy - Robertson Ranch Development Page 2-B , * . .,.».•* ._.~LA_- . .. ~m- ~ -rv - j ._ - ...•»_?... .......t > ~ .-*» -m* T- . »^ - FK .iwijiiwii-ir •. «• -_ t. y™, » a •# an. . _s .ry»~.j tar./***... <v> —*, .. ** ., residential area will have on the quality of life for everyone. I appreciate your dedication to the citizens of this community and trust you will do the right thing. Robin A. Wofford, Esq. WILSON PETTY KOSMO & TURNER LLP 550 West C Street, Suite 1050 San Diego CA 92101 (619)236-9600 (619) 236-9669 (facsimile) rwofford@wpkt.com This electronic transmission contains information from the law firm of Wilson, Petty, Kosmo & Turner LLP, which may be confidential or protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or the work product doctrine. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the content of this message is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and delete the original message. CC: "Don Wofford" <donwofford@adelphia.net> 377 ' Barbara Kennedy - Re: Robertson Ranch " " Page f •»- .*»ra.n. . __"<>™*~ L __ .•$£**? - ~° -"•' L:_..jaB... - **»--» . "-g-- .. 3L..._-^ »? «-_-f3gCT ... , .___ retwm-Htvr J£ 3 3LJS ZZ22S£2B2ffiSl^;—1^ a». y^ogm-•^ «- . - -s awn-j *•***•* ** .. From: Barbara Kennedy To: CCates8431@aol.com Subject: Re: Robertson Ranch »> <CCates8431@aol.com> 05/21/06 2:20 PM >» The homeowners of Calavera Hills recently invited representatives of McMillan to speak to us We met with them and a representative of the Robertson Ranch (West Site) on May 16. After having spoken with you at length, went several meetings with various groups, and given all sides consideration I believe i would like to urge the following course of action for. the planning commission and city council. 1) Edinburgh/Glasgow Drives - It is clear to me, and I feel comfortable in including the residents of Calavera Hills, that opening up these drives all the way to El Camino will create an iminent danger to our children and ourselves. We already experience accidents and near misses at the corner of Edinburgh and Glasgow and our traffic is estimated to quadruple. In a recent interview with the Coast News, Matt Hall and Bud Lewis stated that traffic on residential streets is one of their highest priorites. However, I also understand the need for a fire emergency access to both communities. I would propose allowing an emergency access road that would connect the two communities. This would allow pedestrian and bicycle traffic which would also ease the future community's access to Hope or Calavera schools. There are many precedents for creating this in both Carlsbad and Oceanside. I have discussed this with several neighbors and they all feel this is reasonable compromise. And, just for the record, this was not my idea. I believe it was first mentioned as an example of what could be done by McMillan. 2) Density - The representatives of McMillan and Robertson Ranch felt that the 1128 unit density plan was acceptable to them. They originally had planned for this number, except that the city came back and requested that the number be raised. We, as a community, feel that we should shoulder our fair share of the density requirements for our area. We should not have to live with a more traffic, more pollution, and longer waits at everything from grocery stores to restaurants just because the city has decided that they wish to change their requirements. I think that this is request that all sides can live with. I have had my vacation planned for 5/27-6/6 for over 2 months and cannot move these dates. But, like the original planning meeting when the yellow signs were originally posted, I would be there and speak for these two issues. Please consider this my time at the microphone. I would also like to add that everyone who has worked with you has had positive things to say about your thoroughness and attention to detail. This is very encouraging for me because I believe that my community is only asking for safety and to maintain our neighborhood. thank you. Charlie & Nancy Gates 4725 Edinburgh Dr Carlsbad, Ca 92010 since 1987 May 24,2006 RECEIVED MAY IH 2008To: City Planning Commission Members CITY OF CARLSBAD Cc: City Council Members, M. Escobar-Eck, B. Kennedy PLANNING DEPT From: The Colony Residents at Calavera Hills (Primary contacts: Greg & Jill Agosti, Kari Atherton, Ken & Judy Miller) RE: Robertson Ranch As citizens of The Colony in Carlsbad, we have several concerns regarding the Robertson Ranch application. We are communicating our concerns in one letter to demonstrate our individual and collective apprehensions hi a single, concise document and to avoid having you read a plethora of individual letters repeating the same points. Please be aware the concerns and views contained hi this letter are representative of numerous Colony residents. Upon meeting with the City of Carlsbad Planning Department and representatives from both McMillan and Robertson Ranch, we have identified and summarized our concerns, and we have provided recommendations and suggested solutions. As a community, we were aware of Robertson Ranch eventually being developed, which is their right, but not at the density proposed in the Master Plan application. Thus, we want the growth in our existing neighborhood to be managed effectively and the right things to be implemented. Our primary concerns are excess density, traffic, and safety. Communication is also briefly addressed. DENSITY Original estimates called for this property to have 1,122 homes. After a more intensive analysis by the city (hi accordance with the City's zoning standards), that figure was later reduced to 983. The proposed Master Plan for Robertson Ranch currently reflects 1,383 dwelling units -a 41% increase. This additional density is made up mostly of apartment/multi-family units. City Planners have said that the request for the additional 400 units is permissible because the land developers will meet additional low income housing goals, and the Robertson Ranch area is hi the Northeastern quadrant, which is expected to come in well below the City's Growth Management Housing Standards by the time the city reaches its build out stage hi 15 - 20 years.1 1 North County Times, May 14,2006 37? Robertson Ranch - Colony Residents Page 2 "So, we said, it makes sense to put these excess dwelling units into the Robertson Ranch parcel" Barbara Kennedy.2 In our opinion, the added density to Robertson Ranch is not responsible growth. It contributes to several existing issues including, but not limited to: extensive traffic congestion (discussed in additional detail below), increased safety issues, potential for increased crime and reduced property values. Our concern is also with the total number of apartment/multi-family units. According to the Council Policy Statement 43, dated 4/26705 "In approving a request for allocation of excess dwelling units (DU), the City Council shall consider the location of the requesting neighborhoods." Calavara Hills has no apartment/multi-family units in the adjacent neighborhoods to the North, West or South. The sole apartment project3 to the East is the new development, Mariposa in Calavara Hills, with a total of 106 units at a density of approximately 13 DU's per acre4. In comparison, proposed units for Robertson Ranch range from 16.7 - 22.9 DU's per acre with a total number 677 dwelling units, of which, 534 or 79% of these are in the West Village alone. Density Comparison of Dwelling Unit • Existing to Proposed (Master Plan Land Use Plan dated 02-06-06) PARCEL Mariposa (Existing) East Village (Proposed) PA 14 PA 15 West Village (Proposed) PA 7 PAS PA 13 Robertson Ranch Total 106 DU's 63 DU 80 DU 201 DU 195 DU 138 DU 677 DU Gross Acres 8.16 3.6 3.5 11.6 11.7 6.8 Average DU per Acre 13.0 DU/AC 17.5 DU/AC 22.9 DU/AC 17.3 DU/AC 16.7 DU/AC 20.3 DU/AC Increase Above 35% 76% 33% 29% 56% Compatible, defined by Webster, indicates, "going well together". In our opinion, the number of apartment/multi-family units proposed for Robertson Ranch will not blend well together at this volume, if at all. We don't understand why the City would approve a project where 49% of the total DU's are apartment/multi-family units when the adjacent neighborhoods have only one very small apartment/multi-family complex. Not 2 North County Times, May 14,2006 3 To our knowledge4 Figures from the City of Carlsbad website Robertson Ranch - Colony Residents Page3 only will the volume of apartment/multi-family units aesthetically be incompatible, our property values will decline due to the proximity of the volume of apartment/multi-family units, crime is more likely to increase due to the proximity of housing defined as "low income", and the excess density will bring significantly more traffic on Edinburgh and Glasgow resulting hi increased noise from additional cars. While it may be legal, we do NOT believe this meets the intent of compatibility with the existing adjacent residential neighborhoods. Additionally, the proposed excess density in the form of multi-family units far exceeds the 15% low-income requirement. On 4/25/06 during the Public Hearing of the Mira Monte Barricades issue, Mayor Pro Tern, Matt Hall said, " Growth Management Plans were designed to protect quality of life ". The 41% increase in density above and beyond the City's revised property analysis figure of 983 units is significant Just because the density fits within the quadrant's Growth Management number, doesn't mean that it is the right thing to do. Additional density impacts the quality of life within our community on every level: children's safety, increased noise and air pollution, lower property values (based on excessive apartment/multi-family units) and traffic (discussed hi further detail below). TRAFFIC "A City where travel is safe and easily accommodated whether it is by mass transit, in an automobile, on a bicycle or as a pedestrian".5 After reviewing the traffic study impacts to Edinburgh and Glasgow, we have numerous concerns, beginning with the fact that the conclusions are based on the assumption that Cannon Road Reach 4 is completed hi the near term, near term defined as 1-10 years per Planning personnel. Discussions with Traffic and Planning personnel indicate that the Cannon Road Reach 4 is at least 10 years away, if ever. ("If ever" was used multiple times throughout conversations.) This is for several reasons: • The Cannon Road Reach 4 project has yet to receive funding; • Environmental and ecological impact issues; • Planning and coordination with a second city, and while Cannon Road Reach 4 is part of the General Plan, the City of Carlsbad has not identified the project as a priority. Thus, the probability of this extension being completed hi the "near term" is extremely low and cannot be relied upon in decisions linked to the Robertson Ranch application. Additionally, the traffic study pertaining to existing traffic patterns collected data on only one day, leaving much room for error. There was no evidence whatsoever verifying that the one day was representative of and consistent with other days. The survey was conducted hi October the same week as the Columbus Day holiday and may not be accurately representative of "daily" traffic patterns. S Excerpts from the Carlsbad General Plan. Adopted by City Council September 6,1994. Cwtabad-The Vision Robertson Ranch - Colony Residents Page 4 The traffic study's conclusion of a 6% overall distribution northbound on Glasgow and Edinburgh troubles us and in our opinion, is very low. We question the actual trips per day when Glasgow and Edinburgh become the primary routes for those attending Hope or Calavera schools. We do not believe that families in the lower part of the West Village will choose the option of a 6-lane major thoroughfare and 3 traffic lights in order to get to Tamarack when they can simply use Edinburgh and/or Glasgow. As far as we can determine from our review of the traffic study, the demographic assumptions for school age families hi the West Village are not identified, which is a flaw of the study. Further clarification from the City's Engineering representative (who has been very professional) implied that they were included but did not absolutely confirm it. Nevertheless, we believe such assumptions are incorrect. In addition, with only one main entrance/exit in the West Village we don't feel the traffic study adequately addresses driving patterns in the West Village. If 6% of the entire Robertson Ranch traffic will be diverted to Edinburgh and Glasgow, we do not believe the remaining 94% of all traffic flow will occur through the three main entrances/exits, even with the road improvements on Cannon and El Camino Real. Again, to get to Tamarack from the West Village: the option of a 6-lane major thoroughfare and 3 traffic lights or simply using Edinburgh and/or Glasgow. Without completion of Cannon Road Reach 4, the figures hi the traffic report reflect an increase on Glasgow Drive from 300 existing VPD to 1,640 - an astronomical 446% increase. Edinburgh will increase from 1,200 to 1,750, a 46% increase. Although it is within city engineering acceptable standards, in practicality we find these figures unreasonable for an existing community of single-family homes filled with children and grandchildren. The majority of homes, if not all, front both of these streets. A 46% increase is significant, but a 446% increase is without a doubt unacceptable, especially considering safety. Traffic from both Villages - especially the East - will contribute to the already "failed" intersections of College & Lake and College & Plaza Dr. (hi Oceanside) for access to the CA-78. Although these failed intersections are in Oceanside, approval of the Robertson Ranch project, at any density level, will further contribute to these failures. Both Carlsbad and Oceanside own this problem as it greatly affects the citizens of Carlsbad and further reduces the quality of life hi this area. Often, and especially during the afternoon/evening commute, the failures occur in Carlsbad on College towards Tamarack (North) and sometimes to Carlsbad Village Dr. and beyond when other traffic problems occur on specific days. (See attached pictures for reference.) According to the Carlsbad Growth Management Plan, major concept #4 states, "If at any time a proposed development would result in a failure of any of the adopted facility performance standards, the development cannot be approved until the problem is resolved." Due to the intent of this statement and because the city boundary attaches to these already failed intersections, we believe the City of Carlsbad has an obligation to address this problem and work with the City of Oceanside to resolve the problem, Robertson Ranch - Colony Residents Pages possibly with a specific implementation plan and date, asa condition for approval of the Robertson Ranch project. Lastly, the EIR stated that during peak hours the intersection at El Camino Real and Lisa Street would have a Level of Service (LOS) "F' by 2010, and after the widening of El Camino Real a LOS "D". Similar conclusions were stated for the Oceanside intersection of College and Plaza. SAFETY Until the Cannon Road Reach 4 is completed, approving a project that will result hi traffic increases of 46% on Edinburgh and 446% on Glasgow is not a prudent decision. With the number of homes fronting the two streets, the safety impacts to the residents could not be found during our review of the EIR, A statement was identified hi the EIR that said the impact on Edinburgh and Glasgow would be significant but offered no solutions or further discussion. If the project is approved, these conditions must be corrected before occupancy can occur. The Colony's primary streets are Edinburgh and Glasgow with several other streets interconnecting. For over 20 years, our neighborhood of 172 homes has consisted of both young and "older" families with lots of children and grandchildren. Parents are responsible in our neighborhood, but children will always be children. The little ones (and even big ones) can be exceptional "escape artists". It takes only seconds for an accident to occur. We have witnessed kids on their bikes and skateboards who don't observe stop signs now and have had many close calls. Luckily, adults hi our neighborhood know to watch for children since it is so heavily concentrated with families. Without the Cannon Road Reach 4 extension, Edinburgh and Glasgow will experience a significant increase in cat-through traffic. The cut-through traffic drivers will not be attentive to children; they will be focused on reaching their eventual destination. Since the opening of College, Tamarack and Cannon are the two primary thoroughfares to get to El Camino Real by commuters from the East. The majority of traffic hi the mornings is commuters traveling south onto El Camino Real (supported by pictures). Cannon is much more heavily used than Tamarack. In our opinion widening Cannon is not going to resolve the current backup problem hi the two left lanes in the mornings. This is due simply to the volume of vehicles turning left, and the two left turn lanes have limited capacity. During peak commute times, the one left hand lane from Tamarack onto El Camino Real backs up and requires 2-3 light rotations to get through onto El Camino Real. Once commuters learn that they can eliminate 2 lights (at Tamarack and Kelly) by using Edinburgh and Glasgow, these roads will become commuter arteries. Commuters are notorious for finding their own solutions to circumvent traffic congestion. On 4/25/06, during the Public Hearing of the Mira Monte Barricades issue, per Mayor Lewis said, "Small roads opened up turn into major arteries". Robertson Ranch - Colony Residents Page 6 In addition to the safety of children, the increased traffic at percentages of 446% and 46% will undoubtedly result in more car accidents - simply as a matter of statistics. We have already experienced accidents (can be confirmed with the Carlsbad Police Dept.) and numerous close calls at the intersection of Edinburgh and Glasgow. Because this intersection is an access point to Calaveras Park and to additional residential neighborhoods, it will require more man just a 4-way stop. Additional traffic safety stops will be required throughout the Colony at intersections including, but not limited to, Edinburgh/Gateshead, Edinburgh/Inverness, Glasgow/Gateshead, Glasgow/Sterling and stop signs at all cul-de-sacs. COMMUNICATION On 5/8/06, we met with City personnel in what was a very professional and informative meeting, and they have continued to answer questions in the planning process. We were told that we would be receiving formal notifications 10 days prior to the Planning Commission Hearing for the Robertson Ranch application. Residents outside the City's 600' parameter did not receive notices. Upon request, the notice was ematled to us on 5/22/06. The City met its requirements, but we're disappointed that not all of the 172 homes hi The Colony were notified since it is the primary adjacent neighborhood to the Robertson Ranch project During our meeting with the City on 5/8/06, it was suggested that we meet with the developer. We met with McMillin and Robertson Ranch representatives on 5/16706. As the adjacent neighborhood to the Robertson Ranch project, we are disappointed that the meeting was at our request McMillin alluded to their surprise that they had not heard from anyone in The Colony. They did not attempt any outreach efforts with Colony residents and relied on minimal requirements citing the newspaper as their only notification obligation. Although the majority of the community is not within the 600' parameter of notification by the City we are still an adjoining community. McMillin communicated then* happiness with our meeting request and the strong desire to have more meetings tike ours with other residents; however, only 15 days remained until the 5/31 Planning Commission meeting. Therefore, items that required more intensive answers, discussion or resolution could not be properly addressed Both McMillin and Robertson representatives were receptive as well as inviting to having The Colony actively involved in the street/traffic design of the West Village, which was publicly acknowledged. Hearing from both sides regarding the excess density was contradictory. City personnel told us that the developer was requesting the additional 400 units. McMillin told us mat the City requested the developer to increase the density in order to decrease the Excess Dwelling bank. Robertson Ranch - Colony Residents Page 7 Recommendations \ 1. We believe that approval of this project at this point is premature because of speculative and possibly unsound assumptions the City still needs to address, and resultant unanswered questions. 2. Until Cannon Road Reach 4 is completed, we strongly encourage approval of barricades or emergency access gates at the transitions to the West Village from both Edinburgh and Glasgow; 3. In any recorded approval of the project, inclusion of the condition that Calavera Hills Colony representatives (Greg Agosti, Jill Agosti, Kari Atherton, & Ken Miller) actively participate in and approve the street/traffic planning development of the West Village. Both McMillin and Robertson Ranch representatives were in agreement with this concept. 4. Do not approve excess density over the City's property analysis figure of 983 units. Growth Management plans were designed in years past to protect future quality of life. Do the right thing and follow those plans. J. Include a condition for development of courtyard and/or town homes instead of apartment/multi-family units. This will satisfy the incompatibility issues with existing adjacent residential neighborhoods in the event any increased density is approved The density comparison table illustrates that the proposed "multi- family" units (aka apartments) are not compatible with the existing adjacent neighborhoods (or with the sole existing apartment complex). 6. Carlsbad has and continues to contribute to the "failed" intersections of College & Lake and College & Hacienda (hi Oceanside) for access to the CA-78. Approve a condition that requires the City of Carlsbad to work with the City of Oceanside until this problem is resolved, and tie the condition to a specific/ongoing implementation plan and date. This addresses the intent of major concept #4 of the Carlsbad Growth Management Plan, "If at any time a proposed development would result in a failure of any of the adopted facility performance standards, the development cannot be approved until the problem is resolved." 7. Perform another traffic survey to monitor traffic patterns during a non-holiday time-frame and that ensures consistency for more than just one 24-hour period. 8. Additional traffic safety stops will be required throughout The Colony at intersections including, but not limited to, Edinburgh/Gateshead, Edinburgh/Inverness, Glasgow/Gateshead, Glasgow/Sterling and stop signs at all cul-de-sacs. OTHER POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS • Rezone school district so children living in the West Village attend Kelly School. This will reduce traffic going to Calavera Hills area; Robertson Ranch - Colony Residents Paged • Relocate the current intersection at Tamarack and Edinburgh Drive by acquiring The Colony's private park, located between Edinburgh and the Calaveras City Park, and constructing a new roadway. This new roadway would reroute traffic going to the City Park and other residential neighborhoods using the Edinburgh entrance by cutting traffic through The Colony and reducing accidents at a 4-way intersection to a 3-way stop intersection. The entrance at Edinburgh and Tamarack Drives would then become a cul-de-sac. SUMMARY We oppose the density proposed for the Robertson Ranch application. We want the growth in our existing neighborhood to be managed effectively and the right things implemented. In our opinion, the excess density, especially in the form of apartments/multi-family units, is not responsible growth for this area of Carlsbad. It contributes to already existing traffic congestion and failures, and impacts safety, especially of our children and grandchildren, in our neighborhood. Additionally, results hi the potential for increased crime and reduced property values. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Greg & Jill Agosti, 4730 Edinburgh Dr, Carlsbad Kari Atherton, 4781 Brookwood Ct Carlsbad Ken & Judy Miller, 4753 Gateshead, Carlsbad T V* Enclosures: Supporting Photographs Maps Illustrating Connections to Robertson Ranch property GLASGOW Failed Intersections College/Plaza College/Lake Carlsbad Village Dr & College EDINBURGH College Ave Robertson Ranch Impacts to Colony Neighborhood and College Ave 387 o3h«lffio COPY 13 i /5 i; /s?8-* 6 •* SJ,« «. 8S SPi ^-^0 a} *,» II -re **£. a-115 x -•-} " a \ _fj:a D \ II^ Si SUPPORTING PHOTOGRAPHS TAMARACK & EL CAMINO REAL Just entering the left turn lane. 1 Time shown is 1 hr behind due to Day Light Savings CANNON & EL CAMINO REAL ' Time shown is 1 hr behind due to Day Light Savings CANNON & EL CAMINO REAL (CONTINUED) 1 Time shown is 1 hr behind due to Day Light Savings CANNON & EL CAMINO REAL (CONTINUED) Time shown is 1 hr behind due to Day Light Savings CANNON & EL CAMINO REAL (CONTINUED) EL CAMINO BETEWEEN TAMARACK & CANNON EL CAMINO BETEWEEN CANNON & COLLEGE COLLEGE & CARLSBAD VILLAGE DR TOWARD CA-78 COLLEGE & TAMARACK (N) TOWARD CA-78 COLLEGE & TAMARACK (N) TOWARD CA-78 297 COLLEGE & TAMARACK (N) TOWARD CA-78 Tiny green "Entering Oceanside" sign (left middle behind suburban) COLLEGE APPROACHING CARLSBAD VILLAGE DR TOWARD CA-7S 39? COLLEGE BACK-UP TO CANNON APPROACHING CARLSBAD VILLAGE DR TOWARD CA-78 COLLEGE APPROACHING CARLSBAD VILLAGE DR TOWARD CA-78 360 May 31, 2006 ITEM # 1 TO: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS FROM: Barbara Kennedy, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ERRATA SHEET FOR EIR 03-03/MP 02-03/GPA 02-04/LFMP 14(B)/HMP 06-04 - ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN and CT 02-16/HDP 02-07/SUP 02-05 - ROBERTSON RANCH EAST VILLAGE MASTER TENTATIVE MAP Staff Report: Page 31: Add: Attachment 21. Response to Comments for the Final EIR Resolutions 6105 through 6107 and 6109 through 6112: Change the typographical error on the first page of each resolution, first paragraph, fourth line, of the legal description from November 16, 1986 to 1896. Proposed Revised Wording for Reso. No. 6110, Condition #43 43. If the City Recreation Department is able to obtain approval for a future trailhead, parking areas, and related trails located within PA 23E prior to completion of all construction activities associated with the development of the Robertson Ranch East Village, then the Developer shall be responsible for the funding and construction of these regional trail features, including a parking area for no more than 10 cars and a nature trail from the parking area to the west side of Calavera Creek. The Developer shall prepare the plans and forward for review to the City Trails Manager. The plan together with the security posted shall ensure that the improvements are constructed, pending approval of the plan. If the approved plans allow for a crossing of the creek, and the City desires to construct the creek crossing and/or a bridge, then the City shall be responsible for financing and construction of the creek crossing only. 301 Owners' Association, Inc. 5200 El Camino Real, Carlsbad, California 92008 Phone: (760) 438-0333 Fax: (760) 438-1 808 May 30, 2006 Carlsbad City Planning Commission 1200 Carlsbad Village Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008 RE: Robertson Ranch E.I.R. Dear Commission Members: This letter is written, in part, to express our thanks to Brian Milich and the McMillin Company for their ongoing response to issues of importance to Rancho Carlsbad Owners' Association, and its' members. We began our working relationship during processing of Calavera II Project in 2001, and the construction of College Blvd and Cannon Rd. We had specific issues regarding the highways, including their effect on our Flood Mitigation Plan, a prime concern of our community. Brian worked with us cooperatively to resolve those issues. Discussions then ensued in early 2004 on the future development plans for Robertson Ranch. Again we had specific issues regarding development along our northern border below Cannon Rd. Flood mitigation was an important part of these discussions. Brian and his organization again worked cooperatively with us to meet and resolve our concerns. Recently, Rancho Carlsbad Owners' Association, and Calavera Hills II, LLC, on behalf of the owners' have entered into an agreement addressing the issues raised by us related to the Robertson Ranch Project. As a result we support the EIR, the modification of the master plan for PA-22, and the Flood Plain Special Use Permit, which includes the 84" diversionary pipeline. In general, we find nothing to oppose in the overall Robertson Ranch Master Plan and Project. Thank You, Bill Arnold, President 30% RECEIVED MAY 3 1 2008 Barbara Kennedy Associate Planner, City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 SUPPORT FOR ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN - MP 02-03 The Agua Hedionda Lagoon Foundation (AHLF) is in support of projects that are processed through the City of Carlsbad consistent with the General Plan, city standards and policies, and statewide environmental review requirements. In that context, the AHLF supports the Robertson Ranch Master Plan, corresponding Environmental Impact Report (EIR 03-03), and related entitlements. The master plan development is located directly upstream of the lagoon, within the Agua Hedionda watershed. Many features of the project will result in a healthier lagoon due to the significant reduction of offsite sedimentation. Compliance with new regulations affecting offsite soil loss, stormwater management and related water quality will improve existing conditions. Support for the project is based on the delivery of structural improvements to the area which will assist with the implementation of the City's Master Drainage Plan and Stormwater Quality Management efforts. Support is also based on the establishment of related Best Management Practices, implementation of EIR 03-03 and related mitigation monitoring program, consistency with the City's Habitat Management Plan, provision of trails and parks, and long-term environmental management obligations. The AHLF concurs with the staff recommendation that the Planning Commission support this project, and likewise recommend approval by the City Council. Sincerely, ERIC MUNOZ President - Agua Hedionda Lagoon Foundation A California Non-Profit Corporation, 1580 Cannon Road, Carlsbad CA 92008 • 760-804-1969, inow.aguahedionda.org 363 Environmental Health Coalition COALIGION DE SALUD AMBIENTAL 40.1 Mile of Cars Way, Suite 310 * National City, CA 91950 * (619) 474-0220 * FAX: (619)474-1210 ehc@environrnentalheaith.org *• www.environmentalhealth.org May 31,2006 Barbara Kennedy Associate Planner Planning Department City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Ave. Carlsbad, CA 92008 VIA E-MAIL: bkenn@ci,carlsbad.ca.us Re: EIR on the Robertson Ranch Master Planned Community Dear Ms. Kennedy, Environmental Health Coalition (EHC) is concerned that the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) dated September 2005 for the Robertson Ranch Master Planned Community does not provide adequate assessment of air quality impacts associated with the project, nor include sufficient mitigation measures to reduce adverse air quality impacts. EHC is a non-profit community organization that has worked to protect public health and the environment in the San Diego region for over 25 years. We respectfully submit this letter to outline our concerns and ask that the City of Carlsbad delay final approval of the EIR until air quality impacts from the project are properly assessed and adequate mitigation measures are included. We have reviewed public comments on the DEIR that were submitted by Petra Press of Leson and Associates on November 30, 2005. We are disappointed that the City has not incorporated certain mitigation measures suggested by Ms. Pless that would help protect the health of residents and workers. EHC regrets that we were not involved with this issue at the time of the official public comment period on the DEIR. The City of Carlsbad will live with the impacts of this development for years to come, however, so taking the time to resolve outstanding air quality issues related to this project is a worthwhile investment. Page 1 of 4 3o4 EHC requests that the City of Carlsbad do the following: 1) Adequately Assess and Mitigate Diesel Exhaust impacts EHC is concerned that diesel exhaust emissions from construction equipment associated with the project will subject surrounding residents and workers to significant health risks. Diesel exhaust is a complex mixture of thousands of gases and fine particles that consists of more than 40 toxic air contaminants. It is a potent carcinogen and can also create immediate health problems such as headaches, irritation of the mucous membranes, and inflammation in the lungs, which may aggravate chronic respiratory symptoms and increase the frequency or intensity of asthma attacks.1 Particulate matter, a major component of diesel exhaust has been linked to a number of adverse health effects including increased rates of asthma and lung disease, decreased lung function, heart attacks and premature death.2 EHC is troubled that the DEIR contains a misleading statement regarding the hazards of diesel exhaust and fails to use complete information to determine threshold levels of significance for this pollutant. Page 5.3-13 of the DEIR states that the "US EPA has not yet declared diesel particulates as a toxic air contaminant". The DEIR neglects to mention, however, that the California EPA's Air Resources Board has declared diesel exhaust a Toxic Air Contaminant.3 The California EPA's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has set a chronic reference exposure level (REL) for diesel exhaust of 5 ug/m3.4 The Robertson Ranch DEIR, however, did not compare the project's diesel emission impacts to the OEHHA REL. Just one of the components of the diesel exhaust impacts predicted in the DEIR, the diesel PMi0impacts (at 6 ug/m3), would exceed the REL. The OEHHA REL should be considered as a measure of significance. The DEIR's use of only a cancer risk threshold to characterize diesel impacts is incomplete, as diesel exhaust can also create a number of non-cancer health problems. While significance thresholds are important considerations, there is sufficient uncertainty in air quality and emissions modeling, and there are sufficient health hazards associated with diesel exhaust to justify a precautionary approach to avoiding health risks, regardless of model predictions. The mitigation measures for diesel exhaust outlined in the DEIR will reduce impacts to a degree, but they are inadequate. For one, many of these measures are not required, and instead are to be done where 'feasible'. For mitigation measures to protect people's health and meet the intent of CEQA, they must be required. Also, the City should require additional diesei exhaust mitigation measures, including the use of construction equipment with cleaner engines 1 Cal EPA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. Diesel Exhaust Fact Sheet. http://www.oehha.ca.qov/public info/facts/dieselfacts.html. Accessed May 30, 2006. 2US Environmental Protection Agency. Health and Environmental Effects of Particulate Matter http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/naaqsfin/pmhealth.html. Accessed February 17, 2006. 3 California Air Resources Board. Resolution 98-35, August 27,1998. http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/diesltac/re598-35.pdf Accessed May 30, 2006. 4 Cal EPA, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. Table of all chronic RELs- Air as of Feb 2005. http://www.oehha.ca.gov/air/chronic rels/AIIChrels.html Accessed May 30, 2006. Page 2 of 4 and/or that run on cleaner fuel, and the installation of particulate traps and catalytic converters. 2) Fully Characterize Particulate Matter AQ Impacts EHC is concerned that the DE1R did not adequately assess impacts from particulate matter air pollution. It is not clear why fine particulate matter (PM^s) impacts from the proposed project were not evaluated, given that PMa.5 is a criteria pollutant for which National and State Ambient Air Quality Standards have been set. Although attainment of PM2.5 standards has not to our knowledge been incorporated into the San Diego Air Basin's State Implementation Plan, PIVb.s impacts are relevant to air quality impacts near or at the development site, what the DEIR terms "microscale" impacts. Particulate matter that is 2.5 microns or less (PIV^.s) is especially of concern, as these particles are more likely to travel deep into the lungs where they can seriously damage lung tissue.5 A battery of studies have linked PM to a number of health hazards, including increased rates of asthma and lung disease, decreased lung function, heart attacks and premature death.6 EHC asks that the City of Carlsbad assess the PMa.5 impacts from this project as part of the EIR process. 3) Mitigate Air Quality Impacts from Increased Energy Demand As was communicated by Ms. Pless in her public comments dated Nov. 3.0, 2005, the DEIR fails to account for air pollution impacts associated with the additional energy demand that will be created by the Robertson Ranch development. EHC believes that this is a valid concern and that more stringent mitigation measures regarding the 'energy footprint1 of the Robertson Ranch development should be included in the EIR. Particularly given Carlsbad's location downwind of the Encina power plant, increased energy demand may have a direct air quality impact on Carlsbad residents along with contributing to region-wide pollution. The City's response to Ms. Pless' comment that the State (CEC and GARB) are ultimately responsible for regulating impacts from energy generation neglects the important role that local jurisdictions must play in mitigating impacts from fossil fuel based energy production. The City of Carlsbad can, through its land use, planning, and CEQA authority, help reduce the AQ impacts created by fossil fuel based energy use. In the context of the Robertson Ranch development, EHC asks that the City of Carlsbad 5 Lipmann, M. et. al. (2003). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Particulate Matter Health Effects Research Centers Program: A Midcourse Report of Status, Progress, and Plans. Environmental Health Perspectives 111 (8) 1074-1092.6US Environmental Protection Agency. Health and Environmental Effects of Particulate Mailer http://www.epa.qov/ttn/oarpq/naagsfin/prnhealth.html. Accessed February 17, 2006. Page 3 of 4 306, implement the energy use mitigation measures outlined in Section III.C.2. of Ms. Pless1 comment letter. In addition to these measures, we urge the City to include a requirement that the residential and commercial buildings in the development be configured to be 'solar ready' to allow home and business owners to easily install after- market solar PV panels. A solar ready building would include proper orientation to facilitate rooftop solar panels, suitable wiring, and other design features. We look forward to a revised EIR for the Robertson Ranch Community Master Plan that addresses the requests we have outlined. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Melanie McCutchan Research and Community Assistance Associate Page 4 of 4 307 : Barbara Kennedy - Fwd: Robertson Ranch concerns Page 1 From: Don Neu To: Barbara Kennedy Date: 05/30/2006 7:43:41 AM Subject: Fwd: Robertson Ranch concerns >» "David Stoffel" <dpstoffel@msn.com> 05/29/06 8:32 PM >» Hello, We appreciate your efforts to help plan our community. We are very concerned that plans are being made to over-develop the Robertson Ranch area. We are lifelong residents of Southern California, and residents of Carlsbad for the past 23 years. We have lived in the Colony at Calavera Hills during this time. We understand that the city's zoning ordinance allows a maximum of 954 homes in this area (maximum). It doesn't seem to be in the best interests of Carlsbad and the residents in this area to even reach this maximum, let alone exceed it! We have the seen the traffic congestion and density grow. Please help us have sensible planning! Please help us maintain some of the reasons why we live in this area. Thank You, David and Paula Stoffel 308 2750 Fourth Avenue San Diego, CA 92103 Phone: 619-297-3901 Fax:619-297-8402 1-800-LUNG-USA www.lungusa.org P.O. Box 977 El Centra, CA 92244 Phone: 760-356-5656 Fax: 760-353-8109 150 Valpreda Road, Ste 204 San Marcos, CA 92069 Phone: 760-761-4803 Fax:760-761-4806 Carlee Harmonson Chair Janie Davis President/CEO AMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION® of San Diego and Imperial Counties Your community leader in lung disease prevention, research, and education. COMBINED HEALTHAGENCIES AMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION® of Son Diego and Imperial Counties www.lungsandiego.org 100 YEARS' 1904-2004 Improving Life, One Breath at a Time May 27, 2006 Barbara Kennedy Senior Planner City of Carlsbad Planning Department 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 bkenn@ci.carlsbad.ca.us Re: American Lung Association's concern over increased air pollution emissions from traffic due to proposed Robertson Ranch project. Dear Ms. Kennedy: The American Lung Association of San Diego and Imperial Counties has served the community since 1946. Our mission is to prevent lung disease and to promote lung health. Toward that end, we provide programs to reduce the risk factors that contribute to lung disease such as cigarette smoking, tuberculosis and unhealthful air quality. It has come to our attention that families living near the proposed Robertson Ranch project are concerned about the health impact from increased traffic and related air pollution emissions. They have read the EIR and are justified in their concerns over the Category 1 - Significant and Unavoidable Impacts for Traffic and Air Quality (Long-term Mobile Emissions). Traffic and air pollution are related because in San Diego County about 50% of our ozone air pollution comes from mobile sources such as cars and trucks. Ozone is a powerful respiratory irritant that contributes to asthma and decreased lung growth in children. Numerous studies have shown that individuals living in close proximity to freeways or high traffic volume roadways have higher asthma rates. A new study published in Environmental Health Perspectives during May 2006, presents research on asthma and busy roads. The study involved 5,000 children and key findings were: • Children who live near busy roads are more likely to have symptoms of asthma than those who do not. • Those that lived within 250 feet of major roads have a 50 percent higher risk of having asthma symptoms. • Asthma risk decreased to normal for children living 600 feet or more away from a busy road. O Printed on recycled paper Page 2, May 27, 2006 American Lung Association Traffic is not just limited to family cars but also includes diesel trucks hauling supplies in and out of communities. A second recent study emphasizes the importance of families limiting their exposure to diesel exhaust from trucks, buses and off-road diesel engines. Michael Jerrett from the University of Southern California released the results of his new diesel study in March 2006. His research indicates how lethal exposure to diesel soot is to health. Specific findings were: • Deaths from breathing sooty smog in California may be more than twice as high as previously estimated, based on the new University of Southern California study in the Los Angeles basin. • Researchers found two to three times greater risk of death from heart attacks, lung cancer and other serious illness tied to chronic exposure to fine particulate matter than did previous studies. • Fine particulate matter spewed by cars, trucks, trains, ships, planes, refineries and other sources lodges deep in the lungs and is considered the most lethal form of air pollution. It should also be pointed out that the American Lung Association's State of the Air 2006 report gave San Diego County an "F" grade for ozone because our community is still not meeting the 8-hour federal ozone standard. Further, the Metropolitan Statistical Area of San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos was ranked "14" out of the top 25 worst U.S. Cities most polluted by 24-hour particulate matter 2.5 pollution. The EIR for the proposed Robertson Ranch project clearly states that traffic and air quality from long-term mobile emissions will have significant unavoidable impacts. The American Lung Association disagrees with the term "unavoidable". Mitigation measures should be put into place which will lesson the negative impacts to air quality and health. We recommend the following: • Reduce the scale of the project resulting in less density to decrease traffic volume and air pollution emissions to protect respiratory health and meet threshold limits established by the San Diego Air Pollution Control District. • Maximize design measures that promote a walkable and transit-friendly community. • Maximize design features to support telecommuting and use of clean fuels. » Plant and maintain as many shade trees as possible to promote energy efficiency by naturally cooling homes and buildings and help filter air pollutants. 3H> Page 3 ' May 27, 2006 American Lung Association Continued Recommendations: • Promote installation of clean fuels infrastructure near the project such as a natural gas fueling station. • Plant low pollen trees and shrubs to reduce asthma and allergy symptoms. Thank you for your consideration of our recommendations. Should you have any questions I can be reached at 619-683-8646. I will be on vacation from May 30* - June 13th. Sincerely, Jan H. Cortez, M.P.H. Vice President, Research and Environmental Health cc: Ross Porter Janie Davis Debbie Kelley Barbara Kennedy - robertson ranch Page 1,.-,.-A._. . .<• - " - ' - --* ^..L,T!..- gxiqeBBhe-JE i ***»-"*- " Oi ~ —.--.-- --' 1 —— ' — ?"'•=- —•J a*aat-' i-tff.,.^ ...,..._3EE..~t » lf , BBTtfr ..._- y a. From: "Eric Munoz" <emunoz@hofmanplanning.com> • To: "'Barbara Kennedy'" <Bkenn@ci.carlsbad.ca.us> Date: 05/30/2006 3:05:04 PM Subject: robertson ranch Hi Barbara I wanted to let you know that the Agua Hedionda Lagoon Foundation is in support of the Robertson Ranch Master Plan, primarily because of the improved situation it will deliver to the health of the lagoon and watershed. Additionally, it is consistent with the City's General Plan, Habitat Management Plan and assists with implementing the Master Drainage Plan. We will be providing a short letter for the PC hearing on May 31. Thanks and take care EM 30 May 2006 CC: '"Brian Milich'" <bmilich@mcmillin.com>, '"Steve LePage'" <slepage@m-rep.com> FROM :SOA SOFTUARE FAX NO. : 3108208601 May. 31 2006 09:29AM PI 5/31/06 Re: Robertson Ranch Planning Commissioners, I am writing to comment on the Robertson Ranch development currently being reviewed by the city. I live hi the nearby community of Calavcra Hills. I support the community concept of Robertson Ranch. I do, however, have a couple issues with some of the more specific plans. My criticisms are rooted in my (and many others) concern over the perceived growing disparity between the economic prosperity of northern and southern Carlsbad. It appears as though the overwhelming majority of recent housing projects in southern Carlsbad have average lot sixes of 7500 sq. ft. and houses greater than 3000 sq. ft. Examples arc La Costa Oaks and La Costa Greens. In northern Carlsbad it seems as though most of the lot sizes arc 5000 - 6000 sq. ft. and the houses are less than 3000 sq. ft. Examples are Calavera Hills IT and Robertson Ranch. This leads to lower house prices hi the north and higher prices in the south contributing to the perception of economic disparity. I request an increase in some of the lot sizes and an increase in the number of larger homes in Robertson Ranch to make it more consistent with the other developments. Another contributing factor to the disparity in my opinion is the building of apartment homes. I think if you look at the ratio of apartment homes to detached homes in the two areas, you'll see a much higher ratio in the north (consider surrounding areas of the village and the mall as examples of dense apartment homes), 1 understand thai the city has laid out guidelines for building affordable housing with every new development, but I believe we should look at the overall topology of the city and make more subjective decisions hi this matter. Northern Carlsbad borders southern Oceanside which is already saturated with apartment homes. There are no shortages of available apartments in this area. One of the topics on the council's agenda is approve more apartment homes hi Robertson Ranch. I am opposed to adding any more to the plan than was originally specified. Once again, I do approve of the overall Robertson Ranch concept. T just feel that the city should take into consideration making small changes that can help promote all areas of Carlsbad more equally. Sincerely, ... A Tony Gullotta 3744 Cavern Place 3/3 RECEIVED f/:y 3 f £v* Mr Eric C.Williamson CJTV r\r r* 153° Sunrise Circle '' r Uf- CARLSBAD Carlsbad, CA 92008-3648 PLANNING DEPT Wednesday, May 31,2006 Attn Ms B. Kennady, Planning Dept City of Carlsbad. Dear Madam, Citizen Comment on Robertson Ranch Plan Thank you for your response to my Citizen Comment dated December 1,2005 on the above ranch plan. And for copies of the numerous comments on the problems of this development plan. This massive growth plan will bring too many people, too much traffic, our city and schools are already over crowded. This development is way over the top, it needs to be considerably reduced or totally eliminated. Your responses to all the problems mentioned by people who have communicated their concerns seem to refer to studies, environmental impact reports, circulation studies etc. Missing from the equation are practical real life experience and eye witness accounts from citizens of Carlsbad. Traffic problems and over crowding problems experienced by residents are not answered by simply referring to traffic circulation studies and traffic counts, and other reports. It takes "get our there and actually see for yourself. It also takes actual driving on a daily basis to get out there to see that El Camino Real and local roads have reached "Build Out". Every evening, going North on El Camino Real is difficult. The huge traffic back up from Jefferson reaches a long way South. Folk are getting off and driving through the mall parking lots to get around the traffic jam. The same is true at the intersection of El Camino Real and Palomar Airport road. The turning lane is too short. Traffic enters the turn off lane, but there is such a lot of traffic, the line extends back into the regular roadway and cuts off an entire traffic lane. This project will add to existing traffic nightmares but it will also cause too many people issues. Too many homes are planned and the multi family condos and apartments do not belong in the area of single family homes. Of special interest is the multi family area of PA 1. This is right on the comer of El Camino Real and Tamarack. We already have a problem with traffic on this comer. The addition of multi family units on PA 1 would generate too much traffic on El Camino Real and a real problem on Tamarack. Mention must be made of all the parents who pick up children from Kelly school. Many parents are parking on side roads to avoid the congested roads around the schools. Tamarack is one of them. Parents are asking their children to walk out of the traffic areas around the schools. You will not find any of this by referring to traffic counts and circulation studies. On the issue of traffic, a newspaper report quotes a Planning Department staff member stating "we will ask the developer to fix any problems as they arise". We have to conclude that if he buys a home without a roof, he would wait for it to start raining and then ask the builder to fix the problem. Sorry, it is already raining traffic and people and the problem is now. A newspaper report tells us that the Planning Department is going to allow the developer to build on the planned school site at PA 13. This site should not be given to the developer, it should be held in case it is needed in the future. This site will belong to the people of Carlsbad and should not be given away. In the mean time, if it is not needed immediately, make it a common for people to enjoy. We have just received a letter from the Superintendent of schools. He states the Carlsbad High School is already over crowded, he needs input for how to accommodate another approx 30% increase in student population. He favours increasing the size of the present CHS. Just like the Roberson Ranch project, he has forgotten about the roads around the schools, how congested they are and how it impacts local residents. No, you will not realize or fix all this by referring to studies and reports. Mention was made of allowing the developer to build more homes, the total number would not exceed numbers counted in the "Build out Plan" made in the 1980s. This "Build out Plan" is totally obsolete, it sadly needs revision in light of modern experience, traffic and population problems. Constantly quoting a plan made over twenty years ago is not realistic today. Just take a look at Bressi Ranch. There are huge homes built on postage sized lots with minimum space between homes. The people who live there are lucky, they are able to shake hands with their neighbours without ever leaving their homes !!! Who planned this ? This not the quality development we are looking for in our lovely city of Carlsbad ! We certainly do not wish to have a Bressi Ranch built at Robertson Ranch. In retrospect, the present agricultural land of Robertson Ranch looks lovely just the way it is. To summarize, I repeat:- I - We would very much rather have the beautiful hills than more homes, people and traffic. We are totally unable to accommodate the additional people and traffic. Remember, we have not seen the full impact of the new residents and traffic from Bressi Ranch. I'm afraid we are in for a rude awakening. If we are not able to shut this whole development down, then at least find some way to reduce it considerably. Change the multi family to single family homes to limit the people factor and elevate the area to the higher Carlsbad standards Lastly, completely scotch PA1, it is going to have a terrible effect on the corner of Tamarack and El Camino Real. Same as last time, local residents will be solidly against this multi family area. Thank you for considering my comments. Sincerely,^ Eric C. Williamson phone 760-729-8485 Copy to Carlsbad City Council .,„- 3/7 L £ 5 <? *» ^ & 3 M"Krx &< rf c f*A'£^ &. Cr.. P fc k 1 ^ s . ra -C>c.| ^o? P- & ^t-s^e> P-2 !_! ^.^«Rf ^ c: i*.~a 1'*-*, S -i !«* &fv MfiY 31 2006 16:18 FR ATIPOBMIA—BlftlNESS. TRANSPORTATION AND HntlSlNfi AflENCY TO 917606028559 P.02/03 . ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER. Oovemof DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION District 11 • 4050 Taylor Street • M.S. 50 San Diego, CA 92110-2737 PHONE (619)688-6954 FAX (619)688-4299 Flex j/our power! Be energy efficlentl May 31,2006 ll-SD-005 PM 49.28 Ms. Barbara Kennedy City of Carlsbad Planning Dcpt. 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92024-3633 RE: Robertson Ranch Master Plan - Final Program E1R fSCH 2004051039) Dear Ms. Kennedy: The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) appreciates the opportunity to review the City of Carlsbad's responses to Caltrans' comments regarding the Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Robertson Ranch Master Plan project. This project involves the construction of 1,383 residential dwelling units and 175,000 square foot of commercial uses on 404 acres located east of the Interstate 5 (1-5) at the eastern comer of the Tamarack Avenue / El Camino Real intersection in the City of Carlsbad We have the following comments. According to the traffic study included in the EIR, the development is expected to generate 17,254 Average Daily Trips (ADT) which may potentially impact existing and future facilities at the 1-5 / Tamarack Avenue interchange, as well as other intersections in the vicinity. The Traffic Impact Study (TIS) included in the EIR is incomplete as it does not include the entrance and exit ramps at 1-5 / Tamarack Avenue, nor does it include the interchange at 1-5 / Carlsbad Village Drive. Cumulative impacts of a project, together with other related projects, must be considered when determining the project's impacts. A cumulative impact is the sum of the impacts of existing conditions, other projects, and the project itself - no matter how small the contribution is from the project itself. There is no minimum size limitation on projects that may be required to mitigate for cumulative impacts if the project contributes to a traffic problem in any amount. Caltrans supports the concept of 'Tair Share" contributions on the part of developers for future improvement to the State Highway System projects and/or other measures needed to mitigate for traffic impacts created by proposed developments. In order to determine traffic impacts and to assess potential mitigation, State-owned, "Cattrans Improves mobility acroa California " 3/9 MflY 31 2006 16:18 FR TO 917606028559 P.03/03 Ms. Barbara Kennedy May 31,2006 Page 2 signalized intersections must be analyzed using the Intersecting Lane Vehicle (ILV) procedure from the Caltrans Highway Design Manual Topic 406, page 400-21 using the year 2030 traffic forecast. Caltrans requires Level of Service (LOS) *'C" or better at State-owned facilities, including intersections (see Appendix "C-3" of the TIS guide). If an intersection is currently below LOS "C," any increase in delay from project-generated traffic must be analyzed and mitigated. Caltrans is currently developing the 1-5 North Coast project in order to increase capacity on the 1-5 corridor in the vicinity of this proposed project. As such, there may be an opportunity for the developer to provide funding for improvements as part of the project's "fair share" transportation impacts mitigation. Caltrans disagrees with the City of Carlsbad's statement that "at this time there has been no mechanism established to define such projects or to collect fees (Response to Comment DOT4)", Caltrans would like to meet with the City of Carlsbad to discuss potential mitigation related to the Robertson Ranch project. Caltrans appreciates the opportunity to review the ETR for this project proposal. For questions regarding the Department's comments, please contact Brent C. McDonald at (619)688-6819. Sin O, Chief Review Branch cc: BMcDonald Planning AJacobo 1-5, PM EGojuangco Frwy. Ops. SMorgan State ClearingHouse (SCH) "Callrwtt improves mobility across California " ** TOTflL PPGE.03 ** Planningjnternet Email - CITY OF CARLSBAD | CONTACT US Page 1-Ifcuna^t,! ..._ " >.... *f .#,mr •_ .....MK..,:. -jL'jy. . - -t«**--:i-Vi.'.«tfg-.'-- :-" - ...-• .-w . .-•-__:': — _..,-+. -—„_ -. ,..,..— —— . -1~_ ..V ..J.-—S-.l-r;L. _ ^'" , A., ., 1, t .-ftc t>B.t.T»a» .._ . *•.. ... ., From: <kcinciarelli@adelphia.net> To: <Planning@[205.142.109.13]> '• Date: Wed, May 31, 2006 4:10 PM Subject: CITY OF CARLSBAD | CONTACT US A visitor to the City of Carlsbad Web site has completed and posted the "Contact Us" form to department, Planning. FOR SECURITY REASONS, DO NOT CHANGE THE SUBJECT LINE. Below, please find the information that was submitted: Please register my opposition to the "upzoning" of Robertson Ranch from 954 dwelling units to 1383, and forward this to the Planning Commissioners for tonights meeting. CUSD has told the City and Developer that there will NOT be an elementary school build in this development. The traffic studies did NOT include parents required to drive all age students off-site for school. In addition in the words of Superintendent Roach of the CUSD sent to parents in May 2006, "Carlsbad High School suffers from Severe Overcrowding in delapidated facilities." Contrary to what may be stated in this EIR the impact of additional development on the High School is NOT mitigable - short of building a new High School. I don't hear any of the developers, including this one stepping up to the plate to do that. Deny this project until all traffic impacts due to trips offsite for schools and potential failures at existing intersections have been thoroughly examined and mitigated for. If Edinburg is to be kept closed due to public outcry (as Mira Monte is being) then that should be fully assessed also. For the a fore mentioned reasons, under no conditions should addition density be added to what has been designated the Growth Control Point of 953 for this Southern half of the Robertson Ranch project, kasey cinciarelli 2727 Lyons Ct. Carlsbad, CA 92010 kasey cinciarelli 2727 Lyons Ct. carlsbad, ca 92010 USA kcinciarelli@adelphia.net Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.01; Windows NT 5.0; .NET CLR 1.1.4322) 68.65.192.127 CARLSBAD V^> CHAMBER OF COMMERCE May 31,2006 Mr. Marty Montgomery Chairman Carlsbad Planning Commission 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 RE: Robertson Ranch Project Dear Chairman Montgomery: The Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce, we would like to express its support of the Robertson Ranch project proposed by The Corky McMillin Companies. As a 1,700 member business organization, we are well aware of the key components in attracting and retaining quality businesses in Carlsbad; two key components are: 1) availability of a variety of housing, and 2) a balanced community offering business opportunities, quality education, services and recreation. The Corky McMillin Companies, through current and prior projects in Carlsbad, has demonstrated their understanding of helping the City of Carlsbad thoughtfully grow. They have the desire to contribute sustainable communities within the City of Carlsbad for current and future generations. McMillin projects like Calavera Hills are communities Carlsbad can take pride in now and for years to come. The Corky McMillin Companies have demonstrated a commitment to the quality of life itnd the business community in each community in which they have projects, including Carlsbad. The Carlsbad Chamber is excited about The Corky McMillin Companies' Robertson Ranch project and its commitment to further enhance the City of Carlsbad. With the preservation of open space and addition of parks and trails, Robertson Ranch will offer limitless opportunities to all of the citizens of Carlsbad. We urge your approval of the staff recommendation and applaud the City of Carlsbad for taking an important step towards finding water solutions for the region. Respeclfull/ Teduwen President and CEO 5934 Priestly Drive • Carlsbad, California 92008 Phone: (760) 931-8400 • Fax: (760) 931-9153 • E-mail: chamber@carisbad.org-* Web: www.carlsbad.org The City of Carlsbad Planning Department A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Item No. P.C. AGENDA OF: June 21, 2006 Application complete date: N/A Project Planner: Barbara Kennedy Project Engineer: Jeremy Riddle SUBJECT: EIR 03-03/MP 02-03/GPA Q2-04/LFMP 14fBVHMP 06-04 - ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN and CT 02-16/HDP 02-07/SUP 02-05 - ROBERTSON RANCH EAST VILLAGE MASTER TENTATIVE MAP - Request for: 1) a recommendation for certification of an Environmental Impact Report, and recommendation of adoption of the Candidate Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and a request for a recommendation of approval for the Robertson Ranch Master Plan, General Plan Amendment, Zone 14 Local Facilities Management Plan Amendment, and Habitat Management Plan Permit for Incidental Take consistent with the City's Habitat Management Plan for the Robertson Ranch Master Plan; and 2) a request for approval of a Master Tentative Tract Map, Hillside Development Permit, and Floodplain Special Use Permit for the 176 acre East Village of the Robertson Ranch Master Plan. The Robertson Ranch Master Plan encompasses a 398 acre site located north of El Camino Real, east of Tamarack Avenue, and east and west of College Boulevard, and east and west of Cannon Road in Local Facilities Management Zone 14. I. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission: 1) ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 6105 RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION of EIR 03-03 and RECOMMENDING ADOPTION of the Candidate Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 6106, 6107, 6108, and 6109 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of MP 02-03, GPA 02-04, LFMP 14(B) and HMP 06-04 - ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN; and, 2) ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions No. 6110, 6111 and 6112 APPROVING CT 02- 16, HDP 02-07 and SUP 02-05 - ROBERTSON RANCH EAST VILLAGE MASTER TENTATIVE MAP; based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. II. INTRODUCTION The applicant requested a continuance of this item from the May 31, 2006 Planning Commission hearing so that the applicant could meet with representatives of the Colony neighborhood to resolve some of the traffic and circulation issues that were raised during the hearing. The Planning Commission also directed the applicant to try to determine how traffic calming would be integrated in to the West Village development areas and to contact the Carlsbad Unified School District to verify that the elementary school site was still not desired. 323 EIR 03-03/MP 02-03/GPA 02-04/LFMP 14(B)/HMP 06-04 - ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN and CT 02-16/HDP 02-07/SUP 02-05 - ROBERTSON RANCH EAST VILLAGE MASTER TENTATIVE MAP June 21,2006 Page 2 III. DISCUSSION On June 6th, the applicant and City staff (Kennedy, Riddle and Johnson) met with nine of the Colony residents to discuss traffic and circulation issues. Mr. Milich presented a plan showing a conceptual street layout and traffic calming features for the West Village. The concept plan (Attachment 2) demonstrates a circuitous street pattern throughout the West Village which is designed to deter cut-through traffic to and from Edinburg Drive and Glasgow Drive to the north. Traffic calming features such as round-abouts, raised medians, mid-block chokers, and bulb-outs would also be incorporated into the final street design. In the meeting, Mr. Milich explained existing biological and topographical constraints along El Camino Real and Tamarack Avenue that lead to considering roadway connections for serving the West Village. After these constraints were explained, Mr. Milich also discussed other design alternatives, which were reviewed, but not supported by staff. The alternatives included deleting full access to Edinburg Drive and Glasgow Drive using cul-de-sacs, but including emergency access gates at the end of the streets, hi conjunction with the gated access points, one alternative showed a right in/right out on ECR just east of the commercial site in Planning Area (PA) 11 and the second proposed providing access to the site via three lanes in each direction at "Z" street (Lisa Street). These alternatives were not supported by staff for a number of reasons including: • Any type of physical barrier placed at either Edinburg Drive or Glasgow Drive may result in potential delay times in providing emergency services to the community. • Having open roadway connections (connectivity) is a preferable layout for designing of new development. • Cul-de-sacs with this size of project violates the single entry project standards. • The widening of Z-Street with extra lanes does not result in an effective second point of access. • The proposed right-in, right-out driveway along El Camino Real does not meet City intersection spacing requirements. At the meeting, the Colony residents stated the following concerns: • Residents want clarification regarding why gated access is not supported. • Residents request that staff evaluate the possibility of a more direct access point on Tamarack Avenue in the vicinity of PA 2 to connect with the main West Village development area. • Residents are concerned that the traffic study was not done on multiple days and that it did not include weekends. Residents are concerned about the increase in traffic and demand a new traffic study. • Residents oppose increased density. • Residents would like to change PA 7 to affordable senior housing. At the end of the meeting, the Colony Residents requested a meeting with the Fire Marshall, Karyn Vaudreuil, to understand why gated access points are not acceptable to the Fire Department. EIR 03-03/MP 02-03/GPA 02-04/LFMP 14(B)/HMP 06-04 - ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN and CT 02-16/HDP 02-07/SUP 02-05 - ROBERTSON RANCH EAST VILLAGE MASTER TENTATIVE MAP June 21,2006 Page 3 The residents were given copies of the Traffic Management Program along with an aerial photo of their neighborhood. Mr. Johnson indicated that usually traffic calming in existing neighborhoods was the third step in the program. But since the developer has offered to consider implementing traffic calming in the Colony, the residents should come to consensus about what type of improvements would be supported. At the end of the meeting, the Colony residents stated that they would disseminate the information to the rest of the neighborhood. Issues: The following summarizes the issues raised requested by the Planning Commission and Colony residents and the actions taken to resolve them: 1. Provide a concept for traffic calming in the West Village. As discussed above, a concept plan that meets City standards is included as Attachment 2. This exhibit could be included in the Master Plan as Figure IV-4A if the Planning Commission recommends approval of the concept. Additional traffic calming for the Colony neighborhood can be included as a West Village condition of approval for the Master Plan. 2. Meet with the Fire Marshall to discuss why gated access or cul-de-sacs are not supported for Glasgow Drive and Edinburgh Drive. On June 7th, two Colony residents met with staff (Vaudreuil, Ryan, Riddle, Johnson and Kennedy) to discuss this issue. Ms Vaudreuil reiterated that gated access is not supported because it interferes with response times and life safety concerns need to prevail. The Fire Department stated their support for traffic calming efforts and diversions such as round-abouts as opposed to cul-de-sacs and gated access points. All weather access roads must be provided and grass-crete or other non-traditional access roads are only approved in situations where a secondary access is needed for rare events such as evacuations. Whenever there is an ability to connect a road that has been proposed as a future extension, that would be the preferred solution for providing secondary access to a development. The future road extensions would also provide better service for Colony residents in response to emergency calls where every second can be the difference between life and death. 3. Explore providing an access point on Tamarack Avenue in the vicinity of PA 2. Staff has had preliminary discussions with USFWS and there may be a possibility to include an additional access point in this location. Further negotiations will be necessary with the Wildlife Agencies and further studies will be needed to determine the design criteria for the intersection and roadway. It is envisioned that this would be a signalized intersection to provide a more direct northbound access route for residents within the West Village. Because of the steep topographical conditions, the concept plan (Attachment 3) shows the need for slopes ranging in height to 65 feet which would change the visual character of the hillside. If the access from Tamarack is provided, staff EIR 03-03/MP 02-03/GPA 02-04/LFMP 14(B)/HMP 06-04 - ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN and CT 02-16/HDP 02-07/SUP 02-05 - ROBERTSON RANCH EAST VILLAGE MASTER TENTATIVE MAP June 21,2006 Page 4 would not recommend deleting the connections to Glasgow Drive or Edinburg Drive. Edinburg Drive is needed to provide a second point of access to serve the units in PAs 9 and 10. Although is possible that the Glasgow Drive extension could be eliminated, it would result in any northbound or southbound traffic through the Colony to be shifted to Edinburg Drive. Therefore, staff recommends keeping both extensions so that the traffic can be shared on both streets. Access at this point would likely require modification to the proposed RV storage site since the anticipated area for storage would be reduced by approximately two-thirds. A future Minor Master Plan Amendment would" be required to show an alternative site for RV storage if necessary. Provisions are currently included in the Master Plan to allow for relocation of the RV storage site. 4. Concern about the validity of the traffic study. The developer has indicated to staff that additional traffic counts have been taken and the results will be presented at the hearing on June 21st. Additionally, the applicant's Traffic Engineer (USA) and the City's consultant for third-party EIR review of the traffic study (VRPA) will be available to answer technical questions and give an overview of the traffic analysis. 5. Neighborhood opposition to increased density. Staff continues to support the request for an allocation of 400 excess dwelling units. The allocation of units to the project does not violate the City's Growth Management Plan nor would it exceed the number of dwelling units anticipated for the northeast quadrant. The allocation of units is consistent with the City's General Plan Policies and helps to meet the goals of the Housing Element to provide affordable housing. The higher density neighborhoods are located near the major circulation roadways, transit stops, and the commercial area, while the lower density neighborhoods are located near the existing, lower-density residential development. 6. Residents would like to change PA 7 to affordable senior housing. Staff supports designating PA 7 as a mixed-rate (affordable and market rate) senior housing site. Location guidelines for senior housing include: • Located close to a wide range of commercial retail, professional and social and community services or have it's own private shuttle to these services; • Located within reasonable walking distance of bus or transit stop; and • Located in a topographically level area. The site is adjacent to the commercial and community facilities site (PA 11), is located adjacent to a bus stop on ECR, and the site is proposed to be graded to a more EIR 03-03/MP 02-03/GPA 02-04/LFMP 14(B)/HMP 06-04 - ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN and CT 02-16/HDP 02-07/SUP 02-05 - ROBERTSON RANCH EAST VILLAGE MASTER TENTATIVE MAP June 21, 2006 '- PageS topographically level area in order to meet access requirements and to provide positive drainage from the site. If the Planning Commission supports this option, minor modifications to the Master Plan text for PA 7 would be required to require the site to be: 1) developed as senior housing, 2) to allow senior housing as an alternative land use, or 3) to allow development of PA 7 with a combination of senior housing and multi-family housing. 7. Contact Carlsbad Unified School District regarding the Elementary School Site. Coincidentally, staff was contacted by CUSD Superintendent John Roach regarding the Robertson Ranch elementary school site. Mr. Roach indicated that the district is working on their long-range facilities master plan and that in fact, maybe it had been too early to make a decision to reject the Robertson Ranch elementary school site. The developer has also been in contact with the district and has offered to again include a school use as a primary land use on PAs 13 and 14. If the site is developed as a school, it would reduce the number of dwelling units by 201 units for a new total of 1,182 units. Staff believes the issues can be resolved although there are compromises which may need to be made from both the resident and developer perspectives. The compromises should be weighed against the overall public benefit that the Robertson Ranch Master Plan would provide if approved which includes: • An 84" storm drain line would be constructed to reduce flooding in Rancho Carlsbad. • Cannon Road and College Boulevard would be widened to the full-width improvements of two-lanes in each direction which would increase capacity and reduce traffic congestion on these major arterials. • El Camino Real would be widened to the full-width improvements of three lanes in each direction which would increase capacity and reduce traffic congestion on this prime arterial. • Turn lanes and traffic signals will be installed as part of the overall street improvements. This would open up opportunities for future synchronizing of traffic signals on ECR. Many of the traffic constraints are due to ECR not being at full capacity. • 9.8 acres of park land would be dedicated and three new full-size soccer fields would be provided for the community. Any reduction in dwelling units would reduce the park land dedication requirement by approximately 7/10 of an acre for every 100 dwelling units. • Over 140 acres of open space would be preserved with an endowment for long-term management and maintenance of the preserve area. • A portion of the City-Wide Trails network would be installed along Cannon Road and College Boulevard with additional City-wide and community trails throughout the Robertson Ranch development. • High density housing at 20 du/ac would be provided to help meet the City's Housing Element goals for Certification of the City's Housing Element. Without certification EIR 03-03/MP 02-03/GPA 02-04/LFMP 14(B)/HMP 06-04 - ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN and CT 02-16/HDP 02-07/SUP 02-05 - ROBERTSON RANCH EAST VILLAGE MASTER TENTATIVE MAP June 21,2006 Page 6 • High density housing at 20 du/ac would be provided to help meet the City's Housing Element goals for Certification of the City's Housing Element. Without certification of the Housing Element, the City could lose transportation funding, state funding such as the work force housing grant, and ultimately lose the authority to grant all building permits, including permits for residential additions. • A Village Commercial Center and Community Facilities site for day care and other community uses would be provided to serve the needs of local residents. IV. SUMMARY Staff requests direction from the Planning Commission for the items listed above. Staff also recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Master Plan and Program EIR and approve the East Village Master Tentative Map. The errata included as Attachment 4 contains suggested conditions or actions for each of the discussion items. In addition, the errata includes the previous errata items from the May 31st hearing and the Rancho Carlsbad HOA request (as agreed to by the developer) to include a number of conditions related to the future development of PA 22. Staff has also included responses to the letters received from the City of Oceanside, Caltrans, American Lung Association and the Environmental Health Coalition; and additional correspondence received after May 31, 2006. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Traffic Calming Concept for the West Village 3. Two concepts for a public road from Tamarack Avenue (PA 2 to PA 3). 4. Errata Sheet 5. City response to letters from the City of Oceanside, Caltrans, American Lung Association and the Environmental Health Coalition 6. Correspondence received after May 31,2006 7. Planning Commission Staff Report with Attachments dated May 31, 2006 (previously distributed and available on the City website.) June 21, 2006 ITEM # 1 TO: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS FROM: Barbara Kennedy, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ERRATA SHEET FOR EIR 03-03/MP 02-03/GPA 02-04/LFMP 14(BVHMP Q6-Q4 - ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN and CT 02-16/HDP 02-07/SUP 02-05 - ROBERTSON RANCH EAST VILLAGE MASTER TENTATIVE MAP 1. Direct staff to include Attachment 2, West Village Traffic Calming Concept as a new Figure IV-4A in the Robertson Ranch Master Plan. 2. Add a new condition to Master Plan Resolution 6106: In conjunction with the submittal of the First Tentative Map for the West Village, the developer of the West Village shall coordinate with the Colony HOA or it's designated representatives to determine what methods of traffic calming, if any, are acceptable to the residents according to the procedures in the Traffic Management Program. Any approved traffic calming measures shall be designed and secured by the developer prior to the recordation of the First Final Map within the West Village. Traffic calming measures shall be installed prior to the extensions of Glasgow Drive and Edinburgh Drive. 3. Direct staff to revise Figures II-4, III-2, III-3, and IV-1 of the Master Plan to include a conceptual access point from Tamarack Avenue at PA 2 to PA 3. 4. Add a new condition to Master Plan Resolution 6106: In conjunction with the submittal of the First Tentative Map for the West Village, the developer of the West Village shall coordinate with the City and Wildlife Agencies to determine if a public road can be constructed from PA 2 to PA 3. If allowed, the restoration plans shall be revised to reflect the new roadway and shall incorporate any additional measures needed to reduce edge effects. 5. Direct staff to revise the text for PA 7 to require the site to be 1) developed as senior housing, 2) to allow senior housing as an alternative land use, or 3) to allow development of PA 7 with a combination of senior housing and multi- family housing. 6. Revise the text and graphics for PA 13 and 14 to allow development of the site as an elementary school as a primary use. PA 13 and 14 shall be offered for dedication to CUSD upon approval of the First Tentative Map within the Master Plan in accordance with Section 66478 of the Subdivision Map Act. The currently multi-family development proposal may be allowed as an alternative land use. 7. Add a new condition to Master Plan Resolution 6106: Any future development proposals for Planning 22 or the Option Parcel shall take into consideration the following: a. Line of sight from Rancho Carlsbad to the proposed development; b. Hours of operation of any proposed uses; c. Noise and light mitigation from the proposed project; and d. Site designs that reduce landform alteration, where feasible, and reduce the removal of healthy mature trees. ERRATA ITEMS FROM THE MAY 31, 2006 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING: Staff Report: Page 31: Add: Attachment 21. Response to Comments for the Final EIR Resolutions 6105 through 6107 and 6109 through 6112: Change the typographical error on the first page of each resolution, first paragraph, fourth line, of the legal description from November 16, 1986 to 1896. Proposed Revised Wording for Reso. No. 6110, Condition #43 43. If the City Recreation Department is able to obtain approval for a future trailhead, parking areas, and related trails located within PA 23E prior to completion of all construction activities associated with the development of the Robertson Ranch East Village, then the Developer shall be responsible for the funding and construction of these regional trail features, including a parking area for no more than 10 cars and a nature trail from the parking area to the west side of Calavera Creek. The Developer shall prepare the plans and forward for review to the City Trails Manager. The plan together with the security posted shall ensure that the improvements are constructed, pending approval of the plan. If the approved plans allow for a crossing of the creek, and the City desires to construct the creek crossing and/or a bridge, then the City shall be responsible for financing and construction of the creek crossing only. 333 City of Carlsbad Public Works — Engineering June 14, 2006 City of Oceanside, Attn: John Amberson, Transportation Planner 300 N. Coast Highway Oceanside, CA 92054 SUBJECT: OCEANSIDE COMMENT LETTER REGARDING ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN EIR (CT 02-16, MP 02-03, EIR 03-03) Dear Mr. Amberson: Thank you for your letter in regards to the Program EIR for Robertson Ranch Master Plan (Project), dated November 14, 2005. As part of the Response-to-Comments (RTC) of the Project EIR in April, 2006, we responded to your issues (See Attachment 1). However, after the public commenting period ended for the Project EIR, you provided a follow-up letter, dated April 28, 2006, repeating some of your previous comments (during the EIR review period) but then adding new comments about the project. During a phone conversation with you, we expressed our understanding with addressing your comments in the RTC, however, on May 31, 2006 you offered public testimony and reiterated your concerns regarding the Project, specifically regarding the traffic study criteria/methodology, and improvements within the City of Oceanside. This letters serves to respond to each of your issues with the intent of resolving presumed discrepancies. Your comments and our responses are listed below: 1. Use HCM methodology for analyzing all existing intersections within Oceanside. The City of Carlsbad does not use the HCM methodology. We use the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology for calculating the capacity of intersections within the City of Carlsbad. The ICU approach is part of the City of Carlsbad Growth Management Program. As the traffic study for this Project extended into your City to address potential traffic impacts as part of the EIR, we used a consistent (ICU) approach in calculating intersection capacity. The report clearly identifies road segment and intersection failures (with and without the Project). Therefore, we do not agree to modify the analytical approach to meet your specific requirements. The conclusions of the EIR remain valid. 2. Use daily volume-to-capacity methodology to analyze Oceanside street segments. The City of Carlsbad does not use daily volume-to-capacity methodology. Carlsbad uses peak-hour volume-to-capacity methodology as defined by Carlsbad's Growth Management Program and SANTEC guidelines. We believe 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-272O • FAX (760) 602-8562 Oceanside comments - Robertson Ranch June 14, 2006 Page 2 of 5 our approach to be accurate as it considers capacity during peak traffic hours, in which road segments are likely to fail. Since we have applied the same approach toward analyzing our road segments as well as those within your City. The conclusions of the EIR remain valid. 3. Our records show the existing daily traffic volume on College south of Plaza Dr. is 49,000 ADT, not 15,000 ADT. This repeated comment was already answered in the Project EIR RTC. This information no longer constitutes a discrepancy since, in the RTC, we incorporated your ADT information along the pertinent segment of College Blvd. We also clarified the: 1) segments of College, 2) existing ADT'S, and 3) Level-of-Service of those segments affected by the information you provided. Here is the tabulation we provided you: College Blvd. Segment Plaza Dr. To Lake Blvd. South of Lake Blvd. ADT •49,000 15,000 No. of Lanes 6-PA 4-MA LOS or c A "(1) See Table D-2,2002 SANDAG Congestion Management Program (attached) As indicated in the RTC, the ADT information you provided did not affect the conclusions of the EIR with respect to traffic/circulation requirements. Based on this information we feel this comment has been adequately addressed. 4. The study area should be expanded to include the intersections of El Camino Real at the eastbound and -westbound SR78 on/off'ramps and El Camino Real at Vista Way. This is a repeat comment that has already been answered in the Project EIR RTC. We noted that the eastbound and westbound SR78 on/off ramps were included within the study area of the project. Please see Attachment 2 for an excerpt of the traffic report that shows these ramps were considered. Regarding the El Camino Real ramps at Vista Way, as stated in the RTC, these ramps were not included within the study area as the Project is not projected to add more than 50-peak hour trips. Using SANTEC guidelines, these ramps do not need to be included in the study. In addition, Caltrans, during their EIR review, did not have specific comments relative to either of these ramps that you have commented on. 5. The projected 2010 ADT of 38,000 on College Blvd between Lake and SR 78 is below existing ADT. The SANDAG Combined North County Sub-Area Model forecast for 2010 shows approximately 58,000 on College south of Plaza Drive. This is a new comment not originally provided in your EIR comments. At the time of preparing this traffic study, the SANDAG 2010 Combined North County Sub-Area Model was not yet available. While preparing this study, the SANDAG 2030 model became available and was incorporated into the study, but the updated 2010 model became available at a later time. But considering the updated 2010 ADT, the level of service for the road segment during peak hours 333- Oceanside comments - Robertson Ranch June 14, 2006 Page 3 of 5 still fall within an acceptable LOS (note that during 2030 a projected ADT of 64,000 on this segment still operates at LOS A). Since the traffic study was prepared with the best available traffic model information at the time, the conclusions in the EIR are valid. 6. The project shows failing conditions without the project at the intersections of College Blvd and Plaza Dr. The project should be required to contribute its fair share towards mitigation improvements within Oceanside. The City of Oceanside does not agree with the statement "due to the fact that the significant cumulative impacts identified are primarily a result of regional traffic, the City of Oceanside should be responsible for these improvements. We share your concern that improvements be made to address future anticipated failures of road segments and intersections within the City of Oceanside. However, we included in the EIR a mitigation measure is that requires the Developer to participate in paying their fair-share towards mitigation improvements within your City, once a program is established by Oceanside. Since this mitigation occurs across City boundaries Carlsbad cannot force improvements to occur within your City. Since the road and intersection failures are expected to occur with or without this Project, it is clear that regional traffic causes the projected deficiency, not the Robertson Ranch Project. This explains why the Developer is not required to develop the regional solution for you. Therefore, we hope this prompts the City of Oceanside to focus efforts on establishing an improvement program that allows cash-in-lieu payments for projects to pay their fair-share contribution and that identifies what improvements are necessary to address the deficiencies outlined in the EIR. Once Oceanside completes this effort, this will allow this Developer to pay their fair- share towards the improvements as outlined in the mitigation and monitoring report. Since Carlsbad does not control Oceanside's effort to develop and fund this improvement program of a regional solution, a statement of overriding considerations was made for this mitigation measure. 7. Oceanside requires daily volume-to-capacity ratio methodology for street segments. See our response to comment 2. 8. The study should include buildout network alternatives with and without Marron Road. This is a repeat comment that has already been answered in the Project EIR RTC. We noted that Marron Road still remains included as adopted General Plan Circulation Element roadway. Removal of this roadway from the Circulation Element would require their separate General Plan modifications, public review, and environmental documentation necessary to support the circulation change. This is not a required circumstance for this Project to consider within its scope. 9. Figues 7-1 and 7-1 do not show Marron Road, but Figure 7-3 does. The report should clearly state whether Marron Road is assumed to connect El Camino Real 334 Oceanside comments - Robertson Ranch June 14, 2006 Page 4 of 5 and College Blvd. This is a new comment not originally provided in your EIR comments. However, to address your added concern, you should already note that the SANDAG 2030 road network assumes this road segment is constructed. See Attachment 3 that shows the SANDAG 2030 road network. Since the 2030 subarea model is used for this traffic stufy, the future installation of Marron Road is contemplated hi the SANDAG 2030 Sub-area Traffic Model. The figures you mentioned focus on the intersections and road segments that are being analyzed as part of the Project. Since Marron Rd was not a study segment it was not shown in these figures so other text information could be added. 10. It is unclear in the report why 2030 ADT's on College Blvd between SR 78 and Lake are lower than existing ADT's. This is a new comment not originally provided in your EIR comments. The 2030 ADT's on College per SANDAG and per this report list 64,000 ADT along this segment (see Attachment 4). We do not understand where you find that 2030 ADT's are lower than existing ADT's along this segment. 11. Oceanside requires daily volume-to-capacity ratio methodology for street segments. See our response to comment 2. 12. The project shows failing conditions without the project at the intersections of College Blvd and Lake Blvd. The project should be required to contribute its fair share towards mitigation improvements within Oceanside. The City of Oceanside does not agree with the statement "due to the fact that the significant cumulative impacts identified are primarily a result of regional traffic, the City of Oceanside should be responsible for these improvements. Our response to comment 6 applies to this comment as well. 13. While intersection delay time is slightly less than 2 seconds with the project, the City of Oceanside requires a fair-share contribution towards measures to reduce intersection delay time during peak hours. The project should contribute their fair-share toward adaptive hardware upgrades at this intersection. Your understanding that mitigation be required when thresholds of significance are not met does not extend to Carlsbad's understanding of nexus nor CEQA. If the thresholds for mitigation are not met, Carlsbad cannot require the developer to mitigate them. If there is a regional improvement required to address a deficiency within your City, we suggest you address it via an Oceanside improvement program. We understand, and respect, that you do not recognize certain analytical approaches that Carlsbad applies toward measuring capacity road segments and intersections. Different Cities may have different approaches to sizing facilities. However, in applying our approach consistently, the traffic report clearly identifies certain projected intersection and road segment failures within your City boundaries. We hope this raises your 337 Oceanside comments - Robertson Ranch June 14,2006 Page 5 of 5 awareness to further analyze these areas and work to develop an improvement program to address any projected deficiencies. We believe we have performed our obligation, as an adjacent City, to require the Developer to participate in paying their fair-share toward improvements within your City. We hope this addresses your concerns in regards to this Project and the completeness of the traffic study prepared for this EIR. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact me at (760) 602-2737. Project Engineer Attachments C: Barbara Kennedy, Project Planner Bob Johnson, Deputy City Engineer - Traffic Bob Wojcik, Deputy City Engineer - Development Service Skip Hammann, City Engineer Brian Milich, Mcmillin Land Development File (CT 02-16, #3R) 33? o I ou.o 8o TJ 2. C. O O £ itili!llllit Ml ID & ;£ o T c. K o •8 oo ATTACHMENT 1 339 OO I O Ou Os? z 1O ia. uiEg s- 1i•a I I9 1M I ia S s I B * 2- a E 3 O a > •o aIU O IUatn 1 U0 0 DsoDtf ttIU i 1 o<J 0 ii0 * ^j-i 8U 1 1 Ujj DM1 ^9 •3I 1 1i 5§ £ 2 S ; c! o a• tn ' i ! s0- £ £ 1 2 IUa uo ouo 1 1 Ia 1 I Is a y 1 Robertson Ranch ©Urban Systems Associates, Inc. Calavera Hills II, LLC September 1, 2005 3.2 INTERSECTIONS Figure 3-3 shows the key to study area intersections, by number. Figure 3-4 shows existing intersection lane configurations. Figures 3-5 and 3-6 show existing AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes at the study area intersections. The lane configurations at intersections are also shown on these figures. Table 3-2 includes the results of the intersection level of service evaluation for existing conditions. The study area intersections are shown to be operating at acceptable levels of service ("D" or better LOS) for existing conditions, except at the El Carnino Real/Palomar Airport Road intersection, which is at level of service "E" during the PM peak hour and Palomar Airport Road/Melrose Drive at level of service "E" during the AM peak hour. However, planned roadway improvements such as the Faraday Avenue construction to complete the east-west link between El Camino Real and Melrose Drive would provided alternative routes, diverting traffic from Palomar Airport Road. These roadway segments should be completed before traffic from the Robertson Ranch project is added to existing conditions. 3.2 RAMP METERS i ' Table 3-3 shows the existing ramp meter rates and queues at the existing ramp meters at I-5/Cannon Road, SR-78/E1 Camino Real, and Plaza Drive/eastbound SR-78 ramps. The current ramp meter queues can be accommodated on the existing ramps and adjacent surface streets. Appendix A includes existing conditions traffic counts and levels of service worksheets. 003/0; 3-5 3101-Report_A.\vpd ATTACHMENT 2 \ATTACHMENT3 Robertson Ranch Calavera Hills II, LLC ©Urban Systems Associates. Inc. September I, 2005 TABLE 7-1 Year 2030 With Project Street Segment Levels of Service Location Classification Average Daily Volume Peak VPHPL Peak VHPL/ CPL LOS Cannon Road 1-5 - Paseo Del Norte Paseo Del Norte - Lego Dr. Lego Dr. - Faraday Ave. Faraday Ave. - El Camino Real El Camino Real - College Blvd. College Blvd. - East City Limit East City Limit - Melrose Dr. College Boulevard Palomar Airport Rd. - El Camino Real El Camino Real - Cannon Rd. Cannon Rd. - Carlsbad Village Dr. Carlsbad Village Dr. - Lake Blvd. Lake Blvd. - SR-78 El Camino Real SR-78 -MarronRd. Marron Rd. - Carlsbad Village Dr. t Carlsbad Village Dr. - Tamarack Ave. Tamarack Ave. - Cannon Rd. Cannon Rd. - College Blvd. College Blvd - Faraday Ave. Faraday Ave. - Palomar Airport Rd. Tamarack Avenue El Camino Real - Carlsbad Village Dr. - 4MA 4MA 4MA 4MA 4MA 4MA 4MA 4MA 4MA 4MA 4MA 6PA 6PA 6PA 6PA 6PA 6PA 6PA '6PA 4SA 34,000 20,000 22,000 23,000 19,000 30,000 33,000 29,000 42,000 31,000 46,000 64,000 43,000 34,000 35,000. 49,000 42,000 58,000 52,000 13,000 1,025 755 595 595 570 650 810 595 595 650 1,055 865 775 615 575 790 705 975 885 380 0.58 0.42 0.33 0.33 0.32 0.36 .0.45 0.33 > 0.33 0.36 , 0.59 0.48 0.43 0.34 0.32 0.44 0.54 0..49 0.49 0.21 A A A A A A A A A t A A A A A A A A A A A = 6-lane primary arterial = 4-Iane major arterial = 4-lane secondary arterial 3]01-Tab7-lC.wpd VPHPL CPL LOS = Vehicles per hour per lane = Capacity per lane @ 1,800 VPH = Level of service 00310]7-5 ATTACHMENT 4 City of Carlsbad Public Works June 14, 2006 Department of Transportation, Development Review Branch Attn: Mario H. Orso, Chief 4050 Taylor Street, M.S. 50 San Diego, CA 92110-2737 SUBJECT: CALTRANS COMMENT LETTER REGARDING ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN (CT 02-16, EIR 03-03, MP 02-03) Dear Mr. Orso: Thank you for your letter in regards to the Program EIR for Robertson Ranch Master Plan (Project), dated May 31, 2006 (Attachment 1). This letter serves to respond to your concerns. As you are aware, the original traffic study for the Project did not analyze the entrance/exit ramps at 1-5 / Tamarack Avenue and 1-5 / Carlsbad Village Drive. Carlsbad uses "SANTEC/ITE Guidelines for Traffic Impact Studies (TIS) in the San Diego Region", dated March 2000. This document serves to identify the limits and scope of a traffic study by indicating those road segments and intersections to be evaluated by a traffic study*. In accordance with SANTEC guidelines, the study shall analyze: • All local roadway segments (including all State surface routes), intersections, and mainline freeway locations where the proposed project will add 50 or more peak-hour trips in either direction • All freeway entrance and exit ramps where the proposed project will add a significant number of peak-hour trips that cause traffic queues to exceed their storage capacities Per the "Project Distribution" (Attachment 2) in the traffic study, the Robertson Ranch project expects 4.5% of the. Project traffic directed to the Tamarack Avenue /1-5 ramps and 1% to the Carlsbad Village Drive /1-5 ramps. Per the Distribution, the Robertson * In accordance with the City of Carlsbad Growth Management requirements, Carlsbad also requires traffic studies to include (within the study limits) those intersections and roadway segments that are subject to 20% of the project-generated traffic. 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-273O • FAX (760) 6O2-8562 Caltraris comments Robertson Ranch June 14,2006 Page 2 of3 Ranch Project would create an additional 792 average daily traffic (ADT) and 176 ADT, respectively between the two ramps. Upon using peak-hour trip analysis (see Attachment 3), this Project is not projected to add more than 50 peak-hour trips toward these ramps. Since the current levels-of-service (LOS) for those ramps are at LOS C or better, we see no need to analyze these ramps. In regards to your comment that all state-owned signalized intersections be evaluated using Intersection Lane Vehicle (ILV) procedure, using 2030 forecast, the current interchange ramps operate within Caltrans' specifications and future volumes would not increase beyond 10% at these locations. Although improvement might be made by Caltrans in the future, the Robertson Ranch project would not significantly affect volumes nor cause the need for improvements. For your use, in Attachment 2, we have also provided ILV/HR values for these ramps which demonstrate the ramps are operating within acceptable ranges. Therefore, we believe the traffic study is complete. The City is also aware that Caltrans is planning for the 1-5 widening project. It is our understanding the 1-5 widening does not have environmental clearance yet, but is in the beginning stages of the planning and Environmental Review process. We anticipate with the 1-5 widening, this will require reconstruction of the on-ramp and exit locations you are concerned with. Final design of these ramps, as well as capacity upgrades to handle future anticipated traffic should be addressed with the 1-5 widening project. In order for development projects to pay their fair-share toward capital improvement projects (Improvement), first the projects must be defined by the public agency, have an estimated construct cost, and have an approved financial approach that explains those projects that will impact the Improvement and how the fair-share is attributed to each project fairly. To-date, Carlsbad has not been informed as to the program (financial mechanism) that defines how this Project (and any other project hi San Diego County) contributes toward Caltrans' improvement programs, such as the future 1-5 widening project. If there is such a program adopted by Caltrans, please forward the infbrmation and we will re-evaluate our approach with respect to conditioning private projects relative to Caltrans Improvements. With respect to cumulative impacts, the traffic analysis evaluates the potential cumulative impacts associated with the project-generated traffic, hi conjunction with future development (e.g.'s, Year 2010 with and without the Project analysis, Year 2030 with and without the Project analysis). The project's contribution to the cumulative impact at the subject locations is considered less than significant for the reasons discussed above, in that this Project is not projected to add more than 50 peak-hour trips toward the Tamarack Avenue and Carlsbad Village Drive ramps, and, using the 2030 forecast, the current interchange ramps operate within Caltrans' specifications and future volumes would not increase beyond 10% at these locations. 347 Caltrans comments Robertson Ranch June 14,2006 Page 3 of3 We hope this addresses your concerns in regards to this Project and the completeness of the traffic study prepared for this EIR. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact me at (760) 602-2737. Regards, Mcfle Project Engineer Attachments C; Barbara Kennedy, Project Planner Bob Johnson, Deputy City Engineer - Traffic Bob Wojcik, Deputy City Engineer - Development Service Skip Hammann, City Engineer Brian Milich, McMillin Land Development File (CT 02-16, #3 R) AND HOMsrNfi API-NICY _ _____ - AKKVMJ BUiff ^MBTtauunn. »g»iniw DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION District 11- 4050 Taylor Street • M.S.-50 San Diego, CA 92110-2737 PHONE (619)688-6954 FAX (619)688-4299 Flat your power!i - Be cnirgy tfictentl May 31, 2006 ll-SD-005 PM 49.28 Ms. Barbara Kennedy City of Carlsbad Planning Dcpt. 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92024-3633 RE: Robertson Ranch Master Plan - Final Program EIR (SCH 2004051039V Dear Ms. Kennedy: The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) appreciates the opportunity to review the City of Carlsbad's responses to Caltrans' comments regarding the Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Robertson Ranch' Master Plan project. This project involves the construction of 1,383 residential dwelling units and 175,000 square foot of commercial uses on 404 acres located east of the Interstate 5 (1-5) at the eastern comer of the Tamarack Avenue / El Camino Real intersection in the City of Carlsbad. We have the following comments. According to the traffic study included in die EIR, the development is expected to generate 17,254 Average Daily Trips (ADT) which may potentially impact existing and future facilities at the 1-5 / Tamarack Avenue interchange, as well as other intersections in the vicinity. The Traffic Impact Study (TIS) included in the EIR is incomplete as it does not include the entrance and exit ramps at 1-5 / Tamarack Avenue, nor does it include the interchange at 1-5 / Carlsbad Village Drive. Cumulative impacts of a project, together with other related projects, must be considered when determining the project's impacts, A cumulative impact is the sum of the impacts of existing conditions, other projects, and the project itself - no matter how small the contribution is from the project itself. There is no minimum size limitation on projects that may be required to mitigate for cumulative impacts if the project contributes to a traffic problem in any amount Caltrans supports the concept of 'Tair Share" contributions on the part of developers for future improvement to the State Highway System projects and/or other measures needed to mitigate for traffic impacts created by proposed developments. In order to determine traffic impacts and to assess potential mitigation, State-owned, "Goitrous improves mobility across California " ATTACHMENT 1 341 Ms. Barbara Kennedy May 31,2006 Page 2 signalized intersections must be analyzed using the Intersecting Lane Vehicle (ILV) procedure from the Caltrans Highway Design Manual Topic 406, page 400-21 using the year 2030 traffic forecast. Caltrans requires Level of Service (LOS) "C" or better at State-owned faculties, including intersections (see Appendix "C-3" of the TIS guide). If an intersection is currently below LOS "C," any increase in delay from project-generated traffic must be analyzed and mitigated. Caltrans is currently developing the 1-5 North Coast project hi order to increase capacity on the 1-5 corridor in die vicinity of this proposed project As such, there may be an opportunity for the developer to provide funding for improvements as part of the project's "fair .share" transportation impacts mitigation. Caltrans disagrees with the City of Carlsbad's statement that "at this time there has been no mechanism established to define such projects or to collect fees (Response to Comment DOT4)". Caltrans would like to meet with the City of Carlsbad to discuss potential mitigation related to the Robertson Ranch project Caltrans appreciates the opportunity to review the ETR for this project proposal. For questions regarding the Department's comments, please contact Brent C. McDonald at (619)688-6819. 10 HJ3RSO, Chief Developrjjfent Review Branch cc: BMcDonald Planning Alacobo 1-5, PM EGojuangco Frwy. Ops, SMorgan State ClearingHouse (SCH) "Caltrans impftrvcx mobility aeftta California " ** TOTPL PfiGE.03 ** Robertson Ranch Calavera Hills II, LLC OUrban Systems Associates. Inc. September 1, 2005 CX3f%) = Project Only Distribution Percentages = Future Roads SOURCE Year 2030 Forecast (With Adjustment for Missing Street Segments) FIGURE 5-1 Project Only Directional Distribution Percentages For Existing Conditions 3101-Graphics_H.dwg 003101 5-2 ATTACHMENT 2 PLANNING & TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, MARKETING & PROJECT SUPPORT CONSULTANTS TO INDUSTRY AND GOVERNMENT E-MEMO ATTN: Jeremy Riddle .^ ft/ e-mail r COMPANY: City of Carlsbad/7 jjkjj/ jridd(g?,ci.carisbad.ca.us FROM: SamP.Kab, n ^(? \ rorai JMCE?; 2 + Attachments DATE: June 13,2006 l7ME:4:53pm TRANSMITTED VIA: E-Mail SUBJECT: Caltrans Comment Letter Regarding Robertson Ranch Master Plan Confidential Communications This Memo transmittal is intended for the recipient named above. Unless otherwise expressly indicated, this entire communication is confidential and privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, do not disclose, copy, distribute or use this information. If you received this transmission in error, please notify us immediately by telephone, at our expense and destroy the information. Provided below are Urban Systems' responses to the Caltrans May 31, 2006 letter regarding the Robertson Ranch Master Plan. Study Area The Robertson Ranch traffic study did not evaluate the I-5/Carlsbad Village Drive or I-5/Tamarack Avenue interchanges since these locations were determined to be outside the study area for the project. The "SANTEC/ITE Guidelines for Traffic Impact Studies CTIS) in the San Dieso Region", dated March 2000, were used to determine the extent of the study area. These guidelines state that a study area should include, "All local roadway segments (including all State surface routes), intersections, and main lane freeway locations where the proposed project will add 50 or more peak-hour trips in either direction". The project directional distribution (Figure 7-1 in the approved traffic study) shows a one percent project contribution to Carlsbad Village Drive at 1-5 and four and one-half percent on Tamarack Avenue at 1-5. The peak hour project flow is shown in the table below. 100% 1% 4.5% AM Peak Hour IN 425 4 19 OUT 811 8 36 PM Peak Hour IN . 1.063 11 48 OUT 638 6 29 00310]Page 1 4540 Keamy Villa Road, Suite 106 • San Diego, CA 92123 • (858) 560-4911 • Fax (858) 560-9734 ATTACHMENT 3 Jeremy Riddle June 13, 2006 Urban Systems Associates, Inc. As indicated in this table, the project only peak hour trips are expected to be fewer than the 50 trips in one direction that the regional guidelines recommend for inclusion in the study area. Levels of Service at I-5/Carlsbad Village Drive. I-5/Tamarack Avenue The current levels of service, as determined by the City of Carlsbad Traffic Monitoring Program at the ramp intersections at these two interchanges are shown below, along with the ILV/HR values, using the CALTRANS method, assuming a tight diamond interchange. LOS I-5/Carlsbad Village Drive - northbound I-5/Carlsbad Village Drive - southbound I-5/Tamarack Avenue - northbound I-5/Tamarack Avenue - southbound ILV/HR I-5/Carlsbad Village Drive I-5/Tamarack Avenue AM ICU - 0.54 0.50 0.47 0.60 LOS A A A A AM 986 903 PM ICU 0.72 0.73 0.56 0.49 LOS C C A A PM 1364 919 As shown, current ramp intersection levels of service and ILV/HR values are within acceptable conditions. Future Year 2030 traffic volumes, as taken from the SANDAG combined North County Traffic Model, are expected to be no more than 10% higher than existing conditions. If the 10% increase was to be applied to existing peak hour volumes, levels of service and ILV/HR values would remain acceptable, and no mitigation should be needed at the ramp intersections. 003101 Page 2 3101-061306-ememo-spk.v/pd City of Carlsbad m^ ••^'••^^•^••^•••'^^^^••^^••^•M^HMi June 14, Planning Department Ms Jan Cortez American Lung Association 2750 Fourth Avenue San Diego, CA 92103 RE: EIR 03-03 - ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN PROGRAM EIR Dear Ms Cortez: Thank you for your comments dated May 27, 2006 for the Robertson Ranch Program EIR. Although the comment period for the draft EIR ended on December 2, 2005, the City's is providing the following responses to your comments: This letter discusses the potential health effects associated with air pollution, primarily ozone and diesel soot. The potential health effects of air pollution, including those identified in the comment letter, are well- known, and form the basis for the preparation of the comprehensive air quality analysis provided in the EIR. The air quality conformity assessment (EIR Volume III, Appendix C) provides an analysis of the proposed project's impact associated with these pollutants consistent with established protocol and recognized significant thresholds/criteria. The EIR identifies a significant, unavoidable impact to air quality as a result of mobile emissions. This conclusion is based on the fact that the projected traffic from the project would generate emissions in excess of established air quality significance thresholds. Mitigation measures are proposed in the EIR to reduce air emissions to the extent feasible. However, in order to reduce mobile air emissions to a level so that the significance thresholds would not be exceeded, would require limiting the project to no more than approximately 200 dwelling units (200 units x 10 trips/unit = 2,000 ADT). Projects in excess of 2,000 ADT typically generate mobile emissions in excess of established pollutant thresholds. This reduction in the project size would not achieve the goals and objectives of the project. The project does in fact maximize design measures that promote a walkable and transit-friendly community. A component of a walkable and transit-friendly community is increased density, and creation of mixed-uses, all of which are characteristics of the proposed project. Also,. mitigation measures to reduce potential air emissions, similar to those suggested by the commentor, are proposed in the EIR. If you have any additional comments or questions, please contact me at (760) 602-4626. Sincerely, BARBARA KENNEDY, AICP Associate Planner 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us City of Carlsbad Planning Department June 14, 2006 Ms Melanie McCutchan Environmental Health Coalition 401 Mile of Cars Way, Suite 310 National City, CA 91950 RE: EIR 03-03 - Robertson Ranch Master Plan Program EIR Dear Ms McCutchan: Thank you for your comments dated May 31, 2006 for the Robertson Ranch Program EIR. Although the comment period for the draft EIR ended on December 2, 2005, the City's is providing the following responses to your comments: 1. Adequately Assess and Mitigate Diesel Exhaust Impacts The EIR provides a comprehensive analysis of air quality impacts associated with the proposed project. The air quality technical analysis includes an assessment of the potential health effects associated with diesel exhaust emissions as a result of construction operations associated with the project, (The air quality technical report is provided in EIR Volume III, Appendix C, and is summarized in EIR Volume I, Section 5.3 Air Quality). Specifically, a screening risk assessment of diesel-fired toxics was performed using the SCREENS dispersion model developed by the Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. The diesel-related construction emissions risk was analyzed pursuant to California Air Resources Board (CARB) methodology and standards. In terms of risk thresholds, the County of San Diego Department of Planning and Land Use adopted thresholds were utilized, which is related to the risk exposure due to diesel particulates (benzene) in 10 micron parts per million. The risk threshold is whether the cancer exposure risk is 1 person in 1,000,000 people over a 70-year exposure risk duration. Based on the model results, all criteria pollutants were below the recommended risk level with a PM10 risk probability of 18.51 one-hundredths of a percent risk per 70-year exposure duration. The potential health risk associated with the proposed construction operations was determined to be less than significant because: 1) there would not be a significant pollutant concentration; and, 2) the exposure would be far less than 70 years in duration. 2. Fully Characterize Particulate Matter AQ Impacts The San Diego Air Pollution Control District and the County of San Diego are still looking at the validity of potential health risk associated with PM2.s emissions. As acknowledged in the EHC comment letter, the attainment of PM2.5 standards has not yet been incorporated into the San 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us EIR 03-03 - ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN PROGRAM EIR June 14, 2006 Page 2 i - Diego Air Basin's State Implementation Plan. The Air Quality Conformity Analysis provided in the EIR utilizes the Caline4 and SCREENS air quality impact assessment models. These models were developed by the California Air Resources Board, and utilize PM10 as the criteria pollutant (not PM2.s). There is currently no standardized, or accepted model for analyzing PM2.5, partly because PM2.5 has not been established as a criteria pollutant in the County. As discussed in item #1, the air quality modeling conducted for the proposed construction activities has determined that there would not be an impact related to this issue, based on currently adopted modeling protocol. 3. Mitigate Air Quality Impacts from Increased Energy Demand As stated in the Responses to Comments document (EIR Volume IB), any increase in electrical consumption is conducted on a basin-wide level as a joint effort between the electrical producer, the local energy concern, CARB, and the California Energy Commission (CEC). All power generation facilities within the State are heavily regulated by the CEC and require highly detailed air conformity assessment as part of the required Application for Certification (AFC) program. These emissions are accounted for at this point. Additionally, the City has considered the various mitigation measures suggested by the commentor (Petra Pless, November 30, 2005) related to energy consumption. As indicated in response to comment PPL17 (EIR Volume IB), additional measures, as determined feasible, have been added to proposed Mitigation Measure AQ-3 as follows: • Increase walls and attic insulation beyond Title 24 requirements. Plant shade trees in parking lots to reduce evaporative emissions from parked vehicles. Use lighting controls and energy-efficient interior lighting, and built-in energy efficient appliances. Use double-paned windows. • Use energy-efficient low sodium parking lot and street lights. If you have any additional comments or questions, please contact me at (760) 602-4626. Sincerely, BARBARA KENNEDY, AICP Associate Planner BK:bd iBarbara Kennedy- Robertson Ranch Development Page 1 IW -.K^,,,^?^^--^::;-™**,--?^.----' --^.•«-v.«>«*:-^.... ^ . „ , ___ . • -•'--....>., - •--- V.- *'.....-.-- «a«r...... «-jg , „ ,„. - «... aK»"r .,a... ^.,.^,.. .. , a. "«-°S m " " " = _ ..-..—^ — _— KM ,, ,n ~ „ From: martzim <martzim@yahoo.com> To: <council@ci.carlsbad.ca.us> Date: 06/01/2006 3:29:42 PM Subject: Robertson Ranch Development June 1,2006 Mayor Claude A. Lewis Mayor Pro Tern Matt Hall Council Member Ann J. Kulchin Council Member Mark Packard Council Member Norine Sigafoose Folks, After attending last night's Planning Commission session on the proposed Robertson Ranch development, I now feel strongly that this project should not be approved in its present form. It's clear that the project's developer has not done adequate research and planning in many areas, the most glaring being the dramatic impact on traffic and on the quality of life in the immediate area (not to mention the shaky estimates of the impact on outlying areas as well). It also became quite clear that plans for the project are vague and amorphous, and that the city is relying too much on the developer to fill in the gaps - and there are quite a few serious gaps. There were many, many issues and many, many good points raised last night. I urge you not to approve this project until those concerns are fully addressed. Good planning requires good oversight. You have the authority, the power and the responsibility to see that this development is done right. Thank you, Martin Zimmerman Resident, Calavera Hills Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com 35"? i Barbara Kenniedy - For City Council Hearing June 20 Page l]•;w. !•#.*- ^..v..^*:;>m-^™rc=-~-»«'f. :-»>™ ' ~ » • *~ * ... ^ ...... .___ f«p V ym/umt «_ stu*. -. J»*a , ,—_..— _»_ ,„ __J^_j- it __—^ jg m-e * .,.&n.,.,,.^ 2 , •» «. yy.:^^!**^.i^gw^nrt. From: "elizabeth" <elizabeth@elevatedstate.com> To: <council@ci.carlsbad.ca.us> Date: 06/02/2006 7:05:33 AM Subject: For City Council Hearing June 20 I'd like to let my City Council know I appreciate the great job you are doing managing the growth of our beautiful City. Please know I would like funds allocated in the budget for open space preservation, specifically around Mt Calavera in the proposed Robertson Ranch development area. Thank you, Elizabeth North 3513 Somerset Way Carlsbad, CA 92010 3** [BarbaraKennedy^ overbuilt city_ __ __ PaggJ From: "Norma Wolk" <jeanwolk@webtv.net> To: <council@ci.carlsbad.ca.us> Date: 06/01/2006 9:03:33 AM Subject: overbuilt city Mayor Lewis, City Council Members, Does any of you look at or drive our overcrowded streets? I live on a very short street, Levante, 25 mile speed limit. Because it connects with Rancho Santa Fe Dr. and LaCosta Av., it is like a freeway these days. Traffic on El Camino Real is unreal. Now you want to develope yet another 1383 home project for Robertson Ranch! NO,NO,NO! Another 17,000 a day is not acceptable, in traffic. Concentrate on our street congestion and traffic overload Please! Norma J Wolk 2457 Levante St La Costa 92009 760-632-7344 or 760-944-6700 3553 Don Carlos Dr., Carlsbad, CA 92010 V Carlsbad Planning Commission, Carlsbad, CA 92010 Dear Commission Members, * V *)^f*. s? Re Robertson Ranch I respectfully submit to you the concern and disappointment, and the outright opposition my husband and I have to your decision allowing the reconfiguration of the Robertson Ranch project to 13,83 units from the original 983. These beautiful rolling hills and unspoiled ridge lines are the last remaining pristine acres in Carlsbad. We all realize some kind of development is inevitable, given our money driven society, but surely as Planning Commissioners you should be guardians of our environment, the keepers of the public trust, and you should not allow them to be bull-dozed and leveled beyond recognition, and plastered with wall to wall mini mansions. Have you not given any consideration to the enormous increase in traffic on El Camino Real and environs, already close to gridlock at certain times of day, and yet to feel the impact of the huge Bressi Ranch development? What are you thinking of allowing such a heavy concentration of development with out the necessary infrastructure? It is simply appalling that so little consideration seems to be given to the quality of life of the current residents of our once lovely town. Surely part of your duty is to protect us from developers who, for the most part, have never had any compunction about turning formerly beautiful areas into endless miles of concrete, choked with traffic and pollution, and then simply moving on to ever more greener pastures. Sincerely, Colony Residents Supporting 5/24/06 Robertson Ranch Letter to Planning Commission ^ 5/3D/OC 7^6 Colony Residents Supporting 5/24/06 Robertson Ranch Letter to Planning Commission RECEIVED J'JM 0 S 2008 CITY OF CARLSBAD Page 1 of2 From: <elisawilliamson@adelphia.net> To: "greg Agosti" <gregagosti@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Monday, May 29, 2006 10:52 AM Subject: Re: May 31st Meeting 4791 Gateshead Road 434-4276 Elisa Williamson — greg Agosti wrote: In order for it to count, it must include your address and phone #. Original Message From: elisawilliamson@adelphia.net To: greg Agosti Sent: Sunday, May 28, 2006 5:13 PM Subject: Re: May 31st Meeting Please add my name and my husband's name to those supporting the letter. Thanks for all you are doing. Elisa Williamson Glenn Williamson — greg Agosti wrote: With the upcoming meeting, it is important that everyone make it to this meeting. Don't rely on the "other" person to represent you. You have to be there!! Talk to your neighbors and ask them to attend. On that note, there are several people who cannot drive due to various reasons. If anyone can volunteer to take someone to the meeting, please contact us and we will contact those who cannot drive to arrange getting there. We had several people call last week as a result of the flier distribution who had no idea 5/29/20063(^3 Page 1 of 1 Greg Agosti From: "Jim Gongola" <alkjong@adelphia.net> To: "greg AgostT <gregagosti®sbcglobal.net> Sent: Monday, May 29,2006 9:04 PM Subject: RE: May 31st Meeting Hi Greg, Just wanted to let you know that Jill and I are both in agreement with your letter with the exception of the making the mini-park the new entrance street. Do we have to do something different because of that point or can we still be added to the list? Please let me know if we need to do something else. Regards, Jill and Jim Gongola* 4805 Gateshead Rd : Carlsbad, CA 92010i —Original Message— From: greg Agosti [mailto:gregagosti@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Sunday, May 28,2006 5:21 AM To: Brad Knudsen; JW Dennison; Michael Gunzebnan; Mother Anita; Chris; Elisa Williamson; Pautette & Gary Phillips; Rocky Virgadamo; Lou Piper; Sue & Dave Betth; Jim & Farrefl Sheffield; Diana & Jim Sturiate; Uz Mayer; Gary Smith; Nancy McMillan; Kellte Schridc; Dorothy & Frank Webber; Michelle & Man Cooper; Qlff& Wendy Johnson; Monte & Erica Newcom; Vinos & Laura Morales; Jeff & Alma Lueschen; Bob & Marilyn Hahnel; Valeria & Knut Madden; Bruce & Sue Hooper; Ken and Judy Miller; Heather/Steve Thompson; Roger Holmes; Mike McManus; David & Helen Wells; Joanne & Frank Volpe; Joanne Peters; Tom King; torn King; Susan Pynes; Judy Miller; mariapcwerc@SDcglobal.net; Tony & Cheryl Hartvkjsen; Steve & Nancy Gates; Don & Robin Wofford; David & Elizabeth Mdntyre; Jim & Jill Gongola; Jim & Hazel Whlttaker; Matt & Amanda Shaffer; Francis Caminer; Sandy and Bruce Meyer; Jim and Marilyn Hope; Ira & Francis Perrot; David & Paula Stoffel; Karl &Tom Atherton; Tim Traber; Carol Size; Lynn & Tuck Tucker; Mary ButterfiekJ; Jane & Kirk Drost; Mike & Diane McManus; George Gwiazdowski; Steven Brandt; Ashok; Tom Barclay; Tom & Susan Harris; John Gatg; Barbara Wood; Jocdyn KotkJg Jeannie & Rich Vance; Bill Brazeau; Pat Datein; Ted & Christine Gallup; Abby & Jerry Gomez; The Fox Family; hekfilunneberg@yahoo.com Subject: May 31st Meeting With the upcoming meeting, it is important that everyone make it to this meeting. Don't rely on the "other" person to represent you. You have to be there!! Talk to your neighbors and ask them to attend. On that note, there are several people who cannot drive due to various reasons. If anyone can volunteer to take someone to the meeting, please contact us and we will contact those who cannot drive to arrange getting there. We had several people call last week as a result of the flier distribution who had no idea of what was going on but we explained it as best we could on the phone and invited him to come down and see the map and tell him about the project so Thank You to those who helped in the distribution. Also, Diane Nygard called to say her group was distributing fliers and saw that we had already covered that location so she was able to more onto another neighborhood. YOU CAN AND HAVE MADE A DIFFERENCE! Finally, If you have not signed th» totter and want to, we'll be home aH weekend Including Monday or Mnd us your response via e-mail that you concur and well add you to the list If s important to have a good show of support 5/29/2006 Page 1 of2 Aqosti From: "Laura Morales" <moreortess05@yahoo.com> To: <gregagosti@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 3:25 PM Attach: Letter To Planners.pdf; Carlsbad Overview Map 78-College-Cannon.ppt; Map of RR impacts to Neighborhood, ppt; Photograhps Attachmentdoc Subject: Fwd: ACTION NEEDED: RR Planning Commission Letter — greg Agosti <gregagosti@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > From: "greg Agosti" <gregagosti(g),sbcglobal.net> > To: <Undisclosed-Recipient:;> > Subject: ACTION NEEDED: RR Planning Commission > Letter > Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 11:28:18 -0700 > > Hi Folks, > We did our best to represent the many views and > concerns of residents over many months of data > gathering and analysis, meetings, discussions and > communications. Attached is the letter we sent to > the Planning Commission (at the advice of a Council > Member and Planning Director) on behalf of The > Colony (with a cc to the Council). > The intent of sharing this letter is twofold: (1) > information for you; and (2) buy-in from you. > Unfortunately, it is not for editing since that was > done previously with various folks. But if you > happen to note a glaring mistake or oversight we're > interested in knowing about it. > If you can live with this letter, please come by our > house to sign before May 31st or add your name, > address and date to the bottom of the list in the 5/25/2006 Page 2 of2 > email and forward back to me. If you've already > written a letter, you can also sign the one sent on > behalf of all Colony residents. If you are not > satisfied with this letter and feel such > communication should be done differently, by all > means write a letter in your own words to submit to > the Commission/Council before May 30th. > The presentation to the Planning Commission is > scheduled for next Wednesday, May 3 1 , at 6pm. Your > support in person is needed and appreciated. > Name(s) Address > Date > Greg & Jill Agost 4730 Edinburgh Dr. > 5/24/06 Vincent & Laura Morales 272 1 Glasgow Dr.. 5/24/06 Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http ://mail .yahoo.com 5/25/2006 Page 1 of 1 Agosti From: "Irasema Perrot" <pcsostraining@sbcglobal.net> To: '"greg Agosti'" <gregagosti@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 5:22 PM Subject: RE: ACTION NEEDED: RR Planning Commission Letter The letter is awesome, you have done an incredible job. I understand that you will be using a PowerPoint to show at the council meeting. / would be happy to help you with that effort, just let me know. I'm fairly free this Satuday. If you need help call me at home 434-9037 Irasema Perrot From: greg Agosti [mailto:gregagosti@sbcglobai.net] Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 11:28 AM To: Undisclosed-Recipient:;@mtall0.mail.mud.yahoo.com; Subject: ACTION NEEDED: RR Planning Commission Letter Hi Folks, We did our best to represent the many views and concerns of residents over many months of data gathering and analysis, meetings, discussions and communications. Attached is the letter we sent to the Planning Commission (at the advice of a Council Member and Planning Director) on behalf of The Colony (with a cc to the Council). The intent of sharing this letter is twofold: (1) information for you; and (2) buy-in from you. Unfortunately, it is not for editing since that was done previously with various folks. But if you happen to note a glaring mistake or oversight we're interested in knowing about it. If you can live with this letter, please come by our house to sign before May 31st or add your name, address and date to the bottom of the list in the email and forward back to me. If you've already written a letter, you can also sign the one sent on behalf of all Colony residents. If you are not satisfied with this letter and feel such communication should be done differently, by all means write a letter in your own words to submit to the Commission/Council before May 30th. The presentation to the Planning Commission is scheduled for next Wednesday, May 31, at 6pm. Your support in person is needed and appreciated. Name(s) Address Date Greg & Jill Agost 4730 Edinburgh Dr. 5/24/06 Francis ft Irasema Perrot 2726 Glasgow Drive 5/24/06 5/25/2006 Page 1 of 1 From: "Gary Smith" <gsmith@redhorseventures.com> To: '"greg Agosti"1 <gregagosti@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Thursday, May 25, 200611:2S AM Subject RE: ACTION NEEDED: RR Planning Commission Letter From: greg Agosti [mailto:gregagosti@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 11:28 AM To: Undisclosed-Recipient:; Subject: ACTION NEEDED: RR Planning Commission Letter Hi Folks, We did our best to represent the many views and concerns of residents over many months of data gathering and analysis, meetings, discussions and communications. Attached is the letter we sent to the Planning Commission (at the advice of a Council Member and Planning Director) on behalf of The Colony (with a cc to the Council). The intent of sharing this letter is twofold: (1) information for you; and (2) buy-in from you. Unfortunately, it is not for editing since that was done previously with various folks. But if you happen to note a glaring mistake or oversight we're interested in knowing about it. If you can live with this letter, please come by our house to sign before May 31st or add your name, address and date to the bottom of the list in the email and forward back to me. If you've already written a letter, you can also sign the one sent on behalf of all Colony residents. If you are not satisfied with this letter and feel such communication should be done differently, by all means write a letter in your own words to submit to the Commission/Council before May 30th. The presentation to the Planning Commission is scheduled for next Wednesday, May 31, at 6pm. Your support in person is needed and appreciated. Name(s) Greg & Jilt Agost Gary & Shelley Smith Address 4730 Edinburgh Dr. 2729 Glasgow Drive Date 5/24/06 5/25/06 5/25/2006 Page 1 of2 From: "Brad & Stephanie Knudsen" <bsknudsen@adelphia.net> To: "greg Agosti" <gregagosti@sbcglobal.net> Cc: "Brad Knudsen" <bknudsen@proxpharma.com> Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 8:18 AM Subject: Re: ACTION NEEDED: RR Planning Commission Letter Greg & Jill, Thank you for all your help in this matter. We apologize for not getting involved earlier but we fully support you and your efforts. One of us will be at the Planning Commission meeting next Wednesday. Please keep us informed and let us know if there is anything else we can do. Sincerely, Brad & Stephanie Knudsen — Original Message — From: greg Agosti To: Brad Knudsen Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 5:35 PM Subject Fw: ACTION NEEDED: RR Planning Commission Letter — Original Message — From: greg Agosti Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 11:28 AM Subject: ACTION NEEDED: RR Planning Commission Letter Hi Folks, We did our best to represent the many views and concerns of residents over many months of data gathering and analysis, meetings, discussions and communications. Attached is the letter we sent to the Planning Commission (at the advice of a Council Member and Planning Director) on behalf of The Colony (with a cc to the Council). The intent of sharing this letter is twofold: (1) information for you; and (2) buy-in from you. Unfortunately, it is not for editing since that was done previously with various folks. But if you happen to note a glaring mistake or oversight we're interested in knowing about it. If you can live with this letter, please come by our house to sign before May 31st or add your name, address and date to the bottom of the list in the email and forward back to me. If you've already written a letter, you can also sign the one sent on behalf of all Colony residents. If you are not satisfied with this letter and feel such communication should be done differently, by all means write a letter in your own words to submit to the Commission/Council before May 30th. The presentation to the Planning Commission is scheduled for next Wednesday, May 31, at 6pm. Your support in person is needed and appreciated. Name(s) Address Date 5/25/2006 Page 2 of2 Greg & Jill Agost 4730 Edinburgh Dr. 5/24/06 Brad & Stephanie Knudsen 2730 Glasgow Dr. 5/25/06 5/25/2006 Page 1 of 1 Greg Agosti From: 'Ted Gallup" <tedgallup1@yahoo.com> To: "greg Agosti" <gregagosti@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Tuesday, May 30,2006 11:29 AM Subject: Re: May 31 st Meeting If you have not already, you can add my name to the list of supporters? TedGaltep Christine Gallup greg Agosti <gregagosti@sbcglobal.nef> wrote: With the upcoming meeting, rt is important that everyone make it to this meeting. Don't rely on the "other" person to represent you. You have to be there!! Talk to your neighbors and ask them to attend. On that note, there are several people who cannot drive due to various reasons. If anyone can volunteer to take someone to the meeting, please contact us and we will contact those who cannot drive to arrange getting there. We had several people call last week as a result of the flier distribution who had no idea of what was going on but we explained it as best we could on the phone and invited him to come down and see the map and tell him about the project so Thank You to those who helped in the distribution. Also, Diane Nygard called to say her group was distributing fliers and saw that we had already covered that location so she was able to more onto another neighborhood. YOU CAN AND HAVE MADE A DIFFERENCE! Finally, if you have not signed the letter and want to, we'll be home all weekend including Monday or send us your response via e-mail that you concur and we'll add you to the list, it's important to have a good show of support Feel free to call! Free PC-to-PC calls. Low rates on PC-to-Phone. Get Yahoo! Messenger with Voice 5/30/2006 Page 1 of2 Greg Agosti From: <fbhopper@adelphia.net> To: "greg Agosti" <gregagosti@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Wednesday, May 24,2006 2:59 PM Subject: Re: ACTION NEEDED: RR Planning Commission Letter — greg Agosti <gregagosti(a),sbcglobal.net> wrote: > Hi Folks, > > > We did our best to represent the many views and concerns of residents over many months of data gathering and analysis, meetings, discussions and communications. Attached is the letter we sent to the Planning Commission (at the advice of a Council Member and Planning Director) on behalf of The Colony (with a cc to the Council). > The intent of sharing this letter is twofold: (1) information for you; and (2) buy-in from you. Unfortunately, it is not for editing since that was done previously with various folks. But if you happen to note a glaring mistake or oversight we're interested in knowing about it > > > If you can live with this letter, please come by our house to sign before May 31st or add your name, address and date to the bottom of the list in the email and forward back to me. If you've already written a letter, you can also sign the one sent on behalf of all Colony residents. If you are not satisfied with this letter and feel such communication should be done differently, by all means write a letter in your own words to submit to the Commission/Council before May 30th. > The presentation to the Planning Commission is scheduled for next Wednesday, May 3 1, at 6pm. Your support in person is needed and appreciated. > Name(s) Address Date > Greg & Jill Agost 4730 Edinburgh Dr. 5/24/06 F.Bruce & 5/25/2006 Page 2 of2 .Copper 2718 Glasgow Drive 5.24/06 5/25/2006373 Page 1 of 1 Aaosti From: "foxfamily" <foxfamily@sbcglobal.net> To: "greg Agosti" <gregagosti@sbcgloba!.net> Sent: Thursday, May 25,20061:33 PM Subject: Re: ACTION NEEDED: RR Planning Commission Letter Very impressive letter, thank you. we added our name to the bottom. Pam Fox — Original Message — From: greg Agosti To: Undisclosed-Recipient:: Sent: Wednesday, May 24,2006 11:28 AM Subject: ACTION NEEDED: RR Planning Commission Letter Hi Folks, We did our best to represent the many views and concerns of residents over many months of data gathering and analysis, meetings, discussions and communications. Attached is the letter we sent to the Planning Commission (at the advice of a Council Member and Planning Director) on behalf of The Colony (with a cc to the Council). The intent of sharing this letter is twofold: (1) information for you; and <2) buy-in from you. Unfortunately, it is not for editing since that was done previously with various folks. But if you happen to note a glaring mistake or oversight we're interested in knowing about it. If you can live with this letter, please come by our house to sign before May 31st or add your name, address and date to the bottom of the list in the email and forward back to me. If you've already written a letter, you can also sign the one sent on behalf of alt Colony residents. If you are not satisfied with this letter and feel such communication should be done differently, by all means write a letter in your own words to submit to the Commission/Council before May 30th. The presentation to the Planning Commission is scheduled for next Wednesday, May 31, at 6pm. Your support in person is needed and appreciated. Name(s) Address Date Greg & Jill Agost 4730 Edinburgh Dr. 5/24/06 Pam and Bob Fox 4742 Gateshead Rd 5/25/06 5/25/2006 Electronic Signatures - Colony Residents Supporting Letter to Planning Commission 5/24/06 Name Jim & Jill Gongola Elisa & Glenn Williamson Vincent & Laura Morales Francis & Irasema Perrot Brad & Stephanie Knudsen Gary & Shelley Smith Pam & Bob Fox F. Bruce & Susanne Hopper Address > 4805 Gateshead Rd 4791 Gateshead Rd 2721 Glasgow Dr 2726 Glasgow Dr 2730 Glasgow Dr. 2729 Glasgow Dr. 4742 Gateshead Rd 27 18 Glasgow Dr Date 05/29/06 05/29/06 05/24/06 05/24/06 05/25/06 05/25/06 05/25/06 05/24/06 Phone # 434-4276 434-9037 June 20,2006 ^ RECEIVED n u v H JUN 2 0 2008Barbara Kennedy CITY OF CARLSBAD Re: Robertson Ranch Hearing June 21, 2006 P LA N NIN G D E PT Barbara, We overlooked this with the information provided by the Colony to the City yesterday morning. We will be discussing this information at Wednesday's hearing. Sincerely, Jill Agos 4730 Edinburgh Dr 5 Enclosures My name is Ralph Elwin Davis and I'm a retired Fire Captain ^rith the Corona Fire Department.' 1 had 28 years as a fire fighter, engineer, and captain. During my career, I have encountered many instances where response time and access to an emergency scene became an issue. I agreed to write this letter for the homeowners of The Colony after I was consulted as to if there were any situations where access through barriers, gated or chained roads was an issue. In addition, I was askect if Corona has cul-de-sacs that are joined by an emergency road that provides access for fire equipment. Enclosed are several photographs in which gated and chained roads are utilized throughout the City Corona. You witl notice that one location is a cul-de-sac that is joined to another neighborhood through an emergency access road that is chained. Corona Fire department equipment all carry a common- key for situations where chains or manual gates are used by Fire/Emergency response personnel to be unlocked for access. They also carry an electronic gate opener that allows the emergency vehicles to activate the opening mechanism on gates to allow access. Sfe t provided several examples of where these exist within the jurisdiction of the Corona Fire Department. We have had very little problems with automatic gates not operating properly or keys not opening chained locks or manual gates, t know of no known code violations within the city of Corona that would prav&nt the fire department from gaining access on an emergency road for emergency vehicles only. The photos that I provided are actual, current locations and these have never had an instance that 5 am aware of where access became a problem. Th* chained location is between Sunkist Cir and Todd Cir. The other location with the gated access was installed to prevent excessive commuter traffic. It seems hundreds of commuters were using residential streets to bypass crowded main routes to the extent that local residents couldn't even back out of there own driveways. This gate is located on San Ramon St. in the Sierra Del Oro track on the west side of Corona CA. off of Green River Dr. and the 91 F^WY. As you may or may not be aware, Corona has been experiencing significant and exponential growth for the past 10-15 years. Corona had and still does have the traffic challenges that Carlsbad is experiencing. There are several areas in Corona where traffic congestion exists due to out of area commuters using residential neighborhoods as short cuts to avoid main street and freeway congestion. With proper police patrols and community awareness, these locations have remained trouble free in terms of vehicles, trailer, motorhomes, or people playing in the cul-de- sac blocking the access. From a fireman's point of view, t think the proposed id®a of having a limited access road between cul-de-sacs is excellent solution for emergency access and that eliminates commuter traffic. Feet free to verify my credentials with the Corona Fire Department and if you hav« any questions, I can be reached at 951-736-0567. Sincerely, •*. Ralph Eiwin Davis 3-77 318 379 3$$ DR. & MRS. DAVID B. HADDAD 26 May 2005 and again on 19 June 2006 City of Carlsbad Planning Commission RE: Robertson Ranch Master Plan My wife and I welcome the ongoing development of our city. ItisI critical to our continued enjoyment of norttiehi Carlsbad, however, ihat the number of new units being added at the Robertson Ranch be limited in size and number. We write this as residents and property taxpayers of nearly 10 years. Leigh is an environmental designer and I am. a doctor of organizational psychology who closely studies the effects of overcrowding on human; society. We strongly urge the Planning Commission and City Council to adopt the following modifications to the currently proposed Robertson Ranch Master Plan. 1) That all units planned to occupy 5,000 sq. ft. lots, about 417 of them, be limited to lots no less than 7500 sq. ft. This would result in a 33% reduction in units constructed to 278 from 417. 2) That all units planned to occupy 6,000 sq. ft. lots, about 143 of them, be limited to lots no less than 7500 sq. ft. This would result in a 20% reduction of units constructed to 114 from 143. 4645 TRIESTE DRIVE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92010 We make these recommendations for 3 reasons: a) Privacy. 7500 square foot lots are the smallest lots single family units can fill and also preserve a healthy degree of privacy. Privacy, especially from one's immediate neighbors, is an essential aspect of the quality of life. b) Traffic Management. Reducing the total number of units cited above to 392 from 560 also means permanently limiting the potential and actual number of cars vying for space on Carlsbad roads. The increase of new vehicles would be limited to 784 rather than 1120. Carlsbad's roads are already choked. Better traffic management helps keep Carlsbad a more desirable place to live, the gem of San Diego's North Coast. c) Desirability. Larger lots means higher value property which means higher property tax revenue per unit on the fewer units that are built! We will eventually want to buy a new house in this vicinity, but we will not pay more for less land, less privacy, and higher traffic volumes. I want our move to be an increase in quality, updating our standard of living. The fact that such a move includes higher property taxes we accept as a given fact of life. There's only one Carlsbad, California. Let's not permanently spoil it, regretting the sorry results of overbuilding evident in the beach cities of Orange County. 323 DR. & MRS. DAVID B. HADDAD What's the tradeoff? In the short run the developers earn less. Fewer units means less profit. That is too bad. Before becoming an organizational psychologist I was a professional in the securities industry for 14 years. I know the value of maximizing profit. But it would be unwise and unacceptable to allow temporary financial profits for a few to take priority over the permanent, long term living standards of thousands of Carlsbad residents. That's a higher price than should be paid. The other tradeoff is tax revenue. Again, in the short run because fewer units are built under our recommendation, less can be collected into the City's coffers from property and sales taxes. Nevertheless, larger lots would, as I mentioned above, be taxed on a higher per unit basis. Since they would sell for higher prices this would slightly compensate for tax revenue lost by building fewer total units. The City planners should desire an optimum effect on the community, balancing a higher quality of life through larger lots while accepting a short term effect of slightly reduced tax revenues. Again, there is only one Carlsbad, California. Let's not spoil it. David Benjamin Haddad, Ph.D. Leigh Haddad 26 May 2005 26 May 2005 4645 TRIESTE DRIVE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92010 jL &'<^-M Our Community Insert pictures of neighborhood events Neighborhood Quotes People don't just drive into their garages and go into their homes - they LJVE in the neighborhood. They know and care about their neighbors and friends. Stacie Baker (14 yn) We moved here from Orange County because of the City's reputation of planned and controlled growth. Dan Runnestrand (23yrs) We wanted to start a family in a safe community with nice people where we could enjoy raising our children. David Mclntyre (19 months) Neighborhood Quotes We used to live offPontiac and Victoria, and admired this neighborhood. We were thrilled to find a home over here. The schools are awesome. It's a quiet neighborhood that is kept up (not overrun). Tan Traber(7yrs) We were told Carlsbad was very concerned about growth and there was a moratorium on growth. Bruce & Sandy Meyer (19 yrs) The Colony - Comprehensive Resident Response Protect Our Neighborhood We need you to protect the safety and integrity of our neighborhood - Children playing in the streets - Senior Citizens - Established neighborhood Traffic Our biggest threat to the neighborhood is the traffic Concern is the discrepancy with other traffic studies (one segment - College Blvd between 78 & Plaza) - Robertson Ranch 15,000 - Oceanside 49,000 - Mira Monte 30,000 Reviewed by an independent third party Traffic Insert table w/ Failed Intersections 38* Traffic Revised Traffic Study - All assumptions - Distribution questionable • 6% (vs. 1096 of our traffic) - Cut through at 20% • 78 /1-5 Commuter • School • Park & Community Center • Wal-Mart Traffic • At the revised estimates: - Glasgow - 99% (1,977 ADT) - Edinburgh- 95% (1,898 ADT) • Margin of Error - too close to risk our safety? City Public Opinion Surveys 2005- Growth & Overcrowding have consistently been top concerns of Carlsbad, Pg 28 2004 — The most common recommendation was setting limits on growth and development, Pg 85 2003 - Growth, Overbuilding and Overcrowding was the most common complaint, Pg 109 2002,2001,2000 - Growth, Overbuilding and Overcrowding was the biggest concern regarding Carlsbad (See Chart next slide) City of Carlsbad 2003 Public Opinion Survey Report; Pg. 109 How Is Density Not An Issue? 5 years of published survey data indicate otherwise. Total Number of DU: - 1986 Growth Management Plan - 1,122 - After intense City analysis - 983 -Current plan 1383 Density Density Impacts -Traffic -Water -Power - Sewage - Air Quality - Quality of Life Density Insert pie chart AB 2348 - Housing Element Regional Housing Need DU/AC mandates apply only to lower income households Section 65583.2 - Pg 10 of Legislative Counsel's Digest states: "(B) The following densities shall be deemed appropriate to accommodate housing for lower inctime hriiuelioldt: • (Hi) Suhurban.,,20 units per acre * (iv) Metropolitan...30 units per acre" DENSITY Multi-Family Units at 51 % - Affordable housing at 20% - What about the remaining 31 % of Multi-Family housing? Senior Housing School Impacts • Condition in the Master Plan re the School Site • Recent letter from Dr. Roach re High School City Inclusionary Housing Ordinance • Each new residential project set aside 15% for affordable, low income housing. - Robertson Ranch • 49% single-family homes • 51% Multifamily units >20% is low income >31 % identified as "High Density Residential Sites" implied to be apartments Why Encouragement of Such High Density? Cly Poflqr fw Is*"* HWKM* K«* . Rcftm*! How!* Naxfc AucwoeM iRHNA) Land Use Map • "Unofficial" as posted on City Website & provided by Planning personnel • Robertson Ranch is designated as "RLM" <<M DU/AC) • If project has been in the works for 5 years, why has die map not been revised accordingly? • Misleading to public Expectations Clear that "something" would exist but didn't expect that "something" to be a residential development built at 141% capacity - Expectations reasonable to previous development >Edinburgh Estates- two cul de sac additions >Continuation of and addition to existing Colony >Not through streets to £1 Camino Real Signage - "Future Road Extension" -Line of sight Expectations Effectiveness of Communication Taken at 20 yards away.Taken from car at Tamarack &. El Camino Real PROTECT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD • We need you, the Planning Commission, to protect our neighborhood. Carlsbad Growth Management Plan major concept #4: "If at any time a proposed development would result in a failure of any of the adopted facility performance standards, the development cannot be approved until the problem is resolved." SOLUTIONS Ingress/Egress on Tamarack - A condition of the W. Village - Eliminates use of Edinburgh & Glasgow - Approval can be obtained while building East Village • Doesn't hold up the application SOLUTIONS Connect East to West ViUage - Eliminates access to Edinburgh & Glasgow — Recognize it would involve more time - Working with the Environmental Agencies - Save OUR Habitat as well 32S SOLUTIONS Back to Back Cul de Sacs - The Colony supports this - McMillin & Robertson Ranch support this - No City or Fire Code violations - Fire Department Concerns • Response time • All weather road • No barriers / gates - Spoken with other Fire Departments • Corona Fire Captain Testimonial - No worse than now SOLUTIONS Solutions ROBSKTSON RANCH SOLUTIONS Adding another Left Turn Lane on Tamarack WB at ECR. - Alleviates commuter cut through traffic and prevents Tamarack & ECR from failing SOLUTIONS Density - Reduce Multi-Family/Apartment density - Add Affordable Senior Housing Growth &, Overcrowding have consistently been topconcerns of Carlsbad OU/AC mandates apply only,to lower^ income households' In Conclusion Our Future is in Your Hands We are asking you to Protect our Neighborhood We have given you solutions that are a win- win for everyone Please consider our solutions before approving this plan 390 wii <uT3i .ooo 0)Commun01£" .§• 15 55 0> i •o O O) % 00 "o1 0 e®till CO COSi. CM CQ believe thatn the neighbheard a sta-,.2 £ » gen -c: ra co xs j=T- o Qi J= CD OT 00 8 - cS'w- #1*11 £ J ° £ S2°1I"Js'zifcl •o = o-c50 CO O - C cS- •£ "5" 5 -2s-!*!liif i£ is g I a r^ -C -. C~— *3 <-f ™ 52 S -o = ll i.2ins"-•te. c Q. S. COCN s s softs,lotspolicetoisS CD fcco6 9 monthscoQ solneCO TO i | 08 E and p| 3 I •ocCO 03 LU Oi •oc=CO UJ We are originalCD CO i e^ CO a COQ.Q. 39/ sg OT 1 i <D;o "c» _ooo o> (a)Our neighborhood meets for couples (and singles) bunco, (b) our neighborhoodhas block parties on July 4, Christmas and New Years Eve. (c) people walk theirdogs and chat, (d) people take care of each other -- when 1 was down with chemotherapy the neighbors brought dinner for my family every night checked up on usFrequently.% Is *3 We loved the house and the neighborhootfull of children. Also, people were friendlyeven when we were just looking.i.^*CO 2 CD<j= CD£3 m T3 coo08 >\ 1 That "neighborhood" feeling. People don't just drive into their garages and go intheir homes - they LIVE in the neighborhood. They know and care about theirneighbors and friends.CD CD£ S?05 JO Neighborhood "feeling" - people out walkiistreet, talking / socializing with neighbors,yards - kid friendlyJO CO 2.•**• J5 t/5 Very quiet and pleasant living conditions. These conditions not only eliminatemany of the reasons families move from a neighborhood but also encourage thedevelopment of mutual support within the community.i co £My wife cannot climb stairs. We moved tostory home here on Brookwood CourtCOs>^%T~ ar•coo c-Co Amongst all the developments since the early 1990's, the Colony has remained asmall, quaint and quiet neighborhood - a good environment to for families of allages.If. X ^• ^^ «CD Ol-cj to •— 2 -2 *Orange County was too expensive at the ilooked at all the North County cities and tlCarlsbad was the nicest. I looked in Carlsover 1 yr and chose the Colony because ismall, quaint and quiet neighborhood.CO CO£ CNCM ••J=COo£ £0 Definitely because of the mix of family and retired people; VERY STRONG SENSEOF COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBORHOOD. We have made SO many friendsliving here.§> 8| 0 CD^-Z E £ 2 «= ™ 3? & -* A c S 'E Originally from New Zealand and I chose Ito Carlsbad in approx 1980 because I thinpopulation at that time was approx. 30,001which was about the size of my home towZealand. A very good size in which to rai:family; and a very strong sense of commusoIoCM C c §§•=S o !•§»o c'<±E•= ECO -o 08 LU "•§=> >£1 We literally put up our fences together with our neighbors, shared the same1 landscapers, carpooled to school together3 O •o Liked the home and the open space behirpropertycocz 's> o. c5 "2 ££o> 9£- 0 § i co.<£> LU Our community is unique because the people care for each other and watch outfor the kids. It is a safe and wonderful place to raise your family. — :•=? ^3-8 m 'CJi-S We thought it would be a great starter hotwe fell in love with the neighborhood and inever to leave.1t-~ TJ ose i s &os 1 think one of the main reasons for stability is that it really has become it's own littlecommunity. Many people have raised their children here, we have raised threeboys, we have gotten to know our neighbors and have grown close to them andhave watched their children grow up.Our yards sale, our block parties, our holiday events have all helped to form a realspecial bond with everyone who lives here.People tend to stay where they are comfortable and safe and that is what thisneighborhood has given us."c s|* 55 It was a nice quiet community, the housesbuilt on larger lots and the traffic was non-» 1, CM CO ^C.CO ^s CD CO3 •occo CD*£. 2 The neighborhood has remained pretty much the same since we moved in whichhas kept us here. It has been a safe, quiet, and secluded place to raise our kidswithout being worried by crime or traffic. Along with this, it has always been avisually attractive neighborhood that shows pride of ownership. Residents arecontinually making improvements to their homes and yards. 1 feel we're fortunateto have made this our home for the past 23 years.i"i-ii s We already lived in Carlsbad off of Kelly £. We liked the area and wanted to buy a neCO_c t~eo "50" £ teco S CM O L_ M 2>»•o3—3 08 1 The people that live here care about our place and make it a good community to 1live in. 1A fine place to live with good schoolsCO !•«3-CM T5cd 1-i-J CD 1.S3 en 393 5, 5,. Foafficeto0>(O oQ.W 2 •£ CD ^'at<D 0£ a^ <Da>3 O I £'5 go 2s & =<D T3O O Review of Escrow Documentation For Road Extensions & Robertson Ranch Email sent to Colony Residents. June 18.2006: Please look through your closing escrow documents when you purchased your home and look for illustrations/drawings and any communication depicting the future extensions on Glasgow and Edinburgh. During the purchase the seller must disclose to potential buyers anything that could affect the area (i.e., future road extensions, unstable foundations, termites, known defects, etc.). These extensions were supposed to have been disclosed. We want to know what your documents say as there seams to be a lot of inconsistency. One resident recalls that the extensions showed Edinburgh & Glasgow hooking up in a U-shape. Verification of your docs will help in addressing the "you had to know these streets would connect to a development" comments - yes, but to what extent? Greg Agosti Showed Edinburgh extending into a field possibly connecting up with a street called Cannon that didn't exist at that time (1984). I always assumed the Colony would be extended in a similar fashion to Edinburgh Estates, but never anticipated Edinburgh going all the way through to ECR. ' Kari & Tom Atherton The extensions showed Edinburgh & Glasgow extended and hooking up in a U-shape, but nowhere near ECR. Chris Cooper 2769 Glasgow 760 730 3885 Found no mention of the Glasgow or Edinburgh extensions or the addition of 1400 houses to our neighborhood. We purchased our house on Glasgow 3 years ago. The interesting thing is that both our realtor and the sellers realtor worked for McMillin realty who I assume is a sister company to McMillin the developer (tell me if I am wrong). I'm not happy about the nondisclosure. Ted Gallup I went through our docs and unfortunately didn't find anything that showed permanent closures, except that I also found nothing that disclosed where extensions would go or when. When we purchased, I did go to the Planning Dept. to get more information on the extension of College Blvd as we are across the canyon from the current construction, Ravinia by McMillin. One thing they did not disclose to me was that the Mystic Point, Montara, Ravinia etc. development would include the low income Mariposa Aprtments. They also did not mention anything to me about Robertson Ranch or extensions to Edinburgh or Glasgow. Tom King Have the original planning maps (Carlsbad General Plan) that shows a considerable lower density than what is proposed now. In addition, at that time I did go to the planning department and asked them what the plans for the extension of Edinburgh specifically was and was told that it would NEVER be a through street. It would at most service an additional small segment of homes because of the incline of Edinburgh and the HMP requirements imposed on that portion of Robertson Ranch. This is basically the same story the resident you mentioned below - where was to be a closed off U-shape servicing immediate homes - never being through to Cannon or ECR. I am sure I can dig up other useful 39* Review of Escrow Documentation For Road Extensions & Robertson Ranch 1: Bruce Meyer Lynn Tucker Irene and Martin Lechowitzky TammarielloFamily Dave Rouse Bob Peterson Rocky Virgadamo Pam Fox Ira Perrot Elisa Williamson David & Elizabeth Mclntyre Rich Vance Frances Caminer 729-1598 information from the HMP as well. Found one document, which I had attached to our original escrow documents from 1987. It is not clear and doesn't seem to show what you are looking for. It says 1 of 2 sheets - but there is no 2nd sheet. I checked our loan docs and they didn't have any graphics or mention of the future road extensions. I don't see anything related to street extension. We bought the house eight years ago and it is entirely possible that disclosure on this wasn't mandatory at that time and/or the street extension was not planned at that time. I simply don't know. On the other hand, if they should have disclosed that to us at that period in time, that might be useful to you. Couldn't find any info, in our closing docs, that mentioned the Glasgow or Edinburgh extensions Ours only say that Tamarack may be extended. We bought in 1994 I just checked all my documents and found nothing that would help. Sorry We do not have any drawings from our closing paper work. Tom King has an area map that is quite detailed. I know for a fact that there was nothing printed on the dead end barricade for years, so they can't claim that we knew all along... We reviewed our relatively recent documents and no disclosures about the streets were made. Airport noise etc. was included but nothing re:roads. I am sure that the sellers and their agent believed that the signs on the ends of the streets, that were there when we purchased, were all the disclosure they needed. Sorry not to be of more help. My escrow documents do not disclose anything about Glasgow Being opened up to El Camino Real. We've also lived here 18 years, maybe in was not in the works then. I checked our documents and they don't show anything. Sorry. There is nothing in ours regarding this. I couldn't find any reference to future development plans. . We bought 1986-there is No map. When I refinanced in 2002-the map only shows "our" area and a big blank for "The Robertson's Ranch". The City of Carlsbad Planning Department A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Item No.© P.C. AGENDA OF: September 20, 2006 Application complete date: N/A Project Planner: Barbara Kennedy Project Engineer: Jeremy Riddle SUBJECT: EIR 03-03/MP 02-Q3/GPA 02-04/LFMP 14(BVHMP 06-04 - ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN and CT 02-16/HDP 02-07/SUP 02-05 - ROBERTSON RANCH EAST VILLAGE MASTER TENTATIVE MAP - Request for: 1) a recommendation for certification of an Environmental Impact Report, and recommendation of adoption of the Candidate Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and a request for a recommendation of approval for the Robertson Ranch Master Plan, General Plan Amendment, Zone 14 Local Facilities Management Plan Amendment, and Habitat Management Plan Permit for Incidental Take consistent with the City's Habitat Management Plan for the Robertson Ranch Master Plan; and 2) a request for approval of a Master Tentative Tract Map, Hillside Development Permit, and Floodplain Special Use Permit for the 176 acre East Village of the Robertson Ranch Master Plan. The Robertson Ranch Master Plan encompasses a 398 acre site located north of El Camino Real, east of Tamarack Avenue, and east and west of College Boulevard, and east and west of Cannon Road in Local Facilities Management Zone 14. I. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission: 1) ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 6105 RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION of EIR 03-03 and RECOMMENDING ADOPTION of the Candidate Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 6106, 6107, 6108, and 6109 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of MP 02-03, GPA 02-04, LFMP 14(B) and HMP 06-04 - ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN; and, 2) ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions No. 6110, 6111 and 6112 APPROVING CT 02- 16, HDP 02-07 and SUP 02-05 - ROBERTSON RANCH EAST VILLAGE MASTER TENTATIVE MAP; based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. II. INTRODUCTION The Robertson Ranch Master Plan, EIR and associated applications were first heard by the Planning Commission at the May 31, 2006 public hearing. At the conclusion of the meeting, the applicant requested a continuance to the June 21, 2006 hearing so that a number of issues could be addressed. At the conclusion of the June 21, 2006 meeting, the applicant again requested a continuance to a date uncertain so that a number of additional concerns that were raised during the hearing could be resolved. New notices for the September 20, 2006 public hearing for the Robertson Ranch Master Plan, EIR and associated applications were posted on the site, 397 EIR 03-03/MP 02-03/GPA OZ-04/LFMP 14(B)/HMP 06-04 - ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN and CT 02-16/HDP 02-07/SUP 02-05 - ROBERTSON RANCH EAST VILLAGE MASTER TENTATIVE MAP September 20,2006 Page 2 published in the newspaper, and sent to all interested parties and property owners within 600 feet of the project site as well as to the entire Colony neighborhood at their request. At the June 21, 2006 hearing, the Planning Commission generally concurred that they would support a reduction in the number of proposed dwelling units from 1,383 du's to 1,122 du's (or 1,154 du's with development of the school site) and that a majority of Planning Area 7 should be developed with Senior Housing. Additionally, the Planning Commission directed the applicant to continue to meet with representatives of the Colony neighborhood; to further explore alternatives for reducing cut-through traffic in the Colony neighborhood, including a new roadway connection at Tamarack Avenue and Planning Area 2 (Tamarack Connection); and to provide data showing the success of traffic calming devices. III. DISCUSSION Staff and the applicant have met a number of times over the past several months with the Colony residents (see chronology of meetings in Attachment 2). In addition, the Colony residents have been given the opportunity to review the various traffic studies prepared by USA that are attached to the staff report. The applicant and their consultants have been working closely with the residents to address their technical questions. Staff understands the Colony resident's concern regarding increased traffic and cut-thru traffic in their neighborhood and three circulation alternatives have been developed for the West Village to address these concerns. Unfortunately staff, the developer, and the residents were unable to reach consensus for a preferred alternative. Other issues raised by the Colony residents include the number of units proposed for the Master Plan, adding senior housing to PA 7, CUSD student generation rates, fire department access issues, and traffic concerns. These issues, as well as those raised and discussed by the Planning Commission, are discussed below. LAND USE PLAN Reduced Density In response to the Planning Commission's direction to reduce the number of units in the Robertson Ranch Master Plan, the applicant has prepared a new Land Use Plan (Attachment 3) reflecting a reduction in residential density by up to 261 units. Attachment 4 details the Planning Areas where units have been deleted and Attachment 5 provides a summary table comparing the original Master Plan with the reduced unit alternatives (1,122 du's with school and 1,154 du's without school). The "1,122 du's with school" alternative results in a reduction of 176 du's from the West Village and a reduction of 85 dwelling units from the East Village. The request for an allocation of units from the City's Excess Dwelling Unit Bank would be decreased accordingly from 400 units to 171 units. Several changes are required to the resolutions to reflect this revision as outlined in the attached errata. Revised General Plan Land Use Designations EIR 03-03/MP 02-03/GPA OZ-04/LFMP 14(B)/HMP 06-04 - ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN and CT 02-16/HDP 02-07/SUP 02-05 - ROBERTSON RANCH EAST VILLAGE MASTER TENTATIVE MAP September 20,2006 Page 3 The reduced density results in several changes to the proposed General Plan Land Use Designations as shown in Attachment 6. The reduction of units within PA 10 results in a decrease in density which would change the previously proposed RM (4-8 du/ac) designation to the RJLM (0-4 du/ac) designation. The minimum lot size for PA 10 would be increased from 5,000 sf to 6,000 sf. PA's 13 and 14 will be changed from the RH (15-23 du/ac) designation to E (Elementary School) and PA 22 will be changed to UA (Unplanned Area) as proposed by the applicant (refer to May 31, 2006 staff report). MASTER PLAN TEXT REVISIONS The modifications noted above necessitate a number" of associated revisions to the Master Plan Text and Graphics. These revisions will be made pending the final decision on the Master Plan by the City Council. In addition, several revisions to the Master Plan text would be required for the following items: PA 7 - Senior Housing The applicant is proposing to allocate 105 units (over 50%) within PA 7 as Senior Housing. These units would be developed according to the design criteria of the Master Plan and pursuant to the City's existing development standards for Senior Housing (CMC Chapter 21.84 - Housing for Senior Citizens). The Master Plan text for PA 7 will be amended to specify that over 50% of the units shall be developed as Senior Housing and to add a requirement for compliance with the Development Standards and Design Criteria of CMC Chapter 21.84. PAs 13 and 14 - School Site and Alternative Land Uses As noted at the previous Planning Commission hearing, the Carlsbad Unified School District (CUSD) has indicated a desire to reserve 10 acres within PA's 13 and 14 for an elementary school. Pursuant to Section 66478 of the Subdivision Map Act, within 30 days after approval of the tentative map, the school district must offer to enter into an agreement to accept dedication of the site. The required dedication may be made any time before, concurrently with, or up to 60 days after, the filing of the final map on any portion of the subdivision. The Master Plan text and graphics will be revised to reflect the elementary school land use designation. In the event that CUSD does not enter into an agreement to accept dedication of the site as planned, an alternative land use of small lot single-family development with up to 52 dwelling units would be allowed. The unit allocation is based on the Growth Control Point for the existing RLM designation which would allow 32 units (10 acres x 3.2 du/ac) together with a shift of 20 du's from several other Planning Areas (PA 5 - 10 du's, PA 6 - 1 du, PA 10 - 6 du's, and PA 21-3 du's). As proposed, 35 du's would be located within PA 13 and 17 du's would be located within PA 14. These planning areas would be developed as detached single-family residences on minimum 5,000 sf lots, similar to the development standards currently proposed for PA's 16, 17 and 18. PAs 1 and 2 - Relocation of RV Storage Area Revisions to the Master Plan text and graphics will be required if the Tamarack Connection from PA 2 to the West Village (shown in Circulation Alternatives 2 and 3) is approved by the Planning Commission and City Council. PA 2 is currently proposed as an RV storage site for the East and West Villages of the Master Plan. Construction of the Tamarack Connection would 399 EIR 03-03/MP 02-03/GPA 02-04/LFMP 14(B)/HMP 06-04 - ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN and CT 02-16/HDP 02-07/SUP 02-05 - ROBERTSON RANCH EAST VILLAGE MASTER TENTATIVE MAP September 20,2006 Page 4 leave the remaining area in PA 2 undevelopable. Therefore, PA 2 would be relocated to a portion of PA 1. The CF (Community Facilities) land use designation for PA 2 (in it's current location) would be deleted and re-designated as OS (Open Space). PA 1 currently has an RM General Plan land use designation and RV storage would be a permitted use, subject to approval of a Site Development Plan and Planned Development Permit. WEST VILLAGE CIRCULATION PLAN ALTERNATIVES A number of alternatives have been suggested and evaluated in order to reduce cut-through traffic that may be experienced by the Colony residents with the development of the West Village. At the July 11, 2006 meeting with McMillin Representatives, staff and the Colony representatives, it was agreed that only solutions that did not violate City standards would be presented to the Planning Commission for consideration. Given that parameter, the following three alternatives were developed: Alternative 1 - Circuitous Routing (Attachment 7): This alternative provides three points of access to the West Village development areas utilizing the planned roadway connections for the West Village. Primary access would be located at a signalized entrance point on El Camino Real (ECR) at Street "Z" (Lisa Street). Two secondary local street connections would be provided at the planned extensions of Glasgow Drive and Edinburgh Drive. This alternative provides emergency access consistent with Fire Department Policies as well as City Engineering Department standards and polices. The street design incorporates the City's policies for Livable Neighborhoods by providing interconnected neighborhoods and pedestrian/bicycle connections between neighborhoods. The streets would be designed using circuitous routing to discourage cut-through traffic through the Colony neighborhood. The supplemental report "Analysis of Traffic Calming Strategies for Robertson Ranch" prepared by Gary E. Kruger, P.E. evaluates and supports the effectiveness of the proposed circuitous routing on cut-through traffic. Additionally, the developer, if conditioned, would incorporate traffic calming features into the existing Colony neighborhood which would further discourage cut-through traffic. The projected ADT on the public streets is within the capacity of the adopted design standards. This alternative does not increase traffic on Tamarack Avenue and it complies with the existing Hardline Agreement with the Wildlife Agencies. Alternative 2 - Circuitous Routing Plus Tamarack Connection (Local Street Standards) (Attachment 8); This alternative is identical to Alternative 1, with the addition of a fourth access point at Tamarack Avenue. The Tamarack Connection point was originally suggested by residents of the Colony neighborhood and has been evaluated over the last several months by City staff and the developer in consultation with the USFWS and CDFG (Wildlife Agencies). The road would be designed as a right-in, right-out access from Tamarack Avenue at PA 2 connecting to PA 3 and the majority of the West Village development areas. This roadway would be designated as a local street and would function primarily to siphon north-bound traffic out of the West Village. As proposed, this access point would not increase south-bound traffic on Tamarack Avenue nor would it add to traffic at the intersection of Tamarack and ECR. Minor increased roadway EIR 03-03/MP 02-03/GPA 02-04/LFMP 14(B)/HMP 06-04 - ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN and CT 02-16/HDP 02-07/SUP 02-05 - ROBERTSON RANCH EAST VILLAGE MASTER TENTATIVE MAP September 20, 2006 i - Page 5 maintenance cost would be associated with the construction of this roadway. The projected ADT on the public streets is within the capacity of the adopted design standards. The Tamarack Connection impacts the existing Hardline Preserve Area and would require relocation of the RV storage facility planned for PA 2. Staff has been working closely with the Wildlife Agencies and has obtained preliminary concurrence from USFWS for the Tamarack Connection (Attachment 10). The traffic, visual and biological impacts of the Tamarack Connection have been evaluated and are described in detail in the "Additional Environmental Analysis" section at the end of this staff report. The reports and analysis are included as Attachments 11 through 14 of the staff report. The Tamarack Connection does not result in any new significant impacts and no additional mitigation measures are required. Alternative 3 - Tamarack Connection (Collector) & Emergency Access at Glasgow and Gated Access at Edinburgh (Attachment 9): This alternative provides two access points to the West Village development areas. Primary access would be located at a signalized entrance point on El Camino Real (ECR) at Street "Z" (Lisa Street) with a second access point occurring at the Tamarack Connection. The Tamarack Connection would be designed as a collector road (with limited driveway access on the roadway) and would likely be designed as a signalized intersection. Traffic movements would consist of left and right turns out of the West Village onto Tamarack Avenue and north or south-bound traffic on Tamarack Avenue could enter the West Village at the Tamarack Connection. Full access at the Tamarack Connection is necessary with this alternative to allow for emergency access to the site since there would only be two points of access to the development. This alternative would result in a minor increase in traffic at the intersection of Tamarack Avenue and ECR. Existing traffic at this intersection has been identified as a concern by the Planning Commission and Colony neighborhood. This alternative would provide "Emergency Access Only" gates at Glasgow Drive and Planning Areas 9 and 10 would be designed as a gated community with private roads. Under this scenario, only 71 units in the West Village would have access in and out of the Colony neighborhood. The two gated access points for PA's 9 and 10 would be located at the southerly extension of Edinburgh Drive and at the south end of PA 10. This alternative meets City standards of providing two access points to developments of over 25 units. Proposals for gated communities have been supported in some instances by staff, the Planning Commission, and the City Council. However, gated communities do raise issues related to delayed emergency response times, delays in the event of an evacuation, and neighborhood connectivity. With this alternative, the circulation design for the West Village would be based on a modified grid pattern, rather than a circuitous design, to allow for a more interconnected street pattern. Traffic calming features for the Colony neighborhood would not be included with this alternative. The impacts to the Hardline Preserve Area resulting from the Tamarack Connection and the need to relocate the RV storage area in PA 2 are identical to the discussion for Alternative 2 above. The Colony residents have voiced support for Alternative 3 because they believe it will provide the greatest reduction in traffic to their neighborhood. However, the gated access to PA's 9 and EIR 03-03/MP 02-03/GPA 02-04/LFMP 14(B)/HMP 06-04 - ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN and CT 02-16/HDP 02-07/SUP 02-05 - ROBERTSON RANCH EAST VILLAGE MASTER TENTATIVE MAP September 20, 2006 i - Page 6 10 and emergency access gates at Glasgow Drive may impede access during an emergency response or evacuation. Gated communities, when approved, are generally set apart from the rest of a development when there are no opportunities to provide connectivity between neighborhoods. The extensions of Glasgow Drive and Edinburgh Drive have been envisioned since the subdivision was approved and these road extensions would provide convenient access for the Colony residents to drive to the future neighborhood commercial area and daycare in the West Village. Furthermore, the installation of a traffic signal at the Tamarack Connection complicates the approach to the Tamarack Avenue/ECR intersection. Traffic congestion at this intersection has been identified as a concern of the Colony residents. For these reasons, this alternative is not fully supported by staff. UPDATED TRAFFIC STUDIES AND TRAFFIC CALMING ANALYSIS In the last Planning Commission meeting, the traffic study prepared by Urban Systems Associates (USA), dated June 15, 2006 provided results showing that street capacities, after development of the West Village along Edinburgh Drive and Glasgow Drive, would operate at 95% and 99% of residential roadway capacity, respectively. However, as stated in the report, these capacities did not account for potential reductions in traffic that may result from implementing circuitous routing and employing traffic calming measures within the West Village. The Developer agreed to provide empirical information that incorporates the effects of circuitous routing and traffic calming measures employed in the West Village. Since the last meeting, a total of two (2) new traffic reports have been prepared to demonstrate the affects. They are: 1. Robertson Ranch West Village Roadway Alternatives, prepared by USA, dated September 6, 2006. 2. Analysis of Traffic Calming Strategies for Robertson Ranch, prepared by TJKM Transportation Consultants, dated September 7, 2006. For all three circulation alternatives presented, the USA traffic report summarizes the anticipated street capacities for those road segments within the Colony development. They account for potential reductions in trips resulting from the effects circuitous routing and traffic calming have on destinations. In addition, the reports have incorporated the proposed reduction in density and the effects that the senior housing component has within PA 7. A table from the USA traffic study summarizing the alternatives and associated street capacities is provided in Attachment 13. The conclusions in the USA study demonstrate that, with incorporating the affects of circuitous routing and employing traffic calming within the West Village and incorporating the land use updates (density reductions, etc.), vehicular traffic within the Colony will be substantially reduced as originally anticipated. Currently Glasgow and Edinburgh operate at 45% and 60% of street capacity, respectively. After development and upon applying the effects of traffic calming and circuitous routing Glasgow is expected to operate at 74% of street capacity, versus 99% before the effects. Edinburgh is expected to operate at 76%, versus 95% before the effects. EIR 03-03/MP 02-03/GPA 02-04/LFMP 14(B)/HMP 06-04 - ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN and CT 02-16/HDP 02-07/SUP 02-05 - ROBERTSON RANCH EAST VILLAGE MASTER TENTATIVE MAP September 20, 2006 Page? The Developer has provided TJKM as a technical expert with expanded experience in implementing traffic calming measures in residential development. TJKM prepared the second study noted above, which provides a technical evaluation showing the effects of traffic calming employed in the West Village. This report uses an independent approach (different from USA's report) that shows how circuitous routing and traffic calming extend travel times to potential cut- through vehicles and certain planning areas within the West Village trips. This report shows that circuitous routing and traffic calming will make cut-through trips longer (87-271 seconds longer) than using the Tamarack Avenue and El Camino Real road segments. The report also demonstrates that traffic calming will discourage a portion of West Village trips from traveling north through the Colony streets. The findings of this report verify the assumptions made in the USA report for traffic reductions and expect that traffic will be even less than what USA is anticipating. Tamarack Dual-Left Turn Lanes At the previous Planning Commission hearing, a number of concerns were raised about the traffic back-up experienced during the a.m. peak hour at the west-bound intersection of Tamarack and ECR. There was some discussion about the possibility of adding duel left turn lanes at west-bound Tamarack. The traffic reports indicate that this intersection is not a failed condition and the intersection operates at LOS C. The efficiency of the intersection is expected to improve when the full-width improvement are completed on north and south-bound ECR (3- lanes each direction) with the development of the West Village. The Planning Commission may consider requiring dedication of an I.O.D. on Tamarack Avenue adjacent to PA 1. However, the development of the Robertson Ranch West Village does not trigger the need for installation of dual left-turn lane improvements on Tamarack Avenue. If the City desires to improve this intersection in the future, it would be considered as part of a Capital Improvement Project. CUSD Student Generation Rates At the June 21, 2006 public hearing, residents of the Colony neighborhood presented information showing a higher student generation rate for CUSD than had been given to staff by CUSD officials. The Colony residents claimed that this "new" student generation rate affected the results of the Traffic Studies. After further discussion with CUSD officials, it was found that CUSD is looking into updating the student generation rates; however, new rates have not been adopted at this time. The student generation rate presented by the Colony Neighbors did not accurately represent the rates under consideration by CUSD. The traffic consultant has reviewed the minor modifications to the student generation rates currently under consideration by CUSD, and has found that they would not affect the conclusions of the Traffic Studies prepared for Robertson Ranch. ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Project Description: The Tamarack Connection would provide a direct roadway connection from the West Village core planning areas to Tamarack Avenue. This roadway connection would be designed at no greater than 60-feet in width, and would be constructed approximately 700-feet in length. It would connect the top of the West Village plateau at PA 3, through PA 2, EIR 03-03/MP 02-03/GPA 02-04/LFMP 14(B)/HMP 06-04 - ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN and CT 02-16/HDP 02-07/SUP 02-05 - ROBERTSON RANCH EAST VILLAGE MASTER TENTATIVE MAP September 20, 2006 PaeeS to connect with the south side of Tamarack Avenue at a point approximately mid-way between La Portolada Dr. and Pontiac Drive. Biological Impacts: The Tamarack Connection would cross the approved Hardline open space hillside between PA 3 and PA 2. The connection would directly impact approximately 1.66 acres of the Hardline area in this location, although the crossing location was chosen for its relatively low quality vegetation. Approximately 1.52 acres of the impacted hardline area consists of agricultural row crops, and the remaining 0.14 acre contains coastal sage scrub. In exchange for the impacts to the Hardline, the brush management limits along the eastern side of PA 9 and PA 10 will be pulled back 60-feet, which will widen the hardline of Link "B" of the HMP. Since Link "B" is identified as having the highest linkage resource value of the Robertson Ranch property, this exchange is considered by the City and Wildlife Agencies as being a beneficial exchange. The developer is also proposing (and the City and Resource Agencies concur) that specific traffic calming features and traffic signage warning of wildlife crossing be provided at the short stretch of Glasgow Drive that crosses the Hardline corridor north of PA 5. Due to the fact that the exchange of hardline open space and quantity and quality of coastal sage scrub protected is a beneficial trade-off, the Tamarack Connection is not considered to result in any new significant biological impacts. The Resource Agencies have indicated concurrence with this program and if the Tamarack Connection is approved by the City Council, an amendment to the HMP will be processed by the City in order to finalize the Robertson Ranch hardline plan. Traffic Impacts: The Tamarack Connection is intended to siphon off West Village traffic that would otherwise travel through The Colony neighborhood via Glasgow Dr. and Edinburgh Dr. In conjunction with circuitous routing of the West Village roadway design, the Connection is projected to reduce buildout traffic on these roads. With the Tamarack Connection included, Glasgow and Edinburgh are projected to operate at 64% and 69% of their respective roadway capacities. Thus, the Tamarack Connection does offer a reduction in the number of vehicles traveling on The Colony neighborhood residential streets. A traffic analysis of the Tamarack Connection projects that all associated intersections (ECR/Tamarack Ave. and the Tamarack Ave./Tamarack Connection), would operate acceptably (LOS D or better) during both AM and PM peak hours through buildout. Thus, it is concluded that the Tamarack Connection would not result in any new significant impacts. Visual Impacts: The Tamarack Connection would be constructed along an existing agricultural hillside through excavation and embankment of soil to support the roadway. A photosimulation of the roadway has been prepared which demonstrates the extent of view impacts that would result from the grading and placement of a roadway within an area which is currently used for agricultural purposes. The roadway surface will be constructed at 40-feet in width, with curb, gutter and sidewalk placed in a 10-foot parkway on both sides of the road. The highly-visible cut and fill slopes EIR 03-03/MP 02-03/GPA OZ-04/LFMP 14(B)/HMP 06-04 - ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN and CT 02-16/HDP 02-07/SUP 02-05 - ROBERTSON RANCH EAST VILLAGE MASTER TENTATIVE MAP September 20, 2006 > - Page 9 associated with the road will be landscaped with coastal sage scrub vegetation, which will allow for the most visible portions of the project to blend into the surrounding natural landscape. Thus, this connection is not considered to create a significant visual impact. As evidenced in the above discussion, the Tamarack Connection will not result in any new significant impacts and, therefore, would not constitute a significant change in the project description or significant new information requiring an amendment and recirculation of the Final EIR. If approved, the Tamarack Connection would lessen traffic in the Colony neighborhood thus reducing the overall effects of the project. The Tamarack Connection, therefore, could be considered an appropriate project modification that is made in response to new insights gained during the public discussion of the project. IV. SUMMARY Staff is requesting direction from the Planning Commission for the items listed above. Staff also recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Master Plan and Program EIR and approve the East Village Master Tentative Map. The errata included as Attachment 15 contains suggested conditions or actions for each of the discussion items, and includes items still applicable from the May 31, 2006 and June 21, 2006 hearings. In addition, the errata includes several typographical corrections needed for the EIR. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission make a motion to include all items on Pages 1 though 4 of the errata, and include the errata items identified for either Alternative 1, 2 or 3 listed on pages 5 through 8. Additional correspondence received after the June 21, 2006 Planning Commission hearing is included as Attachment 17. The City's responses to questions asked by the Colony residents at the Town Hall Meeting are included as Attachment 18, Minutes from the May 31 and June 21, 2006 hearings are also included for the Commission's reference (Attachment 27 and 28). ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Chronology of Meetings with The Colony 3. Robertson Ranch Master Plan Land Use Map (Revised) 4. Robertson Ranch Master Plan 1,122 DU Alternative - With School 5. Robertson Ranch Land Use Table - Revised Residential Unit Counts 6. Robertson Ranch General Plan Land Use Map 7. West Village Circulation Alternative 1 - Circuitous Routing 8. West Village Circulation Alternative 2 - Circuitous Routing Plus Tamarack Connection (Local Street Standards) 9. West Village Circulation Alternative 3 - Tamarack Connection (Collector) & Emergency Access at Glasgow and Gated Access at Edinburgh 10. Preliminary Concurrence from USFWS for the Tamarack Connection, dated August 22, 2006 11. Proposed Tamarack Avenue and Glasgow Collector Roads and their Potential Biological Effects, Robertson Ranch West Village, Merkel & Associates, dated July 18, 2006 12. Visual Analysis (3 sheets) EIR 03-03/MP 02-03/GPA 02-04/LFMP 14(B)/HMP 06-04 - ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN and CT 02-16/HDP 02-07/SUP 02-05 - ROBERTSON RANCH EAST VILLAGE MASTER TENTATIVE MAP September 20, 2006 i - Page 10 13. Robertson Ranch West Village Roadway Alternatives, USA Inc., dated September 6, 2006. 14. Analysis of Traffic Calming Strategies for Robertson Ranch, TJKM Transportation Consultants, dated September 7, 2006. 15. Errata 16. Program EIR Errata 17. Correspondence received after June 21, 2006 18. City Responses to Town Hall Meeting Questions 19. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6105 (EIR 03-03) 20. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6106 (MP 02-03) 21. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6107 (GPA 02-04) 22. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6108 (LFMP 14(B)) 23. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6109 (HMP 06-04) 24. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6110 (CT 02-16) 25. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6111 (HDP 02-07) 26. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6112 (SUP 02-05) 27. Minutes of the May 31, 2006 Planning Commission Hearing 28. Minutes of the June 21, 2006 Planning Commission Hearing 29. Planning Commission Staff Report with Attachments dated May 31, 2006 (previously distributed) 30. Planning Commission Staff Report with Attachments dated June 21, 2006 (previously distributed) Robertson Ranch Meetings with the Colony representatives Date May 16, 2006 June 6, 2006 June 15, 2006 June 19, 2006 July 11, 2006 Aug. 17,2006 Aug. 31,2006 Sept. 8, 2006 Sept. 12, 2006 Day Tuesday Tuesday Thursday Monday Tuesday Thursday Thursday Friday Tuesday Time 7:30 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 6:30 PM 9:00 AM 6:30 PM 6:00 PM 4:30 PM 9:00 AM Location Agosti's house O'Day's office Agosti's house Colony HOA Park Faraday Building Colony HOA Park Faraday Building Faraday Building Faraday Building Attendees (Approx.) (15) Colony reps. & Applicant (10) Colony reps., Applicant & City Staff (10) Colony reps. & Applicant (40) Colony reps. & Applicant (14) Colony reps., Applicant & City Staff (50) Colony reps. & Applicant (75) Colony reps. & City Staff (2) Colony Resident & Planning staff (7) Colony reps. & City Staff ATTACHMENT 2 'I I CD PL, oo o(/)1-3 > ^.in 11 B. C| | 3 •s D V5•ae3 O) i £a <a. o ft ONiri ^i—" T- o 8 5 JJ p£ CO o ' m oq 3 m r-t S ON CO 3 en o oCM OCM *i— • r*. ON rH ooCM s;CH OO rH 1 S m PM' s P^ O) rtj1 rHCO CO $K o1 8 s CNin 3 I-H COL NO a. rs r* S 00unrH § 3 7,A *r 55 in 3C5 ^~ CM S CO fNCM »;os m o I COin 3 (-H (O o s o 3 K r*. o 0 CNiri ^« CO <? s CO ffi H T- CJ oCM 0 o<-> 1 g 2 " i ?«« ZH >w s co a•a S "j1 B ^O _J ' Oo CO 0i— •" § tO 3o . ^ ^ 1 1i <•*^ CN P ^ HIa COUJOL Q UI_ > K III uw 3D ca Q 2 < «5 s X n- 12 Jz 5o 3 fOBERTSdASTER PMl 2 •g X '3c<uD V D 3 atIs °- I.- oa S *5 J23 .2 E .§ ji S "" ™ Ss 1 s £• s §• Q en < S •3 s2 *" u> 0 ON „ T- ft 0 IT) SO•a- r-t 0 •^ 5 CO S3 3 "5COrH m 0 0 en S -J ^ in unCM o CO CM CO » o p 5 <o 3 o ^in - o ° OCM rr r.. 0CM ON OCN \O ON - \OOO ooCM E CO ON rH O CM CO ON CO un CM" S_1 O) 3 CO CO Cs. CO ON OO CO CO* 2 & o tn ON in TH ON orH COCO o oo _1Q U CO CO«-l \o LX vO 2 2 Uao CJ £ CMOO 4* cS 01jf «t^.rH | Reductiono oo ,-JQ U ; 52 CM ON CN S CM CMCM w s s ONPi un CO* in o i CO in 5 (0 1 CO uri ON ONrH vOrH O COCO p ^ fc S8 p CN CNCN & O o I-H CM in ^ CO 0 rH CMm *>. CM COT-H o CN X * CM £3 CM 0 IX T-H CM OCM O oo" «(S 2 0) CM 2 CM CO « * oil.2 OJ Sin q Si E. VillageReductionvoCM «M £ SCO *"* 1 ATTACHMENT 5 owhJ o o" 5 C?Q -^P^^O •* 2 T <Io 3 °° ^^P ^J S^i cuU 00g 'S,£X Joo P & P ^-! "5 '5•a " v—' ca caIif^ttliilfl I "8 "8 "S 1 1 S.Ij S S S u c3 o' w u 00 O 43o •Ssx> Si 411 _ O(DOC ^ .^ O <00 V/a 4/3 o 0 O 0 = C ±± O O<oo [Barbara Kennedy - Roj^rts^n^ P§9,§. From: <Marci_Koski@fws.gov> .-• Tor * "Paul Klukas" <pklukas@planningsystems.net>, Brian Milich" <bmilich@mcmillin.com>, "Barbara Kennedy" <bkenn@ci.carlsbad.ca.us>, "Ken Cablay" <kcablay@seabournecorp.com> Date: 08/22/2006 7:56:09 AM Subject: Robertson Ranch Tamarack Connection Concurrence In Reply Refer To: FWS-SDG-3620.4 Hi Paul - This email is intended to provide you with the Wildlife Agencies' preliminary concurrence for the proposed amendment to the approved hardline preserve for Robertson Ranch. If the City of Carlsbad City Council approves the Robertson Ranch-project with the Tamarack Connection, the City wilt need to submit to the Wildlife Agencies a formal request for concurrence of a minor amendment to the City's HMP with equivalency findings. The Wildlife Agencies would support an amendment that would allow for an exchange of hardline areas which involves the following: 1) The "Tamarack Connection" would be allowed between Planning Area 3 and Tamarack Avenue which impacts approximately 1.66 acres of the existing hardline area, as illustrated in the revised-"HMP Hardline Map - Tamarack Connection Modifications" figure you provided to us August 8, 2006 (attached). Upon completion of the grading for this connection, the cut and fill slopes associated with the road would be revegetated with coastal sage scrub (CSS). 2) In exchange, the brush management limits along the western side of Carlsbad's Habitat Management Plan Link "B" would be moved westerly a distance of 60 feet along the interface between Planning Areas 9 and 10, and the Link "B" hardline. This 60-foot area increases the hardline area in Link "B" by approximately 1.93 acres, as depicted on the above-referenced figure. The brush management zone will remain outside of the hardline preserve, and the portions of this 1.93 acres that do not presently contain CSS would be revegetated with CSS. The change in the hardline would not affect the approved limits of disturbance allowed pursuant to the Sept. 15, 2005 hardline plan, but any grading that is performed within the limits of disturbance in the hardline preserve would be revegetated with CSS. 3) Traffic calming features and signage would be implemented on Glasgow Drive between Planning Area 5 and The Colony neighborhood to reduce traffic speed and wildlife mortality along this 400-foot stretch of •*. roadway. These features would include traffic circles, landscape pop-outs, landscape medians, and/or enhanced pavement areas. Signage to remind motorists of the 25 mph speed limit and wildlife crossing would be erected in this area. Thank you for your efforts in coming to this agreement. If you have any questions, please call-me at (760) 431-9440, ext. 304, or David Mayer at (858) 467-4234. Marci ATTACHMENT 10 11!.- Marci L Koski, M.S., Ph.D. Fish and Wildlife Biologist U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office 6010 Hidden Valley Road Carlsbad, CA 92011 760.431.9440 ext. 304 760.431.5902 fax CC: <David_Zoutendyk@fws.gov>, <DMayer@dfg.ca.gov> 4/7 Merkel & Associates, Inc. 5434 Ruffin Road, San Disgo, CA 92123 Tel: 858/560-5465 • Fax: 858/560-7779 e-mail: associates@merkelinc.com July 18, 2006 M&A #01-046-07 Mr. Brian Milich McMillin Homes, Corporate Headquarters 2750 Worable Road San Diego, CA 92106 Re: Proposed Tamarack Avenue and Glasgow Collector Roads and their Potential Biological Effects - Robertson Ranch West Village Dear Brian: Per your request, Merkel & Associates, Inc. (M&A) has examined the Tamarack Avenue connection and Glasgow Roadway extension in the context of the existing biological resources to determine the likely biological effects of the proposed roadway development, specifically the anticipated effects on habitat connectivity and wildlife movement. BACKGROUND Concern has been expressed (by the Wildlife Agencies) about development of a local street or collector road from Tamarack Avenue southward into (and out of) the Robertson Ranch Planning Area 3. The Tamarack Avenue Collector or Local Roadway would be an asphalt roadway 40 feet in width (curb-to-curb) with street lighting spaced every 250 feet (staggered). This road would cross the hardline boundary and impact agricultural lands and coastal sage scrub. The road would overlay a very small portion of the coastal sage scrub within the Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan (HMP) Link B's western branch. This report will refer to the roadway as a collector, even though the Carlsbad design width of local streets or collectors are the same and thus the analysis of impacts for either roadway design would be effectively the same. Concern has also been expressed about the project's northwestern access road from Glasgow Drive into Planning Area 6 (which also crosses Link B's western branch) and the road's*-possible effects on wildlife movement. It has been suggested that inclusion of the Tamarack Avenue Collector Roadway within the project may need to be off-set by an alteration in the function/designation of the Glasgow Drive extension from a local road to an emergency-access only road. Linkage B connects HMP Core #2 to Core #4 through its western branch and Core #3 to Core #4 through its wider eastern branch. According to the HMP, Link B is probably moderately effective for birds and mammals. The HMP conservation goals include maintenance of viable habitat linkages across Linkage Area B to ensure connectivity for gnatcatchers and other HMP species between Core Areas 3 and 4. ATTACHMENT 11 Link B's western branch is configured in an unusual pattern1-as it generally runs north-south, but includes a "dead-end" sage scrub "hook" to the west. There is no native habitat contiguity with Link B's western sage scrub "hook", but it is likely to act as a stepping stone corridor for avian sage scrub associates, including gnatcatcher, as sage scrub persists less than 1,000 feet to the northwest, across Tamarack Avenue. The very western tip of this "hook" would be the location of direct impacts from the Tamarack Avenue Collector Roadway (see Collector Road from Tamarack Biological Impacts and Mitigation Figure). The remainder of Link B's western branch connects Core #2 and #3. It is within this connection that the Glasgow Drive extension is proposed, and is allowed per the approved Robertson Ranch HMP Hardline Map. The Glasgow Drive extension/local road would be 34 feet in width (curb-to-curb) with street lighting staggered every 250 feet. It provides access from the existing Glasgow drive into PA 6. The average daily traffic (ADT) for the Glasgow Drive connection as a local road would be 1,700 ADT. METHODS Using the M&A biological base and the O'Day conceptual roadway design plans, Planning Systems provided M&A with the Collector Road from Tamarack Biological Impacts and Mitigation Figure, habitat impact quantifications, and specifications on the roadway widths, surfaces, sidewalk placement, lighting spacing, and ADT. M&A utilized ArcView® to overlay GIS layers of local biological resources (e.g., vegetation communities, sensitive species), the Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan Linkages, topography, and existing roadways. Utilizing this information, in conjunction with the references cited herein, M&A prepared this analysis of the expected biological effects of the proposed Tamarack Avenue Collector Roadway (including connectivity impacts) and the biological effects of the Glasgow Drive extension as a local public street versus an emergency access only street. RESULTS Tamarack Avenue Collector Roadway Direct Impacts and Mitigation Construction of the Tamarack Avenue Collector Roadway would result in impacts to 0.14 acre of coastal sage scrub and 1.52 acres of agricultural lands. As depicted on the Collector Road from Tamarack Biological Impacts and Mitigation Figure and proposed by the project proponent, these impacts would be mitigated through the following: • avoidance of previously authorized impacts to 0.25 acre of coastal sage scrub; • restoration of 1.55 acres of roadway slopes to coastal sage scrub; and • creation of 0.20 acre of coastal sage scrub within agricultural lands previously considered for development. The avoidance, restoration, and creation areas are all located within or immediately adjacent to the hardline preserve and would expand the existing sage scrub from the Link B "hook" to the south. This expansion would create a contiguous sage scrub swath southward, within the hardline preserve (connecting with the preserved sage scrub north of El Camino Real). The mitigation to impacts ratio proposed exceeds 8:1. Connectivity Analysis !• -" SLace the "hook" portion of Link B is effectively a dead-end, relative to direct habitat connectivity, and is composed entirely of sage scrub, it can be concluded that it was intended as a gnatcatcher movement route, not to foster significant mammalian movement. Based on its location within the biological landscape, it can be expected to function as either or both, a small population source site and/or a stepping-stone, connecting Core Areas #2, #3, and #4. Either of these functions would be improved by an expansion of the sage scrub habitat found in close association with Link B and preserved within a hardline open space area. Proposed mitigation for the Tamarack Avenue Collector Roadway consists of just this, an overall expansion of the sage scrub within the hardline preserve that encompasses Link B (see Collector Road from Tamarack Biological Impacts and Mitigation Figure). The Tamarack Avenue Collector Roadway is proposed to be 40 feet in curb-to- curb width, an expanse easily crossed by a dispersing gnatcatcher. [Gnatcatchers abilities to cross larger roadways (including Interstate 8 in east San Diego County) have been documented (Haas and Campbell 2003).] Native upland habitat connectivity under existing conditions consists of a stepping stone corridor through this westernmost portion of the Robertson Ranch site, continuing north through Core #2 and sage scrub west of there, and south into Core #4 and sage scrub patches north of Core #4. The proposed Tamarack Avenue Collector Roadway is not expected to detrimental affect this connectivity, particularly in light of the proposed mitigation, which would augment connectivity by increasing the area of preserved sage scrub and creating sage scrub north-south connectivity, which is absent under existing conditions. Riparian or wetland habitat connectivity through western Robertson Ranch consists of a north-south band of marsh and willow scrub habitat, with constrained connectivity off-site in both directions. This area is likely used for mammal movement and is important in supporting continued mammalian access to Agua Hedionda Lagoon. The proposed Tamarack Avenue Collector Roadway avoids impacts to this area and maintains the 100-foot wetland setback. No direct impacts to this corridor are anticipated from the proposed roadway. Tamarack Avenue Collector Roadway Indirect Impacts and Mitigation Long-term increases in artificial lighting within the preserve lands.adjacent to the Tamarack Avenue Collector Roadway, particularly the riparian corridor area, may discourage wildlife use of the area or alter natural processes; therefore, street lighting for the Tamarack Avenue Collector Roadway should be modified to avoid indirect impacts. Street lamps should be fully shielded/full cutoff lighting; such shields eliminate the horizontal and upward projection of light and direct the light downward, eliminating excess illumination. Lighting should also consist of low-pressure sodium lamps, which are less likely than other lights to shift circadian rhythms and may be used to reduce the adverse effects of artificial lighting. These modifications, in conjunction with the 100-foot setback, should ensure avoidance of indirect lighting impacts. The 100-foot wetland buffer should further ensure avoidance of other indirect and direct impacts associated with the roadway and maintain wetland functions and values. Glasgow Drive Extension/Local Road tV~- As previously mentioned, it has been suggested that the Glasgow Drive extension/local road might be designated as an emergency only access road to off-site the Tamarack Avenue Roadway affects. This suggestion assumes that the Glasgow Drive extension/local road would have negative biological impacts, which correspond to traffic, and that those impacts could be alleviated through a substantial reduction in traffic. The ecological effects of roads are wide-ranging and varied. More obvious effects include direct road mortality (road kill), habitat loss, and noise and lighting effects. Landscape level effects may include barriers to wildlife movement, which alter the natural processes (e.g., migration, breeding, feeding dispersal, etc.); increases in edge amount and effects; and increases in some species populations and dispersal abilities. Some road effects are related to traffic volume and speed, while others relate to roadway construction and the resulting habitat alterations. Factors affecting road mortality of wildlife include traffic characteristics, road dimensions and engineering, landscape influences, and species behavior and ecology. No single factor operates in a vacuum; as a result, any analysis of roadway impacts must be site/road-specific and even species or at least group-specific. Studies of wildlife collusions yield varying results, but several studies implicate vehicular speed as a major cause of wildlife mortality. Early studies show that vehicles traveling at speeds greater than 40 miles per hour (mph) appear to have a greater impact on songbirds and rabbits than slower speed traffic (Dickerson 1939 in Forman et al. 2003). According to Case (1978), the number of road-killed wildlife was not significantly correlated with ADT on either a monthly or annual basis, but road mortality was significantly correlated with vehicle speed. Finally, a study of raccoons also found vehicle speed as a major cause of mortality (Rolley and Lehman 1992 in Forman et al. 2003). However, studies of moose and armadillo found that traffic volume did affect mortality for these species (Inbar and Mayer 1999 and Joyce and Mahoney 2001 in Forman et al. 2003). Thus, species mobility and behavior certainly affect road mortality as much as traffic volume and speed. Overall, in terms of traffic volume and speed, it appears that traffic volume has varying effects, higher vehicle speeds are (consistently) .detrimental, and increases in traffic lanes (which represents both an increase in volume and width of the hazard) are detrimental. • --i** .. The landscape effects most influential on direct road mortality are proximity of habitat cover and the presence/absence of a movement corridor. The proposed Glasgow Road connection lies within the western branch of Link B, considered to be a moderately effective link for birds and mammals (City of Carlsbad 2004). The roadway would be constructed within agricultural lands that bisect coastal sage scrub. It is unlikely that this area supports substantial long-distance mammalian movement due to the lack of cover and current disturbed state of the habitats, sloping topography leading to Tamarack Avenue in the northwest, and development • immediately to the north. --Mammalian movement here would be dominated by urban tolerant mammals such as opossum, rabbit, raccoon, skunk, coyote, and gray fox. Using the rabbit and raccoon as examples, we can assume that these urban tolerant species are not expected to be subject to high levels of direct road mortality if vehicular spe,eds».are kept low and barriers to movement are minimized. Similarly, movement of songbirtfStBrough .the area is unlikely to be substantially affected by the proposed local roadway so long-as traffic speed is kept below 40 mph. The standard posted speed limit on the Glasgow Road connection would be 25 mph. Species attracted to roads for basking or foraging are naturally lmore likely to experience direct road mortality. These species generally include lizards, some snakes, and corvids. Lizard and snake road kill victims most commonly encountered in the coastal San Diego area include western fence lizards, whiptails, gopher snakes, racers, and rattlesnakes. Of these species, the habitat generalists appear to experience the highest mortality (i.e., western fence lizards), which is consistent with the findings of Forman et al. (2003). Direct road mortality losses of these more common species would not be significant from the small stretch of local road proposed. As corvid populations are on the rise within the region, possible road kill effects from a small roadway would be insignificant for the birds within this group. Those species with an aversion to roads as well as habitat specialists are less affected by direct road mortality (Forman et al. 2003), but these species may experience increases in indirect mortality due to the road's barrier effect. Generally speaking, the barrier effect of a road on specialist species or road-averse species is related to the fact that the "habitat" (asphalt road) is foreign and inhospitable and the barrier effect is the same regardless of traffic volume or speed. Where roads act as barriers they divide habitats into smaller areas that may lack the resources or genetic flow to sustain populations and which are more susceptible to catastrophic, stochastic events. Regardless of whether a roadway creates a physical or behavioral barrier effect for wildlife, it increases the amount of edge. Due to their linear nature, roads create long, unnatural edges, which can opportunistically utilized by invasive species, predatory species, and nest parasites. Thus, altering the designation of a roadway from a local road to emergency access only will not alleviate the indirect effects of the roadway. Based on the known biological effects of roads; the length, width, and location of the Glasgow connection roadway within the landscape; and the expected species presence within the area, biological impacts from the Glasgow connection road would not substantially reduced by designating the road as emergency only. While such a designation could reduce direct road mortality, similar results may be achieved through application of a low speed limit. The majority of the road's biological effects are due simply to the road's presence and would persist so long as the road exists. CONCLUSIONS In response to the suggestion that the Glasgow Drive extension/local road should be designated as an emergency only access road to off-site the Tamarack Avenue Roadway affects, it does not appear that such a mitigation strategy would achieve substantial biological gains. The indirect effects of the roadway at Glasgow would persist and the reduction in direct impacts is not expected to substantially alter the biological sustainability of local populations or corridor efficacy. The restoration and preservation of sage scrub recommended herein to off-set the impacts of the Tamarack Avenue Collector Roadway coupled with a low speed limit (25 mph) throughout the Glasgow Drive extension/local road is expected to be biologically' superior to a redesignation (emergency-only design) of the Glasgow Drive extension/local road. The HMP Conservation Goals for Zone 14, which encompasses Robertson Ranch include maintenance of connectivity for gnatcatchers and other HMP species between Core Areas #3 and #4, no net loss of wetlands, and conservation through preservation, restoration, or enhancement of 67% of coastal sage scrub. The application of the proposed mitigation for the Tamarack Avenue Collector Roadway is expected to result in HMP compliance. It meets the 100-foot wetland setback and does not result in wetland impacts. It would ensure continued conservation of at least 67% of the coastal sage scrub within Robertson Ranch. Specifically, of the 72.6 acres of coastal sage scrub on-site, impacts previously totaled 20.9 acres (28.8 %) and preservation totaled 51.7 acres (71.2 %). With the addition of the Tamarack Avenue Collector Roadway, impacts total 20.8 acres of sage scrub (28.7 %), while 51.8 acres (71.3%) of sage scrub would be preserved. Also, the primary portion of Link B (the eastern branch, which connects Core #3 and #4) is not affected by the Tamarack Avenue Collector Roadway. The western branch (between Core #2 and #4) is only minimally affected at the very western end of the "dead-end hook", where the sage scrub restoration and preservation are proposed as mitigation. Sincerely, _ Melissa A. Booker Senior Biologist LITERATURE CITED Case, R.M. 1978. Interstate highway road-killed animals: A data source for biologists. Wildlife Society Bulletin 6:8-13. City of Carlsbad. 2004. Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad. December 1999, As Amended; Final Approval November 2004, Including Implementing Agreement and Terms and Conditions. Forman, R. T., D. Sperling, J. A. Bissonette, A. P. Clevenger, C. D. Cutshall, V. H. Dale, L. Fahrig, R. France, C. R. Goldman, K. Heanue, J. A. Jones, F. J. Swanson, T. Turrentine, and T. C. Winter. 2003. Road Ecology: science and solutions. Island Press, Washington. Pp.481. Haas, W. and K. Campbell. 2003. Report of Coastal California Gnatcatcher Juvenile Dispersal across Interstate-8 at the MSCP Southern Lakeside Archipelago Lands San Diego County, California. Varanus Biological Services/Campbell BioConsulting Report prepared for: County of San Diego Department of Parks and Recreation. Tamarack Ave. Mitigation Table CSS area previously allowed for development to be preserved (0.25 acres)PA 1 \ Agriculture area previously allowed for development to be restored with CSS (0.20 acres) Roadway slopes to be restored with CSS (1.55 acres) Biological Impacts Agriculture CSS 1.52 acres 0.14 acres • I El Camino Real Collector Road from Tamarack Biological Impacts and Mitigation r.\ *—-^ \ i\ \ \ \•*;) \V-> ^ \ t il "\!l HV L «rKJN : JVl; . ' I }!u \ K ji.„! UX/j/% -r. J ' \* *>.-»!—!(. %.. / ii\ s ?> -^r/,^-^%' \ s-r_f- -p ^r«i ,j \>.'i'.%. ,' \-?H\v/ BASEMAP: O'Day Consultants, 2006. SOURCE: Planning Systems, 2006.; BRG Consulting, Inc. 2006,.08/05/06 mm \\ I • ! -. • 1 M . 3RG CONSULTING, INC. Robertson Ranch EIR Photosimulation Keymap FIGURE 1 ATTACHMENTS =st. -=-s»<-;=™;.-,-- ^~~ ~ '- " T : BASEMAP: O'Day Consultants, 2006. SOURCE: Planning Systems, 2006.; BRG Consulting, Inc. 2006,.08/05/06 Ii, •F?I[ '::.' BRG CONSULTING, INC. Robertson Ranch EIR Photosimulation Keymap FIGURE 1 ATTACHMENT 1: cay I C.0 . oO 0>c 'xLJJ c '-2 ' coO OQ. O URBAN SYSTEMS ASSOCIATES, INC. PLANNING & TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, MARKETING & PROJECT SUPPORT CONSULTANTS TO INDUSTRY AND GOVERNMENT Brian Milich E-Mail: T CITY OF CARLSBAD -PLANNING DEPTbmilich(a)jncmiUin. com 3 + ATTN: COMPANY: The McMUlin Companies / K^FROM: SamP.KabJI £-)f?\ M • TOTALPAGES (Including Cover): ^T w , '/ \±JjJ S Attachments DATE: September-6,2006 TIME: 10:39:02 AM JOB NUMBER: 003101 SUBJECT: Robertson Ranch West Village Roadway Alternatives As you requested, Urban Systems is providing below a final summary of the results of our evaluations for the various roadway alternatives for the Robertson Ranch West Village that will effectively reduce through traffic. The Attachment 1 table summarizes the reduction in traffic volumes on Glasgow and Edinburgh Drives with the various alternatives. EXISTING AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES Attachment 2 shows existing average daily traffic volumes within the Colony. ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN Attachment 3 shows the future traffic from the Robertson Ranch Master Plan without unit reductions and without traffic cahning. CIRCUTIOUS ROUTING ONLY Attachment 4 shows the effect of providing circuitous routing only of vehicles through the West Village. The right angle turns, traffic circles, and other traffic calming measures (narrow streets etc.) are expected to reduce through traffic up to 45%. A report by the Federal Highway Administration and the Institute for Transportation Engineers has estimated a 45% reduction on traffic volumes for blocks with traffic diverters which are similar to the right angle turns provided with Robertson Ranch circuitous routing. This 45% reduction was applied to the previous evaluation of through traffic (dated. June 15,2006) and shown in Attachments. The West Village trip generation is based on a reduction of units to 1,122 D.U. with the school. Planning area 7 is assumed to include 105 D.U. of senior housing so that no school traffic is associated with those senior dwelling units.. Ultimately with an elementary school assumed in the East Village, no elementary school trips will use the Colony streets. However, these evaluations include elementary school traffic to and from the north as a conservative assumption. As a result of these traffic calming measures the segment of Edinburgh Drive south of Glasgow Drive could increase by only 27%, from 1,200 ADT to 1.523ADT. 3101-091206-ememo-spk-d 4540 Kearny Villa Road, Suite 106 • San Diego, CA 92123 • (858) 560-4911 • Fax (858) 560-9734 ATTACHMENT Brian Milich Urban Systems Associates, Inc. The Corky McMillin Companies September 6, 2006 I. The segment of Glasgow Drive south of Kirkwall Avenue could increase by 64%, from 900 ADT to 1,478 ADT. CIRCUITOUS ROUTING PLUS CONNECT TO TAMARACK AS A LOCAL STREET Attachment 5 shows the result of the circuitous routing (with no gates on Edinburgh or Glasgow Drive), and with the connection through to Tamarack Avenue as a local street. The segment of Edinburgh Drive south of Glasgow Drive could increase by only 16% from 1,200 ADT to 1,387 ADT. The segment of Glasgow Drive south of Kirkwall Avenue could increase by 41% from 900 ADT to 1,273 ADT. CONNECT TO TAMARACK WITH COLLECTOR STREET. GATE PA-9. 10. EMERGENCY GATE ON GLASGOW DRIVE This alternative would prevent through traffic on Glasgow Drive south of Edinburgh Drive with the installation of an emergency access only gate, as shown in Attachment 6. Planning Area 9 and 10 would be a gated community, with limited access to Edinburgh Drive. A traffic signal would be installed at the collector street intersection on Tamarack Drive as part of the project. Edinburgh Drive south of Glasgow Drive could increase by 15% from 1,200 ADT to 1,381 ADT. Glasgow Drive south of Kirkwall Avenue would not increase in traffic volumes. TAMARACK AVENUE CONNECTION The connection to Tamarack Avenue with a collector street and gates within the West Village would divert project traffic to Tamarack Avenue and possibly affect project traffic through the El Camino Real/Tamarack Avenue intersection. Therefore, both the Tamarack Avenue/Collector Street Connection and the El Camino Real/Tamarack Avenue intersection have been evaluated for peak hour levels of service with this diversion of traffic assumed. As shown in the table below, each of these intersections would operate acceptably (LOS D or better) during both A.M and P.M. peak hours at buildout. 430 Brian Milch The Corky McMillin Companies Urban Systems Associates, Inc. September 6, 2006 Location AM Peak Hour Delay LOS PM Peak Hour Delay LOS El Camino Real / Tamarack Avenue Tamarack Avenue / RR Collector Tamarack Avenue / Robertson Ranch Local Street *(57.6) 50.8 23.7 14.8 *(D)D C B *(46.3) 44.5 23.9 15.5 *(D)D C B * (XX.X) = Without Connection Therefore, no additional mitigation would be needed with this alternative. Attachment 7 includes a traffic signal warrant worksheet for the Tamarack Avenue/Collector Street Connection intersection. Attachment 8 includes estimates of the peak hour traffic as a result of this alternative and level of service worksheets. Also included are planning area dwelling unit amounts for each of the reduced project alternatives and elementary and middle school estimates for the master plan. Cc: Barbara Kennedy Jeremy Riddle Bob Johnson Don Mitchell Ken Cablay Paul Klukas Tim Gnibus Gary Kruger j Milich The Corky McMillin Companies Urban Systems Associates, Inc. September 6, 2006 '•O•MC4>E.s £e< in•4-1ij=wn < 'SVs.flun* m*-»ett> JS3 tt ^•**C!V JSu < « 3?«1 1 2tlfl« | l|||§ ^ fill u S B0 »* '€ « g>S J! 1 || |§ 1 ll^B•< ,ti w ® .h 1 1 I M°n 3 is £4 5 °jj J 3. ft. O || S HQ < 1W 1 •MC DI 155 «> Q ffa c•5 ?00•»_<• M3 VO ?' \o&t~csin *™* 1C-10 •— ' I•*-* 0\r-^t-_ NP r» In *o3uo 1 Q e to Glasgownarack AvenuH I OO ^**1;st^-00en*-< I ro * g1 m£.. 00m °°« \p vo 1 "3 o '5a, •o S^isgow Drive t<.ss isgow DriveO S a I cscs. ^t1"* in ^00 "•" £00s !7\"0t--_•«fr" N? O o\ "* 1 u Q_cMk.3 C Drive to Edi"Isbad Village3 i . (S •<* ?m^^ r~rot~ 1 ^— f I O ^^ G-»n ! 3 g to Kirkwall ,inburgh Drive-a g«n** Im ^"^ 1 00 * Igv. r- f^ V)2, | I •oC o COo kwall Avenue5 1 15 2 51 rt(N 0min I•*—f ot^im 1 V— tOOW")»r» iso\CN s>n ^. r- Omin so u •« Q 152u narack Avenuf- ^ ^ADta o o Brian Milich The Corky McMUlin Companies Urban Systems Associates. Inc. September 6. 2006 ATTACHMENT 2 Existing Average Daily Traffic Without Robertsons Ranch Hope Elementary School Future West Village LEGEND • = Traffic Circle MOI-AttachmontiJCdwj Brian Milich The Corky McMillin Companies Urban Systems Associates, Inc. September 6, 2006 ATTACHMENTS Master Plan 1,383 Dwelling Units Resulting Average Daily Traffic Page 1 of6 Hope Elementary School 1,309 EX120 ES50 P 701 EX 137 MS103 ES259 WV68 CT139 P1,407 ADT 3.595 EX 228 MS 120 ES 431 WV 113 CT282 P 4,769 ADT 477 EX103 ES 580 ADT Calavera Hills Middle School 1,320 EX91 MS137 ES 172 WV 45 CT 93P 1,858 ADT 1,169 EX137 MS 205 ES259 WV68 CT139 P 1.977 ADT LEGEND • = Traffic Circle EX = Existing With Diversion MS = Middle School ES = Elementary School WV = West Village Through Trips CT = Cut Through P =Park HOI-AttaclmnnbJtdwg NOTE No Reduction Due To Circuitous Route Brian Milich The Corky McMillin Companies Urban Systems Associates, Inc. September 6, 2006 ATTACHMENT 3 Existing Average Daily Traffic With 10% Diverted To / From The South Page 2 of6 Hope Elementary School 900 - 90 + 359 1,169 (Diverted Traffic at South End) 328 42(Diverted Traffic at 53 South End) + QQ 513 = Traffic Circle No Reduction Due To Circuitous Route Brian Milich The Corky McMillin Companies Urban Systems Associates, Inc. September 6, 2006 ATTACHMENT 3 Page 3 of 6 Elementary School & Middle School Trips West Village Only Hope Elementary XXXX School "Q^yQ Student Trip Generation Area 3,5,6 7,8 9,10 Total Elementary School Students 37 53 22 112 Trips 148 212 88 448 Middle School Students 19 27 11 57 Trips 76 108 44 228 ^ 329 ES 448 ES Calavera Hills Middle School 120 ES Note: 209 ES Elementary school split 60/40 to Glasgow/Edinburgh at subdivision boundary. 228 MS120 ES 348 ADT /—JQ3ES' 240 ADT 91 MS137 ES 228 ADT • = Traffic Circle MS = Middle School Trips ES = Elementary School Trips No Reduction Due To Circuitous Route 3101-An>chracnts_K,d»u