The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2006-11-14; City Council; 18790 Part III; Robertson Ranch Master PlanBrian Milich The Corky McMillin Companies Urban Systems Associates, Inc. September 6, 2006 ATTACHMENT 3 Page 4 of 6 West Village Short Term Project Trips (Shopping, Work, Recreation) Excluding School Trips Hope Elementary School PA PA-3 PA-5 PA-6 PA-7 PA-8 PA-9 PA-10 PA-11 Total DU 82 25 61 201 195 45 55 — 664 Rate 10/DU 10/DU 10/DU 6/DU 6/DU 10/DU 10/DU— -School ADT 820 250 610 1,206 1,170 450 550 2,800 7,856 676 External) 7,180 6%* | 431 • - To Glasgow And Edinburgh LEGEND = Traffic Circle NOTE No Reduction Due To Circuitous Route 31<M-MtadwunllJ<.<lwg 43? Brian Milich The Corky McMillin Companies Urban Systems Associates, Inc. September 6, 2006 ATTACHMENTS Cut Through Traffic Page 5 of 6 Hope Elementary School Note: The WB delay at Tamarack Avenue andEl Camino Real occurs only during the AM Peak How. Therefore, eta-through traffic is assumed as a portion of AM Peak How WBjlaw. Future WB approachvolume is 565 VPH. Assume 20% cut-through traffic to Glasgow / Edinburgh. LEGEND = Traffic Circle NOTE No Reduction Due To Circuitous Route }101-AtUdimMlsJtdwB Brian Milich The Corky McMillin Companies Urban Systems Associates, Inc. September 6, 2006 ATTACHMENTS Park Trips From West Village Page 6 of 6 Hope Elementary School Note: Park vehicle trips are assumed to occur from 25% of the total homes in the West Village, -with each trip to the park assumed to return to the home by the same route. 'Traffic Circle No Reduction Due To Circuitous Route 3101-AttachmenBJC<t*5 439 Brian Milich The Corky McMillin Companies Urban Systems Associates, Inc. September 6, 2006 ATTACHMENT 4 Alternative 1 Circuitous Routing Only Resulting Average Daily Traffic Page 1 of6 REDUCTION TO 1.122 DU Hope Elementary School 558 EX 57 MS 55 ES134 WV Circuitous Routing Only 1,067 EX 57 MS110 ES134 WV 37 CT P 1,478 ADT ircuitous Routing Only LEGEND • = Traffic Circle EX = Existing With Diversion MS = Middle School ES = Elementary School WV = West Village Through Trips CT = Cut Through P =Park 3it>(-Anacnm«iB_K.<iwg All School Traffic To/From The North Brian Milick The Corky McMillin Companies Urban Systems Associates, Inc. September 6, 2006 ATTACHMENT 4 Existing Average Daily Traffic With 5% Diverted To / From The South Page 2 of6 Hope Elementary School 1,200 - 60 * 109 1,249 900 - 45 + 212 1,067 (Diverted Colony Traffic at South End) 164(Diverted Colony 27 Traffic at South End) 21 + 45 257 LEGEND • Traffic Circle 3101-AttachmentsJOlwg Brian Milich The Corky McMillin Companies Urban Systems Associates, Inc. September 6, 2006 ATTACHMENT 4 Page 3 of 6 Alternative 1 Circuitous Routing Only Elementary School & Middle School Trips - West Village Only REDUCTION TO 1,122 DU Hope Elementary <xxX> School vyy$< Student Trip Generation Area 3,5,6 7,8 9,10 • Total Elementary School Students 27 45 11 83 Note: Trips 108 180 44 332 Middle School Students 14 23 6 43 Trips 56 92 24 172 77 MSH 77 MS240 ES 77 MS204 ES 332 ES CalaveraHUk Middle School 92 ES Elementary school split 60/40 to Glasgow/Edinburgh at subdivision boundary. With an elementary school assumed in the East Village, elementary school trips from the West Village would not use Colony streets. However, Kirkwall Ave. all school trips have been assigned to and from the north to be conservative in this evaluation. LEGEND 77 MS149 ES (45% Diverted) • = Traffic Circle MS = Middle School Trips ES = Elementary School Trips 3101-Alt«ctimtnSJ<.dwB Brian Milich The Corky McMillin Companies Urban Systems Associates, Inc. September 6, 2006 ATTACHMENT 4 Page 4 of 6 Alternative 1 Circuitous Routing Only West Village Short Term Project Trips (Shopping, Work, Recreation) Excluding School Trips REDUCTION TO 1.122 DU Hope Elementary School Calavera Hills Middle School Note: • 6% minus 45% diversion - 3.3% PA PA-3 PA-5 PA-6 PA-7* PA-7 PA-8 PA-9 PA-10 PA-11 Total DU 82 25 61 105 96 186 34 37— 626 Rate 10/DU 10/DU 10/DU 4/DU 6/DU 6/DU 10/DU 10/DU— ADT 820 250 610 420 576 1,116 340 370 2,800 7,302 -Schooll 504 External 6,798 6%» I 408 • • To Glasgow And Edinburgh * Includes 105 Senior Housing DUand96MFDU LEGEND = Traffic Circle 31 OI-AtuchrmnttJCdwo Brian Milich The Corky McMillin Companies Urban Systems Associates, Inc. September 6, 2006 ATTACHMENT 4 Alternative 1 Circuitous Routing Only Cut Through Traffic REDUCTION TO 1,122 DU Page 5 of6 Hope Elementary School Note: The WB delay at Tamarack Avenue and El Camino Real occurs only during the AM Peak Hour. Therefore, cut-through traffic is assumed as a portion of AM Peak Hour WB flow. Future WB approach volume is 565 VPH. Assume 20% cut-through traffic to Glasgow / Edinburgh •without circuitous routing, but reduces from 20% to 11% with circuitous routing. LEGEND • = Traffic Circle 3t01-Att»chin«ntsJC*<3 Brian Milich The Corky McMillin Companies Urban Systems Associates, Inc. September 6, 2006 ATTACHMENT 4 Alternative 1 Circuitous Routing Only Park Trips From West Village REDUCTION TO 1,122 DU Page 6 of6 Hope Elementary School Note: Calm/era Hills Middle School Park vehicle trips are assumed to occur from 25% of the total homes in the West Village, -with each trip to the park assumed to return to the home by the same route, with 45% reduction on Colony streets due to circuitous routing. Plus 45% reduction on colony streets. LEGEND • = Traffic Circle 3101-ABactHnenbiJCdnB Brian Milich The Corky McMillin Companies Urban Systems Associates, Inc. September 6, 2006 ATTACHMENTS Page l of 6 Alternative 2 Circuitous Routing Tamarack Connection Local Resulting Average Daily Traffic REDUCTION TO 1.122 DU Hope Elementary School 558 EX29 MS 28 ES67 WV 18 CT37 P 737 ADT Calavera Hills Middle School 1,382 EX 18 ES127 P 1,527 ADT 3,795 EX • 48 MS47 ES 112 WV31 CT 188 P 4,221 ADT 1,249 EX19 MS 37 ES 45 WV13 CT 24 P 1,387 ADT 503 EX27 ES "530ADT •730 ADT Local 1,067 EX29 MS55 ES 67 WV18 CT3IP 1,273 ADT Add 2-LaneLocal Roadway LEGEND • = Traffic Circle EX = Existing With Diversion. MS - Middle School ES = Elementary School WV = West Village Through Trips CT = Cut Through P =Paik 3101-AilaclimtnlsJCd»ii NOTE All School Traffic To/From The North Brian Milich The Corky McMillin Companies Urban Systems Associates, Inc. September 6, 2006 ATTACHMENTS Existing Average Daily Traffic With 5% Diverted To / From The South Page 2 of 6 LEGEND Hope Elementary School 1,200 - 60 + 109 1249 900 - 45•*• 212 1,067 = Traffic Circle 3101-Alts cbmsn&JOJwg Brian Milich The Corky McMillin Companies Urban Systems Associates, Inc. September 6. 2006 ATTACHMENTS Page 3 of 6 Alternative 2 Circuitous Routing Tamarack Connection Local Elementary School & Middle School Trips - West Village Only REDUCTION TO U22 DU Hope Elementary School Calavera ffills Middle School Student Trip Generation Area 3,5,6 7,8 9,10 Total Elementary School Students 27 45 11 83 Trips 108 180 44 332 Middle School Students 14 23 6 43 Trips 56 92 24 172 Note: Elementary school split 60/40 to Glasgow/Edinburgh at subdivision boundary. With an elementary school assumed in the East Village, elementary school trips from the West Village -would not use colony streets. However, all school trips have been assigned to and from the north to be conservative in this evaluation. With Tamarack connectivity, assume 50% of school trips remaining on Colony streets will use Tamarack connection after 45% diversion due to circuitous routing. Add 2-LaneLocal Roadway 74 ES LEGEND • = Traffic Circle MS = Middle School Trips ES = Elementary School Trips 3l01-AtHchm«nl5_K.<)wa Brian Milich The Corky McMillin Companies Urban Systems Associates, Inc. September 6, 2006 ATTACHMENT 5 Page 4 of6 Alternative 2 Circuitous Routing Tamarack Connection Local West Village Short Term Project Tnps (Shopping, Work, Recreation) Excluding School Trips REDUCTION TO 1,122 DU Hope Elementary School Calavera Hills Middle School 10.35% 703 Note: Assumes one half of 3.3% diverted to Tamarack connection • - To Glasgow And Edinburgh * Includes 105 Senior Housing DUand96MFDU PA PA-3 PA-5 PA-6 PA-7* PA-7 PA-8 PA-9 PA-10 PA-11 Total DU 82 25 61 105 96 186 34 37— 626 Rate 10/DU 10/DU 10/DU 4/DU 6/DU 6/DU 10/DU 10/DU— -School External 6%« ADT 820 250 610 420 576 1,116 340 370 2,800 7,302 504 6.798 408 Add 2-Lane Local Roadway LEGEND = Traffic Circle 3101-Aa»cJiments_K.(iW9 Brian Milich The Corky McMillin Companies Urban Systems Associates, Inc. September 6, 2006 ATTACHMENT 5 Page 5 of 6 Alternative 2 Circuitous Routing Tamarack Connection Local Cut Through Traffic REDUCTION TO 1,122 DU Hope Elementary School Note: The WB delay at Tamarack Avenue and El Camino Real occurs only during the AM Peak How. Therefore, cut-through traffic is assumed as a portion of AM Peak Hour WBflow. Future WB approach volume is 565 VPH. Assume 20% cut-through traffic to Glasgow / Edinburgh •without circuitous routing, but reduces from 20% to 11% with circuitous routing, and to 5.5% with Tamarack connection. Add 2-Lane Local Roadway LEGEND • = Traffic Circle 3<01-Attachimite..K.d«g Brian Milich The Corky McMillin Companies Urban Systems Associates, Inc. September 6, 2006 ATTACHMENT 5 Page 6 of 6 Alternative 2 Circuitous Routing Tamarack Connection Local Park Trips From West Village REDUCTION TO 1,122 DU Hope Elementary School Note: Park vehicle trips are assumed to occur from 25% of the total homes in the West Village, with each trip to the park assumed to return to the home by the same route, -with 45% reduction on Colony streets due to circuitous routing, and 50% reduction with Tamarack connection. Add 2-Lane Local Roadway Plus 45% reduction on colony streets. LEGEND = Traffic Circle 3101-MlactinMnsJCcIwg Brian Milich The Corky McMillin Companies Urban Systems Associates. Inc. September 6, 2006 ATTACHMENT 6 Alternative 3 Gates With Tamarack Connection Collector Resulting Average Daily Traffic REDUCTION TO 1.122 DU of 6 Hope Elementary School Calavera Hills Middle School 1,455 EX22 ES139 P 3,995 EX24 MS22 ES77 WV 175 P4,293 ADT 24 MS 44 ES77 WV3£P 1,381 ADT Emergency Access Only Add 2-LaneCollector • = Traffic Circle EX = Existing With Diversion MS = Middle School ES = Elementary School WV = West Village Through Trips P =Park 3101-AItBdimnfeJCdwg NOTE All School Traffic To/From The North Brian Milich The Corky McMillin Companies Urban Systems Associates, Inc. September 6, 2006 ATTACHMENT 6 Page 2 of 6 Alternative 3 Gates With Tamarack Connection Collector No Existing Traffic Diverted To / From The South REDUCTION TO 1,122 DU Hope Elementary School 1,455 EX Emergency Access Only Add 2-LaneCollector * LEGEND . • = Traffic Circle EX = Existing With Diversion Brian Milich The Corky McMillin Companies Urban Systems Associates, Inc. September 6, 2006 ATTACHMENT 6 Page 3 of6 Alternative 3 Gates With Tamarack Connection Collector Elementary & Middle School Trips PA-9 & 10 Only REDUCTION TO 1,122 DU Hope Elementary School Student Trip Generation Area 9,10 Elementary School Students 11 Trips 44 Middle School Students 6 Trips 24 Emergency Access Only Add 2-Lane Collector LEGEND • = Traffic Circle MS = Middle School ES = Elementary School NOTE All School Traffic To/From The North Brian Milich The Corky McMillin Companies Urban Systems Associates. Inc. September 6, 2006 ATTACHMENT 6 Page 4 of6 Alternative 3 Gates With Tamarack Connection Collector West Village PA-9 & 10 Project Trips (Shopping, Work, Recreation) Excluding School Trips REDUCTION TO 1,122 DU Hope Elementary School PA PA-9 PA-10 Total -School ADT 340 370 710 68 External 642 12%» 1 77 • « To/From North Note: Without gales, 6% used Tamarack, 6% used Glasgow and Edingurgh; but gates restrict PA-9 and PA-10 to Edinburgh so 12% use Edinburgh. Emergency Access Only Add 2-Lane Collector LEGEND • = Traffic Circle WV = West Village Through Trips NOTE . All School Traffic To/From The North 3101-AttachmenbJGinB Brian Milich The Corky McMillln Companies Urban Systems Associates, Inc. September 6, 2006 ATTACHMENT 6 Page 5 of 6 Alternative 3 Gates With Tamarack Connection Collector Cut Through Traffic REDUCTION TO 1.122 DU Hope Elementary School Note: No cut through traffic diverted from El Camino Real/Tamarack Avenue intersection since gates prevent through traffic. Emergency Access Only Add 2-LaneCollector • = Traffic Circle Brian Milich The Corky McMillin Companies Urban Systems Associates, Inc. September 6, 2006 ATTACHMENT 6 Page 6 of 6 Alternative 3 Gates With Tamarack Connection Collector Park Trips From PA-9 & 10 Only REDUCTION TO 1.122 DU Hope Elementary School EmergencyAccess Only Add 2-LaneCollector LEGEND • = Traffic Circle P =Park **» Other Park Trips Not From PA-9 & 10 Brian Milich The Corky McMillin Companies Urban Systems Associates, Inc. September 6, 2006 ATTACHMENT 7 . Traffic Signal Warrants Tamarack Avenue at RR Collector MUTCD 2003 California Supplement May 20,2004 Page 4C-8 Table 4C-101. Traffic Signal Warrants Worksheet (Average Traffic Estimate Form) (Based on Estimated Average Daily Traffic - See Note) UPPAN 1. Minimum Vat Satisfied, Mumber of lanes approach Major Street \ 2 or mops.— . .-.— PI[RAI • 40+MPH uoular XK|nt Srrfrsfl«,rl ^ for moving traffic on each Minor Street 1 ,. 9. or mnro "> or rnnrf 2. Interuption of Continuous Traffic RrrfisffaH X Not Srrfi-sfisrf Number of lanes approach Major Street 1 _ . __. 2 or more_ 1 for moving traffic on each Minor Street 1 2 or rn°rB ,, , , , f nj- pf10!"" 3. Combination qntisfierf KW SntfsflBrt No one warrant fulfilled BOX or satisfied, but following warrants 68% 100% 1 2 Minimum Requirements EADT Tamarack Avenue Vehicles per day on major- street (total of both approaches) 13,000 ADT Urban Rural 8,000 3,600 9,500 |.6.720| 9,600 5,720 8,000. 5,500' Vehicles per day on major street (total of both approaches) Urban Rural 12,000- • 8,400 14,400 |1 0,08Q| 14,400 10,080 12,000 S.400. 2 Warrants RJR. Collector Vehicles per day on higher-volume minor street approach [one direction only) 1.150ADT Urban Rural 2,400 1,680 2,400 |1,6BO| 3,200 2,240 3,200 2,240 Vehicles per day on higher-volume minor street approach (one direction only) U50ADT Urban Rural 1 ,200 S50 1 ,200 | 850 | 1,500 ' 1,120 1,600 1,120 2 Warrants Note- To be used oniy for NEW INTERSECTIONS or other locations where it is not reasonable to count actual traffic volumes Brian Milich The Corky McAfillin Companies Urban Systems Associates, Inc. September 6, 2006 ATTACHMENTS AM / PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Tamarack Avenue / El Camino Real With & Without KR Collector m WiOiRR Collector O IO *<•t h- o 2T- t- m * J 1 V !T "J 165-^ 360 (385) — *. 455 (440)-^ ^-50 (100) -« — 240 (265) ^-325 (305) Tama-rook Avaau \1/in o mc>( in mK) ^ T- V J ^^ \^^ -4 590 ' .r-315 j "AV 570 — »~ u 75-- 1 1 o mCO i- o m\n in t^n t- "-in Note' Approved Volumes With Revised Volumes in Parenthesis oin ^T- Oi- O>With W Collector in' 2o o in *O CS K) o J}\.\ y 240 (215)—*- 275 (300W ^-75 (125) -* — 245 (270) ^-270 (250) .*>!/S m min m fo"' to .jo,o ^3, ^^ -<i 570 • AV 655— *- £ 80 *™^. sa =5 c; in m in v-o ro NO SCALE Not®' Use 50% of Volumes on Collector for Local Street Volumes '/fl l L JLV.XSpW.L b SHORT REPORT General Information Analyst • USAI Agency or Co. USAf Date Performed 07/16/05 Time Period 2030 AM PEAK Site Information Intersection Area Type Jurisdiction Analysis Year EL CAM1NO REAL @ TAMARACK AVE. £n All other areas r,fsry CARLSBAD MV YEAR 2030 WITH » PROJAMTHMIT ' Volume and Timing input Num. of Lanes Lane group Volume (vph) % Heavy veh PHF Actuated (P/A) Startup lost time Ext. eff. green Arrival type Unit Extension Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume Lane Width Parking/G rade/P arking 3arking/hr 3us stops/hr Unit Extension Phasing Timing • EB Only G* 26.0 Y= 5 EB LT 1 L 165 2 0.95 A 2.0 2.0 3 3.0 10 12.0- N 0 3.0 WB Only G= 1B.O Y= 5 Duration of Analysis (hrs) = 0.25 TH 1 T 360 2 0.95 A 2.0 2.0 5 3.0 12.0 0 0 3.0 RT 1 R 465 2 0.95 A 2.0 2.0 5 3.0 250 12.0 N 0 3.0 03 G = Y = WB LT 1 L 325 2 0.95 A 2.0 2.0 3 3.0 10 12.0 N 0 3.0 TH 2 LTR 240 2 0.95 A 2.0 2.0 5 3.0 0 12.0 0 • o 3.0 04 G = Y- RT 0 50 2 . 0.95 A 50 N NB LT 1 L 350 2 0.95 A 2.0 2.0 3 3.0 10 12.0 N 0 3.0 ExcL Left G = 20.0 Y- 5 TH 3 T 1515 2 0.95 A 2.0 2.0 5 3.0 0 12.0 0 0 3.0 RT 1 R 175 2 0.95 A 2.0 2.0 5 3.0 0 12.0 N 0 3.0 MB Only G- 1.0 Y- 5 SB LT 1 L 50 2 0.95 A 2.0 2.0 3 3.0 10 12.0 N 0 3.0 TH 3 TR 1730 2 0.95 A 2.0 2.0 5 3.0 0 12.0 0 0 3.0 RT 0 140 2 0.95 A 140 N Thru & RT 08 G= 42.0 G = Y= 5 Y« Cycle Length C = 130.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination Adj, flow rate Lane group cap. \ilc ratio Green ratio Un'rf. delay d1 Delay factor k Increm. delay d2 PF factor Control delay Lane group LOS Apprch. delay Approach LOS Intersec. delay EB 174 354 0.49 0.20 46.1 0.11 1.1 1.000 47.2 D 379 392 0.97 0.20 51.6 0.47 36.7 0.833 79.7 • E 226 560 0.40 0.35 317 0.11 0.5 0.635 20.6 C 55.3 E 51.6 WB 181 218 0.83 0.12 55.7 • 0.37 22.9 1.000 78.5 E 414 451 0.92 0.12 56.4 0.44 23.7 0.906 74.8 E NB 368 373 0.99 0.20 518 0.49 26.1 1.000 77.9 E 75.9 E 7595 1972 0.81 0.37 36.9 0.35 1.1 0.610 23.6 C 184 768 0.24 0.49 19.0 0.11 0.1 0.354 6.8 A 314 C Intersection LOS SB 53 272 0.19 0.15 48.0 0.11 0.3 1.000 48.3 D 1821 1726 1.06 0.32 44.0 0.50 35.8 • 0.682 65.8 ' E 65.3 E D HCS3COC™ Copyright <0 2000 University of Florida, All Rjghls Reserved Version 4.1s fLle://C:\Documents%20and%20SettLngs\admmistrator\Local0/o20Settings\Temp\s2kA8.tmp 7/16/2005 SHORT REPORT General Information Analyst USAl Agency or Co. USAl Date Performed 07/19/06 Time Period 2030 AM PEAK Site Information In+onsar*-™ EL CAMINO REAL @ nintersection TAMARACK AVE J$ Area Type AH other areas fy^J Jurisdiction CARLSBAD ^ Ana^sisYear WITH ^LECTOR @ 1122 Volume and Timing Input Num. of Lanes Lane group Volume (vph) % Heavy veh PHF Actuated (P/A) Startup lost time Ext. eff. green Arrival type Unit Extension Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume Lane Width Parking/Grade/Parking Parking/hr Bus stops/hr Unit Extension Phasing Timing EB Only G = 28.0 Y= 5 EB LT 1 L 165 2 0.95 A 2.0 2.0 3 3.0 10 12.0 N 0 3.0 WB Only G= 16.0 Y= 5 Duration of Analysis (hrs) = 0.25 TH 1 T 385 2 0.95 A 2.0 2.0 5 3.0 12.0 0 0 3.0 RT 1 R 440 2 0.95 A 2.0 2.0 5 3.0 250 12.0 N 0 3.0 03 G = Y = WB LT 1 L 305 2 0.95 A 2.0 2.0 3 3.0 10 12.0 N 0 3.0 TH 2 L77? 265 2 0.95 A 2.0 2.0 5 3.0 0 12.0 0 0 3.0 RT 0 100 2 0.95 A 100 N (MB LT 1 L 325 2 0.95 A 2.0 2.0 3 3.0 10 12.0 N 0 3.0 TH 3 T 1450 2 0.95 A 2.0 2.0 5 3.0 0 12.0 0 0 •3,0 RT 1 R 175 2 0.95 A 2.0 2.0 5 3.0 0 12.0 N 0 3.0 04 ExcLLeft NBOniy G = G = 1Q.O G = 1.0 Y = Y=5 Y." 5 SB LT 1 L 105 2 0.95 A 2.0 2.0 3 3.0 10 12.0 N 0 3.0 Thru & RT G = 41.0 Y- 5 TH 3 TR 1675 2 0.95 A 2.0 2.0 5 3.0 0 12.0 0 0 3.0 RT 0 140 2 0.95 A 140 N 08 G = Y = Cycle Length C = 130.0 _ane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination Adj. flow rate Lane group cap. v/c ratio Green ratio Unif. delay d1 Delay factor k Increm. delay d2 PF factor Control delay Lane group LOS Apprch. delay Approach LOS Intersec. delay EB 174 381 0.45 0.22 44.4 0.11 0.9 1.000 45.3 D 405 200 422 572 0.96 0.35 0.22 0.36 50.4 30.3 0.47 0.11 33.5 0.4 0.817 0.622 74.7 19.3 E B 53.9 D 50.8 WB NB 180 218 0.83 0.12 55.6 0.36 22.2 1.000 77.8 £ 420 342 1526 452 358 1931 0.93 0.96 0.79 0.12 0.19 0.36 56.4 51.9 37.1 0.44 0.47 0.34 25.7 20.0 0.9 0.906 1.000 0.622 76.9 - 72.0 24.0 E EC 184 756 0.24 0.48 19.6 0.11 0.1 0.373 7.4 A 77.2 30.5 £ C Intersection LOS SB 111 259 0.43 0.15 50.6 0.11 0.9 1.000 51.5 D 7763 1684 1.05 0.32 44.5 0.50 33.2 0.693 64.1 E 63.3 E D HCS2000™ Copyright O 2000 University of Florida, AJ1 Rights Reserved file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\SKab\Local%20Settings\Temp\s2k290.tmp Version 4.tf 7/19/2006 SHORT REPORT , . General information Analyst USAl Agency or Co. USAl Date Performed 07/16/05 Time Period 2030 PM PEAK Site Information Intersection EL CAMINO REAL @ -intersection TAMARACK AVE ^ Area Type All other areas K^f" Jurisdiction CARLSBAD Analysis Year YEAR 203° WITH PROJ/WAnalysis Year MmGAT Volume- and Timing-Input,., Num. of Lanes Lane group Volume (vph) % Heavy veh PHF Actuated (P/A) Startup lost time Ext. eff. green Arrival type Unit Extension Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume .ane Width Parking/Grade/Parking Parking/hr 3us stops/hr Unit Extension Phasing Timing EB Only G = 19.0 Y- 5 EB LT 1 L 115 2 0.95 A 2.0 2.0 3 3.0 10 12.0 N 0 3.0 WB Only G= 18.0 Y= 5 Duration of Analysis (hrs) = 0.25 TH 1 r 215 2 0.95 A 2.0 2.0 5 3.0 12.0 0 0 3.0__j RT 1 R 300 2 0.95 A 2.0 2.0 5 3.0 260 12.0 N 0 3.0 03 G = Y* WB LT 1 L 270 2 0.95 A 2.0 2.0 3 3.0 10 12.0 N 0 3.0 TH 2 LTR 246 2 0.95 A 2.0 2.0 5 3.0 0 12.0 0 0 3.0 RT 0 75 2 0.95 A 0 N NB LT 1 L 525 2 0.95 A 2.0 2.0 3 3.0 10 12.0 N 0 3.0 04 . Excl. Left G= G= 15.0 ( Y- Y= 5 C TH 3 r 7355 2 0.95 A 2.0 2.0 5 3.0 0 12.0 0 0 3.0 RT 1 R 335 2 0.95 A 2.0 2.0 5 3.0 0 12,0 N 0 3.0 NBOnly 3 = 20.0 f« 5 SB --'• • LT 1 L 135 2 0.95 A 2.0 2.0 3 3.0 10 12.0 N 0 3.0 Thru & RT G= 33.0 Y= 5 TH 3 TR 1205 2 0.95 A 2.0 2.0 5 3.0 0 12.0 0 0 3.0 RT 0 200 2 0.95 A 100 N 08 G = Y = tycle Length C = 730.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination Adj. flow rate Lane group cap. v/c ratio Green ratio Unif. delay d1 Delay factor k ncrem. delay d2 PF factor Control delay Lane group LOS Apprch. delay Approach LOS intersec. delay EB 121. 259 0.47 0.15 50.9 0.11 1.3 1.000 522 D 226 42 287 414 0.79 0.10 0.15 0.26 53.6 36.4 0.33 0.11 13.6 0.1 0.886 0.764 61.0 27.9 E C 54.7 D 46.3 WB 170 245 0.69. 0.14 53.4 0.26 8.2 1.000 61.6 E 451 553 495 573 0.91 0.97 0.14 0.31 55.2 44.3 0.43 0.47 21.0 25.2 0.893 1.000 - 70.3 69.5 E E NB 7425 2383 0.60 0.45 27.2 0.19 0.3 0.463 12.9 . B 353 692 0.51 0.45 25.8 0.12 0.5 0.463 12.5 B 67.9 26.3 E C Intersection LOS SB 142 204 0.70 0.12 55.3 0.26 8.0 1.000 63.3 E 1373 1339 1.03 0.25 48.5 0.50 28.7 ' 0.773 66.2 E 65.9 E D Copyright © 2000 tinrvorsity of Florida, All Rights Reserved Vsriion 4.U file://C:^ocuments%20and0/o20Settings\administrator\Local°/D20Settings\Temp\s2kFO.tmp 7/16/2005 SHORT REPORT General Information Analyst USA! Agency or Co. USAI Date Performed 07/13/06 Time Period 2030 PM PEAK Site Information «—» sr5SS£?5£0 ^ Area Type AH other areas *&* Jurisdiction CARLSBAD ^ Ana^sisYear W™ COLLECTOR @ 1122 Volume and Timing Input Num. of Lanes Lane group Volume (vph) % Heavy veh PHF Actuated (P/A) Startup lost time Ext. eff. green Arrival type Unit Extension Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume Lane Width Parking/Grade/Parking Parking/hr Bus stops/hr Unit Extension Phasing "iming EB Only G= 18.0 Y= 5 EB LT 1 L 115 2 0.95 A 2.0 2.0 3 3.0 10 12.0 N 0 3.0 WB Only G= 18.0 Y= 5 Duration of Analysis (hrs) = 0.25 TH •/ T 240 2 0.95 A 2.0 2.0 5 3.0 12.0 0 0 3.0 RT 1 R 275 2 0.95 A 2.0 2.0 5 3.0 250 12.0 N 0 3.0 03 G = Y = WB LT .1 L 250 2 0.95 A 2.0 2.0 3 3.0 10 12.0 N 0 3.0 TH 2 LTR 210 2 0.95 A 2,0 2.0 5 3.0 0 12.0 0 0 3.0 04 G= ' y = KT 0 125 2 0.95 A 50 N Excl •NB " LT 1 . L 500 2 0.95 A 2.0 2.0 3 3.0 10 12.0 N 0 3.0 TH 3 T 1305 2 0.95 A 2.0 2.0 5 3.0 0 12.0 0 0 3.0 RT 1 R 315 2 0.95 A 2.0 2.0 5 3.0 0 12.0 N 0 3.0 Left NBOnly G= 17.0 G- 18.0 Y= 5 Y= 5 ' SB LT 1 L 190 2 0.95 A 2.0 2.0 3 3.0 10 12.0 N 0 3.0 Thru & RT G= 33.0 Y= 5 TH 3 TR 1150 2 0.95 A 2.0 2.0 5 3.0 0 12.0 0 0 3.0 RT 0 200 2 0.95 A 100 N 08 G = Y = Cycle Length C = 730.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination Adj. flow rate Lane group cap. v/c ratio Green ratio Unif. delay d1 3elay factor k Increm. delay d2 PF factor Control delay Lane group LOS Apprch. delay Approach LOS Intersec. delay EB 121 259 0.47 0.15 50.9 0.11 1.3 1.000 52.2 D 253 287 0.88 0.15 54.4 0.41 25.7 0,886 73.9 E 16 438 0.04 0.28 34.3 0.11 0.0 0.745 25.6 C 65.2 £ 44.5 WB 210 245 0.86 0.14 54.7 0.39 24.7 1.000 79.5 E 416 497 0.84 0.14 54.6 0.37 11,9 0.893 60.7 E 67.0 E NB 526 1374 573 2301 0.92 0.60 0.31 0.43 43.4 28.4 0.44 0.19 16.8 0.3 1.000 0.495 60.3 14.4 E B 332 669 0.50 0.43 26.8 0.11 0.5 0.495 13.7 B 25.1 C Intersection LOS //CS.JC00™ Copyright Ci 2000 University of Florida, AJ1 Righls Reserved file://C:\Documents%20and°/o20Settings\SKab\Local%20Settings\Temp\s2k2AP SB 200 231 0.87. 0.13 55.4 0.40 23.0 1.000 78.4 • E 1316 1338 0.98 0.25 48.2 0.49 18.2 0.773 55.5 E 58.5 E D Version 4.1f .top 7/19/2006 SHORT REPORT General Information Analyst USAI Agency or Co. USA! Date Performed 07/19/06 Time Period 2030 AM PEAK Site Information Intersection Area Type Jurisdiction I/I/Analysis Year TAMARA CK A VE. @ RR COLECTOR _p All other areas ^ CARLSBAD * 1TH COLLECTOR @ 1122 D.U. Volume and Timing Input Num. of Lanes Lane group Volume (vph) % Heavy veh PHF Actuated (P/A) Startup lost time Ext. eff. green Arrival type Unit Extension Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume Lane Width Parking/Grade/Parking Parking/hr Busstops/hr . Unit Extension Phasing Timing WB Only G= 23.0 Y= 5 EB LT 0 0 N Thru & RT G= 45.0 Y= 5 Duration of Analysis (hrs) = 0.25 TH 2 TR 570 0 0.95 A 2.0 2.0 4 3.0 12.0 0 0 3 0 RT 0 75 0 0.95 A 0 N 03 G = Y = WB LT • 1 L 315 0 0.95 A 2.0 2.0 4 3.0 12.0 N 0 3.0 TH 2 T 590 0 0.95 A 2.0 2.0 • 4 3.0 12.0 0 0 3.0 RT 0 N NB LT 1 L 80 0 0.95 A 2.0 2.0 4 3.0 0 12.0 N 0 3.0 04 NB Only G = • G = 22.0 Y= Y= 5 TH 0 0 OS G = Y = RT 1 R 315 0 0.95 A 2.0 2.0 4 3.0 75 12.0 N 0 3.0 " 'SB . LT 0 0 N 07 G = Y = TH 0 RT 0 N 08 G = Y = Cycle Le ngth C - 1 05. 0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination Adj. flow rate Lane group cap. v/c ratio Green ratio Unif. delay d1 Delay factor k increm. delay d2 PF factor Control delay Lane group LOS Apprch. delay Approach LOS Intersec. delay EB 679 1523 0.45 0.43 212 0.11 0.2 0.862 18.5 B 18.5 B 23.7 WB 332 395 0.54. 0.22 39.2 0.38 14.9 1.000 54.2 D NB 621 84 2515 378 0.25 0.22 0.70 0.21 5.9 34.4 0.11 0.11 0.1 0.3 0.276 1.000 1.7 34.7 A C 20.0 6 Intersection 253 338 0.75 0.21 38.9 0.30 8.9 1.000 47,8 D 44.6 D LOS SB C ffC£3000™ Copyright © 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4. 11 file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\SKab\Local%20Settings\Temp\s2k2C6.tmp 7/19/2006 SHORT REPORT General Information Analyst USAI Agency or Co. USA! Date Performed 07/19/06 Time Period 2030 PM PEAK Site Information Area Type All other areas $^r Jurisdiction CARLSBAD \ Analysis Year WITH COLLECTOR® 1122 Volume and Timing Input EB Num. of Lanes Lane group Voiume (vph) % Heavy vert PHF • Actuated (P/A) Startup lost time Ext. eff. green Arrival type Unit Extension Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume Lane Width Parking/Grade/Parking Parking/hr Bus stops/hr Unit Extension Phasing Iming WB Only G = 23.0 Y= 5 LT 0 0 N Thru & RT G= 45.0 Y= 5 Duration of Analysis (hrs) = 0.25 TH 2 TR 6S5 0 0.95 A 2.0 2.0 4 3.0 12.0 0 0 3.0 RT 0 80 0 0.95 A 0 N 03 G = Y = WB LT •1 L 315 0 0.95 A 2.0 2.0 4 3.0 12.0 N 0 3.0 TH 2 I 570 '0 0.95 A 2.0 2.0 4 3.0 12.0 0 0 3.0 04 G a Y- RT 0 N NB LT 7 L 75 0 0.95 A 2.0 2.0 4 3.0 0 12.0 N 0 3.0 NBOnly G= 22.0 Y= 5 TH 0 0 06 G = Y = RT 7 R 315 0 0.95 A 2.0 2.0 4 3.0 75 12.0 N 0 3.0 SB ' LT 0 0 N 07 G = Y = TH 0 RT 0 N 08 G = Y = Cycle Length C = 705.0 .ane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination Adj. flow rate Lane group cap. v/c ratio Green ratio Unif. delay d1 Delay factor k Increm. delay d2 PF factor Control delay Lane group LOS Apprch. delay Approach LOS Intersec. delay EB 784 1525 0.51 0.43 22.0 0.72 0.3 0.852 19.3 B 19,3 B 23,9 WB 332 395 0.84 0.22 39.2 0.38 14.9 1.000 54.2 D 600 2515 0.24 0.70 5.8 0.11 0.0 0.276 1.7 A 20.4 C .NB 79 378 0.21 0.27 34.3 0.77 0.3 7.000 34.6 C 253 338 0.75 0.27 38.9 0.30 8.9 7.000 47.8 D 44.7 Intersection D LOS SB C ffC£2000™ Copyright (92000 University of Florida, All Rights Resoived Version 4. If file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\SKab\Local%20Settings\Temp\s2k2BA.tmp 7/19/2006 SHORT REPORT Genera! information Analyst ' USAI Agency or Co. USAI Date Performed 07/24/06 Time Period 2030 AM PEAK Site Information Intersect TAMAMCKAVE.Q RR Area Type All o fher areas Jurisdiction CARLSBAD Analysis Year WITH LOCAL @ 1122 D.U. Volume and Timing input -••4. • vlum. of Lanes Lane group Volume (vph) % Heavy veh PHF Actuated (P/A) Startup lost time Ext. eff. green Arrival type Unit Extension Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume Lane Width Parking/Grade/Parking Parking/hr Bus stops/hr Unit Extension Phasing "iming :EB, LT 0 • 0 N WB Only Thru & RT G= 23.0 G= 45.0 Y= 5 Y= 5 Duration of Analysis (hrs) = 0.25 TH 2 TR 570 0 0.95 A 2.0 2.0 4 3.0 12.0 0 0 3.0 RT 0 40 0 0.95 A 0 N 03 G = Y = ._.. WB LT 1 L 165 0 0.95 A 2.0 2.0 4 3.0 12.0 N 0 3.0 TH 2 r 590 0 0.35 'A 2.0 2.0 4 3.0 12.0 0 0 3.0 04 G = Y = RT 0 N NB LT 1 L 40 0 0.95 A 2.0 2.0 4 3.0 0 12.0 N 0 3.0 NB Only G = 22.0 Y= 5 TH 0 0 06 G = V •" RT 1 R 155 0 0.95 A 2.0 2.0 4 3.0 75 12.0 N 0 3.0 SB LT 0 0 Af 07 G = Y- TH 0 RT " 0 N 08 G = Y = Cycle Length C = 105. 0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination Adj. flow rate Lane group cap, v/c ratio Green ratio Unif. delay d1 Delay factor k ncrem. delay d2 PF factor Control delay Lane group LOS Apprch. delay Approach LOS Intersec. delay EB 642 1535 0.42 0.43 20.9 0,11 0.2 0.862 18.2 B 18.2 B 14.8 WB 163 395 0.41 0.22 35.2 0.11 0 7 1.000 35.9 D- 621 2515 0.25 0.70 5.9 0.11 0.1 0.276 1.7 A 8.8 A NB 42 378 0.11 0.21 33.6 0.11 0,1 1.000 33.7 C 84 338 0.25 0.21 34.6 0.11 0.4 1.000 35.0 C 34.6 C Intersection LOS SB B Copyright © 2000 University of Florida, AJl Rights Rraetvad Version 4. If file://C:\Doouments°/o20and%20Settings\SKab\LocaL%20Settings\Temp\s2k:3D5.tmp 7/24/2006 SHORT REPORT General Information Analyst USA1 Agency or Co, USAI Date Performed 07/24/06 . Time Period 2030 PM PEAK Site Information Intersection TAMARACK^AVE.® RR Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction CARLSBAD Analysis Year WITH LOCAL @ 1122 D.U. Volume and Timing Input Num. of Lanes Lane group Volume (vph) % Heavy veh PHF Actuated (P/A) Startup lost time Ext. off. green Arrival type Unit Extension Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume Lane Width Parking/Grade/Parking Parking/hr Bus stops/hr Unit Extension Phasing Timing WBOnJy G = 23.0 Y= 5 EB LT 0 0 N Thru & RT G= 45.0 Y= 5 Duration of Analysis (hrs) = 0.25 TH 2 TR 665 0 0.95 A 2.0 2.0 4 3.0 12.0 0 0 3.0 RT 0 40 0 0.95 A 0 N 03 G = Y = WB LT 1 L 1bb 0 0.95 A 2.0 2.0 4 3.0 12.0 N 0 3.0 TH 2 T 570 0 0.95 A 2.0 2.0 4 3.0 12.0 0 0 3.0 04 G = Y = RT 0 N NB LT 1 L 40 0 0.95 A 2.0 2.0 4 3.0 0 12.0 N 0 3.0 TH 0 0 NB Only 06 G= 22.0 G = Y= 5 Y = RT 1 R 155 0 0.95 A 2.0 2.0 4 3.0 75 12.0 N 0 3.0 SB LT 0 0 N 07 G = Y = TH 0 RT 0 N 08 G = Y = Cycle Length C = 105.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination Adj. flow rate .ane group cap. v/c ratio Green ratio Unif. delay d1 Delay factor k Increm. delay d2 PF factor Control delay Lane 'group LOS Apprch. delay Approach LOS Intersec. delay EB 742 1537 0.4-8 0.43 21.6 0.11 0.2 0.862 18.9 B 18.9 B 15.5 WB 163 395 0.41 0.22 35.2 0.11 0 7 1.000 35.9 D 600 2515 0.24 0.70 5.8 0.11 0.0 0.276 1.7 A 9.0 A NB 42 378 0.11 Q.21 33,6 0.11 0.1 1.000 33.7 C 84 338 0.25 0.21 34.6 0.11 0.4 1.000 35.0 C 34.6 C intersection LOS SB B HCS3000™Copyright <D 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4. If file://C:\Docurnents%20and°/o20Settings\SKab\Local%20Settings\Temp\s2k3EO.tmp 7/24/2006 c>S a u J s s z a "2 S Oo oin I I Qtn aUJ ia: UJ CO o 1 oiUJm § E» S (0i £=> aJ OUNTSKITH SCHOCu & I 1 — 1 rsi as1 § n •33 '3. c D U« •a ?i a. o Si ONin i o CO 3 i CO o s oen i 0 NO o * CD O § o\o s ajs I o IM S 00 ? ' ^C4 K O) oo ft en 1 o 3 O 0o SCHOOLCO i f ** s § C'Q 1•sa ? o § i ^ CO 3[M S lO ' 0 1 2 § to 0 COCO o. i 0 a in* i CO o « cs 3 ° o §Non-Res.Pi i n > » »uction•8BS s a -j JJ Spa HBi 0 i-i 2 Jc- e: in | 00 s £ e | -p E•S ia S 1 '- -2 * 3 * >. - '1^ gp !?•s sz cfi •s s 01 ft o\m « ^_ s *3< f 2 ro S 0 CO 2 m NO o•^ in NO s CA r5 S ^ g o ra o\ oo s en en en m K ^in ON 0 g o r? \d n S S 00 1** 5 S Cxs 3 •a- i OSa 3 in s roin Os 0 S o TP a ^ o T-l f>4in S OO £S ^< CM q Ft S % Ff ffi q DDO u rs > UJ i _j<g JJ 1?f E2s:UJQp C/) a:o c rsow R.|V LUCOoK 13 o5 •*=•a oto tn•c "(5 <cO o>• a: .2 s 5 "5 hfi S^JS Ul b a, -S "50. g 0o * -c3: = o*• 3 wCD Q O>to 8o "go S o 5 0 s-'§i students*— • 'o h— cc _- ^ro ^o. (n 3C I 0) O) —!«• tn I i CMCO D roio_ £ T—cn CD 1 0. co IJ CO D o>CO 3> LO ? .•= ^in CO* ^o.to "a. a>01a~ S (0toHI o!o to CO o i 31 CM to CA MP UnitroCOCO CMto"CO £ ?o s. enin CO 'c3 •TLT> Transportation Consultants Pleasantan 5960/nffteiroorfOr., Suite 100 Pleasanton, CA 94586-8535 925.4S3.0S11 S2S.4S3.3690 fat Santa Rosa 141 Stony dr.. Suite 280 Santa Rosa, CA 95401-4110 707.S75.SeOO707.5r5.saae fax September 7, 2006 Sacramento 380 9th St.. 16th Row Sacramento, CA 95814-2736 S1S.44S.9095 Fresno 516 W. Shaw Ave., Suite 200 Fresno, CA 93704-2515 S59.325.7530 559.221.4940 fax fyton@9lrm.com www.tjlm.com Project Number 289-001 Mr. Brian Milich Calavera Hills 2, LLC 2780 Womble Road San Diego, CA 92106 Subject: Analysis of Traffic Calming Strategies for Robertson Ranch Dear Mr. Milich: At your request TJKM has evaluated the potential effectiveness of the traffic calming plan for reducing potential cut through traffic in The Colony should Robertson Ranch West Village be developed as planned. The basic objective of this analysis is the independent assessment of the potential for increased traffic on streets within an existing residential development just north of Robertson Ranch, called The Colony. The increased traffic comes from two sources: 1. Non-local traffic shifting off of Tamarack Avenue and El Camino Real to a shorter route 2. Traffic to and from the development in West Village oriented to places north of The Colony. More specifically, if two of the streets (Edinburgh Drive and Glasgow Drive) hi The Colony are connected to similar streets in the West Village of Robertson Ranch, is there a potential for non-local traffic to use Edinburgh Drive and Glasgow Drive as a shortcut between TamarackAvenue at Edinburgh Drive and El Camino Real at Lisa Avenue? "Non-local" in this sense means traffic coming from elsewhere and going elsewhere than West Village or The Colony. Further, there is also interest in the potential for how many vehicle trips could be loaded onto Edinburgh Drive and Glasgow Drive from the new housing and other uses hi Robertson Ranch (West Village). Figure 1 shows the vicinity of West Village at Robertson Ranch and The Colony. Figures 2A and 2B show the total additional daily traffic that could increase traffic hi The Colony if West Village were developed with no traffic calming strategies. We based our analysis upon the approved Transportation Analysis Final Report for Robertson Ranch dated September 1,2005 by Urban Systems Associates. That report contained the following information: • Trip generation for the West Village Planning Areas for development hi Robertson Ranch • Trip distribution (i.e., the geographic locations for trip origins and destinations for Robertson Ranch) • Transportation facility information Subsequent to that report, the number of housing units was decreased in several of the planning areas, and senior housing was added. Urban Systems Associates made appropriate reductions hi the number of trips generated. These adjustments are described hi newer traffic reports showing volume forecasts for average daily traffic volumes through The Colony. ATTACHMENT ToHwy-78 To 1-5 ii NORTH Not to Scale City of Carlsbad Robertson Ranch Vicinity Map & Planning Areas - West Village Figure 1 289-001 - 8/8/06 - GK 410 ToHwy-78 I West Village Traffic I Non-Local Traffic To 1-5 City of Carlsbad Robertson Ranch Total Potential Added Daily Traffic With West Village 1122 Dwelling Units-No Traffic Calming Assumed '9"re 289-001 - 9/6/06 - GK ToHwy-78 LEGEND ! West Village Traffic I Non-Local Traffic ToI-S City of Carlsbad Robertson Ranch Total Potential Added Daily Traffic With West Village 1154 Dwelling Units-No Traffic Calming Assumed 289-001 - 9/6/06 - GK Mr. Brian Milich September 7, 2006 The volumes in The Colony can be further reduced, according to Urban Systems Associates, if traffic calming and circuitous routing are used in the West Village circulation plan. Urban Systems Associates used published studies of traffic calming projects throughout the United States as the basis for estimating reductions due to traffic calming. They reduced the total potential traffic demand by the reported 45 percent average decrease in traffic on "calmed streets" as reported in Traffic Calming: State of the Practice, co-authored by the Federal Highway Administration and the Institute of Transportation Engineers. This report by TJKM also makes direct use of the trip generation and trip distribution data in those reports as well. However, the forecasting methods used by TJKM are entirely independent from Urban Systems Associates. That is, by using standard transportation modeling and forecasting techniques, we confirm that Urban Systems Associates' estimates of average daily traffic in The Colony due to development of West Village are higher than our estimates overall, and are thus conservative. Our estimates show that the amount of traffic added to Edinburgh Drive is likely to be a little higher than estimated in the Urban Systems Associates' reports, and that traffic added to Glasgow will be substantially lower than estimated by Urban Systems Associates. The subsequent reports from Urban Systems Associates are dated June 15*, July 27th, August 23rd, and September 6, 2006. The newer reports reflect changes in the number of dwelling units and the addition of senior housing in West Village under two land use scenarios as well as two circulation scenarios. This TJKM report is based on the September 6, 2006 report from Urban Systems Associates because the basis for that report is the land use and traffic conditions in the proposed West Village project to be presented to the planning commission in September 2006. There are two land use alternatives under consideration: 1) West Village with 1,122 dwelling units, and 2) 1,154 dwelling units. In addition, there are two circulation schemes for each land use with and without a local access road connecting to Tamarack Avenue from Planning Area 3 in West Village. Figures 3 A and 3B show the planning areas and the two circulation schemes. The assumptions and conditions used for analysis in this report assume no traffic calming in The Colony. Figures 3A and 3B also show the traffic calming strategies in each of the two circulation plans within West Village. The planned calming strategies are simply the introduction of traffic circles at four intersections plus forcing sharp right and left turns (circuitous routing) that also work to slow traffic. The combination of traffic circles and circuitous routes greatly increases both distances and travel times through West Village, thus reducing the potential for West Village streets as a preferred shortcut route. With these calming strategies, along with capacity improvements on El Camino Real, more traffic in West Village will find that using El Camino Real and Tamarack Avenue is faster than using streets in The Colony and in West Village. TJKM, in this report, only addresses the traffic calming and circuitous routing scenarios, because the Urban Systems Associates' reports describe traffic conditions without calming and circuitous routing in West Village. This letter report presents our findings. Detailed information and calculations showing how the findings were determined are attached as appendices. I have also attached my qualifications as a traffic calming expert including a paper written for a meeting of the Institute of Transportation Engineers describing the use of traffic calming devices to discourage through traffic in neighborhoods of Campbell, California. E I .C * «-O O® i gcnio i: iis I! 00 O O 2ro I (0uO oO) JS 5+••</) II c CO co •o« 2CO ^ •— jo ck cc = Q.O £ G) O d) j— -so Oo cm O II 1 O)cI •5 Q.a.c o) co i!c j. w< CBJ:•p 3 oi•g, O 3O> >- ou JC il*- pS-TS'Tra o cl.cooto _i Z I! (Aw <D U U U(0 ro I oo 0) O) 03 ii c_C3 Q. C T, Q. O oc •~™ ^J — ^OCtO Mr. Brian Milich September 7, 2006 Existing Conditions Figure 4 shows the existing daily non-local traffic volume that might wish to use The Colony and West Village streets as a shortcut. These 2,000 vehicles daily currently use Tamarack Avenue and El Camino Real to get between the intersection of Carlsbad Village Drive/Tamarack Avenue and the intersection of El Camino Real/ Cannon Road. Details on how TJKM calculated the 2,000 daily potential shortcut trips through The Colony are in Appendix B. Figure 4 also shows existing daily volumes on Edinburgh Drive and Glasgow Drive within The Colony. The existing volumes shown for Edinburgh Drive and Glasgow Drive are based upon the volumes in Attachment 1 in the July 27,2006 Urban Systems Associates' traffic report. The volumes on Edinburgh Drive and Glasgow Drive are well under the design volume of 2,000 vehicles for their "Local" classification. It is obvious from Figure 4 why either or both Glasgow Drive and Edinburgh Drive coupled with a straight route through West Village to Lisa Avenue/El Camino Real could be a shortcut. The distance for the route between the intersection of Carlsbad Village Drive/Tamarack Avenue and the intersection of Cannon Road/El Camino Real is 2.2 miles via the intersection of Tamarack Avenue/El Camino Real. If either Glasgow Drive or Edinburgh Drive were extended straight through West Village to intersect El Camino Real at Lisa Avenue, the total distance between the same intersections above, Carlsbad Village Drive/Tamarack Avenue and El Camino Real/Cannon Road is only 1.6 miles, or 0.6 mile shorter than the current arterial route. Figure 5 shows travel times for traffic currently traveling between the intersections of Carlsbad Village Drive/Tamarack Avenue and El Camino Real/Cannon Road via the arterial routes of Tamarack Avenue and El Camino Real as compared with the potential shortcut route should West Village be developed with a straight route between El Camino Real/Lisa Avenue and Edinburgh Drive. As can be seen in that figure, the internal routes of West Village (with no traffic calming - they would be straight), when joined with Edinburgh and Glasgow could save between one and two minutes over the longer, current arterial route for trips coming from the north. For trips going to the north, the travel times are almost the same, with the arterial route having a slight advantage of 15 seconds in the a.m. peak and 17 seconds in the p.m. peak. The total travel time between the intersections of Carlsbad Village Drive/ Tamarack Avenue and El Camino Real/Cannon Road is a function of how long it takes to travel this approximate 2V4 mile distance at 55 mph on El Camino Real and 45 mph on Tamarack Avenue plus the additional time spent stopped and waiting at the signal by the average vehicle. Note: to calculate the travel times, the travel time for the free speed needs to have the intersection delays added for the appropriate movements. This calculation has been made for the reader's convenience in the tables included in Figure 5. The waiting time at the signal is called "control delay" and includes the additional time needed to slow on the approach and accelerate from a signal as well as time spent at the red light. Not all drivers have to wait, of course, and others wait far longer than average. The estimates of control delay for the Tamarack/El Camino Real signal are based on the Synchro reports in Appendix F. TJKM used 2030 with project volume estimates from the September 1, 2005 Transportation Analysis Final Report for Robertson Ranch, Section 7, Figures 7-6 and 7-7. The actual values used for control delay at the signalized intersections are also shown in Figure 5. We acknowledge that the project volumes at Tamarack/El Camino Real are a little high, because these forecasts were made prior to reducing the number of dwelling units in West Village. However, the minor increased traffic volumes would have the effect of slightly increasing control delay, thus making the arterial routes less competitive with Edinburgh and West Village streets on a comparative basis for travel times. TJKM also used the lane assumptions for 2030. We also improved the intersection of Z Street/Lisa Avenue and El Camino Real with a separate left turn lane on Lisa to allow normal signal phasing. TJKM also used the standard 10 seconds of additional delay at the intersection of Tamarack Avenue and Edinburgh Drive for right turns onto Tamarack Avenue and for left turns onto Edinburgh Drive. This is conservative, because at certain times of the day, it takes more than an additional 10 seconds to turn left onto Edinburgh and to turn right onto Tamarack because drivers must wait for oncoming traffic to clear. The least delay is 10 seconds, so travel times through West Village and The Colony are probably longer by 5 to 15 seconds over the day. ToHwy-78 ROBERTSON RANCH LEGEND llllllll Current Through Route Potential Shortcut Route• • • • r wvcii tia> **i iw 'XX Daily Volume To 1-5 NORTH Not to Scale City of Carlsbad Robertson Ranch Non-Local Traffic Volumes and Volumes in The Colony Figure 4 289-001 - 9/1/06 - GK LEGEND —— Arterial • ™ «• Shortcut AM (PM) Signal Delay ToHwy.78 To calculate total travel time, add the free flow segment times plus intersection delays. Calculations shown on Appendix F. A— >"B Arterial AM PM Shortcut AM PM 5' 23" 5' 3" 3' 32" 3' 45" B— »-A Arterial AM PM Shortcut AM PM 3' 11" 3' 17" 2' 56" 3-0" ROBERTSON RANCH City of Carlsbad Robertson Ranch Travel Time Comparison -Arterial Vs. Shortcut No Calming Figure 5 289-001 - 9/8/06 - GK Mr. Brian Milich September 7, 2006 11 Analysis with West Village Development Figures 3A and 3B on pages 6 and 7 show the street pattern and traffic calming strategies proposed for West Village including traffic circles and circuitous routing via forced right and left turns. The circuitous routing and traffic circles accomplish three objectives: 1) they require drivers to slow to maneuver through the turn or circle; 2) the circuitous routing increases the distance through West Village which adds to travel time; and 3) they present a complex route for any through traffic and thus reduce the utility and convenience of these streets as a potential shortcut. Of the two objectives, the most important is the slowing of traffic that contributes to longer travel times within the new development. TJKM used the trip generation from Urban Systems Associates for each of the Planning Areas (as recently updated due to reductions in the number of residential units in some of the Planning Areas). Only those trips to and from the north (on Edinburgh Drive and on Glasgow Drive) from West Village Planning Areas are shown in Table 1 and Table 2, including trips to Hope Elementary School and Calavera Hills Middle School. School trips are included within these totals. Table 1 relates to the 1,122 dwelling unit plan and Table 2 on the next page relates to the 1,154 dwelling unit plan. They are valid for both circulation schemes - with and without the local access connection to Tamarack Avenue. It should be noted that Urban Systems Associates added trips on top of those presented in Table 1 to be conservative. TJKM used trip generation rates from the standard reference, Trip Generation, 7th Edition. The trips shown in the various USA reports in June through September 2006 overstate the amount of actual traffic to be expected from West Village. The park trips, the school trips, etc. would normally be considered simply as part of the daily totals shown in Tables 1 and 2. The proportion of trips to and from the north from West Village Planning Areas that would use Edinburgh Drive and Glasgow Drive without traffic calming in West Village was estimated to be 12 percent of all West Village vehicle trips in the Urban Systems Associates' June 15, 2006 updated traffic study (page 3, last paragraph). The trip generation rates shown in Tables 1 and 2 are 12 percent of total trips. TABLE 1: WEST VILLAGE TRIP GENERATION TO THE NORTH (12% OF TOTAL) 1,122 DWELLING UNITS Plan Area 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Use SF SF SF MF MF SF SF Commercial Units 82 25 61 201 186 34 37 na Daily Trips Per Unit 10 10 10 6 6 10 10 2925 TOTALS Daily Trips To/From The North 98 30 73 145 134 41 44 351 916 Once the number of trips to and from the north are calculated in Tables 1 and 2, the next step is to evaluate which route drivers from each of the planning areas will take assuming traffic calming and circuitous routes. This step in the analysis is the primary difference in the methods used by TJKM and those used by Urban Systems Associates. The estimates by Urban Systems Associates are based upon an average 45 percent reduction from calming V?7 Mr. Brian Milich September 7, 2006 12 projects throughout the United States. The method used by TJKM is based upon the theory that drivers will take the shortest time route to and from a destination. TABLE 2: WEST VILLAGE TRIP GENERATION TO THE NORTH (12% OF TOTAL) 1,154 DWELLING UNITS Plan Area 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Use SF SF SF MF MF SF SF Commercial Units 82 15 60 " 201 186 34 31 na Daily Trips Per Unit 10 10 10 6 6 10 10 2925 TOTALS Daily Trips To/From the North 98 18 72 145 134 41 37 351 896 The TJKM analysis follows the specific procedure below: • We assumed drivers will always use the shortest time route between the start of their trip (origin) and where they are going (destination). • The trips in Tables 1 and 2 are those trips in the West Village Planning Areas that would use Edinburgh Drive and Glasgow Drive if there were no traffic calming in West Village, because they represent the shortest distance and fastest route. • The alternative routes are (the reverse is also true - the "to" direction of a trip from the north): o from a Planning Area north to either Glasgow or Edinburgh o from a Planning Area south to Lisa/El Camino Real, to Tamarack/El Camino Real to Carlsbad Village Drive/Tamarack Avenue o from a Planning Area out to Tamarack Avenue (local access circulation alternative) to Tamarack Avenue/Carlsbad Village Drive • Overall travel times between each Planning Area and Carlsbad Village Drive/Tamarack Avenue were calculated on this basis: o Tamarack Avenue - between signals = 45 mph (66 feet per second). o El Camino Real - between signals = 55 mph (80.67 feet per second). o Edinburgh and Glasgow = 30 mph (44 feet per second). o West Village streets between calming devices = 30 mph (44 feet per second). o Specific delays were added for each calming device (10 seconds - see Appendix E). o Specific delays for specific movements were added as calculated by Synchro (see Appendix F). o The resulting travel times are shown in Figure 6.(same calculations as in Figure 5) o Note that there are no average speeds of 55 mph on El Camino Real, or 45 mph on Tamarack Avenue, because the average speeds are a function of both the freely flowing traffic between signals as well as the added travel times due to congestion and delays for specific movements at signals. • Trips to and from Planning Areas were assigned to the shortest time route. Note that Planning Areas front on West Village streets in more than one location, so in some Planning Areas, some of the trips were assigned to the north, and some of the trips were assigned via El Camino Real/Tamarack. • Delays at signals were based upon the analysis of 2030 volumes in the September 1, 2005 traffic report. LEGEND •—^ Arterial • •• •• Shortcut AM (PM) Signal Delay ToHwy-78 NOTE: To calculate total travel time, add the free flow segment times plus intersection delays. Calculations shown on Appendix F. A— »-B Arterials AM PM Glasgow AM PM Edinburgh AM PM 5' 23" 5' 3" 6' 27" 6' 41" 5' 39" 5' 53" B— »>A Arterials AM PM Glasgow AM PM Edinburgh AM PM 3' 11" 3' 17" 5' 51" 5' 56" 5' 24" 5' 29" ROBERTSON RANCH Tof-S if NORTH Not to Scale City of Carlsbad Robertson Ranch Comparison of Travel Times Existing Vs. Colony/ West Village With Calming Figure 6 289-001 - 9/8/06 - GK Mr. Brian Milich September 7, 2006 14_ \ - • Finally, the above procedure is the same as used by the author in the traffic calming projects in the City of Campbell and San Leandro while employed by those cities, and subsequently on traffic calming projects as a consultant at TJKM. In all cases the predictions of volumes, traffic speeds and driver behavior were quite close to actual experience, before and after implementation of traffic calming strategies. In all cases with before and after data, drivers responded to changes in travel time between alternative routes. Basically, drivers appear to notice differences in travel time when the difference is as low as 30 seconds. Appendix E describes the field observations of the effects of right turns and traffic circles on travel speeds. The idea in the traffic calming strategies for West Village is to require drivers to maneuver around sharp right angle turns and around typical traffic circles. Without these turns and traffic circles, a driver moving at 30 mph (44 feet per second) will travel 440 feet in 10 seconds. Our observations of drivers on streets where normal traffic is 30 mph show that it takes drivers 20 seconds to travel 440 feet if they need to go around a corner or around a traffic circle. The traffic calming devices proposed for West Village-will add up to 90 seconds for the route connecting to Glasgow Drive, and up to 90 seconds for the route connecting to Edinburgh Drive. Figures 7 A and 7B show the estimated daily volumes on Glasgow Drive and on Edinburgh Drive without and with a local access connection to Tamarack Avenue extending west from Planning Area 3 with the 1,122 dwelling unit scenario. Figures 8A and 8B show daily volumes on Glasgow Drive and on Edinburgh Drive without and with a local access connection to Tamarack Avenue extending west from Planning Area 3 using the 1,154 dwelling unit scenario. There is one other comparison of significance. Note that Figure 6 shows overall travel times for a driver wishing to drive all the way through The Colony and West Village from Tamarack Avenue/Edinburgh Drive to go south on El Camino Real. This "shortcut" would avoid the additional distance and time in congestion at the signal at Tamarack/El Camino Real. However, as can be seen in Figure 6, the shortcut travel time is between 5 minutes 24 seconds and 6 minutes 41 seconds, while the travel time to go around via Tamarack Avenue and El Camino Real is between 3 minutes 11 seconds and 5 minutes 23 seconds, averaging 83 seconds less than Edinburgh and 105 seconds less than Glasgow as seen in Figure 6. The travel times are fairly close in the a.m. peak between the arterial route and Edinburgh. The complexity of the Edinburgh route will tend to minimize the potential for cut- through traffic. In the a.m. peak hour, however, some non-local traffic may use Edinburgh/West Village in lieu of Tamarack and El Camino Real. Of the two potential types of new traffic on streets of The Colony, only traffic to and from West Village is likely to use The Colony streets. Traffic calming strategies, as assumed in this report, result in a 37 to 53 percent reduction in potential West Village traffic in The Colony. This calculation can be illustrated in this example: take the total potential West Village trips to and from the north from Figure 2B (896) and compare that with the forecast increase for Edinburgh and Glasgow in Figure 8A (1,565 + 1,040 - 1,200 - 900 = 505 added vehicles). The proportion of 505/896 = 56 percent, so the reduction is 100 percent less 56 percent = 44 percent. The greatest reduction is 53 percent for the 1,154 Dwelling Unit alternative with the Tamarack Connection (Figure 8B), and the least effective is the 1,122 Dwelling Unit alternative without the Tamarack Connection of 37 percent (Figure 7A). The estimates in Figures 7A through 8B are calculated without any traffic calming strategies in The Colony. Simple measures such as traffic circles at four-way intersections in The Colony would induce an additional 30 seconds of travel time on Edinburgh. Should these measures be implemented, traffic would be greatly reduced on Edinburgh. With traffic calming on Edinburgh in The Colony (specific strategies would need to be determined through the city's standard process), traffic on Edinburgh in Figure 7A would be reduced to 1,270, in Figure 7B to 1,280, and in both Figures 8 A and 8B, Edinburgh traffic would be 1,262. Total percent reduction in West Village traffic traveling into and through The Colony would be reduced between 73 and 87 percent from the total potential increase. The travel time on local streets between Tamarack Avenue and Avenue Z/Lisa Avenue ranges from 16 seconds to almost 3 minutes greater, even with the long delays for left turns at Tamarack Avenue and El Mr. Brian Milich September 7, 2006 75 i. Camino Real. These reductions can be made without closure of the connections between The Colony and the planned extensions of Colony streets through West Village. The planned traffic calming strategies will work to discourage West Village traffic nearest El Camino Real and Lisa from using internal streets to go to Tamarack/Carlsbad Village Drive and beyond. The arterial route is faster for Planning Areas 3, 7, and portions of 8 and 11. Typically, Planning Areas 5 and 6 are oriented to Glasgow, while portions of Planning Areas 8 and 11 plus all of Planning Areas 9 and 10 will use Edinburgh to go north. ToHwy-78 ROBERTSON RANCH Tol-S NORTH Not to Scale City of Carlsbad Robertson Ranch FigureTotal Daily Volumes in The Colony with Traffic Calming in _ . West Village 1122 Dwelling Units - No Tamarack Connection 'A 289-001 - 9/7/06 - GK ToHwy-78 NORTH Not to Scale City of Carlsbad Robertson Ranch Total Daily Volumes in The Colony with Traffic Calming in West Village 1122 Dwelling Units - With Tamarack Connection Figure 289-001 - 9/7/06 - GK ToHwy-78 ROBERTSON RANCH Tnl-K ii NORTH Not to Scale City of Carlsbad Robertson Ranch Figure Total Daily Volumes in The Colony with Traffic Calming in ~ . West Village 1154 Dwelling Units - No Tamarack Connection"^ 289-001- 9/7/06 - GK To Hwy-78 ROBERTSON RANCH Tat-a NORTH Not to Scale City of Carlsbad Robertson Ranch Total Daily Volumes in The Colony with Traffic Calming in West Village 1154 Dwelling Units - With Tamarack Connection Figure 289-001 - 9/7«8 - GK Mr. Brian Milich September 7, 2006 20 i. The Colony residents closer to Edinburgh Drive and Tamarack Avenue are still likely to use the arterial routes because the circuitous routes in West Village coupled with the traffic circles will continue to represent a longer travel time - in other words, the new streets in West Village are no travel time "bargain" to residents in The Colony, excepting those closest to West Village in similar fashion to trips to and from Planning Areas 9 and 10. It is our opinion that resulting daily volumes in The Colony will be further reduced by some Colony residents using West Village streets. By heading south for shopping or to just go south on El Camino Real, these trips will be subtracted from the estimates in Figures 7A through 8B. TJKM did not make an estimate of the use of West Village streets by residents of The Colony. Findings The traffic calming strategies that add to travel times on internal streets ultimately reduces the amount of new traffic through The Colony. • The proposed traffic calming strategies for development in West Village will be effective in eliminating cut through traffic in The Colony. The "shortcut" northbound is between 16 seconds to almost 3 minutes longer than using El Camino Real and Tamarack Avenue, and only in the a.m. peak hour is the southbound "shortcut" even close to the arterial travel time. At other times of the day, the southbound route through The Colony and West Village will be 1 to 2 minutes longer. • The proposed traffic calming strategies for development in West Village will also serve to discourage 37 to 53 percent of all West Village traffic from using streets in The Colony depending upon the alternative that is implemented. • It is the opinion of TJKM that the estimates by Urban Systems Associates for traffic reduction due to traffic calming strategies are reasonable and valid, and most likely conservative. • Our estimates of total daily traffic on Edinburgh and Glasgow including all West Village traffic (all purposes including school trips) are shown in Figures 7A through 8B. Detailed data and calculations, plus basic modeling data attached in appendices. Also attached is a paper written and presented to the Institute of Transportation Engineers in the annual meeting of District 6 in Portland, Oregon in 1994. The use of traffic calming to manage traffic in neighborhoods is well established as effective, and has been practiced since the early 1970's throughout the United States. Very truly yours, c £<-*< **-— Gary E. Kruger, P.E. Principal Associate Attached Appendices Appendix A: Gary Kruger Qualifications Appendix B: Calculation of Non-Local Cut Through Traffic Potential in The Colony Appendix C: Traffic Calming Paper of Diverting Cut Through Traffic Out of Neighborhood Appendix D: City Council Report, City of Campbell Regarding Diversion of Cut Through Traffic Appendix E: Field Observations of Travel Time Increases Due to Calming Devices Appendix F: Synchro Reports Regarding Signal Delays Appendix G: Analysis Data in Project Model j:\jurisdiction\c\carlsbad\289-OOI\l090706_report.doc 49? APPENDIX A - GARY KRUGER QUALIFICATION "; x_:';"-, ;-^"ll> :f:'S<?r^^^ ^iH^^-'fc. v-s^ / -".W -=--. ^!y-: :-;o*^ =I:^L.: •'-" ''<;;_--;'?'-:': V.^%r^''^T"v^llS^^J^ ": :?\' :; ~,i=:v-- ":J/:"li^";j--'; ;jr"^iS-'" 1; .•£ ^Ci^^fe^i^li&Slifei'^ft^&.SlSlS0Ai|llpUp|i£i^ BACKGROUND . . ..Qary Krugetfta^ ability ^e^i^e_£^^^K^ V^ improvement QDnorttrnitiec nvra^;^.. *_ x.__- .ri. -.-.- ' " ---'-"- ---? = -' - -- ! .jj. ' *.J7>> ^,-J * * - - ^^ -r ; - --. , . - - ^r --— * ~ -i.__T w«[»«^ vp iill v, ^ Ml 1V4W vJl •• - •:-:-" - • -, ^9^^?' Villanova, ^ V % r . !mProyement;oppprtunities^:r^P6nsetotranspbhafidn needs%-: ': :>: •:--' "'-ifef*^' -"^.^' -". ^ar;6".-' =;^::rtcan?learly=pprtrayThdvdhdse improvem^hficaH b2sK = "•,-: ^ r---?^^^'7r: >«:^-' i ,-'0;r-M- '^P!^^nM^%sfe^iy-?,^p|Ji6nfe|^S^||^ '!,- =.-; - ^?q^ativeiHinahcing Shohf -=-, -~;,:;^^^^'S^'fteanWW^^^^fnu^ ---: --.-•'' £ourae.UC .Extension s^.^-'-.. , -;--<-oavB involved difficult public issues; ;Hq has exfensiw "-^^ J - " .,*,../,"---" ^ /^T^^h^^n^^^n^^ndpubncac^ . . ,Mr- j<ru9^s background includes:22 1-'i: ^/^^feflgfflaent'Sighai^"- /~i:;'-'1 .:-•:- ' ^ « J. r«K ^ ^vft~ -a. <5 *• --^-' ^r^'V^o- >-u ',. --- ,_ fc-"-•- i '-,-', =».'lvr3nanfimonf.Dr-n(-ti~.^,-, --'s1 3'," - r '- r "' -"i"-:-'""'$•'"•-- -'"."'^f^^^l^-t.^;"'^,''"-'''!'" '1'^-t''"•'-^ -;;=' -:- --::=."' ,-;-'• lry,,:=*i; ^"^fss|cSiALf>;^"^ ;^- ;"^: ':%^R^RJP^N^fyE;PRpjEcrs '.' -• ':"j,;-T' 'i-J'^AIFIilLlA^pN'sf^^-"^'-^^^^^^^ ^:^reevvay^Corr^ors-":H^vli:1'L-rr'r'J:-,-; -- >! ---:,: '-v-=.\-"-"-i- -r -:--"; - -:. S- ft^'^^^^&Xiri^itO^^t-V'^;.'/':'= ^ 1-J^80 %ah:^pdnc^pjtf o^era«Sst^^- -'V^^ '-"- -'.'=•.,-• ::'>ran^PP^onEngineers," -"\=;;.=: L: "-. -ipleasanfpn":anc(;A[arnedaCounty"r-'-= = -~: -: • *'^.^':': :"'"•'-l J; "^:-^>H^;;^%^:;v\^/;^;^^ -i"^^1/;;" -^^T^^i^-SP^Jfic^^drrido £:.-"Y :' = -.-^K-,-:":/9^^^en3!^^fc>r^''::,"i: ] J;:.:i -"-'. T :"/ .^e,^2 ^PM?us'Corrido^S^^^ 1.'"-.L " = ' 'ComrHMflft. Minn-i'QiaK_'ra'ci-T-'',"".•"--•'.!s"-" •" Contra"Grista nhfrnHao"-- ;--=.-:" ',=" ' .=• - . ava_- ~ " - --'' . V;. :i•;"--':S;SS'.i '' \ -->-"--"--^3' ^v:l'--, V -' ;=-'[;68^^jpHn%trnenf Study,Phases I &"if Alanieda r':r'-": -: "^ '"'. : ulfa,a-QonsprtiumfQr; '4^--'; /:: ,-:'-" Santa Clara ahcl GoritraQosta Counties -''- '-'-' - -r%:='=:: -"" ^^ayjoitiat^es;,;.;" r: ^YfA*.. ^^^^^^m^^^^j^^c^m^'^^---: ^by^^v--:^:,; ;;& -S^SI^pg^op^fas^^-^-- V^prlcl-Coriferericeon ;r V i- •; 1-7 ..•-. * '-"-''liswelling Boufe'vard Improvement**--Phaooi i s n oJ 'a ^: '•'' ^r^orfFtesea^h; iy!en?be^--.'->---.lorenzb:^-'L?;-:.:v5= -°^!??^.?9^.W!-'San^ ::•:-^ 1^!^'-V"-V-:/-'..^ ' ;:-.>-.-: ^-.--: Washingtdh;Avenueintercrtariaes:Alam«Ha^ "-"-'- ;.- GarykrugerCuirent.doc it^" -'"- •.•-.,--.•• .,3-'£- ; /• -- --='••' -: ----- -••.'- "•vvf^nipowi aignai, interconnect ,(25 signals with -1-'' --.c .; r-^*98&3^Traffc'Engineer^ 'V' ^ t^-??lon^^tware):> ; , ; \ . :8-;;*WWli;- ' ,f":i:; '-:-' City^fCampbefl^ = ^- '. ^=~-:" --^^^^nalTirning/lVlanteca^ : -=^""- ^r.fvv.c ./ 1<;L. :>.-• •.•-T/f.-j."'"'" Vi*. c.^V*. '-" ^"^I'^^W^^-^S^'^TOe^internaievafaa^ ': ,\;^ >; -" 49^988,.Sr;,F%rtner;"crain• ' - ?~ ;-' ::?u — nc®in?erXal^PS'an'^flgp.tJf-flree&fflid^iloW1: "" ' " - ; _v -.; 5 -®??asa"s!W^ . I >-../. V. . Traffic; Studies, J&ffti Calming bn^ii Pn^^,^^ ,:.;^ ;; ^'-^^i^.Srl.F^rtn^'daln1^--'. --;'; r- , .& Asshciafes ; ,. *--:p,"" JL ! """^i * >'i ^ - ^ — ,rT-" - ^""T? ii\* -' - I-. J., if lw'l&Oi&QriT' "I—J til- D «J 1*1 *- — -^-- • —^^» • (*bJ ^ "'• -r:' ^QSQjigss^ianaglr dfV-\j =T-'- "V^•S^^^^i^^'^^^^^--' ; ::.J?,;\ Transpoctation^larJnihg - ; ^-•-^•' V.^ ". Jgndro.-EICernto'-.- .7. ,.;;;'- --..:;=- =J.. vi:,-? /=-^" ; _;:v .-;l " WifseylHanr }&•*'*'/•-'"' ~^:-. . aF viF;'^ld*owr\(parl<'nS,Access^CirculationStudV'^PabAlt^-":^ "' V :!r - .c J'--,-:";. -,.-..-v:v-.v -: -:=i:, :^^--'-^^|ossom.HinTraffic\cWmlnfl:i'1^i"ftat^,J 7 £'e .r^=?:-"";--""-" tation Plan; Colorado^ C>V^E- , in Campben (accident mdu'ction) - ; •=^»-.-,:: 1|65^t§^r>rransp:6rta1i6nX ^: -" ^ :="->'-1- ^'^^accident^atabase)^ ;' •'"::-a-=^-.:v?^^t- -- • - ? "--' ' '- - '"• raffiaEffets, Analsi ^»-.-,:: 1|65^t§^r>rransp:6rta1i6nX ^: -" ^ :="->'-1- ^'^^accident^atabase)^ ;' •'"::-a-=^-.:v?^^t-'-:,- . -- • ?r . :PMrin^PaFsdn& - ? I- ":--'^: '. >,:'- -- ;.'"•- JraffiaEffepts, Analysis of rPortJand Transit Malflportlind " ' - /.'• -;V-. ^ijf^rhoff^Pi^rgh.PAre"" :^v^ _; -* ^ - \'"~^^'~" ,. „ " -. " * " -f"-" " V- V """" "" - 0^*""'9tQn "- . , = ."." 1-"^ -" " :" , -- " "i '_;"-:T"V = - -=-•", = w='-f: :i^4^5^Traffic^^:: ^"^\- :\I= =*; ^!° ^ — V^ -.: =• r 'Ehgfn^ring^ssistaht,cityof - ".-': ^ ^^^^^wfthin.dbwntowriSeattl^ ' -tf™Wof -' "Seattl . - *- . Engineering Assistant;>resno:; = '-"-: -<:-.---:rt>?Q •"i'-='^?^ ^!" t- />- "' =i .lf. .">-'.. .-; :C5tinty. •-: - -- :-.- :?,-- :"•!:=-:' " : o*P-sufvey, Before/After Free Transt Serie -l-y'*-':#^-^ y'./.v:v;-?;.^. ^:;^::^»ftr^?arking>naarCulati0n-s^d| .1-1 HONORS AND! AWARDS; 5V " - - ,4 .Street Garage Access and Circulation- Study/Sari Ise '•' - ' r ' ' " "' ': '" "'" ' " •"' '' " '''-'- ' •T-.=*-.-.,"- , - • i,- . ..-: . - ---..-: --!,-•"-, - .--: - Hv7--t-= "-' -1 -- -- --,- - •.- , - ;'r=-i: * i-r.-tr.f-j *--.-_,-. . . , •-:,,> M..J,, .J \ .t: .,-<• - : --f-,-j>. .= -••;=. -'- -„,-,_ L--,-•!,- ? .--^i-' -'"- ,1 -;-•-• - -- ,-.-.•-• -:-.'-^, -., ii, "i-sf,:, --*-,9.-* U-,.. - a. - ^f^r^n^i^^^vr';:^r^fh*S4\^^^ toumat District 6iTE' " > ."'"":' ' .:% ^^•"1. "J <'" ' = - =:"-:'" =: V"'":; - i"1" "'::'"'!Ci:-7'^',- "d? '*>.- ^'/'._/ *• . — -s F 3 -L"1; -- .' _ i- ... a - , a .'•!-.- -" ,''«-__ :- ' -„--"•- v!!r v.;- ,-/9«2 -:.' . JTEJaurnal, . ; ^warof ,'."•-..', -Oary'KrugerCurrent.doc •]'-'- ?-"-;' ^"" ;.., .::".-' "; -,=.-":--•.-.= ----.-- -v- ==-?" --'- • s -,-- ^-iv-=^v,ir :'? =.t;-•=,!.,.Pagee •'": '• ';:,-":;-, //?/ APPENDIX B - CALCULATION OF NON-LOCAL CUT THROUGH TRAFFIC POTENTIAL IN THE COLONY Carlsbad Village LO Dr. T LEGEND 27(37)-^ c\ sent*CO received ( 1 •CO" CDC\I- — - CO 1 "•— 'LOLOcochin COx-CN 10(33)-> t o received CDCN Non-Local WB to SB am: (|g) X 143 = pm:(l||)X172 = t o" CsJ sent Non-Locai NB to EB am: X 59 = 59 Pm: (f2?) X Assume: am peak = 9% ADT pm peak = 10% ADT 19%/100% = 5.26 factor Daily Traffic: WB—*SB = 5.26 X (81 +89) = 895 NB -*EB = 5.26 X (59+151) = 1105 59 (267) XX AM Peak Hour Volume (XX) PM Peak Hour Volume f oo EI Camino Real NORTH Not to Scale City of Carlsbad Robertson Ranch Traffic Counts for: Transportation Analysis for Robertson Ranch, September 1, 2005. Figures 3-5 and 3-6 Appendix R ° 289-001- 6/29/06 -GK APPENDJXB j . METHODOLOGY FOR ESTIMATING SHORTCUT TRAFFIC DEMAND i " . TJKM used the 2005 traffic turning movement counts in Transportation Analysis for Robertson ' j Ranch, dated September 1, 2005. Figures 3-5 (Existing a.m. peak traffic) and 3-6 (Existing p.m. i peak traffic) were used. i There are several assumptions in this method: ! 1. The traffic "sent" from the intersection of Carlsbad Village Drive/Tamarack turning left to southbound El Camino Real is in direct proportion to the proportion of left j turns from Tamarack to southbound El Camino Real. ' 2. The proportion of northbound El Camino right turns to the total traffic "sent" from Tamarack Avenue to the intersection of Carlsbad Village Drive/Tamarack Avenue is in direct proportion to the total traffic "received" at Carlsbad Village Drive at Tamarack Avenue. For examplejf 25 percent of all traffic sent form El Camino Real at Tamarack is from northbound El Camino Real right turns, then 25 percent of all , traffic received at Tamarack/Carlsbad Village Drive is from these right turns. j 3. The typical a.m. peak hour proportion to daily traffic is 9 percent. j 4. The typical p.m. peak hour proportion to daily traffic is 10 percent. 5. To estimate total daily traffic from the sum of a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic, you i take the reciprocal of 19 percent times the combined a.m. and p.m. peak volumes, or j 5.26 times this volume. 6. The inference is that drivers heading towards El Camino Real/Tamarack from the i intersection of Tamarack/Carlsbad Village Drive and turn left are drivers that would | use a shorter route if it were provided, such as a direct connection from either Glasgow Drive or Edinburgh Drive to El Camino Real/Lisa. 7. The inference is that drivers traveling north on El Camino Real and passing Lisa | Avenue, then turning right onto Tamarack Avenue to Tamarack/Carlsbad Village j Drive, are drivers that would use a shorter route if one were provided between Lisa/El Camino Real and Tamarack /Edinburgh. j 8. The combination of these patterns is the estimated daily "demand" for a shortcut j . through The Colony if a continuous route existed. APPENDIX C - TRAFFIC CALMING PAPER OF DIVERTING CUT THROUGH TRAFFIC OUT OF NEIGHBORHOOD Campbell's Eeleclie" Approach to Neighboriiood Traffic Control ;" .'_ Gasy E. Krugar, PJB., City Traffic Engineer, Campbell, CA ; ' "_ _ CAMPBELL HAS A REPUTATION IN SILICON VALLEY \ " . - The City of Campbell is notorious throughout Silicon Valley as a community that uses innovative: and nontraditionaJ. engineering asd enforcement .strategies for cotstroiliag craffic. The zky recsived the 1993 Helen Putnam Award of Excellence "for Public Safety for its creative ecforcement pro-gram which includes photo radar, citizen radar, "a radar trailer, radar. drones and "Officer Gregory' (a mannequin dressed as an officer in a parked police car). On the engineering side, die city has installed speed humps, traffic circles, median islands, a woonerf and traffic divsrters 10 reduce cut- through ana speeding traffic or. local access streets.. T&e city's approach is sdscric in feat staff ia police sad engineering sre aware of a diverse range of enforcement aod engineering strategies to address is^igfeborhaod traffic problems ~!E cities throughout the Wast. Almost anything goes, hat the sniphasis is or. matching the correct strategy to the problem. This paper will discuss a succsssful project in detail, the Cenlra! Avenue Neighborhood Traffic Mitigation Program, and will also discuss work in progress in two otfiar neighborhoods. CAMPBELL RECOGNIZES-FOUR TYPES OF NEIGHBOR BOOD TRAFFIC PROBLEMS Campbell characterizes neigbbortiood-traffi; problems as four geaerai tj-pes; i. A rterial Cut-Through TrarTie. TOere jonimuters use local streets to avoid congestba. 2. %eed?ng. which can bs integral with thfi first probisan, but can also appear alone on ' reiffljveiy low-vviiusie local access scrasts - this is the most coEtunon problaai. 3. Truck Ip.tnis.ion. a problssr. wb;ch is especially stimulated by sirip commercial, raediar! - - isiands and inappropriate mixes at land uses. 4. Cornmgreial .Parking- Spil ; -nver. which is t&s result of land use decisions of long ago wfiich did not anticipate modern parking demand, or of strip commercial along artsriais with single family-land use -directly bertha the conuBerciaJ uses. The demand by residents foe "doing somsthlng about this awful trafrl-- mess" is KisraHy on infinite quantity. As wiih odier tragic ajatrol devferss/ neighborhood trarlfis conditions shouicbe evaluated with scnie sort of warrant system that sets mliHrnBai thrasbolds fer official .action. la Campbell, we have developed the following thresholds to determine -wbe&sr 2 tranic condition in * neighborhood is a "pr^biem" warranting fartiier invasiigatlos and -acuon by star^: » Voiurr.es Crazier than 1,200 vehicles per day on local accesi strsais aad greatsr than 4,000 vehicles per day on minor colfectars ars signs ef cut-through traffic. H 85th percentile. speeds greater thsa 30 mph indicate a speeding problem. * Truck volumes excsedicg 1% of all traffic on-[ocaj access streets (about run psr day.) indicarc a need ty restrict iru± access on local access strsats. - , a " _ Parking occupancy zt the curb greater than 75%-fQt over 6 hours per day is an -indicator of ~ commercial parking spill-over (in tlirs city with ' generally sufficient- oft" street residential parking). " ; BEST In many instances we find Tnors than one of tha above criteria met. In cases where more than one-warrant is met, the problem receives a higher priority. Each'type of problem receives a different type of. response. The natural response .to truafc and problems are routinely -routed to the police. For approximately ons year, the patics follow a schedule of ascalstins stratsfiss in order to control excessive speeds. The escalating actions arc: * ' P"*it_25 niph Speed and "Special Esfnrcarnear Area" Signs, which is a strategy to -catch the attestion of drivers -who Jiver b the '.area. ' " _~ - s Placemen'' of the Radar Trailer, is which the trailer is parked for a week or two each month over several months in -fee neighborhood with no other police presence. Speeds are monitored, sad if they are reduced to acceptable Isvsis (say 85dj peccentiie of 30 rape or lower), there is no farther action. Only one in -five neighborhood traffic problems persist bsyoad this step. 8 Citizen Radar and the Radar Trailer, in whicb several radar gams are loaned to residents (who are trained and also sign sn agreement with "the city regarding appropriate behavior), who then observe traffic at critical times and report tL-ne and Hcsnse -number of flagrant violators- Each "violator" then receives- a lattsr from the chief of police mfonaing them ±sy v«re obsarvsd by their neighbors driving sxcessiveiy fast, s Radar Trailer and Photo Radar/ is used .when iasser efforts do no: result in desired -radiicnons la speed. These ars used o^sr a three month period, and, if "signiticsnt numbsrs of citations are !ssae4, thers is usuaHy a periaacent redaction (aver one year) in escassjve speeds. - a! Engjo«ering- Exairtingjon. a scs thar is toi;ss _only when ail education and enforcement efforts have obviously failed. The city emphasbes education anc enforcement 10 encourage appropriaoj driving behavior on; residential streets', but Li instances of severe ou-tiirough iraftfc, these alone have not proves to be completely effective. If cae problem goes through ail the steps above and remans a prabbm, ±s cky then, pursues arafnc engineering strategies. Hie Central Avenue Neighborhood Traffic Mithprfoa Program is a good example of the pracsss. - . THg_CjE?rrRAL AVENITE NE^HBQRHOQD ..TRAFFIC MfTFGATION; .PRD - Frctn I9SO until 19SS the residsots of Centra! Avenas, a half-nsfie miriar coHacwr, had petitioaed city council at feast five rlnies "to reduce traffic volumes aiid speeding an this popular short cut route 10 and from Route 11 freeway." The city had responded with stepped up enforcement all-way stops almost progranTuntil 199Q, aad the steps taken from 1980 to 19SS were auemms to be responsive to the residents and yet not go appreciably beyond ssndard controls in the Caltrass rngjjc Manual. The look-at what was going-cm in. the neighborhood. ; The petition laid out the issues ratfasr clearly: I) traffic voiumss of 6,000 vehicles per day OB a 36 foot wide street were just too high for 2. quality neighborhood; 2} truck volumes and noise ware too high; 3) some drivers were crazy and were driving at freeway speeds - and this was very disruptive; and 4)"[he existing controls didn't"work, and were therefore a nuisance. What the,petitioners.,wadted was to . close virtually all streets in the .nsigSborhoooV or make the streets some land of one-way "maze" thaf " would confound the cut-through drivers.. . " " ' . " - City traffic .staff determined to carefully measure and quantitative; y assess the true -extent of these issues. Accordingly, and this turned oui to~bs the roost important aspect of the entire project, a data collection effort more appropriate to a'fresway bypass route was undertaken. In due roughly one quarter square mils area, staff made"weak-long directional volume counts on each block, collected both radar sjjaed checks as well as week-loaf mac&ine speed and! classification counts on each black, evaluated isn years of traffic accident and traffic volume data as the neighborhood streets as weii as the surrounding arterials, and completed a roadside origin-destination survey of oae-fourth of all entering- and exiting traffic on all streets in ths neighborhood. Speed and delay tuns were made on the alternate arterial rause as well as on the neighborhood short cut routes, snd service requssts, work ordars and all correspondence ware compiled from 19SC to 19SS. - " The findings were astauisdieg: ss Volumes in the neighborhood streets, ami especially on Centra! Avenue, had grown is almost direct proportion to the vohinies'oa. the arterial"streets (about 1% per year from 1970 through" 19S8). and yst there had besa so significant dsvsioptneas wkhyi ths natghborhood. Traffic voiumss. were over 6,000 vehicles .par day on a strsst that gsaerated no mors than 2.000 vehicle trips daily,-aad were above 2,000 on many intarnaJ slraes. a . Acrident rasas w-ere quite Jow, caly 4-.5 accident per'nriliior, vahkfs miifjs xsf travsi. The all-way stops had no effect on accident rates ovsr the years. ; * Track voismss exceeded 200 daily, with at least 50 tractor-trails- rigs. a Avorag? speeds \vsrs 32 to 35 niph OB the rslativeiy narrow streets (for CarapbeJI), with S5th perjeotile speeds approacainf 40 niph. Thars wsrs at least 50 veliicias daily sxssoding 5C? mph oa Gsairal Avenue. « Spa«l? coaid only be coatroiisd for £ canpis of "days heyonu almost total poltca presence. a A iittls ovsr 50% of the !0,OCO vehid35 entering and leaving the neighborhood daily had nehhsr 211 origin rtor dssanation within live miles of tlie. naighborhood: thess ware classified as "through traffic.* " - . . Traffic engineering stsff Aen convened a gsrjsral nsighbotiood fassdng:. "Notices wsrs seat to aH residents in the netshborhood as well as residents in neighborhoods adjacent to the CeatraJ Avenue N'iighborhood. Tae masting- v/as w=II sEtendsl, and the results of-Jbe study were explained as well as alternative strstsgsas to mitigaie tha probteraK. At no tine were street closures or ose-way maze strategies sienticned a* acceptable, solutions: the city's policy preference was to 'save all streets open and two-way. Basically, ths short cut: saved about two minutes of commute travel titnc to and from tna ireew:iyf because intsrsections along -Kanylrnn Aveaue. ar.d WinchesterBoulavard operated at LOS F during morning, noon am! afternoon peaks. The idea presented to the residents was to add at least two niinutss of very uacomfortabb driving to the shortcut route to divert.'them back to the overloaded attends. A.? well, an analysis revealed thatsignals on the adjacent arterial routes could be effectively coordinated (time base) and retimed to save about 60 seconds of-travel time. The means to add the two .minutes .were traffic circles:, and speed hurags, but not ordinary speed humps! * =,- = .• .-r_. | --'=,-- •Traffic circles were proposed at several all-way stops, and they were to be constructed in such a way-to virtually fill the Intersectlan. forcing a slow ..negotiation around ths circle. Speed humps ware then placed about ISO fest from the rrztnc circles or other ail-way stops. Tile placement of the humps so ciose to the circles and stops guaranteed that drivers would creep between the humps and circles, and also creep around ths circles." Although ao? legally allowed nor enforceable, stop signs v^ere installed at .., —_ — - -- - j - - - - t - ^ , - dossers at Hamfltoc and Central. These cancans were-debated by the residents ia fte first/ana in ambulance services would be impacted by an additkroai 30 seconds on the average., hat they did not veto the. program, A mail-back survey revealed over 7Q5F- acceptance tc" implement a pilot study for six months deleted from the pilot project. Traffic staff predicted these deletions would ?ssalt la an additional 400 vehicles daily on* Monica" Lans, but this was not a persuasive argunaeat to those cssidgnis. Council stressed that the traffic problems from one strset shade not be displaced to another local street. In May, 1939, the temporary traffic controls- were placed. The. effect was immediate: speeds dropped to aaV.-erjge of 2! tnpfe with no speed ic the neighborhood greater than -30 raph. Volura.es dropped to 2.900 on Central at Hamilton wkftia a coup-is of days, and to lowdr Shan 1,000 one-half mile " to the north. Placement Qf truck restriction signs eliminated the track traffic, Some uut through traffic did relocate to Monica Lane, but the rssulting volumes rsmainsd under 1.2GO vshieles-per day, the threshold for dsf-ning a "orobism." Therefore, feom s. policy standpoint, fee pilot project did not "signincaatJj impact" fiearby streets. M-.-dis coverage was quits hif h during the satire pilot program, and many of the 3-.000 -iispla^sd comaimers w£sre sbis'to express both elegsat (and sornetimes inelesanrt objerdsas to the program m letters to ths editor of the Sa« /ose M^rcar>- .V«iw as well as in direct quotes to raportsrs covering the Issue. Suction in the neighborhood remained iiigjK, although chars were the inevitable adjustments. The on Cental Avenus. T»e hoif.3(wners adjacent to tfce hamps, however, wantsd chs humps relocatsd to 02 b frcat a "somsoae else's house.* A'.cbough saff bad contacted abusing property owners about ths" proposed tmrnps, it Wcanw necessar}' to make the hump location decisions on technical considerations scid'hold to ilietn, because no one wants extraordinary traffic controls ia treat fit their homes. Council, ia October. 1992 approved the permanent installatior. of the circles and speed humps (saas tlie stop stgns), and the Engineering Division dtaignsd aad manased ihe" construction of the nsrmsnent Lrnprovemenss in 1993. Traffic conditions have remsbed consistent with volumes and spesds recorded ju^t aftsr intdaiion of the pikit proj'-'ct. During the pilot program, a major horns improvements destinauon rataii ^fore was proposed and approved at" another of ths neighborhood intersections. Part of the project involved the installation of a traffic signal on the arterial", Hamilton A venue. .The signal provides advantageous access to-a'rnecered' freeway rainp, aad early on it was dsteriaiasd thar cat through'traffic would return with a vsngeance. ,Gne of the mingaaog nasswss was the construction of a very "expansive- woonerf (including two added - speed humps along the block approaching the signal) that was to serve to discourse cat through traffic The wponerf was installed at -fee same time the permanent -traffic controls W installed on Ontral Avenue, ana traffic volumes haw remained unchanged- ftgrn before construction of the store arid new SigluU. - - "• -. - ....... . * . ,1 "- .... "' : - There wsra several keys to the success -of thsprajsci; - • "" . B As analysis and diagnoses of all traffic concisions was nsade, including forecasts of fiksi « changes in traffic voitrrr.es sad speeds far each of several ai£2rnative~plass. ' • Specific traffic controls were designed to address "toe specific traffic conditions in the nsighooriood within carrais policy constrains (is., do not close streets and avoid coiaptea. one-way mazes). The controls were designed, axpilsftiy to remov- the aavajsage to short cutting through the neighborhood. The mission and objectives were ciear to all concerned, and the policies supported by -the city were vjcpUeir at all drees. ." Conditions as the surrounding arterials were improved to hath attract the short cat drivers as wdl as to accommodate their increased number wfthout further rsducing dis poor LOS on the arterials fsincs then otber improvamcats Save furussr improved °' CS from F K> D on Hamilton and Winchester). a The residents tiemandLng specific "salurions were waited ttao^h" toe facts r^ardis^ tra.nc, undarswod and believed the predictions of Siksly traSSc .impacts of ate^arv^ pxans, asd stipponed the staff recefflameadadon Jo councH. Sutvsvs were made of a!-2 " !iKe!y atfected residents, not just thoss living on the streets with a problem. ^ ^ Projects saca s this take as faordinats -amount of staff fcne, This proiec: not ine!udin«the oes.£n and conscracaon management work hy the Eaginesring Division, took appftKhnatafv 3000 feu^ o. v,^i.:rojn stan to tiassa, moa of which was in responding aad managing che comnmnicv oajcsss vith oata collecEioa ana aruysiS; requiring so raors cfeaa 40G hours, ' ... IN H> >yest>Pan-,ijatacJ3saas; In'ftis projea we also fauna ±at about 3S5B of all traffic oa &:s joca, access street ^vobntes approaching 5,000 vehicles per day} were through trips The str~t - &° bouiKiary_netweea Caaipbell and Los Gatos, and devdopmsat polides have not been coo^irat-d b*w*i me two ernes. Oa the Caa^bell side are single family, targe lot residential properties, while on the Los LJ3iOS Slflft !S 2 CQfnKHlJtltv hrt^nit-tj! - jTir-}nHm« ;?T »•—«.»>rra«,.., ,»».*~,_-,, . j;. _> . j-~ BEST alternative plans which have-been presented-TO the -residents' in' several community meetings .ait die hospital. Los Gatos and Campbell staff have doseiy cooperated is all aspects of the study. After eighteen months, the only plan acceptable to -the majority (about -70%) is "fee complete closure of West Pan- Avenue; The predicted dianges .in traffic show a decrease, ftqrn 5.000 vehicles per day to about'2,000- east of the closure, and i,400 west of the 'closure. The pilot project' is'to be six months in duration wife. a fbiIow-Ep survey of both .traffic changes and ' community opinion, taken the; fifth month afer implementation. The campiications in this project include the joint jurisdiction of two cities and the differing taad uses en tie "two sides of the street. The commercial ases, of course, warn the direct access, and the high volumes, speeds, tracks and emsrgsncy vehicles ars not seen as a problem. Ai She time this report is writiso, the Campbell City Council has approved a trial, six month closure subject to a similar resolution by taeLos Gatos Town Council. The. pilot project would be implemented through the simple placement of signs, and Type ffi barricades. Fire and police, but not ambulances enrxmts to the hospital (the emergency entrance is also accessible via z parallel arterial one block south), would be permitted to drive arouad tae barricades. Bascom ISTHA Mad tar; ami Arterial Imgrovamarsts: When ISTEA funds became available in 1952, ms city proposed a project oa Bascom Avenue (six lane arterisi with 55,000 vehicles daily) with several objectives.; I; install I'-vo new signals for pedestrian and neighborhood access unto and across ths busy arterial; 2) provide a median to reptacs the two-way [eft turn lane which is dirscdj- responsible for an accident rk&i more chan double the citywlde average for arterlats; 3) provide- class 0 Ink? Izass an-J faiks dstectior at all signals along the route; an<i 4) interconnect tae signals and implement traffic responsive coordination. Ths original objectives had iittisto do 'with nsigbhomood traffic. However, staff decided to notify all people:wlthin ons-half mils of Bascom on sithsc side throughoustas city, aad invited ji]l to scoping meetings at city hall in Decerabst,. 1992. Whac happened was astounding: over 100 angry residents for each of TA-O nigbs of meetings showed up 2s<i railed ar the prospect of aew signals fiirtfagr sncuuragsEg cuj through traffic on their streets. Staff took caratb! and copious notes and promised iiirthsr msedngs in January, 1993. Taa signal locations and median opsniags were rsdssignerf to provide only It-turn access to neighborhood streets to the east. Aa alternate strset on fee west side of Bascow within 200 feet of tbs originally proposed signal was chossn as a new signal location (fortunately, it met warrants). The foJlow-up meetings in January resulted in altsost unanimous cirben approval of the revised. desi^ii. "Before" studies have aireadj' besa taken IE this neighborhood. The project goes to corrstraction - in May, 1994 with completion scheduled in Noversber, 1994. "After" studies are scheduled for March, 1995 with a report back to fee cotnmuBfty by sanamer of 1995. CONCLUSION, • • Campbell has 2 neighborhood traffic program based upon successful prograrr,s irors man> othsr dries iiscludiag Seattle, Portland, Dsnvilk, Beilsvisa, and titi Orange County Sheriffs Department among others, Ths city has ao favcrsd traffic control device other tbari avoiding physiual ccnstrncdon and controls unril it fs demonstrated that eaocation'asd enforcemaat alone cannot do die job. la about 80% ofali rsquess coacsrmug saighbodiood traffic, the police response b ail tost is necessary. On the engineering side Sis city feas a u-arrant sysram for determining whether the problem is worthy of a response. "If there is a "problem," traffic engineering staff carefully defines the issues, measures and analyzes any traffic probisosvand then shops around for the best availabia set of strategies to match with tfa's problems- as defised. The city reaches out to~th3 residersU aad iavoive&-&ajn.in eacbst-^p, and also requires a sapac ipajorit>'.(6_7%) before authorizing pilot projects to control trarnc, because support for trafrlc coarrois arodes during the life of a. pilot project. This comprehensive and eclectic approach has; resulted in liaarJmcms couacif support for all project brought to djeca, and in" over 70% cotasnanrty support far miiiffatioc projects sitbsr cdinpleGd or La progress. BEST APPENDIX D - CITY COUNCIL REPORT, CITY OF CAMPBELL REGARDING DIVERSION OF CUT THROUGH TRAFFIC •"Itam: - . - -Category: Consent Calendar " . Date: June. 16, 1992 Si tie:Central Jtvenua neighborhood traffic Mitigation t Improvements -- Blass asc! -'Call Vote) Adopt ths^ attached Resolution authorizing the City Engineer to proceed with informal contracting procedures for the construction of permanent improvements for the Central Avenue Nsicrhfaorhood Traffic Mitigation program, BISCEJ3SIC5 . . Backcrcrjrtd. Staf f .made extensive studies in the neighborhood ever the past twelve years at the request of -the residents who disliked the speeding and cut-through traffic , Tfee amount of traffic central and traffic enforcement in the neighborhood «?as increased several times between -1980 and 19SS, all with little effect en excessive traffic speeds and cut-through traffic volumes. By 1SSS the staff - from residents from 198 0 on. In 1988 staff received two aore petitions stating, quite simply, that the added enforcement and stop signs had net had the "desired "effects f and demands were Bade for the city _ to close Central, Monica, Harrison -and Aisarida at Payne. . . " - . - Afrer new and comprehensive traffic studies, staff developed an alternative plan that reconanended additional all -way stops," speed humps and traffic circles to control speeds "and eliminate" the usefulness of tha neighborhood streets as a aos-jsuter short: cut. The added stop signs r hunps and circles were designed to add about two ninutas to the. "short cut," and eliminate all the streets as a convenient alternate ccntunirer route. . " - - After a public meeting attended by over 90 residents to review the staff's plan in February, 1989, a pilot program was approved by the City Council, and naw, temporary traffic controls sere" installed in May, 1589. As a result, traffic entering tha neighborhood- was reduced by 40%, and 90% of the cut-through" traffic was eliminated. The number of vehicles on Central was- 6,000 vehicles dailv south of David before the new traffic controls were installed . "After the installation of the stops, huiros and circles, traffic an Central declined to about 2,200 vehicles daily, "sore 'than a 50% decrease. As "of April 1, i992f voliiraos " on Central have reaained at 2,900 vehicles daily". - "-• " -• ~ BEST Central Avenue Neighborhood Traffic Mitigation June 16, 1992 permanent Improvements - Plans and Specifications Staff was made avare of" some minor prabisss with the teiaoc-rarv controls, and upon a follow-up study icada in the -fall of" 1989" staff held another public meeting in February, 1990 to determine whether changes in tha traffic controls should be mads, if any. As a result^ of that seating, staff reported" to council with the reconraended changes. The council concurred and agreed to remove one of trie circles and restore left -turns from southbound Mssrida onto Hssiltan. Council also decided to leave the remainder of the temporary controls in place for another year. Staff then conducted additional traffic studies in the fail of 1390 and reported the results to council in 'February, 1391. Council controls permanent. Council directed staff: 1J to ins-all permanent controls that u?ere taora aesthetic than the temporary controls, 2} to eliminate the step signs at the speed .hmaps, and 3} fee continue working wirh the residents of Caiitral, Monica and David to resolve e cor.tinuing concerns, A resii^f-s-/ in August., l?9I after the stop signs were reaov&i st tha huiaps/ revealed that traffic volumes did not increase. Opinion pells returned fron all but tvo residences of North Cervtrsl Avenue between David and .Harrison in October, 1351 shoved that a laras aajcrity of residents vishad to retain the humps and circles in place. Ovar 60% want -hath bumps in zhLs block to "stay. Tha arnenot: to relocate the southerly hump just rscrth. cf Harrison on Cantral was unsuccessful. Staff also rasurveyed Hcnica residents, and nc new controls ere desired by the aajcrity cf- residents en' Monica. The residents on David, however, still wish that David could be closed^ between Konica and central. Staff is con-^irraira to evaluate possible sieasuras far David Avenue. Staff nrososals will be &f-ouqh^ -o Council after aestings with affected residents for CouncU cons ic = rat i an, . Other than the David Avenue controls, staff racosrrends proceeiina with rhe parmaner.t installation of existing "controls OK Central! Diagrams 1 and ,2 showing the traffic circles, and Diagram 2 showing the bollards and modified curbs at the husas are attached, to this reoort. BEST June 16, IS92 Fiscal, ~M I S;\; are ttachments: Resolution Diagrams for Psrsa^nt I'-.^i—ro- *— ——-^ ^^rw.-enents. Central Avs, 5IST iisiw^sras ;; &• f ": : .:. j ;;i! 'iliri:: >» :; •': -Ji. :i" V-; ;=;: • • Hi! H 4:1 i:.:i V-j M^^i:a!(.^Sl^i^:*^ij*a- iiSSi^iSifi'SSyiJSfti^iiil^ iiiipjrnns^iisfjijijjij'ijjiiisniiijjii; aisiteioMlSiilWttfifjilt?:||M!::.a: ri-iihMiail^;!;:!^'-::*!!;1 :i?%j$$$%f^0, :('i ..:'••! j..'...?/.^!-'-: .S*1-. i:' "',: aW^.jV'i/i^i^iri.Sw:-.;EM ':; : s = -;i'.;-;; 5 : :« ->• si ;- :: --i :. ! n;::L<K'-!h/:j;iir!i:s:--=::-:.::ift|rir- fV:-;SHS^fiHiKiW^ti:1 pMJfl:'tavHltrf3;i'i.a:ii •fflpWi-WiaaiTl^irfkMi'fcljiJlffii;: iiJaft"!..(.j,p>asfti(:;i^:p :::';<Ej:;::ilh:5 \":l:":::,::=ll:i;K :';:-i.S;=.;:;Wf i,:f-:;a,; JlferiaiiiJKS 'i&:^5P^y{-H^iiiiiil ;!;.*"'^K,:' / A -\ 'TM..V l j.-:;;:nifi::;ifi-iar'iij :!;;i;im; XSvi&Jk p!^: J;.::';:iil!1i rRAFFIC_ CIRCLE/ STRIP ING- DETAI. DTAGRA.M 1 BEST "% 5 S I*I 1; I ( S - V..... >fc.JL jl . | " -- """',*"J" f. <-j^ ir ^\T« %-,! 159 f- _L. CJ_i o BEST DIAGRAM |i|||^||||^|l|| ue Traffic WHEREAS, the ci ^K6:;;;.ba^e3-g;i:fi^/enttes'!;Tr^fe| i^saEbt • &&£;: ifibo wpt?/ £v£J «^'Js 3' ^! :-* •s Rn s .f 1992, by the I--V. -,--J.,«:,...,.,, .,.:., ._^1;, „ ... •'-"<=« >Jg.^.g;: :"A.SSSNT^.:.:="• i";':.1?-:";': •:1!::!-'".';;:i;!:;:': ;:.;;;:;-::;-:;:-:i:i[r::\;:'V;.:::J::;J:": ;:lTTEST;;=: ,fi::ii:v.:fi:r(;iriW:Ci;;!;:;':;*PSpp:vsp :;:;Barb:a^:^^|;r::eifc^;:i:Cl^B^^ APPENDIX E - FIELD OBSERVATIONS OF TRAVEL TIME INCREASES DUE TO CALMING DEVICES FROMTRAFFIC - The avenge speed on jocal residential streets is typically 30 mpl,* or 44 feet ueraxW m •Field observations were taken at two locations in the San Francisco Bay Area: 1- Almarida Avenue at David Avenue in Campbell. California, a traffic circle with noslop signs on any of the approaches 2. Lewelling Boulevard at Heron Bay in San Leandro, California, a sharp right turn through a tafhc roundabout with no stop signs on the right turn approach The data in the tables in this appendix indicate the results". The avenge travel time for ?20 fe.t *s^ each approach there are also speed humps within 150 feet of the traffic cLe and the sellextent that a For all intents and purposes, the average of 1 0 added seconds of delay for each traffic dev,ce proposed ,n Robertson Ranch., West Village, is a reasonable aLmpTon for ^es travel time on the c.rcuitous routing of local access streets. P-nior es_ * ' Radar speed surveys and week-long machine speed counts on 32-foot to 40-foot wide res.dent.al streets with a 25 mph prima facie speed limit yield average speeds o? 29 to 33 m oh without cahmng. The 85'percenlile "critical speed" on these tvjies of street s tv ' higher, or between 34 and 38 mph. TJKM uses 30 mph as a reasonable ave ail of minimum aths ' P , . of minimum paths through neighborhoods. v 5 L BESTCOPY 17 Location: Almarida Circle, Campbefl, CA Direction: Southbound on Almarida towards roundabout Distance = 220 feet „. - ' , .' Sample Number 1 li*f|;,;' s. '-2- ' f - '• - 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ' 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Average Travel Time Travel Time (sec) 7.8 . . 8.3 - ' " 8.6 9.4 8.9 9.8 7.8 8.6 7.6 8.1 8.4 7.8 7.4 ' 7.2 7.6 8.5 8.0 8.8 7.6 7.5 7.9 8.3 10.4 8.2 8.4 8.3 Seconds TJKM Transportation Consultants Page 3 of 3 Sample Travel Time Field Work.xls • t '• * |'JS^arS^8^'ttfi?Sil^te£3iBiS9'i!'5 Location: Lewelh'ng Blvd and Bayfront Drive, Sai Direction: Northbound right turn onto Lewelling Bfvd Distance = 220 feet " ' Seconds TJKM Transportation Consultants Page 2 of 3 Sample Travel Time Field Work.xls APPENDIX F - SYNCHRO REPORTS REGARDING SIGNAL DELAYS AND CALCULATION OF OVERALL TRAVEL TIMES (FIGURES 5 AND 6) Figure 5 Calculations (No Traffic Calming) AtoB Description of route Travel time - A (o Edinburgh on Tamarack Travel time - Edinburgh to ECR on Tamarack Left-turn delay at ECR/Tamarack Travel time - Tamarack to Lisa on ECR Thru delay at Lisa/ECR Travel time - Lisa to B on ECR Total ^^^t^^l^Sraat^^i^ AM 22 81 137 39 19 24 322 PM 22 81 124 39 13 24 303 Comments Based on 45 mph travel speed Based on 45 mph travel speed Based on 2030 Volumes Synchro output Based on 55 mph travel speed Based on 2030 volumes Synchro output Based on 55 mph travel speed 5.37 5.05 In Minutes] 5'23"5'3'! AtoB Description of route Travel time - A to Edinburgh on Tamarack Left-turn delay at Edinburgh/Tamarack Travel time - Tamarack to ECR shortcut Left-turn delay at Lisa/ECR Travel time - Lisa to B on ECR Total AM 22 10 117 39 24 212 i^ffef^ioil^ PM 22 10 117 52 24 225 Comments (No Traffic Calming) Based on 45 mph travel speed Based on 2030 volumes Synchro output Based on 30 mph speed - No traffic calming Based on 2030 volumes Synchro output Based on 55 mph travel speed 3.53 3.75 In Minutes I 3'32" I 3'45" J ImwmHBMHMLHMIBIBMMBBIIlM BtoA Description of route Travel time - B to Lisa on ECR Thru delay at Lisa/ECR Travel time - Lisa to Tamarack on ECR Right-turn delay at ECR/Tamarack Travel time - ECR to Edinburgh on Tamarack Travel time - Edinburgh to B on Tamarack Total AM 24 19 39 6 81 22 191 PM 24 28 39 3 81 22 197 Comments Based on 55 mph travel speed Based on 2030 volumes Synchro output Based on 55 mph travel speed Based on 2030 volumes Synchro output Based on 45 mph travel speed Based on 45 mph travel speed 3.18 3.28 In Minutes 3'11" 3'17" BtoA Description of route Travel time - B to Lisa on ECR Right-turn delay at Lisa/ECR Travel time - ECR to Tamarack on Edinburgh Right-turn delay at Edinburgh/Tamarack Travel time - Edinburgh to B on Tamarack Total AM 24 3 117 10 22 176 PM 24 7 117 10 22 180 Comments (No Traffic Calming) Based on 55 mph travel speed Based on 2030 volumes Synchro output Based on 30 mph speed - No traffic calming Based on 2030 volumes Synchro output Based on 45 mph travel speed 2.93 3.00 In Minutes i 2'56"3'0' "5c E re O o£ro wc £Z 15O CO CD D LE en o+•* ^T S'c0> E oO J*i<fi a 32 o c 0 ,9-uOw0 Q CDCDCLco "S CO sz CL P LO •"3- c0 COCOCQ CMCM CMCM CJScoECO co .£=o Edinbur-*-•<£i CD E'•~ "CD ra — -Q CDCDa (0 "CD I .cCL E IO co -oCDCOCO CO 5 oo JjXo CO CDECO1- 0OHo LU o _c 3nc TDLU 1 CD .E "CD CO H 15 Q."3o o o c/5 COCDE O O oCM Co T3CDCOCO CQ CM T— co T— ^O 5CO E t ECRATaiCO >-,co CD 10 C 3 (D I CO "5) CO _£• CL E co CDCOco CQ co coCO ££ 0 LU Co COCO o CO CO CO 1 CDE "CD CO ~ "3Q, 30 o szog.(S) CO En O 0COoCM Co 13CDCOCO CQ ? o> T- OHo LU "S.y— i CO CO CD 3 -CH CDCDCL CO "CD CO _£- CL Eininco •aCDCOra CQ CM CM OHoLUco CQ O coCO 1 1 (D E >co 1— coo 8 H mo is 15* ra Em0 o ECOI.H*xc•*•• 5 ^^ "en c(VE oO Sa. S __ CDCDCL CO "53 COf-.j-~ CL E in co (DCOcom CMCM CMCM i ^oenina O .5 ^,CD 3 2 4-o c .0 S. "H CJ CO0) Q 0 ECO 1 Co f"_Qc LU ^r^! CD E "5 £H Q. 3o o f~o w n0) 3 O ^* O OCM Co CDCOCOm o o oco co cCO 1? ^.c LU to>,raCD•o £ 3 0) CO.c too ueCO I•aCDCDCL CO_cCL E oco co•oCDCOcaCQ CM CM CMO>CM OD)COCO O .5>"^o OjrCO troLU o v 0CO CO rah-i CD "CD rai — O- 3oo r" O C CO CO E3 O 0COoCM Co T3CDCOCOCQ CMin enco or0 LU 15COLi to>,co CD C B CD_J __ D.en "5 to i1-: ^Q.E min co•aCD COca CM CM OHOLU Co CQ O coCOLji CDE "CD Sr~ 0 § co 7J £ CQ O i i "3c1 ITS O oe 2H~ •4^ 5^^ (A CQ) EEoO Sa. < O) 3 C LU TO ^.a> 32 4—O a_o .S- ^tnCDQ nCD0)Q.CO "5 2 JZCLE in co•g(Oco CQ CMCM CMCM OCO CO CO I— Co t>3J3C T3 LU ^<£, CD "CD co1 — "3 CL 0o£oc. CO CDE 0>o oCM C.0 T3a?enca CQ o o .*:oco CO co I5 ^3n C TCI 111 to >sca CDTOc 2 CD_j ro,c ^coa 0itto I•aCDCDCLto .ca E ococo•aCDtnCOca 10.CDCM wCDCM JTD) 3JD C T3 LU CO > o•co£Z a:oLU o -X 02CO nI- cu ~w 2\— 3Ct 0 O x: Iw COCD 3 O OCOOCM C0•oa>COCO CO CM co o:OLU 75CO_1 to>,co CDT3 E_3 CD •aCD CO "CD CO ^D. ininco CDtnCOCQ CM CM OHOLU co CQ 3 COCO~t ( CDE "CD — co co oCDco S OH s2c 3C APPENDIX G - ANALYSIS DATA IN PROJECT MODEL APPENDIX G: MODEL DATA The procedure for determining which route drivers in each Planning Area will use to go beyond The Colony is the simple addition of travel times between a Planning Area and the intersection of Carlsbad Village Drive/Tamarack Avenue. The first graphic shows the Planning Areas by number, and how they are connected to the computerized map, or network. The second graphic shows the distances for each link in the network. The third graphic shows the "free" travel time for each of the links. The turn penalties shown in Figure 6 are not included in these travel times. To calculate the minimum travel time path between a Planning Area and "Zone 20" you need to add up the individual link travel times and then add the appropriate signal delay times along the path. Also note that 10 seconds of additional travel time is added for each square on the West Village road network, standing for the traffic circles and right or left turns that drivers must traverse to go through. There is an additional 90 seconds of travel time from Node 7 to Node 15 (to Glasgow Drive) and an additional 70 seconds of travel time from Node 7 to Node 1 (Edinburgh Drive). In addition to the model output, the diagonal diverter introduces additional travel time of 45 seconds. Robertson Ranch Network: Link Free Flow Travel Time . Applies to All Scenarios C:\Projects\289-001 Robertson Ranch\Model\1122 with Tamarack ConnecfioMREALDISTANCE.NET 9/6/2006 11:57 AM Allen Nle, TJKM Licensed to TJKM Transportation Consultants Robertson Ranch Network: Link Distance In Miles C:\Projects\289-001 Robertson Ranch\Model\1122 with Tamarack Connection\REALDISTANCE.NET 8/28/2006 11:15 AM Allen Nie, TJKM Licensed to TJKM Transportation Consultants September 20, 2006 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 Resolutions 6105 through 6112: 1. Include the following recitals: WHEREAS, after hearing the staff presentation for the Robertson Ranch Master Plan and public testimony on the project, the Planning Commission did continue the public hearing to June 21, 2006, and; WHEREAS, after hearing the additional staff presentation for the Robertson Ranch Master Plan and public testimony on the project, the Planning Commission did continue the public hearing to a date uncertain, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 20th of September 2006 hold a duly noticed public hearing on the continued Robertson Ranch Master Plan project: and; 2. Revise the date of adoption of the resolutions to September 20, 2006. EIR Resolution 6105; 1. Add a new condition to resolution 6105: The Program EIR Errata labeled as Attachment 16 of the staff report shall be incorporated into the Final Program EIR (EIR 03-03). Master Plan Resolution 6106; 1. Finding #10: Revise excess dwelling unit allocation from 400 to 171. 2. Finding #11: Revise last sentence to read: The Zone 14 LFMP estimates current residential build-out for the Northeast Quadrant to be 7,467 dwelling units including the Master Plan proposal of 1,154 units. ATTACHMENT 15 3. Add a new condition to Resolution 6106: Any future development proposals for Planning Area 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. 4. Add a new condition to Resolution 6106: Planning Areas (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. 5. Add a new condition to Resolution 6106: The Robertson Ranch Master Plan shall be revised, subject to the Planning Director's approval as follows: a. Replace the Robertson Ranch Master Plan Land Use Plan Figure II-4 with the new exhibit included as Attachment 3 of the staff report dated September 20, 2006. Revise the associated text and graphics to reflect the new Land Use Plan. b. Revise the associated text and graphics of the Master Plan and individual Planning Areas to reflect the new maximum number of dwelling units, the revised General Plan land use designations, and the revised allocation of excess dwelling units. c. Revise the text for PA 7 to require a minimum of 50% of the units be developed as senior housing. A reference shall be incorporate to Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 21.84 - Housing for Senor Citizens as additional development standards for the senior housing portion of the site. d. Revise the text and graphics for PA 13 and 14 to allow development of the site as an elementary school as a primary use. In the event that CUSD does not purchase or develop the site as planned, the alternative land use shall be RM (Residential Medium Density 4-8 du/ac) with a maximum of 52 dwelling units. 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 small-lot, detached, single-family residences on minimum 5,000 sf lots, according to the development standards currently proposed for PA's 16, 17 and 18. General Plan Amendment Resolution 6107: 1. Revise Finding # 1 as follows: The Planning Commission finds that the project is in conformance with the Elements of the City's General Plan based on the facts set forth in the staff report dated May 31, 2006 hereby incorporated by this reference, including, but not limited to the following: that the proposed change in General Plan Land Use designations from Residential Low-Medium Density (RLM, 0-4 du/ac), Residential Medium Density (RM, 4-8 du/ac), Open Space (OS) and "floating" Elementary School (E) and Local Shopping Center (L) designations to RLM, RMH, Residential Medium-High Density (RMH, 8-15 du/ac), Residential High Density (RH, 15-23 du/ac), L, Community Facilities (CF), Elementary School (E), Unplanned Area (UA) and OS land use designations are required to reflect the Land Use designations of the Robertson Ranch Master Plan; that the proposed Land Use designations are compatible with the surrounding land uses in that the adjacent lands are designated for RLM, RM, L and OS land uses; that the land use change to OS is based on the environmental constraints of the property and is environmentally and topographically appropriate for the site in that the slopes and the habitat areas included in the open space preserve areas are consistent with the "hardline areas" shown on the draft Robertson Ranch Hardline Map dated September 15, 2004, and that these areas are proposed to be designated as Open, Space on the General Plan Land Use Map; that City policy allows for transfer of density from designated open spaces to developable areas resulting in the new RM, RMH, and RH designations; that the Carlsbad Unified School District has found that an elementary school site is not required for the Robertson Ranch Master Plan, that the CF designation implements the Master Plan requirement for Community Facilities; and that the L designation reflects the site of the Local Shopping Center, and that the UA designation will allow for future comprehensive planning efforts on Planning Area 22 in conjunction with the "Option Parcel". 2. Add a new condition to Resolution 6107: Exhibit "GPA 02-02" shall be revised to reflect a "RLM" (Residential Low- Medium) designation on Planning Area 10, an "E" (Elementary School) designation on Planning Areas 13 and 14, and an "UA" (Unplanned Area) on Planning Area 22. * Local Facilities Management Plan LFMP 14(g) Resolution 6108: 1. Add a new condition to Resolution 6108: The Zone 14 LFMP Amendment shall be revised, subject to the Planning Director's approval, to reflect the new maximum number of "1,122 du's - with school" and "1,154 du's - without school", and revise the General Plan Designations and allocation of excess dwelling units as described in the General Plan Amendment errata. The following are additional Errata Items from the May 31, 2006 Planning Commission Public Hearing: Staff Report dated May 31,2006: Page 31: Add: Attachment 21. Response to Comments for the Final EIR Revise 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 Resolution 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. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ARE TO BE INCLUDED DEPENDING ON THE SELECTED WEST VILLAGE CIRCULATION ALTERNATIVE: ALTERNATIVE 1 Circuitous Routing Master Plan Resolution 6106 1. Add a new condition to 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. 2. Add the following new condition to Resolution 6106: The Robertson Ranch Master Plan shall be revised to include Attachment 7 of the staff report, Alternative 1 - Circuitous Routing as a new Figure FV-4A in the Robertson Ranch Master Plan. ALTERNATIVE 2 Circuitous Routing plus Tamarack Connection (Local Street Standards) EIR 03-03 Resolution 6105 1. Add a new Finding to Resolution 6105: As evidenced in the discussion included in the staff report dated September 20, 2006, 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. Master Plan Resolution 6106 1. Add a new condition to 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. 2. Add a new condition to Resolution 6106: The Robertson Ranch Master Plan shall be revised, subject to the Planning Director's approval as follows: a. Include Attachment 8 of the staff report, Alternative 2 - Circuitous Routing plus Tamarack Connection as a new Figure IV-4A in the Robertson Ranch Master Plan. b. Revise the associated text and graphics of the Master Plan to include a conceptual access point from Tamarack Avenue at PA 2 to PA 3. c. Relocate the RV Storage site within Planning Area 2 (PA 2) to within PA 1. Revise the associated text and graphics to show the new "Tamarack Connection" and to reflect the new Open Space (OS) boundaries. General Plan Amendment Resolution 6107 1. Add a new condition to Resolution 6107: Exhibit "GPA 02-02" shall be revised to delete the Community Facilities (CF) land use designation within Planning Area 2. Habitat Management Plan Permit (HMP 06-04) Resolution 6109 1. Add a new condition to Resolution 6109: A formal request for concurrence of a Minor Amendment to the City's Habitat Management Plan for Robertson Ranch with Equivalency Findings shall be submitted for the "Tamarack Connection", subject to the terms outlined in the e-mail from USFWS, dated August 22, 2006 included as Attachment 10 of the staff report. ALTERNATIVES Tamarack Connection (Collector) & Emergency Access at Glasgow and Gated Access at Edinburgh EIR 03-03 Resolution 6105 1. Add a new finding to Resolution 6105: As evidenced in the discussion included in the staff report dated September 20, 2006, 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. Master Plan Resolution 6106 1. Add a new condition to Resolution 6106: The Robertson Ranch Master Plan shall be revised, subject to the Planning Director's approval as follows: a. Direct staff to include Attachment 9 of the staff report, Alternative 2 - Tamarack Connection (Collector) & Emergency Access at Glasgow and Gated Access at Edinburgh as a new Figure IV-4A in the Robertson Ranch Master Plan. b. Direct staff to revise the associated text and graphics of the Master Plan to include a conceptual access point from Tamarack Avenue at PA 2 to PA 3. c. Relocate the RV Storage site within Planning Area 2 (PA 2) to within PA 1. Revise the associated text and graphics to show the new "Tamarack Connection" and to reflect the new Open Space (OS) boundaries. General Plan Amendment Resolution 6107 1. Add a new condition to Resolution 6107: Exhibit "GPA 02-02" shall be revised to delete the Community Facilities (CF) land use designation within Planning Area 2. Habitat Management Plan Permit (HMP 06-04) Resolution 6109 1. Add a new condition to Resolution 6109: A formal request for concurrence of a Minor Amendment to the City's Habitat Management Plan for Robertson Ranch with Equivalency Findings shall be submitted for the "Tamarack Connection", subject to the terms outlined in the e-mail from USFWS, dated August 22, 2006 included as Attachment 10 of the staff report. EIR Errata Program EIR Errata Subsequent to the publication of the Final Program Environmental Impact Report for the proposed Robertson Ranch Master Plan project, several errors in the published Final EIR text and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program have been identified. These corrections do not change any intended conclusions of significance in the published Final EIR. FINAL PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Transportation/Circulation Figure 5.2-1. Figure 5.2-1 incorrectly depicted the existing average daily traffic volumes on College Boulevard between Plaza Drive and Lake Boulevard and between Lake Boulevard and Carlsbad Village Drive. This figure has been revised to depict the correct volumes. These revisions were addressed in Final EIR response to comment CO1. As discussed in response to comment COT, these edits do not change the conclusions of the traffic section of the Final EIR. Table 5.2-1. Table 5.2-1 has been edited to be consistent with the edits to the existing average daily traffic volumes as revised on Figure 5.2-1. These edits do not change the conclusions of the traffic section of the Final EIR. Table 5.2-2. The LOS for intersection #14 in the A.M. peak hour, as identified in Table 5.2-2, has been edited from A to C, to be consistent with the ICU value. These edits do not change the conclusions of the traffic section of the Final EIR. Figure 5.2-4 and Table 5.2-5. Figure 5.2-4 and Table 5.2-5 have been revised to show revised average daily traffic volumes to be consistent at each segment. The level of service evaluation for street segments was determined using peak hour volumes, which were taken from the intersection peak hour traffic turn movements and not from average daily traffic volumes. The City of Carlsbad Growth Management Program outlines these procedures. Because peak hour volumes were used to determine segment levels of service, these edits do not change the conclusions of the traffic section of the Final EIR. Figure 5.2-5 and lable 5.2-7. Edits have been made to Figure 5.2-5 to be consistent with the average daily traffic volumes in Table 5.2-7. These edits do not change the conclusions of the traffic section of the Final EIR. Table 5.2-6. On Table 5.2-6, the Intersection #1 and #25 level of service has been edited to be consistent with the ICU value. No change to the conclusions of the traffic section of the Final EIR because these levels of service are better than the acceptable level of service D. Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 4-1 August 2006 Errata ATTACHMENT 16 EIR Errata Table 5.2-8. Table 5.2-8 has been edited from C to D for the A.M. Peak Hour LOS with Project at Intersection #20. No change to the conclusions of the traffic section of the Final EIR because these levels of service are better than the acceptable level of service D. Figure 5.2-7. The segment volume on Cannon Road between Lego Drive and Faraday Avenue was omitted from Figure 5.2-7. This figure has been revised to depict the segment volume. This edit does not change the conclusions of the traffic section of the Final EIR. A memorandum prepared by Urban Systems Associates, Inc. (July 26, 2006) summarizing the edits, and providing the edited Figures and Tables is attached to this Errata as Attachment A. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Cultural Resources On page 52 of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, two of the cultural resources sites located in the East Village portion of the project are incorrectly labeled in the "Monitoring Frequency" Column as follows: SDI-10,135 should be labeled SDH 6,135. SDI-10,138 should be labeled SDI-16,138. Revised MMRP page 52 is attached to this Errata as Attachment B. Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 4-2 August 2006 Errata EIR Errata Attachment A Urban Systems Associates Memorandum and Revised Traffic Figures and Tables Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 4-3 August 2006 Errata URBANSYSTEMSASSOCIATES, INC PLANNING & TRAFFIC ENG/NEERWG, MARKETING & PROJECT SUPPORT CONSULTANTS TO INDUSTRY AND GOVERNMENT E-MEMO E-Maik T . net ATTN: Tim Qnibus COMPANY: BRG.Inc. Hfl/Mn/FROM: Sam P. Kab, II / \r TOTAL PAGES (Including Cover): 2+12 Attachments DATE: July 26,2006 TIME: 3:02:24 PM JOB NUMBER: 003101 SUBJECT: Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR The attached tables and figures from the traffic section of the Robertson Ranch Final EIR have minor edits that do not change the conclusions of the Final EIR traffic evaluation. Figure 5.2-1: Table 5.2-1: Table 5.2-2: Figure 5.2-4 & Table 5.2-5: Figure 5.2-5 & Table 5.2-7: The existing average daily traffic volumes on College Boulevard between Plaza Drive and Lake Boulevard and between Lake Boulevard and Carlsbad Village Drive have been revised. These revisions were previously addressed in our response to comments of the City of Oceanside letter dated November 14,2005. An excerpt from our response memo is attached for reference. These edits do not change the conclusion of the traffic section of the Final EIR. This table has been edited to be consistent with the edits on Figure 5.2-1. No change to the conclusion of the traffic section of the Final EIR as a result of these edits. The LOS for intersection #14 in the A.M. peak hour has been edited from A to C, to be consistent with the ICU value. There is no change to conclusions. This figure and table have revised average daily traffic volumes to be consistent at each segment. The level of service evaluation for street segments was determined using peak hour volumes taken from the intersection peak hour traffic turn movements and not from average daily traffic volumes. The City of Carlsbad Growth Management Program outlines these procedures. Since peak hour volumes, were used to determine segment levels of service, these edits do not change the conclusions of the Final EIR traffic section. Edits have been made to Figure 5.2-5 to be consistent with the average daily traffic volumes in Figure 5.2-5. These edits do not change the conclusions of the Final EIR traffic section. 1 3101-072606-ememo-spk-d 4540Kearny Villa Road, Suite 106 • San Diego, CA 92123 • (858) 560-4911 • Fax (858) 560-4911 TimGnibus Urban Systems Associates. Inc. BRG.Inc. Jufy26.2006 Table 5.2-6: Intersection #1 and #25 the level of service has been edited to be consistent with the ICU value. No change to the conclusions of the Final EIR traffic section since these levels of service are better than the acceptable level of service D. Table 5.2-8: At Intersection #20, a minor edit to A.M. LOS does not change the conclusions of the Final EIR traffic study. Figure 5.2-7: The segment volume on Cannon Road between Lego Drive and Faraday Avenue was omitted. Adding this volume does not change the conclusions of the Final EIR traffic section. Please contact me if you have questions or need additional information. CC: Barbara Kennedy Jeremy Riddle Brian Milich Don Mitchell Paul Klukas 3101-072606-ememo-spk-d 4540 Kearny Villa Road, Suite 106 • San Diego, CA 92123 • (858) 560-4911 • Fax (858) 560-4911 ChopterS - Environmental Irnpcct Anolysis 5.2 -Traffic/Circulation TABLE 5.2-1 • Existing Street Segment Levels of Service Cannon Road 1-5 - Paseo Del Norte 4MA 22,000 892 0.50 Paseo Del Norte - Lego Dr.4MA 19,000 713 0.40 Lego Dr. - Faraday Ave.4MA 11,000 413 0.23 A Faraday Ave. - El Camino Real 4MA 8.000 413 0.23 El Camino Real - College Blvd.2MA 10,000 946 0.53 College Blvd. - East City Limit 4MA —Not Built— East City Limit - Melrose Dr.4MA 14,000 320 0.18 A College Boulevard Paiomar Airport Rd. - 51 Camino Real 4MA 13,000 560 0.31 BCamino Real-Cannon Rd.4MA —Not Built— Cannon Rd. - Carlsbad Village Dr.4MA 10,000 946 0.53 Carlsbad Village Dr. - Lake Blvd.4MA 488 0.27 Lake Blvd. - SR-78 6PA coo tsx 492 0.27 El Camino Real SR-78 -MarronRd.6PA '40,000 630 0.35 Marron Rd. - Carlsbad Village Dr.6PA 34,000 702'0.39 Carlsbad Village Dr. -Tamarack Ave.4PA 27,000 922 0.51 Tamarack Ave. - Cannon Rd.4PA 33,000 980 0.54 Cannon Rd. - College Blvd.SPA 28,000 1,154 0.64 College Blvd. - Faraday Ave.6PA 26,000 748 0.42 A Faraday Ave. - Paiomar Airport Rd.6PA 33,000 716 0.40 Tamarack Avenue El Camino Real - Carlsbad Village Dr.4SA 10,000 220 0.12 El Camino-Real - Highland Dr.4SA 175 0.10 Notes: 6PA = 6-lane primary arterial 4MA = 4-tane major arterial 4SA = 4-lane secondary arterial 2MA = 2-lane major arterial VPHPL = Vehicles per hour per lane CPL = Capacity per lana @ 1.800 VPH LOS =» Level of service Source: Urban Systems Associates, Inc., 2005. Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.2-3 April 2006 140 141 LEGEND • ' _. -Future Street SOURCE . SANDAG Year 2002 Traffic Flow Map, City of Carlsbad Year 2004, Traffic Monitoring Report Caltrans 2003, Volumes Shown In Thousands SOURCE: .Urban Systems Associates, Inc., 2005 7/71/05 $ I smi 1] I S3.2 1at5i « % Existing Average Daily Traffic 1 IV7UI\L_ 5.2-1. Tivfnc BtamcaiiHa. UMxenne 4 ftwwecr SUHVKT CONSiATitMTS TO iNOUSTHYMO GOVERNMENT MEMO ATTN: TimGnibus / //" e-mai/: COMPANY: BRG Consulting, Inc/ a # Tim(?aBRq}lic.n«t FROM: Sam P. Kab, n yu ronu MCE? : DATE: December 12,2005 rfflflT: 11:04 ata TRANSMITTED VIA: E-mail SUBJECT; Robertson Ranch DEIR Response to Traffic Comments USAIjob #3101 Provided below are suggested responses to DEIR comments: CITY OF QCEANSIDE LETTER. NOVEMBER 14. 2005 1. Existing Conditions: A. This comment states that the College Boulevard average daily traffic (ADT) volume south of Plaza Drive is approximately 49,000 ADT. An evaluation of this segment using this revised ADT volume is provided below. 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 (1)* C A *( 1} See Table D-2,2002 SANDAG Congestion Management Program (attached) The SANTEC/ITE Guidelines for Traffic Impact Studies in the San Diego Region. March 2,2000; suggests that significant project impacts could occur at LOS "E" or "F" but that LOS "D" or better is acceptable. Therefore, for these segments of College Boulevard the project impact is considered less than significant for existing plus project conditions. mini Page 1 of 9 if\f, 3101-121205-mania-spkwptl FAY W5S) 560-9734 Chapter 5 - Environmental Impact Analysis 5.2 - Traffic/Circulation TABLE 5.2-2 Existing Intersection Level of Service Summary [ICU Method) ta flpp 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 • 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28' 31 32 33 34 n * ii College Blvd. / Vista Way ' College Blvd. / SR-78 EB Ramps College Blvd. / Plaza Dr. . College Blvd. / Lake Blvd. Plaza Dr. / SR-78 EB Ramps College Blvd. / Carlsbad Village Dr. College Blvd. / Cannon Rd. [1 ) College Blvd. /El Camino Real El Camino Real / SR-78 WB Ramps El Camino Real / SR-78 EB Ramps El Camino Real / Plaza Dr. El Camino Real f Marron Rd. El Camino Real / Carlsbad village Dr. El Camino Real / Tamarack Ave. B Camino Real / Faraday Ave. El Camino Real / Palomar Airport Rd. Palomar Airport Rd. / El Fuerte St. Cannon Rd. / 1-5 SB Ramps Cannon Rd. / 1-5 NB Ramps Cannon Rd. / Paseo Del Norte Cannon Rd. / Leqo Drive Cannon Rd. / Faraday Ave. • • Cannon Rd. / B Camino Real Faraday Ave. / College Blvd. EI Camino Real / Kelly Dr. Cannon Rd. / Melrose Dr. Carlsbad Village Dr. / Tamarack Ave. E! Camino Real / Future West Village Palomar Airport Rd. / Loker Ave. West ( 1 ) W. Vista Way / SR-78 WB on-off Ramps Palomar Airport Rd. / Melrose Dr. Tamarack Ave. / La Portalada Dr. (2) WSKwSiWWSWJ 0.61 0.49 0.52 0.43 0.47 •0.60 -' NA 0.55 0.59 0.43 0.51 0.53 0.60 0.74 . 0.66 0.69 0.76 0.55 0.61 0.68 0.49 0.58 0.57 0.41 0.63 ' 0.38 0.27 0.59 NA 0.56 0.92 NA *K®fe"f!*.tm<tSS! B . A A A A A NA A A A A A A C>r- B B B A B ' B A A A A B A A A NA A E B ^^^^fe^^ll^figj 0.79 0.60 0.68 0.59 0.60 0.54 NA 0.54 0.70 0.60 0.66 0.56 0.70 0.53 0.79 0.93 0.68 0.43 0.54 . 0.51 0.4.6 0.63 0.67 0.44 • 0.57 0.44 0.28 0.60 NA 0.63 0.79 NA K ssiiiwI-Sr* ?«S!KH|I C A B • A A A NA A B A B A B A C E B A A A A B . - B A A A . A A NA B C B 'Notes: (1) * No traffic control devices currently installed. (2) =• Stop sign control on minor street. Source: Urban Systems Associates. Inc.. 200S. Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final BR 5.2-5 ' April 2006 SOURCE: Urban Systems Associates, Inc.. 2005 7/21/05 6» T ims 1 ms1 SI * Existing + Project Only Average Daily Traffic (Volumes Shown in Thousands) nv?ur\u 5.2-4 Chapter 5 - Environmental Impact Analysis 5.2-Traffic/Circulation TABLE 5.2-5 Existing + Project Street Segment Levels of Service Cannon Road 1-5 - Paseo Del Norte 4MA 915 0.51 PaseoDel Norte - Lego Dr.4MA 21,000 360 0.20 Lego Dr. - Faraday Ave.4MA .13,000 330 0.18 Faraday Ave. - El Camino Real 4MA 11,000 200 0.11 El Gamino Real - College Blvd.2MA 16,000 . 1,000 0.56 College Blvd. - East City Limit 4MA —Not Built- East City Limit - Melrose Dr.4MA 14,000 320 0.18 College Boulevard Palomar Airport Rd. - El Camino Real 4MA 1 6,000 570 0.32 A E! Camino Real-Cannon Rd.4MA Cannon Rd.-Carlsbad Village Dr.4MA 11,000 • 1,000 0.56 Carlsbad Village Dr. - Lake Blvd.4MA -4^969-650 0.36 Lake Blvd.-SR-78 6PA Si, i SO 17.000 NA NA •NA El Camino Real SR-78- Marron Rd.6PA 760 0.42 Marron Rd. - Carlsbad Village Dr.6PA 615 0.34 Carlsbad Village Dr. - Tamarack Ave.4PA 30,000 620 0.34 Tamarack Ave. - Cannon Rd.4PA.645 0.36 Cannon Rd. -College Blvd.4PA 33,000 630 0.35 College Blvd. - Faraday Ave.6PA 30,000 685 0.38 Faraday Ave.- Palomar Airport Rd.6PA 34,000 525 0.29 Tamarack Avenue E! Camino Real - Carlsbad Village Dr.4SA OC -87668-255 0.14 El Coming Real - Highland Dr.4C 9,000 205 0.11 Palomar Airport Road Ei Camino Real - El Fuerte St.6PA 58,009~1,145 0.64 El Fuerte St. - Melrose Dr.6PA SO -56^69-1,145 0.64 Moles: 6PA = 6-lane primary arterial 4MA » 4-lana major arterial 4SA = 4-tane secondary arterial 2MA - 2-lane major arterial VPHPL = Vehicles per hour per Sane CPL = Capacity per lane @ 1.800 VPH LOS. = Level of service Source: Urban Systems Associates, Inc.. 2005. 125 129 141 LEGEND • «. Future Street SOURCE •SANDAG Carlsbad/Citiss/County Forecast Year 2010 Alt. 2, Dated April 6,2000 Volumes Shown In Thousands 'SOURCE: Urban Systems Associates, Inc., 2005 7/21/05 f I Kss t i T imi1a • % Year 2010 + Project Average Daily Traffic Volumes nouixc 5.2-5 Chapter 5 - Environmental Impact Analysis 5.2 - Traffic/Circulation TABLE 5.2-7 Year 2010 With Project Street Segment Levels of Service Cannon Road l-5-Paseo Del Narte 4MA 18,000 365 0.20 Paseo Del Norte -Lego Dr.4MA 1,000 450 0.25 Lego Dr. - Faraday Avg.4MA -15,000 350 0.19 Faraday Ave. - El Camino Real 4MA 15,000 350 0.19 B Camino Real - College Blvd.4MA 11,000 330 0.18 College Blvd. - East City Limit 4MA East City Limit - Meirose Dr.4MA 14,000 0.21 College Boulevard Patomar Airport Rd.- El Camino Real 4MA 18,000 480 0.27 El Camino Real - Cannon Rd.4MA 18,000 490 Cannon Rd. - Carlsbad Village Dr.4MA 22,000 480 0.27 Carlsbad Village Dr. - Lake Blvd.4MA 33,000 535 0.30 A Lake Blvd. -SR-78 6PA 38,000 510 0.28 El Camino Real SR-78 -Marron Rd.6PA 35.000 840 0.47 Marron Rd. - Carlsbad Village Dr.6PA 32,000 585 0.33 Carlsbad Village Dr. - Tamarack Ave.'6PA 30,000 405 0.23 Tamarack Ave. - Cannon Rd.SPA 43,000 940 0.52 Cannon Rd. - College Blvd.SPA 36,000 1,050 0.58 College Blvd. - Faraday Ave.6PA 46,000 705 0.39 Faraday Ave.- Palomar Airport Rd.6PA 41,000 635 0.35 Tamarack Avenue El Camino Real - Carlsbad Village Dr.4SA 10,000 Notes: 6PA = 6-lone primary arterial SPA = 5-lane primary arterial 4MA = 4-lane major arterial 4SA = 4-lane secondary arterial VPHPL = Vehicles per hour per lane^ CPl » Capacity per lane @ 1,800 V'PH LOS = Leval of service Source: Urban Systems Associates, Inc., 2005. Chapter 5 - Environmental Impact Analysis 5.2 - Traffic/Circulation TABLE 5.2-6 Existing + Project With/Without Project Comparison of Intersection Peak Hour Levels of Service (Intersection Capacity Utilization Methodology) Colleqe Blvd. / Vista Way College Blvd. / SR-78 EB Ramps Colleqe Blvd. / Plaza Dr. College Blvd. / Laks Blvd. Plaza Dr. /. SR-7B EB Ramps College Blvd. / Carlsbad Village Dr.0.60 A 0.61 0.54 0.55 College Blvd. / Cannon Rd.NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA College Blvd. / El Camino Real 0.55 0.61 0.54 0.61 El Camino Real / SR-78 WB Ramps 0.59 0.61 0.70 0.71 10 El Camino Real / SR-78 EB Ramps 0.43 0.43 0.60 A 0.60 11 El Camino Real / Plaza Dr.0.51 0.51 0.66 0.67. 12 El Camino Real / Matron Rd.0.53 0.54 0.56 0.58 13 El Camino Real / Carlsbad Village Dr.0.60 0.62 0.70 0.72 14 El Camino Real / Tamarack Ave.0.74 0.86 D .0.53 A 0.75 15 El Camino Real I Faraday Ave.0.66 0.68 0.79 C 0.82 16 •El Camino Real / Palomar Airport Rd.0.69 0.75 0.93 0.97 17 Palomar Airport Rd. / El Fuerte St.0.76 0.79 0.68 0.69 18 Cannon Rd. f 1-5 SB Ramos 0.55 0.58 0.43 A 0.45 A 19 Cannon Rd. / 1-5 NB Ramps 0.61 0.62 0.54 0.58 20 Cannon Rd. / Paseo Del Norte 0.68 0.71 0.51 0.56 21 Cannon Rd. / Lego Drive 0.49 A 0.51 A 0.46'0.48 22 Cannon Rd. / Faraday Ave.0.58 0.59 0.63 0.70 23 Cannon Rd. / El Camino Real 0.57 0.65 0.67 0.88 24 Faraday Ave. / Colleqe Blvd.Q.41 0.42 0.44 0.46 25 El Camino Real / Kelly Dr.0.63 0.69 0.57 0.65 26 Cannon Rd. / Melrose Dr.0.38 0.38 0.44 0.44 27 Carlsbad Village Dr. / Tamarack Ave.0.27 0.31 0.28 0.31 28 El Camino Real / Future West Village 0.68 0.85 D 0,62 0.76 29 East Village Dwy.M/Cannon Rd.0.59 A 0.48 A 30 East Village Dwy.(e)/Cannon-Rd.0.54 A 0.41 31 Paiomar Airport Rd, / loker Ave. West NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 32 W. Vista Way / SR-78 WB on-off Ramps 0.56 0.58 0.63 0.64 33 Palomar Airport Rd. / Melrose Dr.0.92 0.93 0.79 0.83 34 Tamarack Ave. / La Portalada Dr.NA NA NA Notes: (1) = Stop sign conlrol on minor street. Source: Urban Systems Associates. Inc.. 2005. Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.2-13 April 2006 Chapter 5 - Environmental Impact Analysis 5.2 - Traffic/Circulation TABLE 5.2-8 Year 2010 With/Without Project Comparison of Intersection Peak Hour Levels of Service Without Mitigation (Congestion Management Plan Methodology) College Blvd. / Vista Way 39.0 D 40.2 42.5 46.2 D College Blvd. / SR-78 EB Ramps 21.3 21.3 23.5 23.6 College Blvd. / Plaza Dr.32.4 33.5 126.2 131.1 College Blvd. / Lake Blvd.37.8 38.5 40.9 41.8 Plaza Dr. / SR-78 EB Ramps 31.1 32.8 40.4 43.7 College Blvd. / Carlsbad Village Dr.26.4 29.6 14.2 18.1 College Blvd. / Cannon Rd.25.1 26.2 26.0 26.2 •College Blvd. / El Camino Real 36.2 D 37.8 36.2 44.1 El Cai-nino Real / SR-7B WB Ramps 25.8 26.3 28.7 29.0 10 El Camir.p Real / SR-78 EB Ramps 13.9 14.1 18.8 19.5 £1 Camino Real / Piaza Dr.33.7 34.8 38.7 39.5 D 12 El Camino Real / Marron Rd.28.3 30.1 31.1 32.9 13 El Camino Real / Carlsbad Village Dr.36.3 39.3 38.9 39.0 14 El Camino Real / Tamarack Ave.29.5 36.6 '33.4 48.6 15 El Camino Real / Faraday Ave.45.4 47.4 D 44.5 50.7 16 El Camino Real / Palomar Airport Rd.37.7 D 38.1 D 47.0 48.6 17 Palomar Airport Rd. / El Fuerte St.51.1 52.2 0 51.8 53.6 18 Cannon Rd. / 1-5 SB Ramps 33.3 33.3 32.4 33.3 19 Cannon Rd. /1-5 NB Ramps 14.9 15.4 23.1 24.1 C 20 Cannon Rd. / Paseo Del Norfe 32.8 C 37.8 33.0 34.8 C 21 Cannon Rd. / Lego Drive 27.3 28.7 28.9 30.7 22 Cannon Rd. / Faraday Ave.33.7 35.2 D 40.6 45.3 23 Cannon Rd. / El Camino Real 40.4 46.9 56.1 77.4 24 Faraday Ave. / College Blvd.43.5 43.6 D.49.8 49.8 D 25 El Carnino Real / Kelly Dr. .34.3 38.0 14.2 14.3 26 Cannon Rd. / Melrose Dr.NA NA . NA NA NA NA NA NA 27 Carlsbad Village Dr. / Tamarack Ave.36.5 D 36.6 D 34.8 C 35.8 D 28 El Camino Real / West Village Driveway 30.6 161.9 2.9 43.6 29 East Village Dwy.(w)/Cannon Rd.NA NA 18.5 NA NA 17.8 30 East Village Dwy.(e)/Cannon Rd.NA NA 16.1 NA NA 6.8 A 31 Palomar Airport Rd. / Loker Ave. West 50.0 D 51.3 36.7 D 38.8 32 W. Vista Way / SR-78 WB on-off Ramps 39.1 39.6 39.4 39.8 D 33 Palomar Airport Rd. / Melrose Dr.53.9 54.1 48.2 45.8 D 34 Tamarack Ave. / La Portalada Dr. (2)13.8 B 13.8 B 14.7 16.1 C Note: Significance threshold of more than 2.0 seconds of additional delay only applies at LOS £ or F. (!) = Delay: Total control delay per vehicle (seconds! per 2000 Highway Capacity Manual. (2| » Stop sign control on minor street. Source: Urban Systems Associates, Inc., 2005. Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 5.2-17 April 2006 182 161 192 286 SOURCE SANDAG 2030 Combined North County Model Dated July 1,2004 Yolumes Shown In Thousands SOURCE: Urban Systems Associates, Inc., 2005 7/21/OS . 0 9 80 - 2005 I am • E & 1m05 & m% Robertson Ranch Master Plan Program EIR Year 2030 Average Daily Traffic Volumes FIGURE 5.2-7 Chapter 5 - Environmental Impact Analysis 5.2-Traffic/Circulation TABLE 5.2-10 Year 2030 With Project Street Segment Levels of Service Cannon Road 1-5 - Paseo Del Nbrte 4MA 34,000 1.025 0.58 Paseo Del Norte - Lego Dr.4MA 20,000 755 0.42 Lego Dr. - Faraday Ave.4MA 22,000 595 0.33 Faraday Ave. - El Camlno Real 4MA 23,000 595 0.33 El Camino Real -College BI&d--<,.-; ';••4MA 19,000 570 0.32 College Blvd. - East City Limit 4MA 30,000 650 0.36 East City Limit - Melrpse Dr.4MA 33,000 810 0.45 College Boulevard Palomar Airport Rd. - El Camino Real 4MA 29,000 595 0.33 A El Carnino Real - Cannon Rd.4MA 42,000.595 0.33 Cannon Rd. - Carlsbad Village Dr.4MA 31,000 650 0.36 Carlsbad Village Dr. - Lake Blvd.4MA 46,000 1,055 0.59 Lake Blvd.-SR-78 6PA 64,000 865 0.48 El Camino Real SR-78-MarronRd.6PA 43,000 775 0.43 Marron Rd. - Carlsbad Village Dr.6PA 34,000 615 0.34 Carlsbad Village Dr. - Tamarack Ave.6PA 35,000 575 0.32 Tamarack Ave. - Cannon Rd.6PA 49,000 790 0.44 Cannon Rd. - College Blvd.6PA 42,000 70S 0.54 College Blvd. - Faraday Ave.6PA 58,000 975 0.49 Faraday Ave. - Palomar Airport Rd.6PA 52,000 885 0.49 Tamarack AvenUe El Camino Real - Carlsbad Village Dr.4SA 13,000 380 0.21 Notes: 6PA = Mane primary arterial 4MA = 4-lana major arterial 4SA = 4-lane secondary arterial VPHPL = Vehicles per hour per lane CPL = Capacity per lane @ 1,800 VPH LOS = Level of service Source: . Urban Systems Associates, Inc., 2005. Pnh)£>rt<;rvn Pnnr-h Mnstpr Plnn Fi'nnl Flf?5.2-22 Aoril 2006 EIR Errata Attachment B Revised MMRP Page 52 Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR Errata 4-4 August 2006 "0 0 0)2O- D)d Report!co 1c ion Moni1 1 c §0 > "• o o> >• 2 " II C P O T3 O 11 I?ResponsibleMonitoringParty0) i4) co o.0) T5*7!*&**f fll| _ Z5S.5..S •<? C <U o ^.y 5I*— 1 o> UJ 0 «Once, prito issuan("O ^_o) S O" <D II D) *.C Cc <»II^&*r Q)A phased data recovery system shall be completed for the significant archaeological sitesimpacted by the proposed project in compliance with the City of Carlsbad's CulturalT U D)| ofgradino t Resource Guidelines Criteria and Methodology for completing a Data Recovery Programba „_• o £ <D ,-,.o S> §1.1 §,Phase III (City of Carlsbad, 1990). (Note: Appendix G (City confidential map) of this MMRPprovides cultural resource site locations). This phased data recovery approach shall beQ ^ V] & § <D § O O d t employed to ensure that the scope of proposed sampling is valid with respect to researchquestions that address data gaps of impact and interest. Data recovery provides for asample of the site to be excavated, artifacts and ecofacts to be analyzed, special studieso o Q Q a a •, 'c •• <u '1 9 O v? J> 0 Z. _E -= y So o) y az > s Q ,jj O O O) NO -»o O 33 | 2 2" a ~1 a 5, ti 5 2 a g~| <* ~| $ </? < uj u3 n 3 ^ a to o I<§(i.e. radiocarbon dating, residue analysis, obsidian hydration and sourcing) and a report offindings which addresses the important research questions. A research design shall beprepared prior to data recovery, subject to peer review, prior to initiation of data recovery.oz 03 *- ^il-i Hi!.a o> t ? o H ®n *- ® 5 r= S a£ o a O £ o o jj fe 2 ^ ill! ffilfia.Sb) 2£b>o In addition, monitoring of brushing, grading, and trenching shall be required during theconstruction of the project in order to identify any significant components of eacharchaeological site that were not observed during data recovery excavations. Monitoringwill also focus on any potential to discover sites that were not identified in the previoussurveys due to the resources being buried or masked from view. In the event that anypreviously unrecorded sites are discovered during brushing, grading, or trenching, asignificance evaluation shall be performed, and, if found to be important, mitigationU 1 |aster Plan Final BR 525.c(Jco0£ Co 1ac Correspondence Received after June 21, 2006 ATTACHMENT 17 '3 \v McMillin Land Development A Corky McMillin Company June 30, 2006 Chairman Montgomery and Members of the Carlsbad Planning City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Subject: Robertson Ranch Master Plan Dear Commissioners: As you know, on June 21 st the Commission continued the Robertson Ranch Master Plan for a second time. In response to the issues raised by the Commission on June 21, we have taken the following action: 1. Density: We have prepared a revised plan that reduces density within the Robertson Ranch Master Plan to 1122 (1154 with no school). That reduction is consistent with the density assumed under the Growth Management Plan and the current LFMP for this property. 2. Senior Housing: We are proposing senior housing (as well as non-age restricted housing) on PA 7 and/or 8. This responds to the Commission's desire for an additional mix of housing within Robertson Ranch, as well a reduction in traffic generated by the West Village. 3. Tamarack Left Turn Movement: We will work with the City Engineering Department to develop a design for two west-bound left turn lanes from Tamarack onto southbound El Camino Real to the extent feasible. 4. West Village to Tamarack Road Connection: We are meeting with the City Planning Department and the Resource Agencies to determine if an additional roadway connection, from the West Village to Tamarack, is feasible. Any such connection must also be weighed against any issues that it may generate in the adjoining neighborhoods. With respect to the primary issue, i.e. roadway connections and traffic generation between The Colony and the West Village, we met this week with Planning, Fire and Engineering to again review a variety of designs intended to respond to the Commission's concerns. We are scheduled to meet with The Colony representatives the week of July 10. It remains our goal to find a solution that reduces the greatest amount of traffic within The Colony, while meeting City requirements for adequate safety access. The best design solution may or may not fully meet the demands of The Colony neighborhood. AVMcMillin Realty McMillin Mortgage AVMcMiltin Land Development McMillin Homes AVMcMillin Commercial Mailing Address: P.O. Box 85104 • San Diego, CA 92186-5104 2750 Womble Road • San Diego, CA 92106 TEL (619) 477-4117 • FAX (619) 794-1604 www.Tnrmillin.roni I would also like this letter to serve as my request to be docketed for one of the regularly scheduled Planning Commission hearings in August, or "a special Planning Commission hearing on August 23. Given the importance of the Robertson Ranch Master Plan (and the City's 84" storm drain line) to the City; it is my hope that, with the changes articulated above, the Commission will approve the Master Plan and related documents at its next hearing. Thank you for your efforts to ensure that we develop the best design for the City. Sincerely, Brian J. Milich Senior Vice President cc. Mayor Lewis and City Council Ray Patchett Sandy Holder Marcel Escobar-Eck Barbara Kennedy Jeremy Riddle Ken Cablay Gary Robertson Brian Robertson Robertson Ranch Development, Comments from Calavera Hills, Knut Madden, 6/22/04. Only by the wisdom of the Carlsbad Planning commission was the Robertson Ranch development plan, submitted by McMillian Corp. and recommended by city staff, prevented from devastating the community I'm a part of (The Colony at Calavera Hills), our neighboring communities to the north, and constraining the new communities in the "West Village" proposal to a similar fate. At the March 31st planning meeting, the commission members ask the developer and city planners to come back with a better proposal, one that did not significantly increase the front-yard traffic in these communities. The Planning Commission ask for an alternative to using Glasgow and Edinburgh as thoroughfares, they did not want these streets as the only secondary ingress/ egress for the -1000+ homes proposed in the West Village, second to the single entrance/exit on El Camino. In the meeting June 21st, a similar proposal was presented to the Planning commission; again they ask for similar changes. Thank you. I see the fact that more than 1000 homes and a commercial center only have one ingress/egress to the major thoroughfares surrounding the proposed development (El Camino, Tamarack, Canon or College) as a design flaw for this proposal. This design flaw was not addressed in the re-submitted proposal, recommended by city staff on June 21st. Only circuitous routing and traffic calming where proposed [Both only slow traffic, in front of "our" homes no less, and although this is perhaps safer traffic, calm traffic is still traffic. In fact, slower cars are in front of our homes longer! Sorry for the diversion.] A review of an alternative ingress/egress to Tamarack, near the originally proposed RV storage facility, was considered and is still an option. However, this option was not incorporated into the re-submitted proposal. No re-submitted plan by the developer used this new outlet to a major arterial as an option to reconfiguring the proposed development. When city staff did commented on how such a Tamarack connection could permit closing Glasgow Dr. to the West Village in the questioning period of the meeting, they indicated the entire volume of traffic predicted to go through Glasgow would shift to Edinburgh - without consideration of how such a new Tamarack connection could be used to eliminate traffic through our community (nor how it could resolve Fire Safety access challenges). My point is that no serious consideration was given the design flaw in the proposal - that being only one in/outlet to the surrounding arterials from such a large development. In my humble opinion, I feel the proponents of the plan proposed yesterday where, again, trying to get this project approved without tackling this design flaw, a design flaw that would hamper the prosperity of this region of Carlsbad "forever". As the planners and developers concluded by their resubmission, the single El Camino in/outlet to a major arterial requires using our neighborhoods as in/outlets, and it forces the developer to build communities with similar restrictions. Traffic from both communities would be driving in front of one another's homes when instead the traffic should go out to an arterial. At the June 21st meeting, I was once again elated, and thank, the planning commission for their decision. I hope that now serious consideration will be given to creating additional in/outlets to major arterials from the West Village to keep our communities auto trips from fouling the new community and vice versa. As much as I believe a Tamarack Connection (through the currently farmed land and proposed RV storage, down the most gentle slope on that side of the hill) can be used to benefit all, I believe there may also be even better alternatives if all are willing to , redesign this project. For example, the small subdivision in the very corner of Tamarack and El Camino is "dicey"; if you can drive through that development, from Tamarack to the Kelly intersection (eliminating the Tamarack/El Camino intersection), wouldn't you? I'm a greener, environmentalist than most, however, I can't help but think the waterway coming into the Kelly "intersection" can be managed with an intersection at that point to benefit all of West Village not just that North-Western section. Given confidence that real change in the Robertson Ranch proposal will happen, I could put my efforts towards a great plan, rather than fighting it. Do we not have time to do just that? The London bridge was brought to Lake Havasu City; couldn't Carlsbad have an intersection with El Camino befitting this regal old highway. I'm looking a creative architect that wants "his/her" bridge built! Regards, Knut. 2705 Glasgow Dr. Carlsbad CA, 92010 Emails: madval@adelphia.net; knut.madden@invitrogen.com Planning Department \ Carlsbad, California 92009 To all the Commissioners; - < We attended the two meetings concerning the Robertson Ranch Project. We definitely concur with the concerns brought forth about the increase in traffic; definitely too P1 ANmfk c" planned for the area, and the access roads to El Camino Real and Tamarack. Nothing was discussed about the impact on the residents on the North side of Tamarack near El Camino Real. We have only three (3) streets at this location and two of them are semi-cul-de- sacs going into LaPortalado, as our only entrance and exit to Tamarack. (One of the Commissioners asked where LaPortalado was in relationship to the Ranch). The only other street in this area with access to Tamarack is Pontiac Drive which is farther east from us. We are already having trouble getting on Tamarack at different times of the day. We have appreciated having College Blvd. opened at Lake and the Plaza Drive area. It saves us using El Camino Real to get to Hwy 78 and the Vista area But, someone on the panel suggested making LaPortalado a right turn only exit leaving our area. What about entering our residental area from Tamarack. Our neighborhood should not be a victim by a new development. Nothing was discussed about the planned Commercial Development or its location. For over fifteen (15) years, the residents of the NE Quadrant signed three different Petitions against Commercial Development on the SE corner of Tamarack and El Camino Real. After the third and last developer wrote to the City withdrawing his plans, the City Council agreed with the citizens that they did not want more Commercial on El Camino Real. At that time, there was a project approved at College and El Camino. We haven't heard any more about that. But, if there is a Commercial Project allowed on the Robertson Ranch, it should not be located on El Camino Real. Have any of the "long-term" landowners whose property has been zoned Agriculture ever considered selling to someone who is interested in keeping the land agriculture? If the zoning was not changed - we could keep some of our agriculture land At least, it's something to think about. Very truly yours, -f^Jt-vt^G*.^ reda Schweitzer ^/ August 2, 2006 To: Jeff Segall, Carlsbad Planning Commissioner \ Cc: Carlsbad Planning Commissioners, Barbara Kennedy, Brian WiM,!K Re: Siqnage/Notification Clarifications (Per Your Request) - Robertson Ranch Application Dear Commissioner Segall, Per your request, I am submitting to you and the other Commissioners clarifications from discussions pertaining to signage and notifications from the June 21st Robertson Ranch application commission meeting. City Staff is of the view that signage and notification is in the past and that energy would be better spent moving forward. We somewhat agree; however, there are three important points that should not be overlooked: (1 ) Your questions regarding signage were not accurately addressed as we discussed after the meeting. (I don't believe Ms. Kennedy's response was intentional; probably due to confusion, as also with audience members, with the intent of your questioning); (2) The lessons learned from the past help us avoid mistakes and improve processes in the future. To not evaluate and implement lessons learned would be foolish; and (3) Several Colony residents believe that the signage and noticing was insufficient and that such issue needs to be a part of the record of this application. Before addressing signage and notification, I'd like to respond to the "word on the street' at City Hall. The Colony residents are being described as a bunch of crybabies and whiners. As we've demonstrated to you, we have strived to be nothing less than professional. We prefer to be referred to as established citizens with courage to stand up and fight for the community in which we live by keeping it and its streets safe, and to save it from being destroyed. "In Carlsbad, public input is not only required, but welcomed...Public input is a key part of that process.1^ Is it fair to blame residents for discovering the pitfalls of an inadequately planned project? Better to discover and address it now than later. We have been above board in working with City Staff and the applicant, and if folks are upset enough to call us crybabies and whiners, the term "professionalism" speaks for itself. Ms. Kennedy's (and Commissioner's) comments regarding Noticing as retracted from meeting June 21st are provided below. Clarifications are made in red as applicable. 1 Carlsbad Community Services Guide, Fall 2006, Page 17 (1) BK-4 signs posted. Glasgow, Edinburgh, ECR& Cannon, ECR& Tamarack. Application in Process signs posted May 7, 2004 been up for over 2 years. ' Statement is incorrect as it applies to Edinburgh and Glasgow. Below is the signage that was posted 2 years ago at the end of Edinburgh and Glasgow. It does not say "Application in Process", but "Future Road Extension". These are the only signs that have been posted at these locations until the more recent May 31st Public Hearing signs that were posted 10 days prior to May 31st. Sega// - is there an orange sign at Glasgow and Edinburgh? BK- yes. Some form of notification has been there for two years. The May 31 ^ Public Hearing signs were posted 10 days prior to May 31 ^ We were watching for them to go up. Edinburgh Glasgow "Pending Public Hearing" Sign on NE corner of Cannon & El Camino Real Speaks for itself with respect to readability. "Pending Public Hearing" Sign on SE corner of Tamarack & El Camino Real Speaks for itself with respect to readability. (2) BK - Sent notices to all the properties within 600' of the project on that A red line in the aerial view below indicates the point at which 600' is. Homes below the red line are within 600' of the subject property. "All of the properties within 600 feet" doesn't account for even half of Colony residents. Its no wonder the response was low from Colony residents. (3) BK - Sent notice to the Public Agencies and any interested party that has contacted us wanting notification. Both my husband and I contacted the City in March 2006, and requested to be noticed on the Robertson Ranch Development. Additionally, in our meeting with Planning personnel on May 8th 2006, Ms, Escobar-Eck specifically stated that we receive such notice by mail. We did not receive the postal notice for the May 31,2006 hearing. When we discovered that we had been overlooked, we contacted Ms. Kennedy who said that she would make sure to add us to the notification list. We've received nothing new since then, but aren't sure anything has been sent. We do not want to be missed again. (4) BK- Subsequent to that we had a special scoping meeting for the rancho Carlsbad HOA and that was held about a week later. a. 360-380 people at those meetings b. 250 comment letters as a result of the meeting agencies and organizations about 13 letters c. RC - 200 comment letters d. General Residents - 24 comment letters, 15 from the Colony concerned about existing traffic in the neighborhood - don't extend Edinburgh to ECR - don't extend Glasgow to ECR - No straight routes through to Glasgow - One asked for additional point of entry on Tamarack Based on these comments that we got from those 15 residents, thafs the direction we took with the Master Plan and the EIR. That's why we had the traffic calming and the circuitous routing. Based on those original comments that's how the Master Plan was developed. Not exactly sure how the Master Plan takes into account the comments from the 15 residents? Edinburgh and Glasgow were extended to El Camino Real creating "sling-shots" through the Colony. Using the graphic below, the Colony had similar barricades in the mid-1980's saying, "Future Road Extension" prior to the addition of the cul-de-sacs Brookwood and Gateshead, which are circled in red. This was the type of development residents envisioned except with a couple hundred homes and not 1,000+homes. Future Road Extension Signage before Braofcwood and Gatehead additions to Colony in mid-19801 s (5) Baker - there was a comment about the HOA not receiving a letter or notice. BK- applicant is the one responsible for preparing the labels and the City sends out the notice. Kari Atherton (Colony) verified that two notifications were mailed to the Colony HOA but were sent to incorrect addresses, that the Colony HOA was never at the addresses and asked for clarification as to what happens to returned notifications. Ms. Kennedy stated," We hold on to the retimed envelopes until after a final decision has been made on the project, then they are thrown out. The City Clerk's Office follows the same procedure for the notices that are sent for the City Council hearings." Both McMillin and the City were aware that the Colony is a major stakeholder, as they have indicated verbally in the past If the notifications sent to major stakeholders came back, would it not be prudent for the applicant and/or City to take some type of action? Simply ignoring it is negligent. (6) BK - After the scoping meetings we did put notices out for availability for the draft EIR in conformance to SEQUA, sent out to public agencies, any parties that signed up from the scoping meetings we noticed them and again it was noticed in the newspaper. Colony residents weren't effectively notified from the beginning. We cannot be faulted for identifying inadequacies pertaining to sound that other parties had an obligation to address, Thank goodness somebody identified it. Lessons Learned 1. The Colony cannot be faulted for identifying the shortcomings of this application at this stage of the process. It was well known that there were 174 homes that would be affected if the roads were opened to El Camino Real, and one would expect a prudent developer and City would want to make sure those people really knew the ramifications of the development. Legal noticing requirements were ineffective. Had the process been more effective by noticing every Colony resident, we may have resolved many issues months, even years ago. To avoid this ineffective process in the future (i.e., Master Plan amendments, etc.) we request this be a condition of any approval associated with this development 2. It seams logical that the City and applicant would collaborate to deal with the returned notifications. Simply ignoring them is absolutely unacceptable! Not only is it necessary to adequately deal with them, but it is an obligation of the applicant, especially when a known major stakeholder is involved. The applicant failed to meet such obligation/requirement We have been advised that failure to meet the proper notice requirements could subject the entire application process to legal challenge, something we are confident no one wants to face. We suggest that the City and applicants implement a more effective process to deal with returned notifications. Thank you for your consideration of the signage and notification clarifications you requested. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 760-729-4928. Regards, Jill Agosti 4730 Edinburgh Dr. PLANNING SYSTEMS LAND USE/COASTAL PLANNING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE • LA3900 POLICY AND PROCESSING ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MEMORANDUM DATE: August 15, 2006 TO: Carlsbad Planning Commission CC: Jill Agosti, Barbara Kennedy, Brian Milich, Ken Cablay FROM: Paul Klukas; PLANNING SYSTEMS" SUBJECT: ROBERTSON RANCH NOTICING I have been provided a copy of a memo to Jeff Segall from Jill Agosti dated August 2, 2006. In this memo, Ms. Agosti criticizes, the signage and noticing of the Robertson Ranch project as insufficient. Since PLANNING SYSTEMS was responsible for installation of the signage and provision of the 600-ft. noticing list for this project, I would like to take this opportunity to respond. Ms. Agosti's comments with regard to signage and noticing are not supported by the facts. Please see below. Agosti comment: (1) BK-4 signs posted. Glasgow, Edinburgh, ECR & Cannon, ERC & Tamarack. Application in Process signs posted May 7, 2004 been up for over 2 years. Statement is incorrect as it applies to Edinburgh and Glasgow. Below is the signage that was posted 2 years ago at the end of Edinburgh and Glasgow. It docs not say "Application in Process", but "Future Road Extension". These are the only signs that have been posted at these locations until the more recent May 31st Public Hearing signs that were posted 10 days prior to May 31s1. Factg: At PLANNING SYSTEMS' direction, "Application in Progress" and "Notice of Public Meeting" signs were installed for the project as directed by City Staff on May 11, 2004 at four locations; the intersection of El Camino Real & Cannon Road, the intersection of El Camino Real and Tamarack Ave., and at the southern dead end stubs of both Glasgow Drive and Edinburgh Drive. Pictures of both signs at all four locations are attached to this memo. The "Notice of Public Meeting" sign on the right in the pictures shows the date Tuesday, May 18, 2004 for the EIR Scoping Meeting. The four "Notice of Public Meeting" signs were taken down shortly after the May 18, 2004 Scoping Meeting. The four "Application in Progress" signs remained up until May 17, 2006 when they were removed and replaced that same day by four "Pending Public 1530 FARADAY AVENUE • SUITE 100 • CARLSBAD, CA 92008 • (760) 931-0780 • FAX (7160) 931-5744 • info@planningsystcms.net Hearing" signs that are still up today. Thus, public noticing signs for the Robertson Ranch project have been standing at the end of Edinburgh and Glasgow Drives for over 28 months. Agosti comment: (5) Baker - there was a comment about the HO A not receiving a letter or notice. BK - applicant is the one responsible for preparing the labels and the City sends out the notice. Kari Atherton (Colony) verified that two notifications were mailed to the Colony HOA but were sent to incorrect addresses, that the Colony HOA was never at the addresses and asked for clarification as to what happens to returned notifications. Ms. Kennedy stated, "We hold on to the returned envelopes until after a final decision has been made on the project, then they are thrown out. The City Clerk's Office follows the same procedure for the notices that are sent for the City Council hearings." Both McMillin and the City were aware that the Colony is a major stakeholder, as they have indicated verbally in the past. If the notifications sent to major stakeholders came back, would, it not be prudent for the applicant and/or City to take some type or action? Simply ignoring it is negligent. Facts: PLANNING SYSTEMS routinely requests and receives the updated list of property owners within 600-feet of the exterior boundary of a project from the title insurance company. The title'insurance company generates the owner's list from the most recent, updated San Diego County Tax Assessor's rolls. In the Robertson Ranch case, First American Title Co. provided this list. The County Tax Assessor's rolls identify three open space lots within The Colony. These same Assessor's rolls show the following mailing addresses for each parcel. We double-checked again on Monday and all three addresses are still on file in the assessor roles as of August 14,2006. 208-101-02 Quality Management 9373 Mira Mesa Blvd San Diego, CA 92126 208-120-37 Seacoast Escrow 251 N El Camino Real Encinitas, CA 92024 208-120-38 Seacoast Escrow 251 N El Camino Real Encinitas, CA 92024 The above entities are apparently the legal owners of the open space lots. Per Section 21.54.060 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, notices must be sent to "all owners of real property as shown on the latest equalized assessment roll within 600-feet" (underline added). Notices for the May 2004 Scoping Meeting were sent to all three of the above addresses. No specific requirement exists to provide notice to a HOA property management company or entity other than the property owners. It is the responsibility of the property owner to ensure that the legal address for tax bills and title is correct on a property. It is not the responsibility of First American Title Co. or PLANNING SYSTEMS [or the City] if the information on the Assessor's roles is inaccurate or does not reach an otherwise interested party affiliated with the parcel. My office has been involved in the coordination and preparation of noticing packages for over 200 projects over the last 20 years. We are very familiar with the specifics of noticing requirements. Noticing of this project was provided with up to date information, for properties as required by 21.54.060. I am prepared to discuss the noticing of this project if any further questions remain. Attachments: Photos of public notice signs ft, 8 August 15, 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMEST 1 " City Of Tony and Sharon Barnes \ Carlsbad 2722 Glasgow Drive \ > Carlsbad, CA 92010 --_-•- (760)729-5195 Carlsbad Planning Commissioners (Montgomery, Baker, Segall, Whitton, Cardosa, Dominguez, Heinemann) Carlsbad City Council Members (Lewis, Hall, Kulchin, Packard, Sigafoose) Carlsbad City Manager, Raymond Patchett Carlsbad Community Development Director, Sandra Holder City Hall 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 Faraday Center 1635 Faraday Center Carlsbad, CA 92008 We are writing this letter to state our opposition to the access through the Colony that will result from the Robertson Ranch Project. Our reasons are as follows: 1. Our children's', seniors' and pets' safety is more important than access. We believe that opening up Glasgow and Edinburgh will increase traffic due to cut-through. As stated by Mr. Riddle in the June 21st City Planning Commission meeting: "Mr. Riddle stated that the numbers used in the traffic study were extremely conservative and contributed to the percentage rising to 99% and 95%, respectively" (Minutes from Planning Commission meeting). Should we wait until a child is killed, before the city realizes that opening up Glasgow and Edinburgh is a serious mistake? We are not willing to gamble with the safety of our children. 1. (Numbering is off)Validity/Reliability of Traffic Study & Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Information . Don't decide our future based on guesswork. . Mr. Riddle confirmed to Planning Commissioners that traffic numbers are "guesswork". Colony demonstrated on May 31 and June.21 that the traffic numbers are guesswork. Colony already sees errors and flaws with the 3rd draft traffic study. What if the traffic numbers are significantly wrong? Collector Tamarack Connection Results in Two Solutions (Cul-de-Sacs and Gates): Meets the Colony's, City's, and Developer's needs. Meets all Code requirements including Fire Dept's buy-in (July 11th) It does not destroy our neighborhood. Provided four emergency access points. Gates Fire Dept claims they do not keep records of failed gate incidents; thus, the statements and claims of the Fire Dept failures is hearsay. Is it prudent to decide the Colony's future on something that doesn't exist? Experts' testimonials and consultation indicate very few problems with gates a. Greg Dahlem, Battalion Chief, Baltimore Fire Dept. b. Dan Runnestrand - Battalion Chief, Orange County Fire Dept c. Ralph Davis - Captain, Corona Fire Dept. d. Greg Largent - Paramedic, Los Angeles County Dept e. Carlsbad Engine Co. 2211 Knox Box - Western Acct Mgr a. b. Installed in over 9,000 Fire Departments nationwide c. US Military uses Knox Box system worldwide (incl Camp Pendleton, Mira Mar) d. When gates don't work, it's usually due to dust or dirt on the contact switch--and fixed by spraying compressed air in a can or gum out if gunk is on it. CB is a long time Knox Box user e. Carlsbad has a great Knox Box program as well as a wonderful relationship w/ Knox Box f. No equipment failures have ever been reported to Knox Box from Carlsbad Carlsbad has 161 gated communities, but no gate policy - specifically a maintenance policy. Because a policy does not exists means that a policy should be created instead of denying gates where it is prudent to do so. 4. The developer did not adequately notify the Colony's home owners' Association. Instead a notification was sent to an address in Encinitas that had never belonged to GRG management. When we asked the developer what happened with the returned notices, we were told that they are placed in a box and discarded after the approval has been granted. HOW CONVENIENT! 5. The developer has failed to provide effective notification to the residents of the Colony. Until we started attending the City Planning Commission Meetings, we did not realize the extent of the impact this development will be to our community. 6. Our schools are already crowded. Our son's class, which is due to graduate in 2008, started with 914 students. That is only one class. Our children's education is being short-changed, and now the city wants to allow additional housing which will already tax our over- crowded schools. Why should our children pay the price to increase the profits of a developer? 7. We believe that the increased traffic volume and associated hazards will impact the safety of our neighborhood as well as make it less desirable. Why should we take that chance? We are your voting constituency now. We ask that you approve cul-de-sacs or gates as stated above, or deny this development altogether. It is unreasonable unfair and to destroy our veteran neighborhood in the Village by the Sea for the sake of another. Sincerely, Tony and Sharon Barnes August 28, 2008 To: Carlsbad City Council Members (Lewis, Hall, Kulchin, Packard, Sigafoose) Carlsbad Planning Commissioners (Montgomery, Baker, Segall, Whitton, Cardosa, Dominguez, Heinemann) Carlsbad City Manager, Raymond Patchett Carlsbad Community Development Director, Sandra Holder Re: Robertson Ranch Master Plan Application Dear City Leaders: As the leaders of Carlsbad, we need your assistance to facilitate the implementation of appropriate actions and forward movement of the subject application. We are looking to you, our City leaders, to help protect our interests as citizens. We have never opposed the subject development; we have major concerns regarding the adverse safety and integrity impacts of access through our neighborhood as a result of this development. We are long-time residents with a vested interest in preserving the unique neighborhood in which our families live and that has been a part of the "Village By The Sea" for almost 25 years. We have strived to be professional and have worked closely with City staff to find resolution. There remain several concerns that homeowners have not been able to resolve with the City. In a unanimous 7-0 vote at the first Planning Commission Hearing on May 31,2006 the Commission directed City staff and the Applicant to work with residents of the Colony and come up with a better plan that would not cause significant negative impact to the Colony neighborhood. At the second Hearing on June 21, 2006, a decision could not be made since concerns and flaws were identified with the alternative proposals presented to the Commission. It was also made very clear that the Commission would not approve the application unless they were sufficiently convinced that the projected traffic through our neighborhood would be minimal. We invited City staff to two homeowners' meetings (6/19/06 and 8/17/06) to be held jointly with the Applicant. The City declined to attend both meetings. We asked the City Planning Director for a town hall meeting. This meeting will occur on Thursday, August 31st at 6:00 m at the Faraday facility, and your attendance is strongly encouraged. Both the City staff and Applicant verified this week that the Wildlife Agencies have approved a second ingress/egress point (aka Collector Tamarack Connection) in the development. With this second ingress/egress point, two solutions now exist that are a win-win-win for all parties involved. The two solutions:. ->• Satisfy the needs of the Developer, City and Colony -» Meet all Code requirements including the Fire Department's buy-in (July 11*) -» Eliminate the significant safety and adverse impacts caused by the development to our neighborhood -> Maintain the integrity and quality of life of our almost 25-year old neighborhood -» Provide four emergency ingress/egress points. City Leaders - The Colony, An Established "Village By The Sea" Community, pg. 2 The 1wo solutions include "back-to-back cul-de-sacs" in one and a gated community in the other. Originally, buy-in for the "back-to-back cul-de-sacs" solution was n'ot supported by the City Planning staff because of concerns with emergency vehicle access. We've consulted with and obtained testimonials from several experts, including a Battalion Chief/Deputy Fire Marshal with 34 years of experience, that claim the concerns are unfounded. The other solution, a gated community (of which there are 161 gates already in Carlsbad), was presented to the Colony on July 11, 2006 and the City staff, City Fire Department, Applicant and Colony all agreed to its feasibility. In late-July we learned that the Applicant and City staff no longer support this solution, but we have been unable to get a direct answer as to why. The Applicant proposed both of these alternatives. We have identified our concerns below, and provided additional information supporting these concerns (attachment enclosed). 1. Safety vs. Access 2. Gates (and Other Closure Tools For Easy Emergency Access) 3. Validity and Reliability of Data -Traffic Study & EIR Information 4. Noticing Requirements - Robertson Ranch (i.e., Master Plan Amendments) 5. Development Requirements - Growth Management Plan (Prop. E) Your assistance in moving the process of resolution forward is appreciated. We wish to meet with each of you to discuss these issues. Thank you in advance for your attention to the citizens. Regards, The Colony: An Established "Village by the Sea" Community Representatives Greg & Jill Agosti 4730 Edinburgh'Dr. 729-4928 Evenings 949-368-8856 Daytime Kari Atherton 4781 Brookwood Ct 858-229-5368 Robin Wofford 4757 Edinburgh Dr. 619-5^4-8253 ' Attachment Robertson Ranch - Impacts To Colony & Concerns Enclosure: Colony Signatures, The Colony-Who Are We? City Leaders - The Colony, An Established "Village By The Sea" Community, pg. 3 ROBERTSON RANCH • IMPACTS TO COLONY & CONCERNS 1. Safety vs. Access . How does one put a percentage figure on the increased risk to kids, pedestrians and pets in a quaint, established, residential neighborhood of 174 homes? . Is the frequency of car, pet, and pedestrian accidents more important than the frequency of emergency vehicle access? . For the Mira Monte closure with gates decision, Mayor Lewis said, "Small roads opened up turn into major arteries." April 25, 2006, City Council Meeting. . Since the opening of Glasgow off of Carlsbad Village Drive, one particular location in our neighborhood (see graphic below) is already experiencing increased accidents and near misses due to additional traffic volume. There is an apex point where the two primary streets within the Colony come together and Glasgow crosses the apex in both directions. If Edinburgh and Glasgow are allowed to become through streets into and out of Robertson Ranch, safety will be further impacted. -^ . Cut through traffic at Glasgow and Edinburgh has already resulted in one major accident, in which a vehicle was "totaled" and was reported in April 2004. . Calavera "Hills" logically indicates that streets are not level. Speeds naturally increase when going downhill and so does the risk of safety. 2. Gates (and Other Closure Tools For Easy Emergency Access) . Expert testimonials and consultation indicate very few problems with gates a. Greg Dahlem, Battalion Chief, Baltimore Fire Dept. b. Dan Runnestrand - Battalion Chief/Deputy Fire Marshall c. Ralph Davis - Captain, Corona Fire Dept. d. Greg Largent - Paramedic, Los Angeles County Dept e. Carlsbad Fire Dept (Engine Co. to remain anonymous) -TZ.'* - • . Knox Company (Knox-Box Rapid Entry System) - Western Acct Mgr., Marlene Briones a. Installed in over 9,000 Fire Departments nationwide b. US Military uses Knox Box system worldwide (incl Camp Pendleton & Mira Mar) c. Carlsbad is a long time Knox Box user d. Carlsbad has a great Knox Box program and a wonderful relationship w/ Knox Box o-77 City Leaders - The Colony, An Established "Village By The Sea" Community, pg. 4 d. Carlsbad has a great Knox Box program and a wonderful relationship w/ Knox Box e. No equipment failures have ever been reported to Knox Box by Carlsbad f. Gate failures are usually due to dust or dirt on the contact switch-and easily fixed by spraying canned compressed air or gumout for heavier build up. . Carlsbad has 161 gates in various communities, but no gate policy - specifically a maintenance policy. Because a policy does not exist means that a policy should be created and not denying gates where it is prudent to do so no matter where in Carlsbad. In addition, PA 1 of Robertson Ranch may be a planned gated community, further supporting application of gates where appropriate. —. Carlsbad's Deputy Fire Marshall, Greg Ryan, claims records are not kept on failed gate incidents. If this is true, the statements and claims by the Fire Dept pertaining to gate failures is hearsay. Is it prudent to decide an established family-oriented neighborhood's future on something that doesn't exist? . A manual gate secured with a Knox pad lock and chain provides easy and inexpensive emergency access; first with a Knox key for the pad lock, and second if the lock fails, the chain can be cut using the "three-foot key" method a.k.a. bolt cutters. Chain links are cut so a chain can be used many times before needing replacement. For electronic applications, Knox Box has a key switch override option and a 2-position switch for both the open and closed positions. City Leaders - The Colony, An Established "Village By The Sea" Community, pg. 5 Carlsbad's Deputy Fire Marshall also stated that so faVgate delays have not resulted in the loss of life or property. While not the most aesthetically pleasing, several cities use delineators, commonly referred to as bollards, for closures. Emergency access is easily accomplished as they are designed to be driven over by emergency vehicles and either spring back into place or snap off. They can be used in both permanent and temporary applications. Very low maintenance is required. These are currently on Ei Camino Real in several locations in Carlsbad. 3. Validity and Reliability of Data - Traffic Study & Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Information . The Average Daily Traffic (ADT) of Glasgow and Edinburgh has consistently changed with each traffic study. a. The first traffic study remarkably claimed that only 6% of the entire Robertson Ranch development (1,383 units) would cut-through Glasgow and Edinburgh. b. Further review, showed Glasgow and Edinburgh ADT at 99% and 95% capacity, respectively. c. The third study, while in draft, shows yet another figure remarkably hard to believe. With 1,100+ homes, the traffic increase on one street segment will be only .03%. This is unrealistic. For the closure of Mira Monte, the traffic study that was relied on estimated almost 16,000 more cars on a key traffic segment (College between 78 & Plaza) than the Robertson Ranch study (RR = 15,000 and MM = 31,000.) Obviously, by using the smaller number of the RR study it reduces the ADT calculation applicable to the streets within the Colony. It could be argued that the numbers are being skewed in order to obtain an intended result. (Oceanside's figure for the same traffic segment was 49,000.) City Leaders -The Colony, An Established "Village By The Sea" Community, pg. 6 • When asked by the Planning Commissioners, the City Engineer, Jeremy Riddle, confirmed that the traffic numbers are "guesswork". V--~ a. The Colony demonstrated this at both Commission Hearings (May 31 and June 21). b. Our future cannot be decided upon on guesswork. . The Commission asked, "What contingencies can be guaranteed if traffic numbers are significantly wrong?" "Looking at the potential scenarios when they occur" is not acceptable, per the Commission in response to the City Engineer's response. . The EIR contained a table entitled, "Existing Plus Project"; the numbers should have been identical, but they were not. After bringing it to the Applicant's attention, the Applicant acknowledged that 14 of 21 entries were in error and revised the entries accordingly. • The EIR did not address the noise impacts on Glasgow & Edinburgh. Whether believed to be insignificant or not, they still should have been addressed. . The Commission and Council cannot rely on inconsistent, flawed and possibly biased data. Two solutions exist and satisfy the needs of the City, Applicant and the Colony; meet all Code requirements; and will not destroy a neighborhood that has been part of the "Village by the Sea" for almost 25 years. 4. Future Noticing Robertson Ranch (i.e., Master Plan Amendments) In the aerial image below, the red line illustrates the number of Colony residents that were legally notified. Residents below the red line were notified (approx.1/3); those above the red line were not (approx. 2/3). The HOA and residents have asked the Applicant to add all 174 names and addresses of the Colony to the existing database. To ensure this request is not overlooked, each resident who has signed below hereby informs the City that they request to be notified by the developer and City of any public noticing requirements pertaining to the Robertson Ranch Master Plan development including, but not limited to, Master Plan Amendments. City Leaders - The Colony, An Established "Village By The Sea" Community, pg. 7 5. Development Requirements • Growth Management Plan (Prop. E) • The Fall 2006 Carlsbad Community Services Guide says, "The Plan...also resulted in a vision for ensuring that development would pay for the impact of new housing on the community."1 . There is no price that can be paid when a life is lost because of an unfortunate and even innocent traffic accident. The new housing of Robertson Ranch impacts the Colony neighborhood by increasing the risk of safety to residents and decreasing the integrity of an established neighborhood. . For the Mira Monte closure with gates -decision, Mayor Pro Tem, Matt Hall said, "Growth Management Plans were designed to protect quality of life." April 25th 2006, City Council Meeting. . Density of Robertson Ranch has tentatively been agreed to not exceed 1,154 DU. But that figure can be decreased and should not hinder consideration of any solution. On May 15, 2006 during the first Colony homeowners meeting the Applicant was specifically asked if they could economically live with 983 DU's. Brian Milich stated, 'We would be willing to re-examine the 983 units we originally requested; they wouldn't be happy, but would we still make money? Yes." 1 Carlsbad Community Services Guide, Fall 2006, page 2 £-11 Page 1 of 3 August 28, 2006 Francis & Irasema Perrot WANING DEPARTMENT 2726 Glasgow Dr So Carlsbad, CA 92010 (760) 434-9037 City Hall 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 Attention: Carlsbad Planning Commissioners: Montgomery, Baker, Segall, Whitton, Cardosa, Dominguez, Heinemann We are writing this letter to state our opposition to the access through the Colony that will result from the Robertson Ranch Project. Our reasons are as follows: 1. Our children's', seniors' and pets' safety is more important than access. We believe that opening up Glasgow and Edinburgh will increase traffic due to cut-through. As stated by Mr. Riddle in the June 21st City Planning Commission meeting: "the numbers used in the traffic study were extremely conservative and contributed to the percentage rising to 99% and 95%, respectively" (Minutes from Planning Commission meeting). Should we wait until a child is killed, before the city realizes that opening up Glasgow and Edinburgh are a serious mistake? We are not willing to gamble with the safety of our children. 2. Validity/Reliability of Traffic Study a Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Information . Don't decide our future based on guesswork. . Mr. Riddle confirmed to Planning Commissioners that traffic numbers are "guesswork". . Colony demonstrated on May 31 and June 21 that the traffic numbers are guesswork. . Colony already sees errors and flaws with the 3rd draft traffic study. S Page 2 of 3 . What if the traffic numbers are significantly wrong? 3. Collector Tamarack Connection Results in Two Solutions (Cul-de-Sacs and Gates): Meets the Colony's, City's, and Developer's needs. . Meets all Code requirements including Fire Dept's buy-in (July 11th) . It does not destroy our neighborhood. . Provided four emergency access points. 4. Gates . Fire Dept claims they do not keep records of failed gate incidents; thus, the statements and claims of the Fire Dept failures are hearsay. Is it prudent to decide the Colony's future on something that doesn't exist? . Experts' testimonials and consultation indicate very few problems with gates a. Greg Dahlem, Battalion Chief, Baltimore Fire Dept. b. Dan Runnestrand - Battalion Chief, Orange County Fire Dept c. Ralph Davis - Captain, Corona Fire Dept. d. Greg Largent - Paramedic, Los Angeles County Dept e. Carlsbad Engine Co. 2211 . Knox Box - Western Acct Mgr a. Installed in over 9,000 Fire Departments nationwide b. US Military uses Knox Box system worldwide (inc. Camp Pendleton, Mira Mar) c. When gates don't work, it's usually due to dust or dirt on the contact switch--and fixed by spraying compressed air in a can or gum out if gunk is on it. CB is a long time Knox Box user d. Carlsbad has a great Knox Box program as well as a wonderful relationship w/ Knox Box e. No equipment failures have ever been reported to Knox Box from Carlsbad . Carlsbad has 161 gated communities, but no gate policy - specifically a maintenance policy. Because a policy does not exists means that a policy should be created instead of denying gates where it is prudent to do so. Page 3 of 3 5. The developer did not adequately notify the Colony's home owners' Association. Instead a notification was sent to an address in Encinitas that had never belonged to GRG management. When we asked the developer what happened with the returned notices, we were told that they are placed in a box and discarded after the approval has been granted. HOW CONVENIENT! 6. The developer has failed to provide effective notification to the residents of the Colony. Until we started attending the City Planning Commission Meetings, we did not realize the extent of the impact this development will be to our community. 7. Our schools are already crowded. Our son's class, which is due to graduate in 2008, started with 914 students. That is only one class. Our children's education is being short-changed, and now the city wants to allow additional housing which will already tax our over- crowded schools. Why should our children pay the price to increase the profits of a developer? 8. We believe that the increased traffic volume and associated hazards will impact the safety of our neighborhood as well as make it less desirable. Why should we take that chance? We are your voting constituency We ask that you approve cul-de-sacs or gates as stated above, or deny this development altogether. It is unreasonable and unfair to destroy our veteran neighborhood in the Village by the Sea for the sake of another. Sincerely, Francis 8t Irasema Perrot Page 1 of 2 August 28, 2006 > Lolita Buonaguidi ^ «u0^^ 2726 Glasgow Drive ^w* Carlsbad, CA 92010 729-3190 City Hall 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 Attention: Carlsbad Planning Commissioners: Montgomery, Baker, Segall, Whitton, Cardosa, Dominguez, Heinemann I am writing to protest the master plan for Robertson Ranch. Opening up Glasgow and Edinburgh to the West Village and El Camino Real will be disastrous for our homeowners as they all try to leave for work and return in the evening. Not to mention the traffic congestion as parents attempt to take their children to school. The children of the colony play on the streets, should we wait until a child is killed by oncoming traffic? What about the seniors in the Colony? I personally was almost side-swiped at the corner of Glasgow and Edinburgh. There is a safe alternative-use gates (for emergency access) at Glasgow and Edinburgh. Open Tamarack into the West Village for additional access-that would meet the fire codes as supported in the July 11th meeting. . Experts' testimonials and consultation indicate very few problems with gates a. Greg Dahlem, Battalion Chief, Baltimore Fire Dept. b. Dan Runnestrand - Battalion Chief, Orange County Fire Dept c. Ralph Davis - Captain, Corona Fire Dept. d. Greg Largent - Paramedic, Los Angeles County Dept e. Carlsbad Engine Co. 2211 Collector Tamarack Connection Results in Two Solutions (Cul-de- Sacs and Gates): Meets the Colony's, City's, and Developer's needs. Page 2 of 2 . Meets all Code requirements including Fire Dept's buy-in (July 11th) . It does not destroy our neighborhood. . Provided four emergency access points. I personally think it is VICIOUS AND CRUEL for the City and the developer not to grant the homeowners' wishes. The city will get the additional tax revenues, and the developer will get its money for the new homes. The homeowners of the Colony only want to keep children and pets safe and eliminate heavy traffic in a family-oriented, gentle neighborhood. Do not destroy our neighborhood. Respectfully, cs Lolita Buonaguidi August 28, 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT City Of City Hall Car!sB3d 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 To the Carlsbad Planning Commissioners ( Montgomery, Baker, Segall, Whitton, Cardosa, Dominguez, Heinemann), It has come to our attention that in a neighborhood very close to ours, a new development under the Robertson Ranch Master Plan will greatly impact many close friends and acquaintances of ours. It is our experience in the Trails of Calavera Hills, especially on Harwich Drive, that a new development with the addition of many new homes can greatly affect the quality of everyday life. The addition of many new homes east of Tamarack on Harwich Drive has caused an increase in traffic that directly affects our homes. Backing out of our driveway now takes much longer during peak traffic hours due to the constant flow of cars coming from the new area. The increase in traffic, as well as the creation of the intersection at Tamarack and Harwich Dr (lacking a traffic signal or stop sign), have led to dangerous environments for children, pedestrians as well as residential traffic. Quality of life in this wonderful city is a precious attribute. We wish to keep the neighborhoods safe and enjoyable. Please reconsider opening Glasgow and Edinburgh streets to an influx of traffic that will change the neighborhood detrimentally. The citizens of Edinburgh Estates have our support in opposing this change. Sincerely, Jonice and Tim Hoffi 3630 Harwich Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92010 (760) 434-9863 ^Jackson Management Consulting & Training September 1,2006 Mr. Raymond R. Patchett City Manager City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, California 92008 cc: Ms. Marcela Escobar-Eck Mr. Skip Hammond Mr. Chris Heiser Ms. Susan Irey Mayor Claude "Bud" Lewis Councilman Matt Hall Councilwoman Ann Kulchin Councilman Mark Packard Councilwoman Norine Singafoose Via Email Dear Mr. Patchett: Last evening I attended the "Town Hall Meeting" held for residents of "The Colony" to interact with city representatives regarding the Robertson Ranch development. Our family was one of the first four families in The Colony having moved to Edinburgh Drive in February 1981. In 1986, we re-located to another home on Gateshead Road so have been 25 year residents of this small community Along with my neighbors, I seek to mitigate the impact of a larger neighboring community and, as much as possible, preserve our feeling of a small neighborhood. I most certainly realize the reality of change as new neighbors in Robertson Ranch join us and do not oppose that development. Since our Planning Commission had directed City Staff and the applicant to work with residents of The Colony to develop a workable plan, I (along with many other residents) viewed last night's meeting as a unique opportunity to work together and move forward in creating a plan. My expectation of the meeting was for straightforward dialogue on the City's perspective and the perspective of the homeowners in order to create a "win-win." Unfortunately, that did not occur and I believe the City missed an ideal opportunity to partner with citizens in planning for necessary changes. The following points capture my assessment of the meeting. Jackson Wilders Group 4803 Gateshead Road Carlsbad, CA 92010 Phone 760.729.0594 Fax 760.729.0597 www.jacksonwilders.com 1. There was not a workable process. ,. a. We were told we'd review our alternative proposals asking questions that would all be recorded. Staff would meet privately to review the questions then would return to answer them. Questions were taken (although most of them had also been submitted in advance) as well as comments but rather than list pertinent questions succinctly, this individual declined to write some ("We'll deal with that later.") and wrote short phrases haphazardly. Additionally, the writing was rather small and entered with a light marker so it was difficult to read the input, even for those at the front of the room. 2. The two-hour period of time allotted was not managed well. a. Approximately an hour was spent gathering and recording questions and input. b. After a 15-minute break during which time city representatives were "organizing the questions" each representative addressed the group. Rather than answer the specific questions/concerns we voiced, they delivered philosophical soliloquies on the planning process, general parameters, how difficult it is to establish a workable development plan, barriers, etc. c. At approximately 7:45 residents' questions started to be addressed. Within 5 minutes we were told that time was running out and we'd have to limit questions. 3. Although we heard expressions from City staff to the effect that they're interested in working with us, they want our input, they respect our viewpoints, etc., their behaviors did not support those words. One example is that when asked about potential problems with the Colony's alternative plan #3 (back to back cul-de-sacs), we were told that there were "fatal flaws" but were never given specifics. Another example is they were unable to tell us when the draft traffic report would be available to us. When confronted with the fact that we were not receiving specific answers to our questions, the response was that all questions would be addressed in the Staff Report. My understanding is that this document provides recommendations of all alternatives to the Planning Commission at their meeting. Without that information in advance, it is impossible for us to partner with the City in generating a workable solution. My overall impression is that the City representatives were gratuitous and that the intent was to placate-us, not to truly collaborate and problem-solve as partners in this effort. At the end of the meeting the general mood of those in attendance was one of extreme frustration, disappointment and, in some cases, anger. Our City Council lists "Communication" as a critical value and wants to: "Ensure that community members, Council and staff are well informed, continuing to be a more responsive government while providing a high level of citizen confidence in its government. " The City's mission statement reads "Our mission is to continue to improve the quality of life for all those -who live, work, and play in Carlsbad by providing top- quality service to our City and in our region. " In reflecting on last night's meeting, I feel that City representatives did not want to answer questions directly and did not want to deal with specifics. In turn, that leads me to believe the City does not want to work with us in determining a viable solution. I most definitely do not feel that the City desires to "improve the quality of life for all... "and also do not feel the City wants us to be "well informed." In turn I absolutely recognize that we have not received "top-quality service." And rather than a high level of citizen confidence in our City government, for me and I believe for my neighbors in attendance last night, the level has been greatly diminished. I appreciate your attention to this matter and ask your help in moving this process forward to a "win-win" conclusion. Sincerely, Ada J. Wilders -S9 ^Barbara Kennedy - Ref CITY OF CARLSBAD I CONTACT US ' "Page i _ .«.- . -- J .^J^t^-t .. • ..*. - - ^.... fe> ' -:..« ».-... -*,^. .. • - • --?--- _ ...**...-. ^ , ££ •— , .___ , .^ „ - J From: Barbara Kennedy To: Council Internet Mailbox; tedgallup1@yahoo.com Date: 09/06/2006 5:10:04 PM Subject: Re: CITY OF CARLSBAD | CONTACT US Dear Mr Gallup, Thank you for your inquiry. The Planning Department will be presenting three circulation alternatives for the West Village of Robertson Ranch to the Planning Commission on September 20th. I believe that most of the Colony residents are aware of the three alternatives that will be presented. The Colony representatives that I have been dealing with have voiced support for Alternative 3 which includes a new roadway at Tamarack Avenue, a gated community for Robertson Ranch Planning Areas 9 and 10 (bordering Edinburgh) and a gated emergency access at Glasgow. All three alternatives meet City standards, however there are pros and cons to each of the alternatives. Staff will be presenting a recommendation on the alternatives, however the ultimate decision is with the Planning Commission and City Council. If you have any additional questions, please contact me or call me to set an appointment. I would be happy to meet with you in person and discuss the alternatives in more detail. BK Barbara Kennedy, AICP Associate Planner City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4626 bkenn@ci.carlsbad.ca.us >» <tedgallup1@yahoo.com> 09/06/06 11:59 AM >» A visitor to the City of Carlsbad Web site has completed and posted the "Contact Us" form to department, City Council. FOR SECURITY REASONS, DO NOT CHANGE THE SUBJECT LINE. Below, please find the information that was submitted: Our neighborhood group is trying to work with Carlsbad's Planning Department and land developer McMillin Company to mitigate the negative impacts of the proposed Robertson Ranch development. Robertson Ranch is located directly adjacent to our small 25 year old neighborhood of 174 single family homes. Like Carlsbad's Strawberry Fields that citizens are trying to preserve, the Robertson Ranch property is also beautiful agricultural land, zoned residential under the City's General Plan and no one is trying to stop the development. But this does not mean the project should be built so that it ruins an existing neighborhood's quality of life. Specifically, City planners want to open up our streets as feeders to a new commercial strip mall, the busy six-lane El Camino Real artery, and 1,200 new housing units (most of them condominiums and apartments). While our streets are currently around 40% of possible utilization, the City's plans call for more than double that amount! Currently these are quiet streets with front yards containing many families with small children. City planners somehow believe that there will be no safety or quality of life concerns with this level of greatly increased traffic. The land developer, land owner, and our residents' group support alternative traffic and street plans that will significantly mitigate the negative impacts to our established neighborhood. But for some reason the City's planning staff continue to push for a conversion of our small streets into high traffic feeders, with no regard for our concerns of safety and quality of life. If the developer, the land owner, and the neighboring residents support alternate plans, why won't the City Planning Department? "Barbara Kennedy-Re: ClfY OF CARLSBAD I CONTACT US ' " " 'Page 2 .. „ f > * . ....... _J , . ^fZXi&W-., . " -,. ^ "-' - ----- •-. . •- •»- .. .J«gH ._ .. fa-_. ~t. . .V*. .._. W . Ted Gallup 4799 Gateshead Road Carlsbad, CA 92010 tedqallupl @yahoo.com Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0; .NET CLR 1.1.4322) 162.119.232.109 5-9 / / /r Dr. STATE OF CALIFORNIA—HUSINESS. TRANSPORTATION AND tlOllSlNO AGENCY A3NOI-P SCmVAUZENEOGPR. fiovermr DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION District 11 • 4050 Taylor Street • M.S. 240 Son Diego, CA 92110 PHONE (619)688-6954 FAX (619) 688-4299 Fttxyourpowr! Be energy efficient! August 24, 2006 ll-SD-005 PM 49.28 Mr. Jeremy Riddle City of Carlsbad Public Works Dept. 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 RE: Robertson Ranch Master Plan - Final PEIR ^- response fSCH 2004051039) Dear Mr. Riddle: The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) appreciates the opportunity to review the City of Carlsbad's response to Caltrans' comments regarding the Final 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 feet of commercial use on 404 acres located south of State Route 78 (SR-78) and east of Interstate 5 (1-5) at the eastern corner of the Tamarack Avenue / El Camino Real intersection in the City of Carlsbad. This letter is in response to the City of Carlsbad's letter to Caltrans dated June 14, 2006 (attached). The previous Caltrans response letter dated May 31, 2006 is also attached and should be considered in reviewing these additional comments. In particular, Caltrans questions the project's anticipated traffic distribution which indicates that only a relatively low percentage of traffic (4.5%) would use the most direct route - Tamarack Avenue - to access 1-5, thereby precluding traffic impact analysis of the freeway ramps at this location. As you are aware, Caltrans is currently developing the 1-5 North Coast project in order to improve mobility along 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 Robertson Ranch's "fair share" transportation impacts mitigation. Caltrans has developed procedures to collect fair share mitigation via our Traffic Mitigation Agreements guidelines (June 2006, attached). In order to better coordinate land use and transportation improvements related to the Robertson Ranch project, we would like to meet with the City of Carlsbad to discuss how to calculate and implement mutually beneficial traffic impact mitigation. X Caltrans appreciates the opportunity to continue working cooperatively with the City in planning to meet local and regional transportation needs. For questions regarding the Department's comments and to schedule a meeting, please contact Brent C. McDonald at (619) 688-6819. Sincerely, MARIO H. ORSO, Chief Development Review Branch "Callrans Improves mobility across California " -93 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 road\vay 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 co^tse 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 Uie study limits) those intersections and roadway segments that are subject to 20% of the project-generated traffic. 1635 Faraday Avenue - Carlsbad. CA 92008-7314 • (76O) 602-2730 • FAX (76O) 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 leveis-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 in 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 information 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, in conjunction with future development (e.g.'s, Year 2010 with and without the Project analysis,xYear 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. 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, Jkemy 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(CT02-16,#3R) DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION District 11- 4050 Taylor Street- MS. 50 San Diego, CA 92110-2737 PHONE (619) 688-6954 , . FAX (619)688-4299 Flex four powrl Be enargy tffictenlt May 31,2006 ll-SD-005 PM 49.28 Ms. Barbara Kennedy City of Carlsbad Planning Dcpt 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92024-3533 RE: 'Robertson Ranch Master Plan - Final Program EIR (SCH 20Q40S1D39) 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 (HER) for the Robertson Rancti 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 me 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. Hie 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 detennining 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 rninimum 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 "Fair 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, "Ctthfttos imptovts mobility across California " ATTACHMENT 1 Ms. Barbara Kennedy May 31,2006 Page 2 signalized intersections must be analyzed using the Intersecting Lane- Vehicle (ELY) 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 ths 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 EIR for this project proposal. For questions regarding the Department's comments, please contact Brent C. McDonald at (619)688-6819. Sincerely, 30EL0RSO, Chief Development Review'Branch cc: BMcDonald Planning Alacobo 1-5, PM EGojuangco Frwy. Ops. SMorgan State ClearingHouse (SCH) "Catlrtutt imp/6vet mobility across Calffarala* ** TOTRL PfiGE.03 ** O Robertson Ranch Calavera Hills II. LLC ©Urban Systems Associates, Inc. September 1, 2005 f %) = 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 3tOi-Graphlc3_H.tlw8 003101 5-2 ATTACHMENT 2 PLAHHIN3 & TRAFfK SNSINSEKINa, MrtRKETTNQ & PROJECTSUPPOKT CONSULTANTS TO INDUSTRYANO GOVERNMSNT E-MEMO ATTN: Jeremy Riddle COMPANY: City of Carlsbad X7 FROM: SamP.Kab,n DATE: June 13,2006 TIME; 4:53 pm e-mail Y. • • jridd@,ci. carlsbad. ca.us TOTAL PAGES ; 2+ Attachments TRANSMITTED VIA: E-Mail SUBJECT: Caltrans Comment Letter Regarding Robertson Ranch Master Plan Confidential Communications This Memo transminal 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 "S ANTEC/ITE Guidelines for Traffic Impact Studies ( TLS} in the San Diego 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 our 811 8 36 PM Peak Hour IN* 1.063 11 48 OUT 638 6 29 003101 Page I 4540 Keacny Villa Road, Suits 106 • San Diego, CA 92123 • (858) 560-4911 • Fax (858) 560-9734 ATTACHMENT 3 Jeremy Riddle June 13,2006 Urban Systems Associates, /ncs 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. x 003101 Page 2 31Ql-06n06-ememo-spk.v/pd Local Development - Intergovernmental Review Program^* +** Traffic Mitigation Agreements California Department of Transportation June 2006 Traffic Mitigation Agreements with Local Development Project Proponents Procedures for Collecting, Recording, and Expending Fair Share (Pro Rata) Funds and Securing Deferred Capital Improvements APPROVED: __^UljHT _ sputyfoiOrector Planning and Modal Programs DateI r CINDY McMlM Chief Financial Officer Date RICHARD D. LAN Chief Engineer Date BRbG£-BEH Chief Counsel Date "Caltrans improves mobility across California " Acknowledgement The Office of Community Planning extends its great appreciation for the individual and collective statewide efforts that made possible the publication of these procedures: Traffic Mitigation Agreements with Local Development Project Proponents Procedures for Collecting, Recording, and Expending Fair Share (Pro Rata) Funds and Securing Deferred Capital Improvements Division of Transportation Planning Office of Community Planning Local Development-Intergovernmental Review Program 1120 N Street, Sacramento, CA 95814 PO Box 942874, Sacramento, CA 94274-0001 Telephone (916) 653-0808 Calnet: 8-453-0808 Fax: (916)653-4570 E-mail: betty_l_miller@dot.ca.gov LD-IGR Traffic Mitigation Agreements Table of Contents Page Definitions 1 Introduction 5 Background 5 Scope -. ; 6 Purpose , 7 Approach 7 Traffic Mitigation Agreement 7 Accounting for Receipt of Funds 9 I. Districts 10 A. Local Development-Intergovernmental Review (LD-IGR) 10 B. Office of Budgets 10 1. Project Control Officer (PCO) 10 2. Cashier 11 II. Headquarters 11 Division of Accounting 11 1. Cashiering 11 2. Reimbursement Accountant 12 3. EA Control & Overhead Assessment Section 12 Expending the Funds 12 I. Identifying and Scheduling Projects 13 A. Districts 13 1. District Projects Monitor 13 2. Project Manager 13 3. Project Control Officer 13 B. Headquarters * ..14 1.HQ Budgets 14 2. Office Engineer 14 3. Reimbursement Accountant 15 II. Project Cost Summary 15 Appendices 17 LD-IGR Traffic Mitigation Agreements Appendices 1. Flow Chart: 2. Template: 3. Template: 4. Flow Chart: 5. Letter: 6. Form: 7. Flow Chart: Executing an Agreement Fair Share Deferment Agreement Capital Deferment Agreement Accounting for Receipt of Fair Share Funds Confirmation of receipt of mitigation measures funds from Proponent Sample Transfer Receipt (Form STD 440) Accounting for Expenditure of Fair Share Funds LD-IGR Traffic Mitigation Agreements Definitions 1. Contributor Number, identification number given to local proponent for a specific Agreement by the Reimbursement Accountant at Headquarters (HQ) and matched to the EA. A contributor number is required in order to set up a reimbursement (R) line on an EA in TRAMS. 2. District Cashier. District officer who receives mitigation funds from Local Development-Intergovernmental Review (LD-IGR) function, prior to funds being transferred to HQ Cashiering. 3. District Projects Monitor. Function'in each District responsible for monitoring planned and programmed projects for the purpose of identifying where mitigation funds can be committed. For example, in District 6, Advanced Planning performs the function. 4. Division of Accounting (DofA), Reimbursement Section. HQ office responsible for assisting in setting up of both holding and project EAs for mitigation funding and for the subsequent accounting activities required. 5. Division of Accounting, Office of Financial Accounting & Analysis (OFAA). HQ office that certifies reimbursement authority for EA and subsequently releases EA for entry into TRAMS. Two separate sections within OFAA have respective responsibilities (Highway Appropriation Management Section [HAMS] and EA Control & Overhead Assessment Section [EA Control]). 6. Division of Budgets, Capital Outlay (HQ Budgets). Approves Reimbursement Authority for mitigation measures project EA phase 4 funds. 7. Expenditure Authorization (EA). A 6-digit alphanumeric "number" that is assigned to a specific project or work order to track all project-related financial activities. Mitigation funds collected are assigned an "holding" EA. (Temporary EA assigned with an EA status of 21, which is used for billing and collections only.) No activity may be recorded in*TRAMS by any Department organization without an EA. 8. Expenditure Authorization System/Capita! Outlay Monitoring System (EAS/COMS). A subsystem of TRAMS that is used to masterfile an EA. 9. Funding Package. Set of funding documents detailing the phase 4 EA construction financing for a capital outlay project. A Funding Package is required for every project submitted to Office Engineer for advertising and award of a construction contract. LD-IGR Traffic Mitigation Agreements 10. Headquarters Cashiering. Receives funds from District Cashier and posts per instructions received from Reimbursement Accountant. 11. Lead Agency. The public agency which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project which may have a significant effect upon the environment. (CEQA [PRC Section 21067].) 12. Local Development-Intergovernmental Review (LD-IGR) Coordinator. Individual designated in each District to coordinate that District's functional responses to environmental review of proposed local development projects. 13. Local Agency. Any public agency other than a state agency, board, or commission. (For CEQA, includes redevelopment agency and a local agency formation commission [PRC Section 21062].) 14.Masterfiled. A term used to indicate that an EA or contributor number has been entered into TRAMS. 15. Office Engineer (OE). Division of Engineering Services office that performs the functions of preparation of the final contract documents, project scheduling, advertisement, bid opening, award, and approval of all Department highway construction contracts over $120,000. 16. Project Control Officer (PCO). District officer authorized and responsible for processing Expenditure Authorization (EA) for mitigation funds upon request of Local Development-Intergovernmental Review (LD- IGR). 17. Proponent. Person/entity developing a project. 18. Public Agency. Includes any state agency, board, or commission, any county, city and county, city, regional agency, public district, redevelopment agency, or other political subdivision. (CEQA [PRC Section 21063].) «. 19. Reimbursement. Recovery in cash or its equivalent from another governmental unit, fund, or department for an expenditure made on its behalf. Mitigation funds are collected as "reimbursement funds." The reimbursement funding line on an EA is called the "R" line. 20. Reimbursement Accountant. First level of approval in HQ A/R for mitigation funds "holding" EA and subsequent masterfiling of both contributor number and project EA into TRAMS. 1*0$ LD-IGR Traffic Mitigation Agreements 21. Reimbursement Authority. Approval required from HQ Budgets before HAMS can certify phase 4 construction project EAs in EAS/COMS (and before funds can be expended). Reimbursement Authority for mitigation funds is requested only for phase 4 construction projects. (When approved, the mitigation funds Reimbursement Authority is not part of a District's annual Reimbursement Authority allocation for capital projects.) 22. Traffic Mitigation Agreement {Agreement}. The Agreement entered into directly with a project developer (proponent) in order to collect funds for traffic mitigation measures (Fair Share Deferment), or in order to secure a commitment for improvements (Capital Deferment), to offset impacts to the State Highway System when a project is approved by a local public agency. The Agreement will include attachments of supporting documentation. 23.Traffic Mitigation Agreement (Agreement) Package. The Agreement "Package," in addition to the signed and notarized (preferably) Fair Share Deferment Agreement and its attachments, consists of the check and copies of any other pertinent documents generated in the District pertaining to the collection and planned expenditure of the mitigation funds. (Capital Deferment Agreements are not fooA/arded to HQ Accounting, as there are no mitigation funds collected.) 24. Transportation and Accounting Management System (TRAMS). The Department's accounting system. 25. TRAMS Collector. Overnight electronic "bin" for EA after it has been released by OFAA, but not yet entered (or uploaded) into TRAMS. 26.Transfer Receipt. Form STD. 440 (REV. 6-2000). Used to record the receipt of funds by District Cashier and the subsequent transfer of those funds from District Cashier to HQ Cashiering. LD-IGR Traffic Mitigation Agreements Introduction The Local Development-Intergovernmental Review (LD-IGR) Traffic Mitigation Agreement (Agreement) was designed to fill a limited need. It is executed directly between the California Department of Transportation (Department) and project developers (proponents), both private and public, in order to capture mitigation to the State Highway System (SHS) that might otherwise be lost.1 Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), public agencies can require proponents to mitigate or avoid significant adverse impacts to the environment prior to approving a proponent's proposed project. Usually, public agencies (lead agencies, under CEQA) administer the collection of funds or other forms of mitigation to the SHS. Under certain circumstances, however, they will require that the proponent work directly with the Department to mitigate impacts to the SHS. Background CEQA grants public agencies the authority to mitigate or avoid significant effects to the environment with respect to applicable projects within their jurisdictions. The resulting environmental review, as established by CEQA and its Guidelines, is central to the Department's ability to obtain mitigation for development impacts to the SHS. The Department reviews proposed planning and development activity for the purpose of identifying potential significant impacts to the SHS. Depending upon the type and size of the proposed project, some degree of traffic analysis will be generated. The analysis may be in the form of a traffic impact study (TIS) conducted by a local public agency or proponent; calculations from the Institute of Transportation Engineers [ITE] Trip Generation Handbook; modeling; prior traffic analysis that established per-trip cost; or, some other appropriate method. Whatever the form of the analysis, if it is determined that a significant impact will result from a proposed project, it is within the authority of the Department to request mitigation that will either eliminate the impact or reduce it to a level of insignificance.«. The Department's recommendation for mitigation must be based upon sound technical data that: (1) Establishes a nexus (connection) between the proposed project and the impact to the SHS; and (2) calculates that the mitigation is proportional to the impact (fair share). Recommended mitigation generally results in direct infrastructure improvements, but it may also result in indirect improvements, such as a proponent providing, or enhancing, local transit services. 1 These procedures do not apply to the execution and administration of Cooperative Agreements, pursuant to California Streets and Highways Code, Sections 114 and 130. IP 10 LD-IGR Traffic Mitigation Agreements As indicated earlier, a local public agency generally administers mitigation to offset the impact of a local development project to the SHS. The local agency collects the fair share funds from the proponent and accounts for them until such time as the mitigation measures are implemented. When the local public agency does not want to administer mitigation to the SHS, however, the Department can negotiate and execute an Agreement directly with the proponent to collect the funds or to obtain a commitment from the proponent to make improvements. Scope These Traffic Mitigation Agreement (Agreement) procedures apply at the end of the Local Development-Intergovernmental Review (LD-IGR) process, when applicable. That is, they apply only when the Department enters into an Agreement directly with a proponent for mitigation of adverse impacts to the SHS caused by a proposed project that is subject to local public agency approval. The procedures are used for agreements between the Department and project proponents, both private and public. These procedures are based upon the premise that: O A proposed local development project underwent an environmental review, resulting in a determination that there will be an adverse impact to the SHS and that mitigation is required; and ^ The Department will enter into an Agreement directly with a proponent to collect fair share mitigation funding; the proponent will commit to construct the mitigation improvements; or, in some instances, to do both. The Department will enter into the Agreement because: ^ A local public agency does not wish to collect and administer funds for SHS mitigation; therefore, it conditions project approval upon the proponent entering into an Agreement with the Department for the mitigation; or ^ A proponent will approach the Department, already having determined that there will be an impact to some degree, and ask for assistance in calculating fair share mitigation prior to project application tdthe public agency. See Appendix 1, Flow Chart, Executing Fair Share Funds and Deferred Capital Improvement Agreements with Proponents. til LD-IGR Traffic Mitigation Agreements Purpose The purpose of these procedures is threefold: (1) Provide Agreement templates for use between the Department and local development proponents for direct receipt of mitigation funding or a commitment from the proponent to implement the mitigation measures; (2) describe the steps necessary to enter the direct receipt of funding into the Department's accounting system, the Transportation and Accounting Management System (TRAMS); and, (3) outline the steps necessary to apply the funds to a project. Approach The procedures described herein are based upon those that have been in place in District 6 for some time. They reflect the successful coordination of efforts that evolved over the years among the District's multiple functional units, Headquarters Accounting and Budgets Divisions, local public agencies, and proponents.2 We'll begin with a description of how the Agreement templates can be used, depending upon the type of mitigation that is negotiated. That is followed by a description of the procedures that are required to set up an account in TRAMS when funds are collected, and then discuss the expenditure of the funds. Lastly, the Appendices provide supporting information, including the Agreement templates. Traffic Mitigation Agreement Depending upon the purpose of the Agreement, one of two templates that were prepared by the Department's Legal Division (Legal) can be used: (1) Fair Share Deferment (we will collect the mitigation funds); and (2) Capital Deferment (the proponent will make the capital improvements—the Department will not collect funds).3 Further, there may be circumstances under which mitigation calls for the proponent to pay a fair share in funds to the Department and construct improvements to the SHS. Under such circumstances, contents of both the Fair Share Deferment and Capital Deferment formats can be. used in a^ombined - Agreement. For example, a proponent may need to make improvements that 2 District Planning and Engineering units may wonder why the Accounting and Budgeting tasks are included within these procedures. The thought is that if the Planners and Engineers know what information the Accounting and Budgeting staff require, it will make it easier to ensure that the record keeping is complete. Likewise, the Accounting and Budgeting staff can benefit by knowing what the Planners and Engineers are working to accomplish. 3 Since no funds will be collected with a Traffic Mitigation Agreement for Capital Deferment, the Agreement is not forwarded to Headquarters Accounting. However, District Permits should receive a copy if the proponent's project will require an encroachment permit. LD-IGR Traffic Mitigation /Agreements extend to our right-of-way in order to provide safer and more convenient access to a new development prior to opening for business (perhaps installing a traffic signal). Cumulative traffic impacts of the project may need mitigating, as well, so we would also collect funds for improvements to the mainline facilities. The flexibility of the Agreement reflects the various types of mitigation that can be negotiated to offset traffic impacts to the SHS. If the mitigation measures agreed to by the Department and the proponent simply reflect changing those areas of the Agreement that describe specific project information (highlighted in yellow in our templates), it is not necessary to obtain another review by Legal before executing the Agreement. Once executed, the Agreement can be forwarded to Legal for approval of form and procedure. However, if a more extensive re-write of the template than simply changing the "highlights" is necessary, the Agreement must be reviewed by Legal prior to execution. Mitigation funding can be used for a number of purposes, depending upon the language negotiated in the Agreement between the Department and the proponent. The description of the mitigation measures should be as generic as possible, considering that the particular Agreement measures will normally be part of a larger project. At the same time, the Agreement must be specific enough to ensure that it clearly documents the required connection between project impact and mitigation expenditures. For example, analysis may determine that a proposed project will contribute to the need for an interchange access improvement. Since there will be various costs associated with the improvement, the Department might identify the location of the interchange without identifying the specific measures to be implemented (underground wire, guard rails, etc.). The more general description provides flexibility and allows the most effective use of the funds. On the other hand, analysis and conditions may dictate that the Department negotiate for a specific improvement, such as a "signal," "turn lane," or "portion of HOV lane," etc. Keep in mind that many years can go by between receipt and expenditure of the funds. Whether the Agreement describes mitigation in general or in more specific terms, there should be as much detail as possible to aid long term connection of the funding and related expenditures to the mitigation. Whether it is in the Agreement "proper" or part of the supporting documentation, information such as location (including Post Mile, for example, if applicable); name of the project, local jurisdiction, funding amount (unless Capital Deferment), environmental references, and requirements for meeting certain warrants or thresholds by dates (for example, "2020") should be included. Each Agreement should be assigned a District number. All Agreement signatures should be notarized. There is at least one (1) Notary Public on staff at almost all of the Districts—usually part of the Right of Way 8 LD-IGR Traffic Mitigation Agreements function. If in doubt, please contact the District Executive Assistant or Executive Secretary, who can help identify the Notary(ies). Exceptions to having an Agreement notarized will be authorized by the Districts. When the Department enters into a Capital Deferment Agreement (or if a combined Agreement is executed) it may wish to have the Agreement recorded with the County Clerk as a means to ensure completion of the mitigation project. Other options may be to require a bond or letter of credit. It will depend upon the type of project. Again, Legal will help in determining whether the above, or other, conditions are appropriate. Appendices 2, and 3 provide sample templates for: 1. Fair Share Deferment Agreement; 2. Capital Deferment Agreement; Each template provides, in yellow, those areas where the specific language (at a minimum) would need to be changed with each new Agreement in order to reflect the particular requirements and conditions. It is expected, as well, that revisions to the "template" will be made, as warranted. Accounting for Receipt of Funds Mitigation funds are accounted for as reimbursements (in TRAMS as fund source "R"). Procedures for recording the receipt of mitigation funds are similar to those used by the Department in accounting for other reimbursement project funds. In most cases with mitigation funds, however, the Department tracks the funds for many years, so these procedures will emphasize some of the coding requirements for the long-term collections. Since the Department collects only a proponent's fair share of mitigation funds, and it could take a long time to gather enough funds to complete an improvement, the funds will not be assigned (generally) a project Expenditure Authorization (EA) at the time they are collected. Rather, an "holding" EA will be established in TRAMS, "R" fund source, EA status 21 (allows only billings and collections to post). v When they are scheduled for a project, the funds will be assigned the project EA. (If an appropriate project exists at the time of collecting the funds, of course, that project's EA will be assigned to the funds, and the Department won't have to "hold" them.) Steps to be taken to enter the funds into TRAMS are described in the following few pages. (These steps assume that a holding EA will be required.) Also, please see Appendix 4, Flow Chart, Accounting for Receipt of Fair Share Funds from Proponents. lei 4 LD-IGR Traffic Mitigation Agreements Districts: A. Local Development-Intergovernmental Review (LD-IGR): 1. Receive check from the project proponent, following execution of the Agreement. 2. Send a letter, or E-mail, to the local public agency, confirming receipt of the proponent's check for mitigation measures. (See Appendix 5.) 3. Send a copy of the above confirmation to the project proponent. 4. Forward the following documents-to the Project Control Officer (PCO): a- Copy of the check. b. Signed Agreement, including attachments. c. Copy of the letter or E-mail that was sent to the local agency confirming receipt of the mitigation funding. d. Request an Expenditure Authorization (EA) for the funding. (The District Cashier needs the EA in order to transfer the funds to HQ Cashiering, also.) 5. Upon receipt of an EA, deliver the check and copy of Agreement Package to District Cashier. Cashier will issue a Transfer Receipt (Form STD. 440). 6. If the proponent's local development project requires an encroachment permit, forward a copy of the Agreement and its attachments, including EA, to Permits. B. Office of Budgets: 1. Project Control Officer (PCO): a. Assign an EA to the Agreement (holding or project EA, as applicable). b. Fax or e-mail the Agreement Package, to the appropriate Reimbursement Accountant, so that a "Contributor Number" for the project proponent will be masterfiled. Fax to: (916) 227-8789 or Calnet 8-498-8789. In order to determine the appropriate Reimbursement Accountant, go to the Reimbursement contact page located at http://onramp.dot.ca.qov/hq/accounting/print/OAR0206.doc. The accountant's name, phone number, and e-mail link are provided. 10 LD-IGR Traffic Mitigation Agreements c. Upon receipt of the Contributor Number from the Reimbursement Accountant, set up the EA in EAS/COMS, Status 214, and transmit to the Reimbursement Accountant for approval of the set up and R line. (After approval, the EA will be forwarded to HQ EA Control & Overhead Assessment Section [EA Control].) d. Upon entry (approval) of the EA into TRAMS, notify all Department project participants involved, and copy notice to Reimbursement Accountant. 2. Cashier: a. Receive proponent's check from LD-IGR. Complete a Transfer Receipt (Form STD. 440) for check and give the original to the LD- IGR staff person who delivered the check. Transfer Receipt must include the following information: (1) Date; (2) Dollar amount collected; (3) Check number; (4) EA number; (5) Purpose (project mitigation); (6) The term "REIMBURSEMENTS"; (7) The words "For deposit into 'Account 84'"; and (8) Any other pertinent identifying information (See Appendix 6). b. Forward to HQ Cashiering: (1) Check; (2) Copy of Transfer Receipt; (3) Copy of remainder of Agreement Package documents; (4) Staple documents together. IL Headquarters Division of Accounting: 1. Cashiering: X a. Upon receipt of check, Agreement Package, and copy of Transfer Receipt from District Cashier, enter funds as a deposit of Reimbursement dollars into Account 84. 4 "EA Status 21" allows billings and collections only to post in TRAMS—no expenditures. PCO will not obtain Reimbursement Authority, and the EA will not have an authorized amount on screen 64 in TRAMS for this "holding" EA. The Yl indicator should be set at "0" (zero), indicating that the EA is not to roll forward. (EA will remain in status 21 until the District identifies a project, and the PCO submits a request to Budgets for Reimbursement Authority for the phase 4 under the project EA.) _ LD-IGR Traffic Mitigation Agreements b. Upon receipt of an invoice (with EA and contributor number) prepared by the Reimbursement Accountant for the mitigation funds, withdraw these funds from Account 84 and apply to the invoice provided by the Reimbursement Accountant. 2. Reimbursement Accountant: a. Upon receipt of Agreement Package from District PCO, assign Contributor Number to the project proponent and notify District PCO. b. Upon receipt (and approval) of EA from District PCO, forward to Office of Financial Accounting & Analysis (OFAA)-Highway Appropriation Management Section (HAMS). c. Upon notice from PCO that EA has been masterfiled, issue an invoice in the amount of the funds received. d. Provide HQ Cashier with invoice copy for mitigation funds. (HQ Cashier will withdraw from Account 84 and apply to invoice number provided by Reimbursement Accountant.)0 e. Monitor the mitigation funds on deposit in EA Status 21, and manually transfer them to a current Fiscal Year (FY) if the FY in which they are entered is lapsing. 3. EA Control & Overhead Assessment Section (EA Control): Review EA to ensure that information is complete and correct, and upon verification, release for entry into TRAMS COLLECTOR (TU). Expending the Funds As discussed earlier, mitigation funding can be used for a variety of improvement purposes, depending upon the language negotiated in the Agreement between the Department and the proponent. Once a project has been identified, the accounting and budgeting activity begins to move the funds from the holding EA to the project EA in order tQ offset the. funds collected with an encumbrance and expenditures. Numerous functions will participate in the identification, scheduling, encumbrance, and expending of the funds. There is no attempt here to detail every step that will be taken by every function in the Districts and HQ during the process. The following sections more or less outline actions taken by 5 The accounting system requires an invoice number to be applied to the receipt of funds. The Reimbursement Accountant will prepare an invoice for in-house use only for the mitigation funds. 0 TRAMS screen 64 will show the invoice and collection amount. This invoice/collection of mitigation funds will remain as such in TRAMS until the funds are transferred to a project EA. T2 1,17 LD-IGR Traffic Mitigation Agreements participating functions. It is understood that communication will need to take place between and among the District functions, HQ Accounting, Budgets, and Office Engineers, as projects require. L identifying and Scheduling Projects A. Districts: 1. District Projects Monitor: a. Monitor all District's planned and programmed projects in coordination with LD-IGR and Project Management; and, identify when, in accordance with the Agreement, the proponent's mitigation funding should be included in a project. b. Notify the PCO (via E-mail or other written documentation) that the Project Manager has identified mitigation funds as part of a project Funding Package. Notification should include the name of the Project Manager, amount of funding, and the holding EA, as well as the project EA to which the funds will be transferred by the Reimbursement Accountant.7 c. Coordinate with Project Manager and the PCO to ensure that affected District functions are notified. d. Ensure that Project Manager receives a copy of Agreement. 2. Project Manager: a. Submit project Funding Package to HQ Budgets, with a copy to Office Engineer (OE), requesting project funds. b. Forward a copy of Agreement to OE as part of Funding Package. c. Identify mitigation funding as a lump sum amount on a separate line in the Funding Package. 3. Project Control Officer: *. a. Upon notification from District Project Monitor that mitigation funds currently in the holding EA have been scheduled for project inclusion, request Reimbursement Authority for the amount of the mitigation funds from HQ Budgets for the project EA. Include Agreement Package with the request.8 7 Upon transferring from an holding EA to a project tA, the FY will be that of the Reimbursement Authority FY assigned by Budgets. 8 Reimbursement Authority required only if the project EA is phase 4 construction (20.20). _ LD-IGR Traffic Mitigation Agreements b. Ensure that HQ Accounting, Reimbursement Accountant, is aware of the change from holding EA to project EA through project EA approval (including verifying fund source/distribution to OE) and via e-mail. c. Upon receipt of Reimbursement Authority from HQ Budgets (if applicable), forward approval to Reimbursement Accountant and HAMS. d. Using a "Contributor Number Request" form, accompanied by an explanatory e-mail, request Reimbursement Accountant to masterfile in project EA the same contributor number previously masterfiled in holding EA. B. Headquarters: 1. HQ Budgets: Upon receipt of Agreement Package from District PCO, issue approval of request for Reimbursement Authority for the mitigation funds for phase 4 construction project EA via Memorandum hard copy or e-mail. 2. Office Engineer (OE):9 a. Set up the project Phase 4 EA in EAS/COMS after bid opening. b. Enter the authorization amount for each funding source into the EA. When entering the cost percentage distribution for the funding sources, the R-line percent for mitigation funds will be set at "0," and no expenditures will be charged against those funds until the Reimbursement Accountant manually transfers expenditures against them. (Lump sum collections are not included in cost percentage distributions.) c. Send EA to District PCO for approval. d. Upon receipt of approval from District PCO, route EA to HQ Accounting Reimbursement Accountant and HAMS for certification. e. Award contract after the certified EA is received front HQ Accounting HAMS. f. Send certified EA to HQ EA Control for release to TRAMS. 9 HQ OE will prepare the construction bid package and perform its associated activities for projects with total estimated costs of $120,000 and above. For projects that are not forwarded to OE for processing, Districts will proceed with mitigation projects as they do for other contracts that are not sent to OE for advertising, bid opening, and award. 14 1/9 LD-IGR Traffic Mitigation Agreements 3. Reimbursement Accountant: a. Masterfile holding EA contributor number in project EA. b. Transfer billings and collections for contributor from holding EA to project EA's R-line. c. Suspend holding EA. d. Verify that funds have transferred into the project EA. e. When expenditures charged to all other fund sources within the project exceed the amount of the mitigation funds received, the Reimbursement Accountant will manually transfer expenditures to equal the amount of the mitigation invoice/collections. f. Work with the District LD-IGR counterpart throughout the mitigation project. II. Project Cost Summary The Reimbursement Accountant will prepare a Project Cost Summary (final accounting) for the mitigation funds when the construction project is complete and will forward a copy to the District Local Development-Intergovernmental Review contact. Please see Appendix 7, Flow Chart, Accounting for Expenditure of Fair Share Funds Received from Proponents. 15 LD-IGR Traffic Mitigation Agreements Appendices 17 'ansportation3pment Project ProponentsAgreements with Proponents (Developers)CH CD c «M CD EO Q CD^nia Departmentagreements with LocalDeferred Capital ImproRSKr Call forUi Traffic Mitigation /oJtfons Executing Fair Share Funds anditigation priort approval.p to determine m\gency for projecProponent requests heto applying to Local /[1 ;v :::: :: : ".' .'.'::: :::::::;:;: " :::;:.•: :::^ +-• :: C '•'• !•£ 11 m S 'CD ! • >S- C u : Q QJ cy : L.o LL- ?- o CO CD : Z< 0 iro Z •o ! ~ T± to .-> *>^ *"* ^~> V) +— -— q? O3 O Ifl^leS- IfC! m CD * — ~r~ ^/> O _^ 003^-Q ^W ?"^^ V- U. ',- >- fl) ili ^->- .2 ® |^-75 P . o c Q o || to -2 ~^ co^W1_Ji;'i3*-.c/5 C x-r CQ130"^ 03^ 2 CO "2 0 Q.^ ^ «— — 5 >- <=" 03 O03 h- ro Q. t f •> Oo — u _i > L 1 ||| | -| >- 3 /-^ Co ^— ^ -* ^ i— ^ |8 ^«Jig i-o" ^SooS^2C ^ CD ^ Q3 i- — -a c ~ g. ^5>cg-°ro2 ^0^ <^-i«a5w §.'2 8|^H|- g-CL 0 g-^^ g Q[ -Jtis ° ^-* C CD Is 103 c •—Q C OJ - £ S 8JS o) ^ i_ '(5 LL. 4 (T5 f* ••^ Q) (T3 •c = rf '<i_ ^3 ro **. ; 0 " £ £ c <0 ro aj Q 0 x: E ^ 'ro "«u. Q 4 ,„ ^=5o . c r <s T5 03 o 0 .CO- Q. 5"— 03 S± ^-E & ^u_ W t -a 0 "c '" c "co CD E — ^- ^> c 03 ^ ^P o i S Q-o ^ g-ct Q CO O) ^ "c "cO CD CD "w CD . 2 H 2 •+ t 2< a! S"cn> 1 1 1 1 r 1 Local Agencyconditions projectapproval on Proponentcompleting mitigationmeasures as requestedby Caltrans, but doesnot want to bank funds.' ] k 3 D> DJ D/ 3-onse to CaltransCLtn® ocill 75oo_j 1 1 1 iLocal Agency, as pa/t oforoject approval, conditionsProponent to pay Caltransfor fair share mitigationmeasures to SHS or enterinto agreement for capitalimprovements, or both.CCDCLa. LD-IGR Traffic Mitigation Procedures TRAFFIC MITIGATION AGREEMENT TEMPLATE FAIR SHARE DEFERMENT THIS AGREEMENT, entered into effective this day of . , 2006, by and between the State of California, acting by and through its Department of Transportation, hereinafter referred to as "Department," and , hereinafter referred to as "Owner," and collectively the "Parties" without regard for number or gender. RECITALS1 A. WHEREAS, Owner has proposed to develop xxxx located in the County/City of xxxxx, hereinafter referred to as "Proposed Development," which'will be constructed on a piece of real property, hereinafter referred to as "Property," which is more particularly described in Exhibit "A," attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; and B. WHEREAS, as part of the environmental process for this Proposed Development, a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) was prepared and that TIS2 has determined that the Proposed Development would result in (ex. adverse impacts to State Route (SR) 60 at Fremont Interchange), hereinafter referred to as "Impacts"; and C. WHEREAS, that TIS"'also identified specific mitigation measures to mitigate for those Proposed Development Impacts, specifically that Owner would pay to Department a pro rata share of the total anticipated costs of improvements required at SR-60 at Fremont Interchange. Said pro rata share has been determined to be [xx % of total improvement costs associated with this Proposed Development, which is equal to]4 S XXXX, hereinafter referred to as "Funds"; and D. WHEREAS, Owner now desires to mitigate for the Proposed Development Impacts by paying Funds to Department. ' The recital section needs to match the proposed project. Recital section generally tells the "story" as to why the Department and Owner are entering into this Agreement. " or, [Department, based upon Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) methodologies and consistent with Department's traffic study guide,] Also note that, while some jurisdictions may not require mitigation during the entitlement process, it does not preclude the Owner from entering into an agreement with Department to offset impacts caused by the Project. However, this should be done only in limited circumstances and in lieu of the Department challenging the Development project's environmental document. As always, the Department will continue to provide IGR comments that include mitigation to offset traffic impacts to the State Highway System as a result of Development projects. ' or, [Department's determinaiion described in provision B above]. 4 [f there is no % calculated, delete [text]. LD-IGR Traffic Mitigation Procedures NOW THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereby agree as follows: 1. Owner agrees to pay to Department, within thirty (30) clays of the above stated effective date of this Agreement the Funds which represent Owner's pro-rata share of the anticipated total costs of the improvements required to mitigate Impacts to SR-60 at Fremont Interchange. 2. Department hereby acknowledges-that upon payment in full of Funds by Owner, Owner will have satisfied its mitigation obligation to Department for Proposed Development Impacts.6 3. Said Funds shall remain in the State Highway Account until such time as the balance of other funds necessary to implement the required improvements to SR-60 at Fremont Interchange or another equivalent project that would offset the Impacts as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) are secured. 4. Department agrees that the Funds paid by Owner pursuant to the terms of this Agreement shall be used for the purposes of instituting the required improvements to SR- 60 at Fremont Interchange or another equivalent project that would offset the Impacts as required by CEQA. 5. In the event that the Funds are not expended on improvements to SR-60 at Fremont Interchange, or another equivalent project that would offset the Impacts as required by CEQA, by Department on or before December 3 1, 20xx, Department shall return to Owner, within sixty (60) days of receipt of Owner's written request, all then unexpended Funds. 6. All obligations of Department under the terms of this Agreement are subject to the appropriation of resources by the Legislature, State Budget Act authority, and the allocation of resources by the California Transportation Commission. 7. This Agreement may be executed in several counterparts and all counterparts so executed shall constitute one agreement that shall be binding on all of the parties, notwithstanding that all of the Parties are not signatory to the original or the same counterpart. 8. This Agreement shall expire when Department has expended all of the Funds; Funds are returned to Owner, in whole or in part pursuant to Article 5 of this Agreement; or on December 31, 20xx, whichever occurs first in time. ' or [as specified at time of grading permit, building permit, occupancy, etc.] 0 We can only acknowledge that Owner has satisfied the Department's mitigation requirements. If the Owner has more than one obligation to the Department, provision 2 will need to be modified. Appendix 2 2 LD-ICR Traffic Mitigation Procedures IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Agreement as set forth below. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION By: Designated District Official OWNER ' By: Authorized Representative Approved as to Form and Procedure Attorney, State of California Department of Transportation Appendix 2 3 LD-IGR Traffic Mitigation Procedures 'Recording Requested by: ) ) TEMPLATE Conformed Copy to: ) ) Department of Transportation District Address TRAFFIC MITIGATION AGREEMENT CAPITAL DEFERMENT THIS AGREEMENT, entered into effective this day of , 2006, by and between the State of California, acting by and through its Department of Transportation, hereinafter referred to as "Department," and Charles Browning, hereinafter referred to as "Owner." RECITALS2 A. WHEREAS, Owner has proposed to develop a residence located in the City of Opportunity, All County, hereinafter referred to as "Proposed Development." Said Proposed Development will be constructed on a piece of real property, hereinafter referred to as "Property," which is more particularly described in Exhibit "A," attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; and B. WHEREAS, Owner, as part of compliance with the environmental process, had a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) prepared'1 which determined that the Proposed Development would result in adverse impacts to State Route (SR) 41 on the north side of Proposed Development Property, hereinafter referred to as "Impacts"; and C. WHEREAS, that TIS, and as incorporated into the Proposed Development's environmental document,4 also identified specific measures to mitigate for those said ' This section needs to be removed if the Agreement will not be recorded. See paragraph 8. 2 The recital section needs to match the proposed project. Recital section generally tells the "story" as to why the Department and Owner are entering into this Agreement. 3 or, [Department, based upon Institute of Traffic Engineers (1TE) methodologies and consistent with Department's traffic study guide,] Also note that, while some jurisdictions may not require mitigation during the entitlement process, it does not preclude the Owner from entering into an agreement with Department to offset impacts caused by the Project. However, this should be done only in limited circumstances and in lieu of the Department challenging the Development project's environmental document. As always, the Department will continue to provide IGR comments that include mitigation to offset traffic impacts to the State Highway System as a result of Development projects. or, [Department's determination described in provision B above] Appendix 3 Page 1 of 4 LD-IGR Traffic Mitigation Procedures Proposed Development Impacts, specifically that Owner would timely complete certain improvements to SR 41 on the north side of Proposed Development Property, hereinafter referred to as "Mitigation Measures"; and D. WHEREAS, Department and Owner now desire to set forth the terms and conditions that will allow Owner to proceed with Proposed Development and phase the implementation of the Mitigation Measures, when requested by Department, in a manner that will offset the Impacts. NOW THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereby agree as follows: 1. Department agrees that Owner may delay implementation of the Mitigation Measures until after the initiation of the Proposed Development and until such time as the Department provides -written notice to Owner that those said Mitigation Measures must be commenced. 2. Owner agrees to begin commencement of said Mitigation Measures within sixty (60) days of issuance of said written notification by Department to Owner that Mitigation Measures are to commence. 3. Owner agrees to ensure that Mitigation Measures comply with all applicable State and Federal requirements [including, but not limited to, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), if applicable], conform to all then applicable Departmental standards, including obtaining an encroachment permit, and may include entering into another form of agreement for work on or adjacent to Department's property. Furthermore, Owner agrees to ensure that those Mitigation Measures are completed to the satisfaction of the Department. 4. Owner agrees to be fully responsible to fund 100% of all of the costs related to implementation of Mitigation Measures. 5. Neither Department nor any officer or employee thereof is responsible for any injury, damage or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by Owner under or in connection with any work or authority arising under this Agreement. It is understood and agreed that Owner shall fully defend, indemnify and save harmless Department and all of its officers and employees from all claims, suits or actions of every name, kind and description brought forth under, including, but not limited to, tortious, contractual, inverse condemnation and other theories or assertions of liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by Owner under this Agreement. 6. Owner shall maintain in force, until completion and acceptance of the Mitigation Measure by Department, a policy of Liability Insurance, including coverage of Bodily Injury Liability and Property Damage Liability, naming the State of California, its Appendix 3 Page 2 of 4 Owners' Association, Inc. 5200 El Camino Real, Carlsbad, California 92010-7118 Phone: (760) 438-0333 fax: (760) 438-1808 September 20, 2006 Mr. Marty Montgomery, Chairperson Planning Commission City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 RE: Robertson Ranch E.I.R. Dear Mr. Montgomery, On Wednesday September 20th, the Planning Commission will review this E.I.R. for the third time. We trust that the applicant and City staff have made enough modifications to permit your approval. In June, we wrote to remind the Commission of the many other aspects of this E.I.R. which are positive improvements, a few of which directly involve our community, Rancho Carlsbad. The construction of a diversionary drainage pipeline by the McMillin Company's along the north side of Cannon Road, to mitigate the 100 year flood threat to our community is one of them. We will miss any positive benefit of this pipeline this coming winter rainy season. Approval and for-warding this E.I.R. to City Council tonight will we hope, ensure that this construction work will be completed for the 2007-08 season. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Bill Arnold, President September 20,2006 Dear Planning Commissioners, Earlier this year, I spoke at a city Council meeting about concerns of morals, ethics and trust. The Council appeared somewhat bewildered but one council member specifically recognized my concerns and understood my passion as a citizen who sincerely cares about doing the right thing. On occasion,. I've asked for advice from this individual and we've always been in agreement that taking the high road is the right thing to do. More recently, I am deeply saddened by the actions and behaviors I've observed as they pertain to the Robertson Ranch triangle. In some cases there have been honest errors and inaccuracies. In other cases, and unfortunately, I'm convinced that actions have been deliberate and that the truth has been stretched. As a whole, I believe an avoidance has existed for two-way dialogue for many of the tough questions and issues raised by the Colony residents. 1. A statement made as part of the Staff Report hi the attachment entitled, "Responses To Town Hall Meeting Questions" is inaccurate. Under #4, it states "all requests for 3-party meetings.. .have been accommodated." I am providing copies of the emails from City Staff declining on two separate occasions the Colony's request to attend 3-party meetings. Additionally, the Colony's request to attend the meeting between the Applicant and City Staff on June 27th, only 4 business days after the previous Robertson Ranch hearing, was denied. 2. In order to present tonight, the Colony was told that the deadline for a copy of the presentation was due by 7:30 AM, Monday September 18. a. Colony residents were provided the last approved traffic report last Thursday, September 14 leaving the Colony one business day for review and analysis. Was this the right thing to do? b. Upon repeated requests for answers to questions by Colony residents, responses and not necessarily answers, were provided in the Planning Commission Staff Report. The report was available to us last Friday, September 15 leaving zero business days for review and analysis. Was this the right thing to do? We've heard that one of the Planning Commissioners recently stated that they felt the Applicant is owed a decision tonight. What about the Colony? Are we not owed some type 2-way face-to-face dialogue to address and discuss Staffs last minute responses before a decision is made? Is the 1-way dialogue at this hearing the appropriate forum for this? Is this the right thing to do? 4. The 3 parties agreed that we would not come back to the Commission until we had some type of agreement. We've asked for answers again and again, and here we are once again for a long evening of debate. Was this the right thing to do? The issues should have been properly debated prior to another Commission meeting being scheduled. I can site more examples, but I think I've cited enough to make my point for doing the right thing. The communication and interaction of the Robertson Ranch triangle has been limited. Email and phone communication have taken precedence over face-to-face meetings. Response to our written communication for face-to-face communication has been nominal. The hearings are 1-dimensional for public comment, whereas the City and the Applicant have the opportunity for rebuttal.- Be that as it may, I greatly thank the Commissioners for the past consideration of the Colony's concerns. To summarize, I am deeply saddened by the actions and behaviors I've observed in this emotional triangle. Before you make any decisions tonight, I ask that you remind yourself to ask the question, "Is this the right thing to do?" Jill Agosti 4730 Edinburgh Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92010 Page 1 of2 From: "Jeremy Riddle" <Jridd@ci.carlsbad.ca.us> To: <bmilich@mcmillin.com> Cc: "Barbara Kennedy" <Bkenn@ci.cartsbad.ca.us>; <gregagosti@sbcglobai.net> Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 9:07 AM Subject: Re: FW: Meeting on Monday evening Brian- \/_Unfortunately, I will be unable to attend this follow-up community r* meeting due to evening family commitments. The City's position on open connectivity to Glasgow and Edinburgh remains consistent. We support the original Master Plan connections. The second revised focused traffic study still shows the roads are anticipated to operate within City Standards. We provided City presence by attending the first evening meeting to hear the Colony's concerns and relay the City's position on open connectivity with extending Glasgow and Edinburgh. We also attended a second follow-up meeting with the Fire Marshal as she explained the Fire Departments needs with keeping these roads open with future development. We hope this 3rd meeting with the Colony will be your opportunity to show the conceptual circuitous road system within the West Village and to discuss potential traffic calming measures within the Colony. We have PC briefings to attend (today and tomorrow). Thanks. Jeremy L. Riddle Associate Engineer City of Carlsbad Public Works-Engineering jridd@ci. carlsbad. ca.us >» "Brian Milich" <bmilich@mcmillin.com> 06/19/06 8:01 AM >» Can you attend and can we meet in the City's conference room? Original Message—- 9/19/2006 (03/ Page 2 of2 From: greg Agosti [mailto:gregagosti@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2006 12:04 PM To: Brian Milich; Ken Cablay Subject: Meeting on Monday evening Brian/Ken, I promised that I would get back to you by noon today and I've gotten about 35 positive responses of people who will be attending. I know of a few others who have said they would like to come depending on work. Maybe consider 40 people I also spoke to Jeremy Riddle and asked if the city staff wanted to attend and he was going to check. I'm not sure if you notified them but I thought some of the questions may be directed in their direction. Thank you 9/19/2006 Page 1 of3 From: "Marcela Escobar-Eck" <Mesco@ci.carlsbad.ca.us> To: "Barbara Kennedy" <Bkenn@ci.carlsbad.ca.us>; <agostigc@songs.sce.com> Cc: <cgallup@adelphia.net>; <demcintyre@adelphia.net>; <donwofford@adelphia.net>; <miller65@adelphia.net>; "Bob Johnson" <Bjohn@ci.carlsbad.ca.us>; "David Mauser" <Dhaus@ci.carlsbad.ca.us>; "Jeremy Riddle" <Jridd@ci.carlsbad.ca.us>; "Skip Hammann" <Shamm@ci.carlsbad.ca.us>; <jmiller@ci.vista.ca.us>; <kariw8@excite.com>; <karia@hartmannstudios.com>; <gregagosti@sbcglobal.net>; <jillagosti@sbcglobal.net>; <RWofford@WPKT.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 2:58 PM Subject: Re: RR Meeting with The Colony Reps - Mr. Agosti: It would not be appropriate for our staff to attend this meeting. We would be happy to answer any follow-up questions you may have either by phone or at a meeting here in our offices. As we discussed on the phone, it poses a difficult situation for us when you are looking a draft traffic study that we have not signed off on yet. It was the Developers choice to give you that document and if you have any questions on the draft document it is best to have their consultant explain the methodology to you. I think you know that we do not "rubber-stamp" anything, quite the contrary we conduct a thorough and independent review of all the projects and studies that are submitted to us. As we have expressed to you and several of your board members and neighbors, our job is not to advocate for any project or any one solution. We ensure that the proposals meet our Codes and standards and we make our best professional recommendation. Our job then becomes to shepard the project through the process with our best professional recommendation. To engage in a series of meetings and discussions outside of the Public Hearing process would put us in an awkward position at this point I am headed to a meeting until 4:00 but would be happy to discuss this with you further if you would like. I can be reached at (760) 602-4604. Thank you, Marcela >» <agostigc@songs.sce.com> 08/15/06 12:23 PM >» Barbara, If you cannot attend Thursday's meeting, is there anyone who will attend? We think it is important that the city staff (at least one person) attend so it at least sends a message to the homeowners that the city is engaged in the process. We addressed this at the last homeowners meeting and the city declined to attend that meeting. The impression is that the developer is heading this project up and the city is rubber stamping their work. We ask that the city reconsider their decision because we anticipate homeowners may have questions that would best be answered by the city staff and we want to maximize the time the homeowners and the developers are spending on this issue. Thank you************* GREG AGOSTI - BUYER Tele: 949-368-8856 Fax: 949-368-8497 Pax 88856************************************************************** 9/19/200'L336 Page 2 of3 "Barbara Kennedy" To <jridd@ci.carl$bad>, "Marcela Escobar-Eck" <Bkenn@ci.carlsbad.ca.us> <Mesco@ci.carlsbad.ca.us>, <bmilich@mcmillin.com>, <kcablay@msn.com>, <pklukas@planningsystems.net>, 08/14/2006 02:15 PM <ca.us@sce.com>, <agostigc@songs.sce.com> cc <cgallup@adelphia.net>, <demcintyre@adelphia.net>, <donwofford@adelphia.net>, <miller65@adelphia.net>, "Bob Johnson" <Bjohn@ci.carisbad.ca.us>, <jmiller@ci.vista.ca.us>, <kariw8@excite.com>, <karia@hartmannstudios.com>, <gregagosti@sbcglobal.net>, <jillagosti@sbcglobal.net>, <RWoff6rd@WPKT.com> Subject Re: RR Meeting with The Colony Reps - Hi Greg- I've been checking availability for a meeting. City Staff has some conflicts with tomorrow afternoon so I checked a possibility for Wednesday. McMillin team has a meeting in SD until late afternoon and it would be doubtful that they could make it here by 4:00 or even 4:30. Jeremy is out today, so I don't know if he would be available for a later meeting on Wednesday (running into after-hours). So as of right now, I can't give you an answer for a meeting. However, Engineering staff or McMillin Team can answer any questions you may have regarding the traffic study in case we can't pull a meeting together for everyone to attend prior to Thursday. SA^I will be unable to attend the meeting on Thursday due to a prior f^ commitment. Paul will be contacting you regarding your request for the ADT without circuitous routing. If you need anything else, please contact me. Sincerely- BK Barbara Kennedy, AICP Associate Planner City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4626 bkennSci.carlsbad.ca.us >» <agostigc@songs.sce.com> 08/14/06 10:16 AM >» Good morning Barbara, The Colony group has been reviewing the DRAFT Traffic Report, and would like to schedule some time this week with city staff and developer reps 9/19/2006 Page 3 of3 to review and clarify some questions we have. If possible, could this meeting be scheduled after 4:00 PM to accommodate some of the people who have to drive from Orange county or SD? We are currently meeting with the Homeowners Thursday at 6:30pm, and would like to understand the traffic report before then in an effort to be able to answer questions they have on the impact of the different alternatives to our neighborhood. In addition, can you please provide the traffic numbers for the master plan with NO circuitous routing, at a density of 1,122 DU's, so that we have a basis for comparison? We have discussed all the alternatives with the homeowners including the back to back cul de sacs proposal which was originally proposed by McMillin and have emphasized that this Traffic Report is only a DRAFT. The final report will be issued shortly. We believe the Thursday meeting could go a long way in informing the residents of the alternatives and the developer and the city staff can get direct feedback from the residents concerns. We haven't got a response from you regarding the attendance at the Thursday meeting. Thank you *********************************************** GREG AGOSTI - BUYER Tele: 949-368-8856 Fax: 949-368-8497 Pax 88856 9/19/2006 ROBERTSON RANCH TOWN HALL MEETING QUESTIONS (8/31/2006) City responses (in BOLD) dated 9/12/06 1. You said it was not your job to advocate any one position but present the alternatives. So, does that mean you will give equal consideration and present all four alternatives? We have been told City Planners support Alternative #1 and that is why the developer will not support the other alternatives, but the developer does not oppose back-to-back cul-de-sac or gated communities. a. Is it true you do not support Alternatives 3 and 4 ? b. If Alternatives 3 and 4 do not violate code, why do you not support them? The Planning Department will be presenting three circulation alternatives for the West Village of Robertson Ranch to the Planning Commission. Staff met with the Colony representatives on July 11, 2006 to present these alternatives and the Colony voiced support for Alternative 3. Alternative 1 is the original plan showing the extensions of Glasgow and Edinburgh, and a signalized intersection at El Camino Real (ECR) and "Z" Street (Lisa Street). A circuitous street design is used in the West Village to reduce cut-through traffic. The applicant would be conditioned to implement additional traffic calming within the Colony neighborhood. Alternative 2 is the same as Alternative 1 with the addition of a right-in and right-out at a new street (A.K.A. Tamarack Connection) on the south side of Tamarack Avenue generally located about midway between La Portalada Drive and Pontiac Drive. Alternative 3 includes the Tamarack Connection with a signalized intersection, a gated community for Robertson Ranch Planning Areas 9 and 10 (bordering Edinburgh) and a gated emergency access at Glasgow. Although all three alternatives meet City standards, there are pros and cons to each of the alternatives. When Staff and the Colony met on July 11, 2006 to discuss the alternatives, ground rules where set which clearly stated that staff would not present any alternative that does not comply with City standards. The back-to-back cul-de-sac (Colony Alternative 4) does not comply with standards for 25 or less units on a cul-de-sac. Alternative 3 is not fully supported by staff because the gated access to PA's 9 and 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 ATTACHMENT 18 ROBERTSON RANCH-TOWN HALL MEETING QUESTIONS (8/31/2006) City responses (in BOLD) dated 9/12/06 have been envisioned since the Colony 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. Staff will be presenting the three alternatives and with a recommendation of approval for Alternatives 1 or 2. However the ultimate decision lies with the Planning Commission and City Council. 2. Safety vs. Access - How does one put a percentage figure on the increased risk to kids, pedestrians and pets in a small residential neighborhood of 174 homes that will be impacted by traffic of over 1,000 homes? The issue of safety is a primary concern to staff and the proposals have been developed to reduce both the speed and the volume of traffic in the residential neighborhoods. Additionally, if traffic calming is incorporated into the Colony subdivision, this will further reduce traffic speed and cut- through traffic. Staff is also concerned about safety as it relates to emergency response requirements for safety personnel. Providing multiple unobstructed points of access between neighborhoods improves emergency response times. 3. We've heard rumors to the effect that the application may be withdrawn or denied by the Planning Commission due to the Colony's efforts. We have a vested interest, put forth numerous efforts, and we'd like to see resolution now rather than all of us go through this exercise again with a different application for the same property. Any comments? Staff has heard no rumors to that effect. If the project is denied by the Planning Commission, it would still go forward to the City Council for a final decision. 4. In attempts for resolution, we do not understand the City's position as to why they believe it is inappropriate for all 3 parties (City staff, Colony & Developer) to discuss the issues at one time. In the past, when we've met with just one entity, we've observed conflicting explanations when the other isn't there to validate them. The exchange of information and progress toward resolution would be more effective, as well as accurate, since clarifications could be made immediately rather than later. ROBERTSON RANCH-TOWN HALL MEETING QUESTIONS (8/31/2006) City responses (in BOLD) dated 9/12/06 Staff and the developer have had a number of meetings which included the Colony Representatives. Staff is available to discuss the project or answer any questions with any small group or individual. All e-mail requests for information have been answered. All requests for 3-party meetings with the Colony Representatives have been accommodated. Meetings where the entire neighborhood attends are more appropriately conducted within the context of a public hearing. 5. Development - Prop E - 1986 "The Plan...also resulted in a vision for ensuring that development would pay for the impact of new housing on the community," Carlsbad Community Services Guide, Fall 2006, page 2. The new housing of Robertson Ranch impacts the Colony neighborhood by increasing the risk of safety to residents and decreasing the integrity of an established neighborhood. How would you determine the price that is paid when a life is lost because of an unfortunate and even innocent traffic accident? Is any price acceptable? The Robertson Ranch development will pay for the impact created by the proposed new housing and non-residential development. As a result, the improvements required by the developers of Robertson Ranch will provide an overall public benefit which would include the following: • 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 arte rials. • El Camino Real (ECR) 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. • The developers would be required to dedicate 7.97 acres of park land for the construction of three new full-size soccer fields for the community. • Over 140 acres of open space would be preserved with an endowment for long-term management and maintenance of the preserve area. ROBERTSON RANCH TOWN HALL MEETING QUESTIONS (8/31/2006) City responses (in BOLD) dated 9/12/06 • 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 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. 6. Is revenue from the commercial center the driving force behind Glasgow and Edinburgh being through streets? We prefer to shop in Carlsbad to Oceanside, but prefer safety to convenience. We are willing use Tamarack & El Camino Real to get to the commercial center if by car. Revenue from the Commercial Center is not the driving force behind the extensions of Glasgow and Edinburgh. When the Colony subdivision was approved in the late 70's, the roads were planned to be extensions to provide access to the Robertson Ranch lands. There are no records indicating that Glasgow or Edinburgh were to ultimately be designed as cul-de-sacs. Under the City's Growth Management Plan, 1,122 dwelling units were anticipated to be developed on the Robertson Ranch property. That is the number of units proposed currently. There have never been any assumptions or guarantees as to the number of units that would have access through the Colony, except for assuring that the ADT threshold of 2,000 trips per day for a local street is not exceeded. The three alternatives all result in an ADT of less than 2,000 trips per day on Glasgow and Edinburgh. 7. The commercial center has been pitched to us as an upper class shopping area. Yet at the same time, we've heard about comments from private meetings that the NE quadrant is one of the areas for planned for lower and middle-income development. This is supported when looking at the density levels for Robertson Ranch. The City can not condition a specific business to be located within a commercial center. The developer of the West Village may have more information regarding businesses that have expressed an interest in locating within the commercial area. ROBERTSON RANCH.TOWN HALL MEETING QUESTIONS (8/31/2006) City responses (in BOLD) dated 9/12/06 A range of densities are proposed for Robertson Ranch and range from large lot (10,000 and 7,500 sf min. lot) to small lot (5,000 and 6,000 sf min. lot) and include multi-family development, detached condominiums, and senior housing. The project provides a mix of housing types at a range of densities to serve all members of the community and includes 15% of the units to be "income restricted" affordable housing as required by the City's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. This mix of housing types is similar to existing development within the northeast quadrant. 8. If the General Plan is basically the City's contract or promise to residents, why does the web-site still indicate Robertson Ranch as RLM on the Land Use Map? A General Plan Amendment (GPA) is required to implement the Robertson Ranch Master Plan. The GPA has not received approval and therefore, the map has not been updated. The City's Habitat Management Plan 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. 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. 9. Validity and Reliability of Data - Average Daily Traffic (ADT) of Glasgow and Edinburgh has consistently changed with each traffic study. a.If traffic studies are scientific proven methods, why have they been so erratic? The numbers between the different studies are not erratic. The first traffic report used a simplified assumption to show potential traffic impact on the Colony streets. The second report included expanded criteria to calculate the different types of trips and expressed a "worst case" scenario that may be experienced by the Colony. However, this report did not take into account the affects of circuitous routing. The recent report being brought forward now incorporates this trip reduction. The updated report now provides traffic numbers for the three access alternatives being presented by staff. They also include a level of detail that addresses potential trips from different internal and external sources. ROBERTSON RANCH TOWN HALL MEETING QUESTIONS (8/31/2006) City responses (in BOLD) dated 9/12/06 b. Why have we been able to identify obvious errors when the Applicant & City have not? The reports are prepared by professionals and are reviewed by the City for consistency. We appreciate the inconsistencies that you have raised. With your input, the Developer's Engineer has evaluated the changes and verified that the inconsistencies were minor and did not affect the results or findings of the studies. c. What contingencies can be guaranteed if traffic numbers are significantly wrong? Given the findings of the updated traffic report and the relative capacities of the roadways within the Colony, staff believes the reports are accurate in their findings. 10. Traffic Study - For the second traffic study, the final version was not issued until June 15, which was 6 days prior to the June 21 Planning Commission hearing. This didn't give the Colony residents reasonable time to analyze and validate without mad scrambling. We have voiced our concerns for reasonable review time periods. Keeping in mind that we work full-time jobs and our efforts on Robertson Ranch have become 2nd jobs, what does the City believe is a reasonable time frame for the public to review? Staff does not encourage providing draft technical studies for review until they are considered final. To the extent we can, we will provide you copies of the final studies when they are deemed technically correct. 11. Gates - Gate failure statements by City Fire personnel cannot be validated by any documentation and we have many expert parties, including Carlsbad's own Fire personnel, who say the gate problems are unfounded. It's been indicated that gates do slow down emergency vehicles, but only by 1-2 minutes. Why do you think the City of Carlsbad logic is so different from other fire personnel and the other 8,999 cities that use gates successfully? Expert testimonials and consultation indicate very few problems with gates. a. Greg Dahlem, Battalion Chief, Baltimore Fire Dept. b. Ran Runnestrand - Battalion Chief c. Ralph Davis - Captain, Corona Fire Department d. Greg Largent - Paramedic, Los Angeles County Dept. e. Carlsbad Fire Dept. - Engineer ROBERTSON RANCH TOWN HALL MEETING QUESTIONS (8/31/2006) City responses (in BOLD) dated 9/12/06 Knox Company (Knox-Box Rapid Entry System) - Western Acct. Mgr., Marlene Briones a. Installed in over 9,000 fire departments nationwide b. US Military uses Knox Box system worldwide (including Camp Pendleton and Miramar) c. Carlsbad is a long-time Knox Box user d. Carlsbad has a great Knox Box program and a wonderful relationship with Knox Box e. No Equipment failures have ever been reported to Knox Box by Carlsbad f. Gate failures are usually due to dust or dirt on the contact switch - and easily fixed by spraying canned compressed air or gum out for heavier build up When the Carlsbad Fire Department evaluates a proposed development, the focus of that review is on access for emergency vehicles. A Plan review takes into consideration the location of the gate, the number of occupancies isolated by the gate, whether the gate is for routine use or emergency access use only and its impact on the overall emergency response City-wide. Gates pose a physical barrier that slow Fire Department responses and because of this barrier-effect, the Fire Department does not support gates in new developments. The Carlsbad Fire Department is not in disagreement with the Robertson Ranch "expert testimonials and consultations," which indicated that there are very few gate-related problems and concurs with the statement that gates do slow down emergency vehicles responses by approximately one (1) to two (2) minutes. Although a rare occurrence, gates, like any other mechanical device, do experience failures and clearly slow emergency vehicle responses. "It is the responsibility of the owner to maintain, in a serviceable condition, at all times, all required or approved devices, including gates." Gates are but one of many factors that are evaluated and prioritized throughout the City's development process. 12. Carlsbad has 161 gated communities, but no gate policy - specifically a maintenance policy. If this is something the mayor has been concerned with since his ride along 3 years ago, why has the City gone 3 years without a policy? Because a policy does not exist, means that a policy should be created and not denying gates where it is prudent to do so no matter where in Carlsbad. In addition, PA 1 of Robertson Ranch may be planned to be gated, further supporting application of gates where appropriate. ROBERTSON RANCH-TOWN HALL MEETING QUESTIONS (8/31/2006) City responses (in BOLD) dated 9/12/06 Carlsbad has 161 gates, not 161 communities with gates. The majority of those gates serve either apartment complexes, individual residences or commercial properties. There are approximately 15 gated communities serving single family detached homes. There are 29 condominium communities with gated entries. The Carlsbad Fire Department conducted a study and determined there were six (6) separate gate-entry related incidents in the City of Carlsbad during a two (2) year period. When an emergency responder reports a gate-entry incident, the Fire Prevention Bureau policy is to contact the gate owner, identify the gate-related problem and then confirm that the problem has been repaired. The Carlsbad Fire Department is unaware of any significant gate-related response delays or any documented negative patient outcomes associated with gate-delayed responses. The Carlsbad Fire Department does not support gates because even though to date no significant failure has resulted, the potential still exists for an increase in emergency response time caused by a gate malfunction that results in a negative outcome. Gated communities have been approved in certain circumstances. Generally, a gated community can be supported when it is isolated from other neighborhoods and there are no opportunities to provide interconnected streets between neighborhoods. PA 1 is proposed as an optional gated community since this neighborhood is isolated from all other development areas and there are no opportunities for neighborhood connections. 13. Morning and evening rush hours will be disastrous for our homeowners who will leave at approximately the same time in attempting to exit their garages and driveways to go to their places of business. If a school is built, the streets will be annoyingly dangerous with the extra cars for pickup and drop off. Just note the areas around the schools. As I mentioned at the meeting, some cars are parked on the street on a continuing basis. At the same time, landscapers need to park on the street, as well as huge delivery vans and FedEx vans. WORST CASE SCENARIO: What if cars/vans are parked on opposite sides of the street at the same time that theW&E Village traffic is coming through? Someone would have to back up! This all reminds me of the agony the homeowners/tenants on Tamarack must go through as they attempt to leave their driveways with oncoming traffic. (Fortunately, at least we do not have curving streets.) The roadways on Glasgow and Edinburgh were constructed at Collector Street widths of 40 feet curb-to-curb rather than Local Street widths of 34 ROBERTSON RANCH TOWN HALL MEETING QUESTIONS (8/31/2006) City responses (in BOLD) dated 9/12/06 feet curb-to-curb. In either case, both Local, and Collector Streets are designed to accommodate parked vehicles on both sides of the street and one lane of traffic in each direction. If traffic calming measures are incorporated into the Colony, it will reduce the speed of traffic, thereby resulting in increased traffic safety. 14. Roundabouts - I can picture them but have never been on one. It almost sounds as through one at Glasgow and Edinburgh might work to reduce crashes, since each car would have to adhere to its turn. Right now, you know how awful it is, with Edinburgh curving in the distance and no visibility in sight. Traffic is maddeningly fast on Edinburgh, even though I brought up the subject at our first HOA meeting in the park. Our homeowners are aware of it, but some still don't care. Maybe they will listen to you if you pitch the idea of driving slowly at the intersection. I personally think it is VICIOUS AND CRUEL for the Council not to grant our wish. I also have a dreadful opinion of Mr. Brian. He must be getting something out of his not going along with us on our wish not to have traffic on the two streets. Why would it matter to him personally if we blocked off the entrances? He is still earning big money with the new development. Why is the Council so evil about it? What is their possible reason not to grant out wish, which is purely to keep the children and pets safe and eliminate heavy traffic in a family-oriented, gentle neighborhood? When the Colony originally developed, Glasgow Drive and Edinburgh Drive were developed at the southern boundary with the intent to be extended. Roadway connectivity was incorporated into the Colony at this time. The Colony residents have grown accustom to an "interim condition" where the dead end "Future Extensions" of Glasgow and Edinburgh essentially function as a cul-de-sac with no through traffic. With the West Village development, the connections of Glasgow and Edinburgh would not increase traffic in the Colony to a level that is higher than is expected for residential streets. 15. Can you describe how the connection between Glasgow and the RR extension will look? There is a huge hill currently at the end of Glasgow. a. How much of the hill will be removed? b. Will the road go uphill for a while? c. How will the protected area look when completed? An approximate 250 ft. length of road (Glasgow) will connect the Robertson Ranch (RR) residential planning areas with the Colony. When traveling southbound on Glasgow into RR, the street will continue to head gradually downhill at approximately the same grade as is presently on the street in ROBERTSON RANCH TOWN HALL MEETING QUESTIONS (8/31/2006) City responses (in BOLD) dated 9/12/06 the Colony. The street will level out by the time that it "T's" into the residential street in PA 5. In order for the Glasgow extension to meet existing grade at the existing "stub", it will be necessary to excavate the existing slope at the stub for the roadway extension. This excavation will create a 2:1 cut slope on both sides of the road. These slopes will be up to 15 feet high (right at the RR boundary) and will reduce to about zero feet by the time the roadway length meets the PA 5 street. The slopes will be planted with Costal Sage Scrub (CSS) in order to create an improved open space preserve connection with the open space corridors on each side. Existing agricultural areas on either side of the road will be restored with CSS and will be maintained as open space also. Due to the excavation needed to meet grade at the RR boundary, southbound motorists will not have a distant view until about half the way down the roadway, and then the side slopes reduce to a height to where motorists should have an expansive view of Robertson Ranch, Carlsbad and probably the ocean. The nearest home in this area will be some 300 feet away from the nearest Colony home. 16. What proposed traffic calming methods is the City planning to suggest be installed in The Colony? This is an established neighborhood and unlike Bressi Ranch, the garages are located in the front of the house and there are no alleyways. Retrofitting an established neighborhood with bulb outs may not be ascetically pleasing as opposed to what could be incorporated in a new neighborhood. Specific traffic-calming features have not been identified for the Colony. As currently proposed, the design of traffic calming features would occur in conjunction with the submittal of the First Tentative Map for the West Village. The developer of the West Village would coordinate with the Colony HOA or it's designated representatives to determine what methods of traffic calming are acceptable to the residents according to the procedures in the City's Traffic Management Program. Any approved traffic calming measures would be designed and secured by the developer prior to the recordation of the First Final Map within the West Village. Traffic calming measures would need to be installed prior to the extensions of Glasgow Drive and Edinburgh Drive. A range of traffic-calming options are described in the Traffic Management Program and include bulb-outs, chicanes, chokers, stop signs, traffic circles, etc. For more information, a copy of the Traffic Management Program can be obtained through the City's Traffic Engineering Division. 17. Why can't the comer of Glasgow and Edinburgh be considered changing. There have been numerous accidents although the police department ROBERTSON RANCH TOWN HALL MEETING QUESTIONS (8/31/2006) City responses (in BOLD) dated 9/12/06 shows only one in two years. That was because the police had to file a report. Other accidents have only resulted in insurance exchange information but they are accidents none the less. Why not consider making the entrance at Edinburgh and Tamarack a hammerhead cul-de- sac, use the HOA park for a new entrance. The city could acquire the property by eminent domain and create a new entrance there. That would result in a 3-way stop "T" intersection where people going to the park or who live near the park would turn left and The colony residents would turn right. Traffic coming from the park area would turn right at this new entrance and would reduce traffic and accidents in The Colony. Revisions to the corner of Glasgow and Edinburgh can be considered if supported by a majority of the Colony residents. Please refer to the previous answer for more information. 18. Why can't the Planning Department indicate to the Planning Commissioners their "preferred" choice of plans for the RR development BUT indicate that the other choices all meet city codes and policy requirements? There is no ban on gates in the city. Only Mayor Lewis doesn't like them, but they are not against the law. Let the Planning Commissioners determine what is their best choice. With the road access to Tamarack, the fire department cannot now say they like one route into The Colony. Karen Voudreil said in the July 11th, meeting that as long as the fire department got a second access on Tamarack, they would not have a problem with safety access into the RR development through The Colony. If so, the other alternatives then should have no opposition from the Fire Department. In actuality, the less circuitous routing can then be used resulting in faster response time. That is exactly what the Planning Department will be presenting. The three alternatives described in the response to Question #1 do not violate City standards. Staff will be presenting the pros and cons of the three alternatives with a recommendation for Alternative 1 or 2. The only alternative NOT supported is the back-to-back cul-de-sacs (Colony Alternative 4). 19. Does the city need to go through the notification process again if the Tamarack access is approved? Describe all the processes required to meet legal city notification policy. The next application for the West Village is anticipated to be the Master Tentative Map which will divide the West Village into the various planning areas and allow for mass grading of the site together with the required infrastructure improvements. ROBERTSON RANCH TOWN HALL MEETING QUESTIONS (8/31/2006) City responses (in BOLD) dated 9/12/06 When an application is determined to be complete, a Site Notification Sign is posted at the site identifying an "APPLICATION IN PROCESS" together with a brief description and contact information. Additionally, under the City's new procedures for Early Notification of Infill Development, notices would be mailed to all property owners within 600' of the project site. A minimum of 10-days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing, a Notice of Public Hearing is published in the local newspaper and public hearing notices are sent to Public Agencies, property owners within 600' of the site, and to any interested parties who request notification. The Site Notification Signs are removed and replaced with "NOTICE OF PUBLC HEARING" signs. If a project also requires approval by the City Council, a 10-day notice is provided in the same manner as described above. Additionally, if Circulation Alternatives 1 or 2 are selected, the Colony would need to be involved in the design of traffic calming features within the Colony neighborhood. It would be necessary for the developer of the West Village to coordinate with the Colony HOA in conjunction with review of Master Tentative Map for the West Village as outlined in the answer to Question #16. EXHIBIT 6 Planning Commission Minutes May 31, 2006 Page 1 Minutes of: PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING Time of Meeting: 6:00 P.M. Date of Meeting: May 31, 2006 Place of Meeting: COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER Planning Commission Chairperson Montgomery called the Special Meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Cardosa led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Chairperson Montgomery, Commissioners Baker, Cardosa, Dominguez, Heineman, Segall, and Whitton Absent: None Staff Present: Marcela Escobar-Eck, Planning Director Don Neu, Assistant Planning Director Jane Mobaldi, Assistant City Attorney Gary Barberio, Principal Planner Barbara Kennedy, Associate Planner Jeremy Riddle, Associate Engineer Bob Johnson, Deputy City Engineer APPROVAL OF MINUTES None. Chairpers6n Montgomery directed everyone's attention to the slide on the screen to review the procedures the Commission would be following for that evening's Public Hearing. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA None. PUBLIC HEARING Chairperson Montgomery opened the Public Hearing and asked Assistant Planning Director Don Neu to introduce the item. 1. EIR 03-03/MP 02-03/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. Planning Commission Minutes May 31, 2006 Page 2 Mr. Neu introduced Agenda item 1 and stated Associate Planner Barbara Kennedy would make the Staff presentation. Chairperson Montgomery opened the Public Hearing for Item 1. Barbara Kennedy gave a presentation and stated she would be available to answer questions. Staff introduced Tim Gnibus with BR6 Consulting, who is an Environmental Consultant hired by the City. She stated he would be available to answer any questions related to the EIR. Chairperson Montgomery asked if there were any questions of Staff. Commissioner Segall asked if the project will allow dedicated left-turn lanes into the project entry points on Cannon Road. He also asked if there were only three project access points to the West Village development. Project Engineer Jeremy Riddle replied yes to both questions. Commissioner Segall inquired if the traffic calming devices for the project are to inhibit cut-through traffic. Mr. Riddle stated that the Master Plan is interfacing with Edinburgh Drive and Glasgow Drive and includes traffic calming measures, which will slow traffic and inhibit cut-through traffic. In addition, Mr. Riddle stated that further design methods are proposed to make circuitous routes through the development planning areas in order to avoid direct cut-through traffic. Commissioner Segall asked if the major access point to the project will be at El Camino Real and Lisa Street. Mr. Riddle replied yes. Commissioner Segall stated there is no access to the East Village from College. Mr. Riddle concurred. Commissioner Segall asked Ms. Kennedy if the allocation of excess dwelling units is at the sole discretion of the City Council and if it is intended for the Planning Commission to make a recommendation about the growth control point going over the point by 400 units with the City Council making the final decision. Ms. Kennedy replied yes. Commissioner Segall asked if there were other projects in the city which had exceeded the growth control point. Ms. Kennedy stated Bressi Ranch is the most recent Master Plan development to exceed the growth control point. Mr. Neu stated the Bressi Ranch Master Plan had a State Affordable housing density bonus applied which resulted in exceeding the growth control point by approximately 100 units. Chairperson Montgomery asked Mr. Riddle to describe the circulation and the connections of the entire project for the public. Mr, Riddle explained how Planning Area 1 has two points of ingress and egress at Tamarack Avenue and Kelly Drive. Planning Area 2 is the recreational vehicle (RV) storage site and has a dedicated connection to Tamarack Avenue. There are no proposed signaled access points along Tamarack Avenue. Going to the north, along the boundary of the project, there are two rear entry point connections at Edinburgh Drive and Glasgow Drive to the West Village project. There is a connection point along El Camino Real across from Lisa Street with a proposed signal including left turn lanes. East Village will have access points primarily along Cannon Road. Planning Area 22 will have a point of access across from Street "A" serviced via a signalized intersection. East of Planning Area 22 will have access to the signalized intersection. To the north will be the two primary entry points, Streets "A" & "O," for the East Village development with no additional proposed entry points. Along the top of the East Village, there is a SDG&E unpaved access road serving SDG&E's need to service the towers. Chairperson Montgomery asked Mr. Riddle to describe the future improvements of Cannon and College. Mr. Riddle explained how the East Village is required to provide full width arterial widening for both College and Cannon along the frontage of the entire development. The intersection will be widened to necessitate the two lanes that will be available in both directions. Commissioner Whitton asked Mr. Riddle to describe how the road will go through the West Village from El Camino and connect with both Edinburgh and Glasgow. Mr. Riddle stated there is proposed traffic calming measures on Street "Z". The roads will be extended to serve the needs of the individual planning areas. The alignment is not complete and has been left open for further development when the tentative maps are submitted for final approval. Planning Commission Minutes May 31, 2006 Page 3 Chairperson Montgomery asked Mr. Riddle if the tentative map will come before the Planning Commission so they can ensure the streets are designed to avoid cut-through traffic since Edinburgh and Glasgow currently experience little traffic. Commissioner Heineman asked what type of traffic calming measures will be implemented in the project. Mr. Riddle stated that since the Master Plan does indicate traffic calming measures will be implemented within these planning areas, all traffic calming measures are available for use and will be implemented as the developer proceeds into the formal design process. Commissioner Baker asked if the Master Plan conditioned the West Village to mitigate existing traffic conditions on Glasgow and Edinburgh. Mr. Riddle replied no. Commissioner Baker asked about existing traffic conditions at the intersections of Tamarack and El Camino Real and whether there will be 2 left- turn lanes turning south onto El Camino Real at Tamarack to mitigate the existing traffic problem. Mr. Riddle replied no. The traffic study did not outline this as a required implementation measure of the project. Commissioner Baker asked if it is possible to create two left-turn lanes at this intersection. Mr. Riddle replied that it was doubtful. Commissioner Baker asked what our response should be to the Department of Transportation letter with regards to the Tamarack Avenue/l-5 on-ramp potentially failing. Mr. Riddle indicated there has been verbal communication already with the Department of Transportation to discuss this issue. He recommended responding to the Department of Transportation in writing outlining our position. We are willing to have projects participate but only when a program has been set up that identifies how development projects participate in the method. Commissioner Baker asked Mr. Riddle what our response should be to the increased traffic on El Camino Real and the common occurrence of red lights on this street. Mr. Riddle deferred this question to the Deputy Traffic Engineer, Bob Johnson. Mr. Johnson stated there are challenges to synchronizing the signals on El Camino Real with the current conditions; they are in the process of updating the coordination so they will get improved progression along El Camino Real. Some of the constraints are due to El Camino Real not being at full-lane capacity. Eventually, the signal coordination will work much more efficiently than the current conditions. Commissioner Baker asked if there can be two left-turn lanes on Tamarack to alleviate the conditions at 2:30 PM and then again at the end of the day, Mr. Johnson stated the coordination is challenging due to the sudden influx of school traffic. Perhaps a split-phase operation would be a better alternative to operate this signal but is not desirable due to the additional delay. Chairperson Montgomery asked Mr. Johnson to define 'split-phase* traffic signals. Mr. Johnson explained split-phase traffic signals allow traffic from the side street to go one direction while the other road intersection gets a green with the opposite road intersection having a red. A good example of this type of signal in the vicinity, Mr. Johnson explained, is the intersection of El Camino Real and Hosp Way. Chairperson Montgomery asked Mr. Johnson if additional dedication along El Camino Real and Tamarack, even though the traffic report stated it is not necessary, would exacerbate the situation where there is currently so much frustration. Mr. Johnson stated part of the consideration for alignment on both sides of the street in order to achieve the intended result and not only by dedicating additional lanes. Commissioner Cardosa asked Mr. Riddle to describe the scope of work which will take place along El Camino Real during the West Village processing. Mr. Riddle stated how the developer will conduct full width widening improvements including three lanes north-bound and three lanes south-bound from Tamarack to Cannon. This improvement scheme will include full median landscaping along with sidewalks and street lights. Commissioner Cardosa asked if the City has the ability to complete the work during non-peak hours. Mr. Riddle stated work during off hours will be considered but the question needs to be routed through the traffic department. Mr. Johnson stated typically, the contractor will install cabling along the edge of the road to provide delineation between traffic and construction which eliminates the need to conduct work in the evening. We will look at what will work best in order to safely complete the work. Planning Commission Minutes May 31, 2006 Page 4 Commissioner Dominguez stated that he disagrees with the 11 percent I-5 traffic impact statistic provided by the EIR for I-5 access at Cannon and thinks it will eventually add to a vortex of other sources of traffic. Chairperson Montgomery concurs and asked Mr. Riddle to comment on why the project specifies Tamarack and Carlsbad Village Drive as the main access points when Cannon will see the majority of increased traffic. Chairperson Montgomery asked if the upgrades to the Cannon Road interchange was updated to handle the increase in traffic. Mr. Riddle speculated the reason they do not mention Cannon Road is due to the recent reconstruction and the impending necessary upgrade for the Tamarack and Carlsbad Village Drive intersections. Commissioner Dominguez stated it would be important to outline where the increased traffic will be directed in the fair share analysis due to the funds Cal Trans and the State of California will be requesting for this project. Commissioner Segall asked Mr. Johnson to address the letter from the City of Oceanslde addressing the concern at College and Plaza, College and Vista Way, and College and Lake field-intersections. Mr. Johnson stated John Amberson, from the City of Oceanside, was in the audience and available to answer questions regarding that issue. Commissioner Segall stated he will yield until Mr. Amberson is speaking. Commissioner Baker asked about the date of complete of Reach A at College Boulevard which will help disperse a portion of the traffic from this project. Mr. Johnson stated there is not an exact date for the completion of this developer road but he hopes the road will be open to traffic in about two to three years' time, however, it could take as long as five years. Commissioner Baker asked if the later phase of the West Village and the subsequent improvements on El Camino Real will cause problems if the East Village development is complete. Mr. Johnson stated if the West Village development was not proceeding in an expeditious manner and not meeting the timelines, the City would have to perform the CIP project and complete development. Commissioner Baker asked what conditions would trigger the City to put this in the CIP. Mr. Johnson stated the annual traffic monitoring program would show if the situation is meeting or exceeding the level of service on our thresholds for growth management and would prompt the City to address the matter. Commissioner Cardosa asked Mr. Riddle to describe in detail the construction and capacity of the new drain line to the north side of Cannon. Mr. Riddle described the new drain line as an 84-inch RCP storm drain proposed along the north side of Cannon Road which will be located just outside of the right of way along a meandering sidewalk. The storm drain is designed to carry approximately 500 CFS which will shift the water out of the creek channel along Rancho Carlsbad. Commissioner Cardosa asked how the capacity compares to the needs of the 100-year flood environment. Mr. Riddle explained how the developer must perform a technical analysis when proposing an 84-inch storm drain since they are also proposing to grade within the existing 100-year flood plain to insure they do not lift or elevate the flood plain in order to not affect the Rancho Carlsbad residents. If the project is approved, they are prepared to process an application with FEMA to modify the flood plains and that Planning Area 22 would be out of the flood plains. Commissioner Heinemen asked if the 84-inch storm drain would improve the 100-year flood. Mr. Riddle stated the 84" storm drain is not intended to carry the entire 100-year flood from the creek but is intended to shift approximately 500 CFS out of the channel. The channel currently experiences approximately 1,500 CFS of flows through the creek. They are taking 500 CFS out of the channel and shifting it into the storm drain. There will still be 100-year flood events experienced within the creek. Commissioner Heineman stated this process is an improvement yet not a solution. Mr. Riddle concurred. Chairperson Montgomery asked Mr. Riddle to describe the comprehensive Improvements occurring between Lake Calavera Dam and the detention base and what the final improvement mean to the Rancho Carlsbad area. Mr. Riddle stated to be clear, the 84-inch storm drain and the development of the Robertson Ranch do not represent the ultimate fix. There are still a few things such as the dam project, the basin BJ, and regional features which have not been implemented. The 84-inch storm drain is only one element. The basin BJB, located in Planning Area 23E, is a regional basin meant to detain water into slow flood flows. The two other basins, the Faraday and the Melrose basins, are also installed and providing benefit. The College and Cannon basin BJ is not constructed at this point and is a condition of the Cantarini development and will be constructed as part of that project. Chairperson Montgomery asked if the BJB will be constructed as part of this project. Mr. Riddle stated this basin is presently constructed, functional and completed as Calavera Phase 2. Mr. Riddle stated there are still final improvements to be made at the choke point of El Camino Real. Drudging work was recently completed Planning Commission Minutes May 31, 2006 Page 5 but did not represent the final improvement. Chairperson Montgomery asked if all four quadrants of this intersection are right in the middle of the choke point and if the drainage capacity is part of the solution. Mr. Riddle replied yes it is part of the solution. Commissioner Segall asked if there is a public trail that connects Planning Area 11 with 12. Ms. Kennedy stated Planning Area 12 does connect to planning area 13 and there are some trail connections to Planning Area 12 so there is direct access for residents going from the park to the commercial area. Commissioner Segall referred to the SDG&E easement being part of the Habitat Management Ran, and if this area will be part of the habitat corridor. Ms. Kennedy stated the location trails within the corridor will be on the existing SDG&E access roads and the existing trail roads which will cause no further impact to the habitat or wildlife. Ms. Kennedy stated much of the habitat corridor will need to be re-vegetated. Commissioner Segall asked about the acreage allocated for the use of community facilities and if it is spacious enough for the community facility to be developed. Ms. Kennedy stated the community facilities are usually the final sites to be developed and gave examples where sites are sometimes developed as much as 8 years later. Ms. Kennedy stated all land set aside for the community facilities purpose should be usable. Commissioner Baker asked if the community facility of 175,000 square feet is located in a commercial space and how we ensure this space will remain allocated as community facility space. Ms. Kennedy stated facility use should be monitored during the building permit process. Commissioner Baker asked if it is possible to require a percentage of the high-density units to be for-sale units as opposed to rental units. Ms. Kennedy replied yes it is possible, but to keep in mind this requirement would not prohibit owners to use the units as rentals. Commissioner Baker concurred but stated there would at least be the opportunity for citizens to own the space. Commissioner Baker asked if the 56 moderate-income units will be restricted in some way. Ms. Kennedy stated yes, the units will be income qualified. Commissioner Dominguez asked if the income-qualified units will be under contract. Ms. Kennedy stated the units would be subject to the Affordable Housing Agreement. Commissioner Dominguez asked if the moderate-income units will be income qualified as well. Ms. Kennedy replied yes. Commissioner Dominguez asked if the affordable housing units are 49 percent of the total housing scope of the Master Plan. Ms. Kennedy stated the affordable units are located within the high-density multi- family sites which are about 49 percent. Commissioner Baker stated that high-density units do not necessarily represent affordable housing units. Ms. Kennedy stated the project includes the required 15 percent inclusionary housing requirement for the City and also the additional requirement for the moderate rate housing which Is the 56 units. The 15 percent puts the Master Plan at just over 200 units for the affordable income qualified units. Commissioner Dominguez asked for the total for each of the high-density unit categories. Ms. Kennedy stated the East Village and West Village will have slightly over 200 low-income housing units. The West Village is required to provide the 56 moderate rate units. Chairperson Montgomery asked if the applicant would like to make a presentation. Applicant, Brian Milich, Senior Vice President, Corky McMillin Companies, San Diego thanked the commission and gave a presentation. The applicant stated he would be available to answer any questions. Chairperson Montgomery thanked the applicant for his presentation and asked if there were any questions of the applicant. Commissioner Baker asked to what extent the 56 moderate priced units are being subsidized and if the term higher-density mean affordability. The applicant stated the 56 moderate rate units will be sold below the market and quite possibly at a loss. This will result in the units being more affordable. The remaining high-density RH homes will be sold at market rate but due to the nature of the product, will still make the Planning Commission Minutes May 31, 2006 Page 6 space more affordable. Commissioner Baker would like reasonable confidence that the high-density units will result in more affordability and since half of the project comprises of the high-density RH Zone, she asked if the plan will have for-sale units or rental units. The applicant stated the Master Plan is written to give flexibility in this area. A portion of the areas will be for-sale units and a portion will be rental. The units which meet the 15 percent requirement of the city will most likely be rental units. The Robertson Family is interested in building apartments in the neighborhood next to the commercial center. There are at least two of the remaining three areas that may be for-sale units, but the determination has not been made. The applicant stated again that due to the type of product, the units will clearly be more affordable. Commissioner Heineman asked how many low-income units per acre the state requires. The applicant stated he believes the requirement is 20 units per acre. Commissioner Dominguez disclosed ex-parte communication with the applicant, the Agosti's and others regarding this project. Commissioner Oominguez stated he is significantly in disagreement with the alteration in Planning Area 11 and asked if there is any way we could mitigate the substantial grading that needs to take place to accommodate the commercial development proposed for that area. The applicant stated this site is challenging. They have attempted to be sensitive to this area by creating a 100-foot buffer but feel there is not much more that could be done without jeopardizing the effectiveness of the commercial site. Commissioner Dominguez asked if there will be substantial elevation difference from "Z" Street to Planning Area 7. The applicant stated there will not be a substantial elevation difference perhaps a 10 to 15 foot differential. Commissioner Dominguez asked how much of the remaining 100 feet for corridor preservation will be used for the El Camino widening. Ms. Kennedy stated there will be 100-foot building set back with a landscape buffer of 50 feet. Commissioner Segall asked the applicant to describe what the look will be upon completion. The applicant stated there will be a crib wall, 50 feet landscaping, and 50 foot set back. Ms. Kennedy stated the wall will have a cliff-tike look in order to blend in. The wall will keep the cliff secure and will not erode with adverse weather conditions. The wall will be 20 to 30 feet high. Commissioner Segall asked what the involvement McMillin will have with the West Village. The applicant stated McMillin will Master Plan the entire property even though the Robertson Ranch will be developing the West Village. The builder for the West Village is not determined at this time and may in fact be the McMillin Company. Chairperson Montgomery asked if there were any more questions of the applicant. RECESS Chairperson Montgomery called for a 10-minute recess at 8:03 P.M. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER Chairperson Montgomery called the meeting back to order at 8:20 P.M. Chairperson Montgomery reconvened the hearing and asked if any members of the public wished to speak on the item. PUBLIC TESTIMONY Kari Atherton, Carlsbad; Robin A. Wofford, Carlsbad; Christine Gallup, Carlsbad; Greg Agosti, Carlsbad; and Kenneth Miller, Carlsbad, gave a group presentation stating the opposition to the density levels and the subsequent issues they feel will develop such as, but not limited to, traffic congestion, safety, increased crime, and reduced property values. Ms. Wofford spoke of the existing traffic congestion and the traffic study conducted in October of 2005, which she feels is significantly flawed. Ms. Wofford is requesting an updated traffic study which represents a realistic view of the neighborhood. Ms. Gallup Planning Commission Minutes May 31, 2006 Page 7 gave a presentation about the Carlsbad community and stated the community is a habitat that should be preserved. Ms. Gallup stated the increased traffic is not a responsible safety decision. Mr. Agosti spoke about the significant concerns in the EIR and his opposition of the 41 percent density increase. Mr. Agosti also stated his dissatisfaction in the timing of the Public Notice, and that feeling ample time was not provided to citizens. Mr. Miller passed his time on to other members. Bill Arnold, Carlsbad, is the President of Rancho Carlsbad Home Owners Association. He expressed his gratitude to Brian Milich and the McMillin Company for their ongoing response to specific issues of the Rancho Carlsbad HOA. Mr. Arnold supports the EIR and the Master Plan for the Robertson Ranch project and found nothing to oppose. Further, they requested staff add a development standards condition to the approval relating to PA22 which generally would provide consideration of the line of sight from Rancho Carlsbad, noise, lighting, hours of operation and preservation, to the extent possible, of topography and mature trees. Commissioner Segal) asked Mr. Arnold what he meant by the term line of sight. Mr. Arnold replied he referred to aesthetics and would prefer not to see the development taking place. Chairperson Montgomery asked Mr. Arnold if he had an issue with the flat parcel adjacent to the creek where any structure will be visible and if Mr. Arnold was concerned with the fire station as well. Mr. Arnold replied no. Kasey Cinciarelli, Carlsbad, stated she opposed the project due to the existing overcrowding of schools and increased traffic. Ms. Cinciarelli felt development efforts should be made toward a new high school which would result in improving the overall quality of education. Chairperson Montgomery read a public opinion from Susan Pynes, Carlsbad; Ms. Pynes' opinion stated "400 extra units? "Where will these kids go to school?" Barbara Peters, Carlsbad, stated she opposed the removal of the traffic barrier on Edinburgh. Ms. Peters felt the traffic study is inaccurate and removing the barrier will increase the traffic and compromise safety. If Edinburgh is opened, Ms. Peters stated the intersection should be blocked off at Glasgow to avoid cut through traffic and Pontiac, rather than Edinburgh, should be a through street. Gary L. Smith, Carlsbad, stated he opposed the project due to the high density. Mr. Smith felt if the residents, when purchasing their homes, were informed of the future road extension on Edinburgh going through to El Camino Real, they would not have purchased their homes. Mr. Smith feels the neighborhood is already over-burdened with speeding traffic. Crystal Covert, Carlsbad, is representing the Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce. Ms. Covert read a letter from Ted Owen, CEO Chamber of Commerce, stating the COC's support of the Robertson Ranch Project. The Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce feels that the Corky McMillin Company demonstrated a commitment to the quality of life in the community and felt they will enhance the City of Carlsbad by offering limitless opportunities to all of the citizens of Carlsbad. John Amberson, Oceanside, City of Oceanside Public Works Department Transportation Planner spoke on behalf of the City of Oceanside felt the traffic study is inadequate and not appropriate for Oceanside. They requested the project mitigate their impacts or at a minimum meet with the city staff to further discuss. Commissioner Baker asked Mr. Amberson if the City of Oceanside extracted mitigation from the applicant during the McMillin Quarry Creek project. Mr. Amberson answered yes, there were some significant improvements. Commissioner Segall asked Mr. Amberson to describe the meaning of the term "4-seconds." Mr. Amberson explained the term is in reference to a total intersection time delay of 4 seconds. Chairperson Montgomery asked Mr. Amberson what specifically the City of Oceanside is asking McMillin to provide. Mr. Amberson stated they are open to a number of options. They would like to work with McMillin to arrive at a plausible solution. Their own studies do not indicate the need to widen College Boulevard, Plaza or Vista Way. Planning Commission Minutes May 31, 2006 Page 8 Chairperson Montgomery stated the Cities of Carlsbad and Oceanslde will both experience cut-through traffic. Commissioner Dominguez asked Mr. Amberson if he received a response to his initial inquiry with the City of Carlsbad Planning Department in November 2005. Mr. Amberson said he did receive a response on May 12, 2006. Commissioner Whitton asked Mr. Amberson if the City of Oceanside will need to conduct improvements due to the modernization of the hospital and nearby housing projects. Mr. Amberson stated the improvements that will occur due to the modernization project are the improvements they are referencing. Chairperson Montgomery thanked Mr. Amberson for directing their attention to the differences in the City of Carlsbad and Oceanside traffic studies. Diana Aaron, Carlsbad, Executive Director of the Carlsbad Educational Foundation but speaking as a private citizen; expressed her support for the Robertson Ranch Project. Ms. Aaron felt the Corky McMillin Company has historically been a good community partner. Commissioner Baker disclosed her position as President of the Carlsbad Educational Foundation and stated she had no knowledge of Diana Aaron's attendance at tonight's meeting where Diana is speaking as a private citizen. Arthur J. Serrin, Carlsbad, advocated more facilities for seniors at a true low income level. Mr. Serrin stated that 20% of the citizens of Carlsbad are seniors and need to be considered. Tom King, Carlsbad, stated Corky McMillin makes a great product but felt the primary issue is the high density and the lack of ingress/egress access points in addition to the increased traffic at Cannon and El Camino Real. Mr. King would like the density level decreased. James Whittaker, Carlsbad, stated his concerns with the high density and increased traffic. Mr. Whittaker would like to know where the roads and traffic calming will be in the project and how the traffic calming will work. Patrick Casinelli, Carlsbad, President of the Boys and Girls Club, spoke on behalf of the Corky McMillin Company and felt the company is invaluable to the City of Carlsbad. He stated this plan will benefit all Carlsbad citizens. Ron Sipiora, Carlsbad, Executive Director of The Boys and Girls Club, spoke on behalf of the Corky McMillin Company. The Boys and Girls Club would not be able to offer the programs to the City of Carlsbad without community partners like Corky McMillin. Thomas J. Dempsey, Oceanside, felt the developer should contribute to the Oceanside traffic signal program. Knut Madden, Carlsbad, Board of Directors of the Calavera Hills Community, but speaking as a private citizen, supported his neighbors who previously addressed the issues of high density. Mr. Madden pointed out the previously mentioned signs in the neighborhood were erected after the purchase of their homes. Mr. Madden would like to know why access is limited to one outlet to a primary street. He asked if an access point in a different location would help both communities. Joan Hayashi, Carlsbad, stated her concern for the increased traffic surrounding the neighborhood schools including the schools west of El Camino Real. Elisa Williamson, Carlsbad, a school board member but speaking as a private citizen, stated her concern for the affect the additional 400 housing units will have on the current school boundaries. Ms. Williamson requested in the future, before approving an increase or decrease in project units, a formal notice be provided to the local school district in order to allow the district an opportunity to study and respond to the change. Commissioner Baker stated she recently had contact with the superintendent to ensure they felt comfortable with releasing the school site and of the additional units. Ms. Williamson felt a more formal Planning Commission Minutes May 31, 2006 Page 9 process would be beneficial since the school board is held accountable to the public. Commissioner Segall stated all projects have relevant information available to the school district but is not sure if the information is getting to the district. Commissioner Segall suggested Ms. Williamson be the vehicle to process relevant information to the school district to keep them informed of the city's anticipation of student generation figures. Chairperson Montgomery asked if the district would need the elementary school site if the density was not there. Ms. Williamson said she cannot answer that question on behalf of the board. As a private citizen speaking, she does not feel 200 students would necessitate a school site. Commissioner Segall thanked Ms. Williamson for her knowledge of the school board system and for attending the meeting. Commissioner Segall asked Ms. Williamson where she thought the students would go from this development. Ms. Williamson stated most students will go to Hope since Hope is not over-crowded. Ms. Williamson also stated the school board tries whenever possible to have children attend their neighborhood school. Robert Virgadamo, Carlsbad, stated his concern with the speeding traffic approaching down Edinburgh to El Camino Real and the level of risk this will present for the local children. David Stoffel, Carlsbad, stated how the citizens of Carlsbad rely on the Planning Commission to make responsible decisions regarding the development. In addition, Mr. Stoffel referenced the traffic calming devices, specifically the traffic circles, which in his opinion will not work at the intersection of Glasgow and Edinburgh Drive. Chairperson Montgomery stated no proposed traffic calming devices are planned for outside the project. Mr. Riddle concurred. MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commission Baker and duly seconded, to continue the meeting past 10:00 p.m. VOTE: 7-0 AYES: Chairperson Montgomery, Commissioners Whitton, Segall, Heineman, Dominguez, Cardosa, Baker NOES: None RECESS Chairperson Montgomery called for a 5-minute recess at 10:07 P.M. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER Chairperson Montgomery reconvened the meeting at 10:17 P.M. Chairperson Montgomery asked if there were any other members of the public who wished to speak on the item. Seeing none, he closed Public Testimony and asked the applicant if he would like to respond to the Public Testimony. Mr. Milich, the applicant, stated that as hard as they tried, they did fail in some degree in their community outreach. They spent a lot of time with Preserve Calavera and Rancho Carlsbad because they were vocal and had known issues. Mr. Milich said once they learned of the Colony's issues, they met with them immediately. The applicant felt there is one main issue and that is a neighborhood issue and the connection of streets Edinburgh and Glasgow. A road to Tamarack, as an alternative, is not an option due to the very steep slope which would not meet the City's traffic standards. In addition, part of the slope is designated as open space. The applicant stated the only alternative would be to permanently keep the neighborhood connections from going through. The applicant does not know if this option is viable. The applicant stated the traffic will increase if the connections are made and this haws always been contemplated. The applicant stated the project is not exceeding the growth management point and in fact the areas are under built. They have been asked to shift the density. They are not adding units to the project. Planning Commission Minutes May 31, 2006 Page 10 The applicant stated he will continue to offer traffic calming measures off-site into the Colony. He stated they are willing to consider any and all traffic calming ideas. Again, the applicant stated he feels there is not a density issue. The information in their plans is directly from the school district. The applicant stated the school district has relinquished the school site after the applicant saved it for 4 years, The applicant felt this would be a good area for the multi-family units. The applicant felt this is a good project and requested the project be moved on to city council tonight. The applicant suggested possibly moving the project on to City Council with a request to review the density allocation and then they can make a decision as to whether it is correct. Chairperson Montgomery asked Ms. Kennedy to direct comments toward the Public Testimony to help clarify information for the public. Ms. Kennedy pointed out that since there is a large portion of the area preserved for open space the allowable density is consolidated in the developable areas. One of the areas of increased density is the high-density sites. Ms. Kennedy clarified Planning Area 1 is not a high-density area but rather a medium density area. Ms. Kennedy clarified the affordable housing percentage of 15 percent will be satisfied by the East and West Village separately. Ms. Kennedy stated the schools are notified of all projects and are completely aware of the additional density. Mr. Riddle referred to Mr. Amberson's public testimony and the improvements needed outside the boundary. Mr. Riddle clarified in the EIR that Robertson Ranch is required to pay their fair share obligations in order to mitigate the impacts of this project. The City of Oceanside is required to identify their capital improvement project. Mr. Riddle referred to comments regarding inaccurate traffic studies and how the information does not include school trip destinations. Mr. Riddle explained how the study does not go into such specific detail and understood the concerns. Staff is willing to look into this further. Chairperson Montgomery asked Assistant City Attorney, Ms. Mobaldi to speak regarding the legal issues of this project. Ms. Mobaldi stated CEQA does recognize impacts identified outside the jurisdiction should be mitigated. In order for mitigation to be implemented, there has to be a program in place by the impacted jurisdiction authorizing the mitigation in addition to a way to manage fare share contributions. Ms. Mobaldi stated the developer is not asking for a State density bonus but is required to fulfill the 15% inclusionary housing requirements. Ms. Mobaldi stated the city cannot prohibit developers to stay at or below the 15% inclusionary housing requirements. With regard to Notice, Ms. Mobaldi clarified California State Government Code and the Carlsbad Municipal Code set forth the notice requirement, which is 10 days prior to the hearing, shows the citizens were notified within the required time. Commissioner Dominguez asked the City Attorney's office if there is a contract that will hold that affordability index for the 56 moderate housing units. Mr. Neu stated the units are required to remain affordable and when sold the units will need to remain affordable for 10 to 16 years. After that time, if the units were sold there is a sharing of equity with the city portion of equity going into the city's housing trust fund which goes into affordable projects. Planning Commission Minutes May 31, 2006 Page 11 Commissioner Whitton asked about the possibility of closing Edinburgh Drive and Glasgow Drive with emergency gates used for emergency use only. Mr. Whitton asked for Mr. Riddle's comments. Mr. Riddle felt this would take us back to the drawing board. It would need to be re-looked at to see if the units would be properly served and to see what changes there would be in the development scheme. Commissioner Segall asked if the intersection of El Camino Real and Kelly will be a signalized intersection going into Planning Area 1 and if La Portalada will be an uncontrolled stop. Mr. Riddle replied yes but since there have not been formal design plans, it is undetermined if the uncontrolled stop will have a left hand turn lane. Commissioner Dominguez asked if there were alternatives for circulation during the lay out phase of the Master Plan. Ms. Kennedy replied the preserve areas drove the development plan and the access points. Chairperson Montgomery asked if the commission saw fit to think the East and West Village should be connected so both villages would have three access points between Cannon and El Camino, would we be able to provide some type of statement in writing of concerns or considerations to allow something like that. Staff replies again the issue is based on the impacts to the habitat corridor in addition to the impacts to the neighborhood to the north. It would be difficult due to the concerns of the citizens in both camps. Ms. Kennedy stated she is not sure how it would play out with the habitat management plan but the process would be lengthy. Chairperson Montgomery stated they have to consider the pressures and feelings and thoughts of families that go beyond how they view the site. Ms. Kennedy agreed, and stated perhaps the people who were involved in the original negotiations can provide some insight. Chairperson Montgomery asked if there are any other questions of staff, seeing none. DISCUSSION Commissioner Whitton's stated his concern for the increased traffic and felt if handled the traffic issues, the density issues will go away. Commissioner Segall stated his concern with the ingress/egress of the West Village. Commissioner Segall does not support removing the barriers on Edinburgh and Glasgow, however, if the barriers are not removed, there will be only one point of ingress and egress which is unacceptable. Commissioner Segall felt the 2 points of ingress and egress in the East Village is not adequate. In addition, he is concerned with the amount of density and going over the growth point by 400 units, the overall impact of traffic, the accuracy of the traffic study, the mitigation for traffic, the lack of community outreach to an established community that should have been informed of the gravity of this situation prior to 15 days ago. Commissioner Segall stated he cannot support the project the way it is. Commissioner Heineman agreed to some extent with Commissioner Segal but felt there are mitigating circumstances that are being ignored. The 40% open space surrounds much of the border of the project. Commissioner Heineman states roads should not go over open space to get exits. Commissioner Heineman stated the high density supports the State's recommendation which encourages increases in density. Commissioner Heineman felts the project will work even though there will be an increase in traffic. Commissioner Dominguez stated his agreement with Commissioner Segall's view. He felts the density issue can be worked out but would like traffic circulation issues to be addressed and improved. Commissioner Cardosa stated he is not bothered by the density as much and commends the open space portion of the project but suggested more work be done to add an access point and reduce the impact of the removal of the barriers. Mr. Cardosa commends the City and McMillin Companies on the tremendous job developing the project. Commissioner Baker stated there are many things she liked about the project such as the trails and the open space, the concept of the round-a-bouts, the dense areas situated close to the main arterials, the housing in the village center with attractive wood work, etc. However, since the circulation roads are not designed yet, it is difficult to make a decision since we cannot judge the amount of increase of traffic. She agreed with Commissioner Whitton's comment and felt that the issue is a traffic and circulation Planning Commission Minutes May 31, 2006 Page 12 problem, not a density problem. Commissioner Baker stated she is very familiar with this area but felt before moving forward, we need to figure how to handle the circulation and the traffic. Chairperson Montgomery stated as a citizen of Carlsbad, he loved driving by the parcel, viewing the agriculture and the growing fields and loves the openness of the area. However, he stated the owner of the property has his property rights as we all do. He felt the Robertson Ranch project is going toward a design that we can all agree on but there are serious deficiencies. He stated we do need shopping center facilities along the corridor. Chairperson Montgomery felt a key hub would have been the elementary school but we do not have any determination about the school. He stated how there is a need to provide high-density projects. He stated the project is planned appropriately and liked how the houses are walking distance to the parks and trails. He stated his main concern is the impact of the development going northward to access the school sites through Glasgow and Edinburgh. He felt additional connectivity and access points are needed. Chairperson Montgomery stated the project is well planned but we need keep traffic at a minimum. Chairperson Montgomery stated it appears there is a majority to send this back for further work. Assistant City Attorney, Jane Mobaldi stated due to planning amendments involved, a vote of four is needed for recommendation of approval. The applicant, Mr. Milich stated he is glad to meet with staff, his team and speak with the Colony residents. The applicant stated he would like to come back to the Commission, due to the importance of the project to the city. The applicant stated he will do his best to work on all the issues raised. He will look into additional connections and minimizing the impacts to some of the neighbors. He will work with staff on more design work on the West Village to provide a better idea of what the project will look like. Mr. Milich requested a continuance. Chairperson Montgomery requested the applicant to make direct contact with the school district again. The applicant agreed. Commissioner Whitton asked the applicant if it is possible to get a conceptual idea of how circulation would work in the West Village. Commissioner Whitton commends McMillin Companies on what a great job they and the city have done especially given the hardline of habitat management problems and open space dedication. Commissioner Whitton stated there are far more good things about this project than bad. Commissioner Baker agreed with Commissioner Whitton. She felt there are many good things about the project. Chairperson Montgomery stated the dates available for continuance are June 21st, and July 5th Commissioner Dominguez suggested we hear the applicant as the last item at the meeting on June 21st. Commissioner Segall felt June 21 st, is too soon for the applicant to gather the appropriate information. Assistant Planning Director, Mr. Neu, stated we can put the item on June 21st. The policy stated if a continued item is added to an agenda, the item is heard first. There are 5 items on the agenda for the June 21st, meeting. Mr. Neu stated the main issue is, as Commissioner Segall stated, whether this is an adequate amount of time for the issues to be considered and brought back by the applicant. Commissioner Segall stated he feels it is not enough time. Chairperson Montgomery asked the public if they would show their preference, by raising their hands, their preference of either June 21 st, or July 5th. The applicant suggested we add the item to the agenda on June 21st. Chairperson Montgomery stated the expectation for the applicant to meet with the Colony residents. Planning Commission Minutes May 31, 2006 Page 13 MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commission Baker and duly seconded, to continue this item to June 21,2006. VOTE: 7-0 AYES: Chairperson Montgomery, Commissioners Baker, Cardosa, Dominguez, Segall, Heineman, and Whitton NOES: None PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Heineman commended Barbara Kennedy and Jeremy Riddle for doing a great job on this project. Commissioner Dominguez stated the Citizens Committee to Study the Flower Fields and the Strawberry Fields has had their second meeting and looks as if the committee will be productive. Commissioner Baker commended the planning commission on a job well done tonight. Chairperson Montgomery stated he is not entirely sure if the June 21st continuance date will give the applicant enough time. PLANNING DIRECTOR COMMENTS None. CITY ATTORNEY COMMENTS None. ADJOURNMENT MOTION By proper motion, the special meeting of the Planning Commission of May 31, 2006, was adjourned at 11:17PM. DON NEU Assistant Planning Director Barbara Safarik Minutes Clerk Planning Commission Minutes June 21, 2006 Pages imissioner Segall stated he felt the colors do need to be toned down and also suggested the Plannj Commission be consistent with similar projects in the future. Chairperson"Montgomery asked if there were any members of the public who item. Seeing none>tje opened and closed Public Testimony. MOTION to speak on the ACTION: Motion by CommTssiQner BakerTand duly seconded, the Planning Commission adopt Planning ComrrpSslojTResolution No. 6121 approving Conditional Use Permit CUP OS^Ubdsed oruhe-flndings and subject to the conditions contained therein withJheunderstanding thattfie-CQlor scheme and the architectural details be rewofked to the satisfaction of the Plarraina Director in order to be more ipatible with the homes and other developmenttMie surrounding area. 7-0 Chairperson Montgomery, Commissioners Whitton, $e~galL^ Heineman, Dominguez, Cardosa, and Baker NOES: None Chairperson Montgomery asked Mr. Neu to introduce the next item. 1. EiR 03-03/MP 02-03/GPA 02-04/LFMP 14IB1/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 Flood plain 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, Mr. Neu introduced Agenda Item 1 and stated Associate Planner Barbara Kennedy, assisted by Associate Engineer Jeremy Riddle, would make the Staff presentation. Commissioners Cardosa, Dominguez, and Baker disclosed they each had a brief conversation with Mr. Milich and subsequently received follow-up correspondence from Mr. Milich at their home. Chairperson Montgomery disclosed he had a brief conversation with Mr. Milich and Mr. Agosti and received a written follow-up communication. Chairperson Montgomery opened the Public Hearing for Item 1. Barbara Kennedy and Jeremy Riddle conducted the Staff presentation and stated they would be available to answer questions. Chairperson Montgomery asked if there were any questions of Staff. Commissioner Segall referred to the intersections in Oceanside, which he stated would fail with or without the Robertson Ranch project, and asked if the City of Oceanside had a program in place where the developer was obligated to contribute toward improving the intersections. Mr. Riddle replied no but if the City of Oceanside developed a program showing the necessary improvements, the developer would be obligated to fair share contributions. Planning Commission Minutes June 21,2006 Page 6 Commissioner Segal! asked if the City of Oceanside's program had to be in place before the project was • approved in order to have the developer obligated to fair share contributions. Mr. Riddle stated that the condition was included as a mitigation measure of the Robertson Ranch project and remains open with no deadline of termination. Commissioner Segall asked in the event the project was not completed for several years and traffic conditions decline, can the City of Oceanside require the developer to do more mitigation than was presently required. Mr. Riddle stated that there was some basic information in the mitigation monitoring report which showed lane widening improvements were needed and the City was asking the City of Oceanside to develop a program for necessary improvements. Commissioner Heineman asked if there was no program in place to improve the Oceanside intersections and costs cannot be determined at this time for the developer's fair share obligation, would the developer's costs escalate if the program was not developed for many years. Mr. Riddle replied yes. Commissioner Dominguez asked if the City of Carlsbad was prepared with a fair share formula for the surrounding cities of Vista and Encinitas. Assistant City Attorney Jane Mobaldi stated the issue was that mitigation had to be feasible in order to be imposed and had to be capable of being implemented. She also stated the City of Carlsbad does not have the authority to implement mitigation which was outside of the jurisdiction, which was why a program must be in place to show the necessary improvements and developer contributions. Commissioner Dominguez asked how the developer would participate in undetermined improvements. Ms. Mobaldi stated he would not be obligated to contribute unless there was a program in place. Commissioner Segall asked Ms. Mobaldi to clarify if there would be future mitigation. Ms. Mobaldi stated the City did not know if the City of Oceanside would develop a program identifying the mitigation measures. Commissioner Heineman asked if Mr. Riddle felt confident in the current traffic studies. Mr. Riddle stated the studies were accurate and valid. Commissioner Whrtton commented it was not feasible to arrive at a solution for the necessary improvements required for intersections outside of the Robertson Ranch project since they were outside the City's jurisdiction. Commissioner Cardosa asked if the mitigation for traffic calming measures in the Colony provided by the developer was specified to a certain dollar amount. Ms. Kennedy replied no. Commissioner Cardosa stated in all fairness to the developer, there should be a determined monetary amount. Ms. Kennedy replied yes, the developer would appreciate a determined monetary amount. Commissioner Cardosa asked if the traffic study was completed on a maximum use basis to development yields. Mr. Riddle replied yes. Commissioner Cardosa asked what the failure rate would be. Mr. Riddle replied anything over 2000 ADT was considered a failure. Commissioner Cardosa stated he felt there should be a time frame determined for the mitigation of the intersections outside the Robertson Ranch project in order to be fair to the applicant. Ms. Mobaldi stated she misspoke earlier and stated the mitigation procedures were required to be implemented by the time of issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy. Commissioner Whitton asked if the developer was obligated to contribute to the mitigation efforts for the intersections outside the jurisdiction after the first Certificate of Occupancy was issued. Ms. Mobaldi replied no. Commissioner Baker asked Mr. Riddle to clarify his earlier reference to the east-bound left-turn lane on to El Camino Real. Mr. Riddle replied he misspoke and that he was referencing the west-bound left-turn lanes on El Camino Real. Commissioner Baker asked what practical impacts would occur if the Commission required adding two left-turn lanes. Mr. Riddle stated a 10-to-12-foot dedication would be necessary to accommodate an additional lane at the north side of Planning Area 1 and a certain amount of square footage would be removed from Planning Area 1. Planning Commission Minutes June 21, 2006 Page 7 Commissioner Baker referenced the potential new road cutting through Planning Area 2 and asked about the location of the 65-foot slope, if plant or crib walls would be used, and if the new road would increase the site grading. Mr. Riddle stated the road would connect into Planning Area 2 where the RV Storage site was proposed and extend into the Robertson Ranch West Village, at a point between the existing slope and Tamarack Avenue there would be an approximate slope of 65 feet, there would be planting and crib walls, and the site grading would be increased. Commissioner Baker asked what practical impacts would occur if the project was approved without knowing if the school would use the land. Ms. Kennedy stated an alternative use for the school site was a land extension of the park or in the event the Parks Department did not want the additional space, the land would be reserved for a potential multi-family development. Commissioner Dominguez referenced the proposed site which would cross over into Tamarack Avenue and asked what type of mitigation measures would compensate for the use of the habitat management corridor. Ms. Kennedy stated at this time they do not know all of the impacts, but an additional environmental review would be conducted and could result in a modification of the mitigation measures. Commissioner Whitton asked if the intersection of La Portalada and Tamarack would be an unlighted intersection and if La Portalada would cross over to Robertson Ranch. Mr. Riddle replied no to both questions. Commissioner Whitton stated he did not see the benefit of putting a road through Planning Area 2. Chairperson Montgomery asked why cut-through traffic would occur through Robertson Ranch once El Camino Real was improved. Mr. Riddle explained cut-through traffic would be generated from the commercial site and in the event of a traffic-related issue on El Camino Real. Commissioner Dominguez stated full deployment of traffic calming measures would make the route undesirable to cut-through traffic. Commissioner Segall stated the benefit of the proposed road through Planning Area 2 would be to lessen traffic on Glasgow and Edinburgh Roads and to provide an additional emergency ingress and egress. Chairperson Montgomery asked Mr. Riddle to explain the reasons behind the significant difference in the two traffic study reports. Mr. Riddle stated the 6 percent number taken directly from the EIR referenced the traffic generated from the entire project on Edinburgh and Glasgow Road, the 20 percent number referenced traffic generated only from the West Village. Mr. Riddle explained the ADT number of 300 was the original number based on the streets in the current condition and the increased number was considering the projected ADT generated from the West Village and the Colony residents. Mr. Riddle stated the 1900 ADT was based on an updated report but there were no changes on the baseline based on existing conditions. Chairperson Montgomery asked if the updated baseline numbers are what brought up the numbers to the capacity line. Mr. Riddle replied yes. Commissioner Segall asked if Glasgow Road was at 101 percent, would the rate be considered a failure and if the circuitous routing system was considered when arriving at this percentage. Mr. Riddle replied yes, 101 percent would be designated as a failure and no, the current project percentage of 99 percent does not contemplate the impact of circuitous routes. Commissioner Segall asked if Mr. Riddle knew how much the percentage would drop if circuitous routing was employed. Mr. Riddle stated the traffic consultant who prepared the report would need to address the impacts. Commissioner Segall asked what mitigations would have to occur if the road failed. Mr. Riddle replied the City of Carlsbad would work with the community to arrive at additional measures in order to reduce traffic. Mr. Riddle stated the numbers used in the traffic study were extremely conservative and contributed to the percentage rising to 99 percent. Chairperson Montgomery asked if there were any more questions of Staff; seeing none, Chairperson Montgomery introduced the applicant. Planning Commission Minutes June 21,2006 Page 8 The applicant, Brian Milich, Senior Vice President, Corky McMillin Companies, San Diego, thanked the Commission and gave a presentation. The applicant stated he would be available to answer any questions. Chairperson Montgomery thanked the applicant and asked if the Planning Commission had questions of the applicant. Commissioner Dominguez asked why the cul-de-sac solutions were so limited and what the City's main opposition was to this type of solution. The applicant explained cul-de-sacs could be used for no more than 25 units and stated the City's main opposition to cul-de-sacs was emergency access. Commissioner Baker asked how many units would be on the cul-de-sac off Glasgow Road. The applicant replied 25 units. Commissioner Baker asked if the applicant would have an objection to moving the trails on El Camino Real and Cannon Road farther away from the street. The applicant replied no. Chairperson Montgomery referenced the one-way street and asked if one-way streets significantly reduced the traffic and provided an emergency access. The applicant stated yes, this would result in a significant reduction in traffic. Chairperson Montgomery stated emergency ingress and egress was the main concern. Chairperson Montgomery asked what opposition the applicant received from the City to the one-way streets. The applicant stated he thought the City felt the one-way streets were difficult to enforce, difficult to determine the starting and ending points, and could be hazardous. Commissioner Heineman asked the applicant if he consulted with Deputy City Engineer Bob Johnson. The applicant replied yes, Mr. Johnson had been very involved. Chairperson Montgomery asked if there were any more questions of the applicant. RECESS Chairperson Montgomery closed the Public Hearing on Item 1 and recessed the meeting for a 5- to 10-minute break at 8:12 p.m. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER Chairperson Montgomery reconvened the meeting at 8:32 p.m. and opened Public Testimony. Bill Countreman, 4781 Edinburgh Drive, Carlsbad, stated his group found a solution which would satisfy the applicant, the City, and the Colony. Mr. Countreman stated the key issue was the traffic. Mr. Countreman introduced the next public speaker, Robin Wofford. Robin Wofford, 4757 Edinburgh Drive, Carlsbad, stated her concern with the accuracy of the traffic study. Kari Atherton, 4781 Brookwood Court, Carlsbad, stated her main issue was density which was separate from the issue of traffic. Ms. Atherton requested the Commission look at the density and keep the numbers in line with the numbers after the city analysis. Ms. Atherton stated the future road extension signs were not clear. Greg Agosti, 4730 Edinburgh Drive, Carlsbad, supported connecting the East and West Village which would eliminate access to Edinburgh and Glasgow. Mr. Agosti supported back to back cul-de-sacs. Stacy Baker, 4754 Gateshead Road, Carlsbad, requested the Planning Commission to consider the community as a whole and consider the people affected by the proposed changes to the neighborhood. Planning Commission Minutes June 21,2006 Page 9 Samuel E. Countreman, 4781 Edinburgh Drive, Carlsbad, stated he did not support the increased traffic and density. David Wells, 4775 Gateshead Road, Carlsbad, stated his concern for the increase in density and asked the Planning Commission to consider the safety and well being of the people affected by the increased density. Gary Smith, 2729 Glasgow Drive, Carlsbad, stated the Calavera Hills HOA was not noticed and should have been since they were landowners within the 600-foot radius of the project. Commissioner Segall asked Mr. Smith if he was referring to the orange signs at Glasgow and Edinburgh Roads, if there were signs posted now and for how long. Mr. Smith replied yes, he was referring to those signs, yes they were posted but he did not know how long they have been posted. Knut Madden, 2705 Glasgow Drive, Carlsbad, stated he did not support extending Glasgow and Edinburgh Roads. David Mclntyre, 4777 Edinburgh Drive, Carlsbad, stated his concern was with the noise increase generated by the additional traffic and the lack of disclosure in the EIR. David Stoffel, 4705 Edinburgh Drive, Carlsbad, stated he did not support the increase in traffic. Joan Hayashi, 4798 Neblina Drive, Carlsbad, stated she did not support the increased density and felt an error margin should be considered in the traffic study. David Rouse, 4801 Gateshead Road, Carlsbad, stated one issue that had not been referenced was the potential safety issue of the additional traffic. Gregory Jackson, 3638 Terrace Place, Carlsbad, stated he supported alternatives to the extension of Edinburgh and Glasgow Roads. Christine Gallup, 4799 Gateshead Road, Carlsbad, stated she felt the Commission was giving more concern to the color palette for the Fuel Station of Bressi Ranch than to the safety of her children. Michael Zimmerman, 2740 Glasgow Drive, Carlsbad, supported the proposed additional ingress and egress road to Tamarack Avenue and did not support extending Glasgow and Edinburgh Roads. Ted Gallup, 4799 Gateshead Road, Carlsbad, supported the back-to-back cul-de-sacs. Chairperson Montgomery thanked the public speakers commended the children in attendance on their good behavior. Chairperson Montgomery closed Public Testimony and asked the applicant if he would like to respond. The applicant stated the developer would work on traffic calming and aggressive traffic mitigation inside and outside the Colony. The applicant stated the student generation rates were utilized by the City and provided to them approximately one-year prior by the Carlsbad Unified School District. The applicant stated some numbers in the traffic study reports were provided by the City, not SANDAG. The applicant stated with regards to the noise impact, the project had met all CEQA guidelines. The applicant requested the Planning Commission consider that other than the traffic and the connection of two streets, this project was a very good project, a great master plan, met all City standards, and the density was well within the City's growth management plan. Chairperson Montgomery thanked the applicant and introduced the Deputy Fire Marshal, Gregory Ryan. Commissioner Segall asked Mr. Ryan to describe why ingress and egress access from the Colony into the backside of the West Village was so critical. Deputy Fire Marshal Ryan stated his position was not to determine the routes used by the responding emergency units but rather to ensure two points of access be available for emergency service to the project and within the Village. Planning Commission Minutes June 21, 2006 Page 10 Commissioner Segall asked if the response time would be impacted if there was access from Planning Area 3 to Tamarack. Deputy Fire Marshal Ryan stated he would have to discuss this option with the engineering staff. Commissioner Segall asked what the Fire Department's position was on circuitous routes through the project and if the emergency response units would be challenged while maneuvering through circuitous routes. Deputy Fire Marshal Ryan stated the Fire Department did not take a position on the circuitous routes other than to support the City staff. Commissioner Segall asked Mr. Ryan if gate access for emergency ingress and egress would be acceptable if Edinburgh and Glasgow Roads were developed into cul-de-sacs. Mr. Ryan stated in his experience, emergency access gates were not properly maintained and often inoperable. Commissioner Segall asked if the Fire Department would be satisfied with two emergency access gates and one access point from Planning Area 3 to Tamarack Avenue. Mr. Ryan stated again the gates were only as good as their maintenance program and were discouraged when considering community safety. Commissioner Whitton asked if a regular gate inspection could be conducted by the HOA. Mr. Ryan stated there were practical difficulties with an HOA conducting testing on a gate which they would not have a key to. Commissioner Whitton asked if the Fire Department could schedule a regular time to inspect the gates with the HOA. Commissioner Baker asked how severe problems had been in the past when the emergency gates were inoperable. Mr. Ryan stated problems in the past had not resulted in loss of life or property loss, however, he had extensive experience with this type of gate failing and every second counts when responding to an emergency. Commissioner Baker asked what lessons were learned from the Harmony Grove fire. Commissioner Baker stated the long-term goal was to ensure community safety. Mr. Ryan stated since 1996, the Mayor no longer wanted developments to have only one ingress and egress point. Mike McFadden, Battalion Fire Chief, Carlsbad Fire Department referred to the Harmony Grove fires and the traffic impacts. Mr. McFadden explained that multiple access points, through streets and traffic calming are all ideal for emergency response in a neighborhood and any type of barricade could potentially cause problems. Mr. McFadden stated his experience was also that the emergency access gates were often inoperable. Commissioner Baker asked if the considerable open space in the project added more potential fire danger. Mr. McFadden replied yes. Commissioner Segall referred to the Streets 0 and A where the ingress and egress points were fairly close and asked if the Fire Department felt confident enough room was available to safely evacuate residents in an emergency situation. Mr. McFadden replied yes the spacing was reviewed by the Fire Department and the City Engineer. Chairperson Montgomery asked if there were any more questions of the Deputy Fire Marshal or Battalion Fire Chief; seeing none, Chairperson Montgomery requested a vote to extend the meeting. MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Baker, and duly seconded, to extend the Planning Commission meeting. VOTE: 7-0 AYES: Chairperson Montgomery, Commissioners Baker, Cardosa, Dominguez, Heineman, Segall, and Whitton NOES: None Assistant City Attorney Ms. Mobaldi stated when considering the issue of gate maintenance, the burden of maintenance may not be appropriate for an HOA since the emergency access gates would be located on public streets. Planning Commission Minutes June 21,2006 Page 11 Chairperson Montgomery asked Staff to respond to Public Testimony. Ms. Kennedy referred to the issue of noticing. Ms. Kennedy stated Application in Process signs were posted on May 7,2004, at Glasgow Road, Edinburgh Road, and the two major intersections of El Camino Real and Cannon Road; and El Camino Real and Tamarack Avenue. At the same time, Public Scoping Meeting signs were posted for the May 18, 2004, EIR meeting. Notices were sent to all properties within 600 feet of the project, public agencies, interested parties wanting notification and the newspaper. Subsequently, a special scoping meeting was held one week later for the Rancho Carlsbad HOA. The combined attendance was approximately 370 persons and resulted in 250 comment letters; 13 comment letters from the agencies and organizations, Rancho Carlsbad submitted almost 200 comment letters with what type of issues the City should address in the EIR, 24 general comment letters from other residents with 15 of those letters from the Colony. Ms. Kennedy stated the Staff direction when developing the master plan was based on comments received from the 15 Colony letters. Commissioner Baker asked if the Colony HOA was noticed. Ms. Kennedy stated the City notices all property owners within the 600-foot radius and if the HOA was a property owner within this area, the HOA should have been noticed. Ms. Kennedy stated the applicant prepares the labels and she would review the mailing addresses to see if the HOA was noticed. Ms. Kennedy stated after the scoping meetings were conducted, notices of availability of the EIR were distributed to public agencies, interested parties, and the newspaper; in addition numerous articles were written and printed in the newspaper. The City received 15 comment letters from public agencies and organizations, 84 comments from Rancho Carlsbad, 4 comments from other residents, and no comment letters were received from the Colony residents on the EIR. Ms. Kennedy stated notices of the public hearing for May 31, 2006, were sent to all residents within 600 feet of the area, public agencies and organizations, interested parties, printed in the newspaper and posted at the site in four different locations. Commissioner Segall asked if there was a public notice sign at Glasgow and Edinburgh Roads. Ms. Kennedy replied yes, signs had been posted for 2 years. Ms. Kennedy referred to Mr. Madden's question asking if the City had considered having only two points of access to Robertson Ranch at Z Street and Tamarack Avenue and then gating or cul-de-sac-ing the access points at Glasgow and Edinburgh Roads. Ms. Kennedy stated the access at Edinburgh Road would still be required due to City policy where the development needs to provide two access points. In addition, Staff felt the cut-through traffic should be shared between the two streets of Edinburgh and Glasgow Roads. Chairperson Montgomery asked Ms. Kennedy if Staff had considered a connection point at the east portion of the project from Planning Area 9 over to Glasgow Road. Ms. Kennedy replied yes, it was considered, but the huge canyon at the back of the residences would require a considerable amount of grading and would result in habitat impacts. Ms. Kennedy referred to the public's concern about the allocation of dwelling units compared to the Bressi Ranch project. Ms. Kennedy stated Bressi Ranch received the same percentage of allocation of dwelling units as Robertson Ranch was proposing. Ms. Kennedy referred to the concern of noise impacts and stated Staff did analyze the noise impacts and were not significant enough to be addressed in the EIR. Ms. Kennedy stated if further information was desired, Mr. Tim Gnibus the EIR Consultant for the City was available for questions. Commissioner Baker asked if the noise impacts within the Colony neighborhood were addressed in the EIR as insignificant or if the noise impacts were actually not considered. Tim Gnibus, Environmental Consultant, BRG Consulting, stated the traffic-generated noise levels were not specifically analyzed in the EIR. Mr. Gnibus explained that since the streets are residential streets, they were designed to carry 2000 trips per day which would result in a noise level well below the City standard. Planning Commission Minutes June 21,2006 Page 12 Commissioner Baker asked if the property zoned as RLM meant the threshold was four dwelling units per acre. Ms. Kennedy replied yes. Commissioner Baker asked about putting a road between the East and West Villages. Ms. Kennedy stated a road between the East and West Villages would not be supported by the wildlife agencies since this area was a primary habitat corridor. Commissioner Baker asked if there was a threshold which dictates at what point wildlife takes precedence over people. Ms. Kennedy stated they cannot have a road connection between the two villages since the City's HMP was one of the guideline documents and are the standards which the City must follow. Commissioner Baker asked how long Edinburgh and Glasgow Roads had been designated by the City as residential streets. Ms. Kennedy stated the maps approved in 1976 stated the roads as future extension residential streets. Commissioner Baker asked if this information was public information. Ms. Kennedy replied yes. Commissioner Baker asked why there was disparity to the student generation numbers. Ms. Kennedy stated it was possible they were not provided the most current information by the Carlsbad Unified School District. Commissioner Dominguez asked Ms. Kennedy how realistic a connection to Tamarack Avenue would be. Ms. Kennedy stated a connection was possible but there would still need to be two points of access in Planning Areas 9 and 10. Commissioner Dominguez asked if the connection did result in a disturbance of the existing vegetation, would there be enough room in the master plan to revegetate elsewhere. Ms. Kennedy replied yes and stated Paul Klukus with Planning Systems had conducted an analysis which could provide more information. Chairperson Montgomery asked Mr. Riddle to comment on some of the traffic questions which were asked by the public. Mr. Riddle commended the public on the detail of the traffic study spreadsheets. Mr. Riddle stated the numbers provided in the EIR are snapshots taken at different times and felt possibly the numbers compared in the spreadsheets were comparing different snapshots. Chairperson Montgomery asked for Commission discussion and questions of Staff. DISCUSSION Commissioner Whitton stated he would like to see Edinburgh and Glasgow Roads gated; supported a connection to Tamarack Avenue in Planning Area 2; supported the project's current density; and supported the senior citizen and multi-family housing in Planning Area 7. Commissioner Segafl commended the amount of work conducted by Staff and the applicant but stated he cannot support the project the way it was due to the impacts to the existing neighborhood. Commissioner Segall stated he supported the senior citizen housing in Planning Area 7; supported building the school site with protection this parcel would convert to a park if the school site was not built; supported the circuitous routes; supported dual left-turn lanes at Tamarack Avenue and El Camino Real; and supported the investigation of a connection to Tamarack Avenue. Commissioner Heineman stated his main concern was whether the circuitous routes and traffic-calming devices would be effective and hoped more solutions would be developed. Commissioner Dominguez stated he would support reducing the density level to the original level of 1,122; supported a connection to Tamarack Avenue; supported circuitous routes with full traffic calming developed by the applicant and the Colony. Planning Commission Minutes June 21, 2006 Page 13 Commissioner Cardosa thanked the due diligence of the Staff, applicant, and residents and stated he felt the circuitous routes were a great idea but would not control the traffic in the way necessary to protect the neighborhoods. Commissioner Cardosa supported making the community a gated community in order to confine traffic and eliminate cross traffic; did not support access at Tamarack Avenue; supported the density level, the senior citizen community, and the school site with protection the site would be used for a similar use if the site was not used for a school. Commissioner Baker thanked the Colony residents for their hard work and stated in her five years on the Planning Commission, this was the most challenging project she had been involved in. Commissioner Baker stated she had no desire to make the people of the Colony uncomfortable; however, she did not support gates and cul-de-sacs; she would support reducing the density as a reasonable compromise; she did support two left-turn lanes at El Camino Real and Tamarack Avenue; supported senior citizen housing in Planning Area 7; and supported the school site. Commissioner Baker stated she did not know if the circuitous routes would work and felt the proposed emergency access gates were a safety risk. Chairperson Montgomery stated he supported reducing the density level to the original level of 1,122 units which would mean the Robertson Ranch would cut 62 units; supported the building of the school site with the protection of this space to be used as a similar space if the school was not built; supported the senior citizen area in Planning Area 7. Commissioner Heineman asked if the State would allow the Commission to decrease the density. Assistant City Attorney Jane Mobaldi stated the State did not dictate the density for this site but encouraged increased density in all cities. Ms. Mobaldi explained in order to have the City's housing element certified, the City of Carlsbad may have to put units somewhere else in the City. Chairperson Montgomery stated in his opinion, he would like to take the road of the growth management plan approved by the voters of Carlsbad in 1986, and he did not support the current proposed traffic volume going through the Colony. Commissioner Segall said he felt the project would not be supported the way it was presented but rather than voting the project down, he suggested the applicant to go back and address the concerns raised. Commissioner Heineman concurred with Commissioner Segall. Chairperson Montgomery asked the Commissioners to speak specifically about the density issues in order to provide a consensus to the applicant. Commissioner Whitton stated he supported the reduction to the density level units to 1,122; he felt if the school site was not used, the area should be used for the 200 additional units. Commissioner Segall stated he supported the reduction in the density level units to 1,122 but would like to keep the school site as a park if the school was not built; supported the senior citizen housing in Planning Area 7. Commissioner Heineman stated he concurred with Commissioner Segall. Commissioner Dominguez stated he supported the senior housing proposal and the drop in density to 1,122 units and would like to see how this would impact the traffic study. Commissioner Cardosa stated he would like the units capped at 1,122 units with or with out the school site and supported the senior housing. Commissioner Baker stated she supported the 1,122 units with the option of some of the units to be built on the school site if a school was not built; she supported senior citizen housing. Chairperson Montgomery asked the Commission if they would like to have Planning Area 7 specified as senior housing only or if the Commission would allow the applicant flexibility to determine a smaller secondary use. Planning Commission Minutes June 21,2006 Page 14 Commissioner Whitton stated he would like to provide some flexibility to the applicant. Commissioner Segall stated he did not mind the flexibility as long as the community meets the needs of walking accessibility to the commercial site. Commissioner Heineman concurred. Commissioner Dominguez stated he felt the primary use of the area should be senior housing but supported the applicant planning flexibility for a secondary use. Commissioner Cardosa concurred with Commissioner Dominguez. Commissioner Baker stated she was okay with the concept of providing flexibility as long as consideration was made to the goal of reducing traffic by lowering the density. Chairperson Montgomery stated the Commission was in agreement with regard to the open spaces, the parks, and the community facilities. Chairperson Montgomery stated the Commission did not want the traffic numbers close to the previously stated 95 percent. Commissioner Baker stated it would be helpful to acquire information on previously developed communities with circuitous routes to see if circuitous routes accomplished the intended goals. Commissioner Whitton stated he felt circuitous routes were ideal no matter what the conditions and would like to see Glasgow and Edinburgh Roads gated. Chairperson Montgomery asked Commissioner Whitton what his opinion was on the connection through planning Area 2 to Tamarack Avenue. Commissioner Whitton stated he would support this connection as long as there was a traffic light. Commissioner Segall stated again he would like to see two left-turn lanes west-bound on Tamarack Avenue; would like to see the connection through Planning Area 2 through to Tamarack Avenue; and supported reduced traffic through the Colony. Commissioner Segall stated for the record, the East Village was fine. Commissioner Dominguez stated he was pleased the Planning Commission arrived at a decision regarding the density level and stated he had confidence in the circuitous routes and felt it would be acceptable to the Colony; he supported the two left-turn lanes at Tamarack Avenue; and was in favor of the connection through Planning Area 2. Commissioner Cardosa stated he was in favor of the twoS west-bound left-turn lanes; he was not in favor of the connection through Planning Area 2. Commissioner Baker stated she was not in favor of the connection through Planning Area 2 to Tamarack Avenue and definitely not in favor of a traffic light at this point of access but also stated it was too premature to discuss and would prefer to leave this decision to the traffic engineers. Chairperson Montgomery stated he supported any solution which would cut down at least 50 percent of the current proposed traffic at Edinburgh and Glasgow Roads and suggested Staff, the applicant, and the residents try again to arrive at a solution. Chairperson Montgomery asked the applicant to discuss his thoughts. The applicant stated he understood this was a difficult decision but since he was under pressure to move the project along, he would like to know when the next Planning Commission meeting date would be. Mr. Don Neu, Assistant Planning Director, stated due to the difficulty in estimating the time involved conducting the recommended studies; he recommended not setting a specified date. Planning Commission Minutes June 21, 2006 Page 15 The applicant clarified the growth management plan from 1986 density level was set at 1,154 with no school site and asked the Commission to consider 1,154 as the original amount of dwelling units. The Planning Commission concurred. The applicant asked if he had flexibility for the use of senior housing in Planning Area 7 or 8. Chairperson Montgomery stated Planning Area 7 would be more ideal for the senior housing but if the applicant chose to use Planning Area 8, he could present the project to the Commission. The applicant referenced the road connections and stated he would provide data showing the success of traffic-calming devices and develop a solution to drastically cut traffic on Edinburgh and Glasgow Roads. The applicant requested a continuance. Chairperson Montgomery commended the applicant on a great project. Chairperson Whitton congratulated the applicant on a great project. MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Baker, and duly seconded, to continue Item 1 at the applicant's request to an uncertain date. VOTE: 7-0 AYES: Chairperson Montgomery, Commissioners Whitton, Segall, Heineman, Dominguez, Cardosa, and Baker NOES: None Chairperson Montgomery closed the Public Hearing for Item 1. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Dominguez thanked everyone for being present and thanked the Planning Commission for all of their hard work. Commissioner Baker thanked everyone for attending. Chairperson Montgomery thanked Commissioner Baker for her assistance. PLANNING DIRECTOR COMMENTS Mr. Neu stated he would provide the Commission copies of the revised architectural policy indicating the additions and deletions as well as information as to how the policy would apply to the Cantarini/Holly Springs project if it were a custom lot development. CITY ATTORNEY COMMENTS None. ADJOURNMENT MOTION By proper motion, the regular meeting of the Planning Commission of June 21, 2006, was adjourned at 11:30 p.m. Don Neu Assistant Planning Director Barbara Safarik Minutes Clerk It'll Planning Commission Minutes September 20,2006 Page 2 1. EIR 03-03/MP 02-03/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. Mr. Neu introduced Agenda Item 1 and stated Associate Planner Barbara Kennedy, assisted by Associate Engineer Jeremy Riddle, would make the Staff presentation. Barbara Kennedy and Jeremy Riddle conducted the Staff presentation and stated they would be available to answer any questions. Ms. Kennedy gave a summary of previous Planning Commission meeting Agenda items regarding Robertson Ranch and provided a brief description of ensuing discussion, continuances, and recommendations. Three circulation alternative plans were presented for review and discussion which identified corresponding errata items to be included in the recommendation. Chairperson Montgomery asked Mr. Ron Kemp, Deputy City Attorney for clarification of the school site dedication errata item. Mr. Kemp provided brief explanation of the City's limitation with regard to this item. Chairperson Montgomery spoke to the Commission and asked for consensus with regard to previous direction given to staff on the following matters: housing density reduction, designation of a portion of PA 7 as senior housing, exploration of the Tamarack connection feasibility, and investigation of impact of PA 22 designation an unplanned area. Commissioner Whitton stated general concurrence on a number of items including senior housing, circuitous traffic routing, and housing density reduction. Commissioner Whitton did not agree with the implementation of a Tamarack connection and stated his wish to stay within the general footprint of Robertson Ranch. He stated that he felt that the traffic issues with regard to Highway 78 and Interstate 5 are outside the City's scope and involve other municipalities. Commissioner Segall concurred with Commissioner Whitton with the exception of the potential point of contention with regard to the location of the senior housing. He was unclear if the plan designated PA 7 or PA 8 for senior housing. Commissioners Heineman, Dominquez, and Cardosa all concurred. Commissioner Baker concurred with respect to the items presented, but had a question with regard to trails being contiguous with streets within the development. Chairperson Montgomery requested clarification on senior housing location and trail placement. Ms. Kennedy stated that staff recommends senior housing to be located in PA 7 due to the topographic constraints of PA 8 and the applicant is in agreement with this placement. With the exception of El Camino Real, trails are primarily meandering. The trails along El Camino Real can be set further back from the roadway if given that direction from the Commission. Additionally, staff can assure Commission's recommendation is reflected in subsequent design plans. Chairperson Montgomery requested disclosure of any ex parte conversations held since the last Commission meeting. Planning Commission Minutes September 20,2006 Page 3 Commissioner Dominguez stated that he had spoken with the applicant, received written correspondence from Emma Scott, and had conversations with Council Members and various citizens in daily travel within the community. Commissioner Baker stated that she had spoken with the applicant and various members of The Colony community. Commissioner Heineman stated that he had a brief conversation with the applicant and received a letter from Ms. Emma Scott. Commissioner Segall stated that he had no ex parte contact since the last meeting. Commissioner Cardosa stated that he had received a letter from Ms. Emma Scott as well. Chairperson Montgomery stated that he had a conversation with the project developer and several members of The Colony in addition to receiving two letters from Mrs. Agosti, a response regarding the application signs and other signage requirements, and a letter from Mr. Ted Gallup. Chairperson Montgomery acknowledged with appreciation seven separate letters addressed to each Commissioner that were received from Ms. Emma Scott. Commissioner Whitton disclosed his attendance at a recent community meeting with The Colony residents that was held at City offices two weeks ago. Commissioner Dominguez addressed issues previously raised by Commissioner Whitton with regard to the Irrevocable Offer of Dedication (IOD) and traffic conditions outside of the master plan. He questioned the impact of the IOD to the left turn additions to Tamarack and asked if it would be included in the errata or as an elective. Jeremy Riddle stated that it was presented as an elective, but has a prepared condition that could be added if the Commission so chose. Commissioner Baker asked about street designation within PA 9 and PA 10. She asked if the streets would become private streets if Alternative 3 were selected and the areas gated off. She further asked if any of the other streets would then become private if a gate is placed at Glasgow. Ms. Kennedy confirmed that the main development area of PA 9 and PA 10 would become private streets and would be maintained by the Homeowners Association if Alternative 3 were adopted. Glasgow would become an all- weather access road and would not be designed as either a public or private street, but would be maintained by the H.O.A. Any other streets leading to the gated area would be public and would be maintained by the City. Commissioner Segall stated he had two questions regarding the recommendations presented by staff. First, he asked if staff is recommending one alternative over another. Secondly, he asked if there are alternative specific errata's included within the staff report. Ms. Kennedy explained that staff has a stronger preference for Alternatives 1 and 2. Although staff doesn't strongly recommend Alternative 3 for reasons outlined within the staff report presented, all three alternatives meet standards. There are specific errata's contained within the staff report dependent upon which alternative is recommended. Commissioner Segall questioned safety issues with regard to Alternative 2 regarding emergency access to PA 3 and PA 4 from Tamarack. Commissioner Segall asked if an alternative were adopted with right in, right out access would it have an island which might impede emergency access. He also asked if there would be access to westbound travel on Tamarack in an emergency situation. Ms. Kennedy stated that there would not be an island proposed in the roadway and emergency access in both the west and eastbound directions would be possible. Chairperson Montgomery expressed apprehension with regard to Alternative 3 and the signal installation at Tamarack because of current knowledge about stacking issues at the westbound Tamarack to southbound El Camino Real turn during certain hours. He asked why the signal is necessary and what other options are available to avoid it. Ms. Kennedy explained that Alternative 3 provides the main portion of the development with two full unrestricted access points as requested by the Fire Department. The gated community portion is inclusive onto itself with two access points. 113 Planning Commission Minutes September 20,2006 Page 4 Chairperson Montgomery asked Ms. Kennedy if the right in, right out method of access was considered unacceptable to the Planning Department, Fire Department, Engineering Department or all departments. Ms. Kennedy stated that the restricted right in, right out access is considered unacceptable to all departments across the board. In the case of only two access points to the development, the Fire Department specifically requested full maneuverability at both of them. Under Alternative 3, traffic warrants require a signal at the Tamarack connection. Mr. Riddle would be better suited to speak on this issue. Mr. Riddle added that safety is one issue of concern that triggers the need for a signal, but another trigger is volume. Part of the analysis conducted estimated Average Daily Trips (ADT) at the Tamarack connection to be 2,400 ADT. There will be in excess of 500 units served by the two points of ingress and egress. Signal warrants were evaluated and found to be a necessary component of Alternative 3. Chairperson Montgomery recalled safety issues that were previously addressed by Commissioner Segall and requested that the representative from the Fire Department address those concerns. He suggested starting with Alternative 3 with regard to the signal issue at Tamarack, the private gated community and the non-access issue including any resulting safety concerns. Mike McFadden, Battalion Fire Chief, Carlsbad Fire Department, stated that any issues affecting the Fire Department are time sensitive in nature. The preference is to incorporate as many points of entry and exit as possible and although Alternative 3 is not ideal, it is agreeable to the Fire Department. Due to the small size of the proposed gated community we anticipate the amount of calls generated to be nominal. Our access both from the top and the bottom would be acceptable and the signal at the Tamarack connection allows easier access with any type of apparatus that may be necessary. Utilizing the right in, right out design, including the City's compliance with width requirements imposed by various equipment used by the Fire Department, there would exist the potential for limitations and the Fire Department would not consider this option optimal. Chairperson Montgomery asked if the right in, right out option is found to be passable with the standards being met in respect to width design. Chief McFadden stated that this could be an acceptable alternative. Commissioner Segall asked if Alternative 2 is an acceptable proposal with respect to the right in, right out feature of the design in the absence of the gated area at PA 9 and PA 10. Chief McFadden stated that Alternative 2 would be acceptable. Chairperson Montgomery directed attention to Alternative 3 and the Glasgow connection. He asked if the Fire Department would consider the length of Glasgow connecting the West Village as an access point. Chief McFadden stated it would not be considered an access point by the Fire Department; it would be viewed as an emergency evacuation point as opposed to an emergency access point. Commissioner Segall asked if the traffic circles proposed in Alternatives 1 and 2 would be able to accommodate a 100 foot aerial ladder and if the Fire Department had received any 100 foot aerial ladders. Chief McFadden confirmed that a 100 foot aerial ladder would have maneuverability through the proposed traffic circles, but the Fire Department has not received them yet. Commissioner Dominquez asked which alternative Chief McFadden prefers. Chief McFadden stated that he supports the staff recommendations. Alternatives 1 and 2 would be preferred; Alternative 3 would be acceptable. The Fire Department can adapt, improvise and overcome any obstacles that may be imposed by the selected alternative. Commissioner Whitton stated for the record his observance with respect to Alternative 3. The developer would not provide any traffic calming measures within The Colony. Chairperson Montgomery asked if there were any further questions of staff and seeing none, asked if the applicant would like to make a presentation. Brian Millich of Corky McMillin Companies, 2750 Womble Avenue, San Diego, CA, 92106, gave a presentation. Planning Commission Minutes September 20,2006 Page 5 Mr. Millich stated his appreciation of the Commission for the consideration given to the Robertson Ranch project. He requested the Commission's approval of the Robertson Ranch master plan reminding the group that the master plan includes the City's 84 inch storm drain line serving the area. Mr. Millich stated his understanding of the issue being presented as the question of connectivity of Roberson Ranch to outlying communities and stated that Corky McMillin Companies are supportive of any one of the three alternatives being presented. He noted for the record that dramatic positive changes have been made to the project in response to concerns presented by the Commission and by The Colony in May and June. In response to those concerns there were five specific areas of focus with the first being reduction in project density. The development has been reduced from 1,383 units to 1,122 units which represent a reduction of over 250 units. Most will come from the West Village with a large portion coming from the western side which will further reduce traffic in and out of The Colony neighborhood. Mr. Millich stated the second issue was the consideration of senior housing in the West Village in order to allow for a reduction in traffic and provide an even greater diversity of housing in the project. Corky McMillin Companies has added over one hundred senior housing units to the West Village in PA 7. Mr. Millich stated a third issue was in respect to the placement of a school site within the project. Contact with Carlsbad Unified School District was made. They amended their previous position declining Robertson Ranch as a potential future school site location and have requested that the option be reserved for future consideration. Corky McMillin Companies has re-designated PA 13 and PA 14 for primary use as an Elementary School site. The traffic studies in place do not assume that a school is in place. In theory, it would at some point even further reduce traffic and address The Colony issue. The numbers presented are conservative and Corky McMillin Companies did not make that traffic variation assumption even though the school designation is shown on the project. Mr. Millich stated that a fourth issue pertained to traffic reduction into and out of The Colony and all related circulation concerns. Seeking a roadway connection between the West Village and Tamarack Avenue was suggested as a possible solution. Many considerations were involved to cross a wildlife habitat area and modify the hard-line agreement that had been established on a project, including approval from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game. Corky McMillin Companies was able to secure the Tamarack connection and staff has explained variations in design. The Tamarack connection addition will cost in excess of one million dollars and will require that the West Village Robertson family dedicate additional land; they are willing to accommodate that requirement in the event that the Commission makes that recommendation. Mr. Millich presented data regarding the fifth area of concern; the request for a thorough analysis of the benefits of circuitous routing and traffic calming on the project. Corky McMillin Companies returned to the original traffic engineer, Urban Systems Associates (USA), for further review. Additionally a new traffic engineer, TJKM was engaged to provide an independent and objective third party analysis. TJKM was recommended to Corky McMillin Companies and is noted as a leader in traffic calming techniques who utilizes cutting edge system of analysis. Both traffic engineers arrived at the same independent conclusion using different methodology. USA and TJKM concurred that there would be a significant reduction in traffic into and out of The Colony as a result of the traffic calming circuitous routing placed within the West Village of the project. Mr. Millich presented a chart illustrating the different methodologies used and ensuing results of Alternatives 1, 2, and 3. The conclusion drawn by Corky McMillin Companies based on the data provided is that under any of the alternatives traffic will be well below the capacity limit of the streets and is not as extreme as original assumptions. Mr. Millich gave an overview of Citywide benefits that Corky McMillin Companies will provide as a result of the approval of this project. Incorporated will be a 15.6 million dollar transportation improvement including the widening of College Boulevard, Cannon Road, and El Camino Real. Corky McMillin Companies will provide over 3 million dollars in storm drain improvements, a 13.5 acre community park, a potential location for a future fire station site, and over 40% of the project will be allotted to open space. In addition to those city wide benefits, Corky McMillin Companies has reduced the project density, provided senior housing, added the elementary school back into the project design, provided the Tamarack Avenue connection at significant cost to the project, and the roadway connection issues have been addressed. Corky McMillin Companies requested that the Commission approve the project and made himself and any of the experts available to answer questions. Planning Commission Minutes September 20,2006 Page 6 Chairperson Montgomery requested the traffic expert from TJKM come forward to answer questions. Gary Kruger, TJKM Transportation Consultants, 5960 Inglewood Drive Suite 100, Pleasanton, CA, 94588, approached and became ready to give a presentation. Chairperson Montgomery asked Mr. Kruger to explain the variances between the previous traffic report estimates regarding ADTs at Glasgow and Edinburgh that did not include circuitous routing and the current report's reduction in the ADTs. Additionally, he asked Mr. Kruger to explain the basis of his expertise and background in these types of projects. Mr. Kruger requested permission to present slides that illustrate his theories. He stated that he has been a traffic engineer for over 45 years, offering examples of his expertise in analysis and traffic calming. Mr. Kruger explained basic assumptions and models used in the design of circuitous routing and traffic calming patterns. His presentation highlighted the common understanding that people will travel the most time efficient path. Traffic calming devices slow travel and thereby divert traffic. Chairperson Montgomery thanked Mr. Kruger for his presentation. Commissioner Baker asked Mr. Kruger about the use of the word "conservative" in relationship to the figures presented within the staff report. She requested clarity with regard to the meaning of the word "conservative" as being either high or low. Mr. Kruger stated that within this context "conservative" is used to illustrate that the numbers forecasted by USA are likely higher than the practical numbers that would be experienced. Mr. Million added that the traffic reports and figures do not include any traffic calming measures within The Colony. If traffic calming measures were implemented within The Colony, the numbers would be further reduced. Commissioner Segall asked about traffic calming devices that could be employed on Glasgow and Edinburgh to further reduce traffic. Glasgow and Edinburgh are downhill streets and Commissioner Segall expressed concern with regard to reduction of travel speeds. Mr. Millich stated that any traffic measures would have to be approved by the City and a majority of the residents of The Colony. Traffic calming measures have been reviewed for this area, but no proposals or plans have been made for traffic calming measures on Glasgow or Edinburgh. Commissioner Segall asked about the process to ensure that there will be discussion and agreement on future traffic calming measures for Glasgow and Edinburgh. He specifically asked it the Planning Commission would be involved. Mr. Millich stated that the conditions dictate Planning Commission involvement when the first map is presented. At that time the Commission could address the issue of traffic calming on Glasgow and Edinburgh. Chairperson Montgomery directed further detailed discussion to Jeremy Riddle. Mr. Riddle pointed out that staff recognizes that the process of addressing traffic calming needs will take a great deal of time. Through the first master tentative map process on the West Village the developer will be prompted to begin the process at that time and it will be trailed through review and completion. Connection of Glasgow and Edinburgh to the West Village will be contingent on the completion of the traffic review and calming processes within The Colony. Chairperson Montgomery asked if that would include full input and participation from the community early on. Mr. Riddle stated yes the community would be involved. Chairperson Montgomery asked if The Colony residents have autonomy with respect to traffic calming within their neighborhood and maintain the ability to exclude any traffic calming measures. Mr. Riddle confirmed that this is a correct statement. Commissioner Segall requested clarification with regard to costs incurred as a result of traffic calming measures implemented within The Colony neighborhood. Mr. Riddle stated that in this case the project would be conditioned so that costs would be absorbed by the developer. Vll* Planning Commission Minutes September 20,2006 Page 7 Commissioner Segall asked Mr. Kruger about the city tool box and the specific techniques used in traffic calming. Mr. Kruger responded with the contrast between retrofitting and developing new communities. He stated that cul-de-sacs often pose concerns with regard to amending the master plan document and circulation patterns. Mr. Kruger explained techniques used in previous traffic calming plans. Traffic circles, four way stops and speed humps were implemented. The City of Carlsbad prohibits the use of speed humps. Commissioner Baker stated that her question had been answered. Commissioner Cardosa asked if the calculations prepared included traffic calming measures within The Colony neighborhood. Mr. Kruger stated that no traffic calming measures within The Colony were included in the calculations presented. Commissioner Cardosa asked if adding traffic calming measures to The Colony neighborhood could reduce the estimated figures calculated. Mr. Kruger answered affirmatively. Commissioner Dominguez asked about Mr. Kruger's experience in the design and implementation of previous traffic calming plans in the Santa Clara valley. Specifically, did the residents in the affected communities experience regret with regard to the installation of traffic calming devices. Mr. Kruger stated yes, in spite of an extensive and thorough approval process within the retrofitted communities, there has been an approximately 15% displeasure rate. Issues of noise and emergency access were sited as two of the negative side effects experienced as a result of the installation of traffic calming devices. Chairperson Montgomery questioned the differences associated with a comparison of the reduction of cut-through traffic from El Camino Real at Lisa Street and up through The Colony vs. coming from outside The Colony, through Robertson Ranch and onto El Camino Real. He asked if there would be a difference associated with the two routes. Mr. Kruger stated that the answer would depend on the definition of cut-through traffic used. If it is defined as traffic entering The Colony from the outside and proceeding to destinations outside both West Village and The Colony, he projected almost no cut-through traffic. The numbers that increase in the estimates are traffic from West Village entering into The Colony and proceeding on Edinburgh and Glasgow toward Carlsbad Village Drive. Mr. Kruger stated that this could be seen as cut-through traffic, but he would not define it as such because there would be no arterial between the communities. Commissioner Baker asked about the assumption with regard to The Colony residents who would be going through the West Village to access the shopping center or the elementary school. Mr. Kruger stated there would be zero Colony traffic assumed in the study. Commissioner Baker asked if it would be reasonable to assume that Colony residents would travel through the West Village to shop or conduct various activities in that area. Mr. Kruger stated that it would be reasonable to make this assumption. This traffic pattern assumption would likely increase traffic volume estimates to the West Village while a minor reduction in the traffic volume estimates could be expected on Glasgow and Edinburgh. These considerations were not made in this report and have not been calculated precisely. Chairperson Montgomery asked for clarification with regard to the traffic calming measures and their impact on cut-through traffic volume. He asked if time involved both in distance and traffic calming measures would thwart the majority of cut-through traffic. Mr. Kruger stated that he did not believe that cut-through traffic coming from outside The Colony or the West Village would find the route to be advantageous with regard to time saved and the majority of traffic would stay on the main arteries of Tamarack and El Camino Real. Chairperson Montgomery asked about the Tamarack connection associated with Alternatives 2 and 3 and the reduction of traffic load on Glasgow. Mr. Kruger stated that the new Tamarack connection included in Alternatives 2 and 3 would reduce traffic further than Alternative 1 without the Tamarack connection. Commissioner Whitton stated his understanding of the traffic reduction associated with the Tamarack connection but questions if it would reduce traffic to Glasgow and Edinburgh significantly. Mr. Kruger responded that in respect to design construction capacity and traffic volume reduction to local access Planning Commission Minutes September 20,2006 Page 8 streets, environmental studies in recent years indicate that citizens notice traffic intrusion when the average daily traffic exceeds 2,500 vehicles per day. Using that criterion, the determination is made that the reduction to traffic volume experienced on Glasgow and Edinburgh would be considered relatively minor strictly from a numbers standpoint. Commissioner Whitton asked about the differences in traffic volume estimates associated with the three alternatives presented. Mr. Kruger confirmed that there are essentially a couple of hundred cars a day difference on Glasgow and Edinburgh in Alternatives 1, 2, and 3. Chairperson Montgomery observed that a home located directly on Glasgow may experience two hundred cars a day as a huge difference. Mr. Kruger agreed with this observation in respect to an emotional stance, but reiterated his position as one of technical analysis devoid of emotional input. He stated he is unable to comment on possible conflicting positions with regard to The Colony and the West Village and their experiences of what is considered an unfavorable impact on traffic volume. Chairperson Montgomery asked if staff had any further questions of the applicant, seeing none he recessed the meeting for a ten minute break at 7:34 p.m. RECESS MEETING CALLED TO ORDER Chairperson Montgomery reconvened the meeting at 7:51 p.m. and opened Public Testimony. He introduced the first speaker and as she approached the podium, the procedure for public testimony was reviewed. Robin Wofford, 4757 Edinburgh Drive, Carlsbad, gave a presentation and stated her support of Alternative 3 and urged the Commission to adopt this alternative. Certainty and safety were cited as main concerns with Alternatives 1 and 2; the accuracy of the traffic studies presented were questionable. She stated that she had received the latest traffic study conducted by TJKM two days prior and did not understand traffic engineering. Ms. Wofford stated that the traffic study presented did not include cut- through traffic by commuters northbound on El Camino Real that may cut through the West Village and travel up through The Colony. This possible traffic increase is of primary concern to her. Additionally she cited the student generation rates projected by the Carlsbad Unified School District and the possible increases to those rates upon the opening of the West Village, including a possible higher fifth set of numbers not yet projected. Ms. Wofford challenged the issue of traffic calming and stated she did not understand it, but believes the numbers presented are inconsistent with the number of residential units proposed. Ms. Wofford had previously requested information from the traffic engineers about the basis for the 45% reduction presented in the traffic studies. She had been told to review the state of the art from FHWA. Ms. Wofford quoted this report stating that she found inconsistencies between the FHWA report and the traffic studies presented by TJKM. Ms. Wofford stated her main concern as being the issue of safety, particularly at the intersection of Edinburgh and Glasgow and urged the Commission to choose Alternative 3 and base their decision on certainties. Kari Atherton, 4781 Brookwood Court, Carlsbad, gave a presentation with the stated focus on Alternative 3. She stated that Alternative 3 was whole-heartedly preferred by all of The Colony residents and considered acceptable to the Fire Department. Ms. Atherton questioned the signal at the Tamarack access point and the additional 2,400 trips projected in the traffic report and pointed out her preference for those estimated trips being diverted to Tamarack as opposed to through The Colony neighborhood. Ms. Atherton reiterated her preference for Alternative 3 based on the elimination of cut-through traffic due to security gate installation. She stated that with Alternative 3, The Colony would be provided certainty as well as the elimination of the need for circuitous routing. Plann ing Com m ission Min utes Septem ber 20, 2006 Page 9 Ms. Atherton concluded by stating her desire to reach a workable agreement that creates a community which blends a new community with an established one and strongly urges the Commission to adopt Alternative 3. Jim Whittaker, 4742 Inverness Court, Carlsbad, stated that he has been a resident of The Colony for twenty-five years. He stated his concurrence with Ms. Atherton and Ms. Wofford in their recommendation to the Commission to adopt Alternative 3 and urges the Commission to consider all comments made tonight when making their decision. Bob Hahnel, 2692 Glasgow, Carlsbad, stated his position as vice president of The Colony homeowners association. He commented on the statements made by Barbara Kennedy and Brian Millich with regard to the planned extension of Glasgow. Mr. Hahnel gave an extensive description of historical information according to his recollection stating his belief that the continuation of Glasgow would pose grading issues due to the incline of the area. Additionally, Mr. Hahnel spoke of a one foot strip easement placed at The Colony neighborhood border that belongs to the house located at 4717 Gateshead. Mr. Hahnel addressed the westbound Tamarack connection and the traffic congestion that occurs in the A.M. hours at the left turn lane to El Camino Real. His belief is that Tamarack should be utilized as a main thoroughfare to Interstate 5 and community efforts to thwart this intended usage were successful. Chairperson Montgomery stated that the experience of the Planning Commission is such that when there is a one foot easement area at the end of a road, there is usually an Irrevocable Offer of Dedication in place which would allow the City the ability to use the land. Mr. Riddle would be best to address this issue directly. Chairperson Montgomery asked why the annexation at the end of Glasgow provided a dead end rather than a cul-de-sac. Mr. Hahnel stated that Glasgow was annexed in, due to the size and shape of lot 29 in the neighboring development. By annexing Glasgow, the ability was gained to add five more houses making it worthwhile for Pacific Scene to grade the hill down. Chairperson Montgomery asked Mr. Hahnel if it was a cul-de-sac or a dead end street. Mr. Hahnel confirmed that it was a dead end street and stated that there were many problems in the early development of that area. Chairperson Montgomery thanked Mr. Hahnel for providing background on The Colony area. Dr. Donald Miller, 4610 Trieste Drive, Carlsbad, stated his feeling that the surrounding neighborhoods, his included, have been ignored in the consideration of which alternative to select for the Robertson Ranch development. His street has experienced traffic issues associated with growth and anticipates an unmitigated increase in congestion if Alternative 3 were chosen and a traffic signal were installed on Tamarack. Dr. Miller implored the Commission to consider the ramifications to adjacent neighborhoods before making a decision with regard to Robertson Ranch. Dr. Miller stated that he is a pediatrician and President of the Academy of Pediatrics in San Diego, a member of the Coalition of Weight and Children and Obesity of San Diego, and helped write the County master plan on obesity in San Diego. There is a huge impetus on creating pedestrian friendly communities and not force automobile use. By the use of cul-de-sacs and gates people are forced to use cars as a means of transportation and create isolated areas that are not easily accessible by pedestrians. Dr. Miller asked if a plan is in place to make La Portalada a right in, right out street. Additionally he expressed concern over a design that would feature West Village access at Tamarack that is signal regulated. Jill Gongola, 4805 Gateshead, Carlsbad, stated that she is a nineteen year resident of Carlsbad and is not opposed to growth within her community, but is opposed to jeopardizing the safety of the residents in an existing neighborhood to accommodate new growth. Ms. Gongola stated her feeling that there exists a lack of parity between the proposed Robertson Ranch development and the existing neighborhoods. Ms. Gongola feels that any decision made by the Planning Commission with regard to the Robertson Ranch development will set a precedent for other developing areas and is in favor of Alternative 3. Bill Arnold, 3432 Don Ortega Drive, Carlsbad, stated that he is the president of the Rancho Carlsbad Home Owners Association. Mr. Arnold commented on the presentation given by Mr. Millich of Corky McMillin and the auxiliary benefits of the Robertson Ranch development. Rancho Carlsbad is located Planning Commission Minutes September 20, 2006 Page 10 within a one hundred year floodplain zone. The construction of the diversionary drainage pipeline by the Corky McMillin Company along the north side of Cannon Road will mitigate the one hundred year floodplain and is one benefit Rancho Carlsbad will experience as a result of the Commission's approval of the development. Jill Agosti, 4730 Edinburgh, Carlsbad, stated that earlier this year she had written the City Council regarding her concerns of morals, ethics, and trust. She commented that she felt that the actions and behaviors she has observed pertaining to the Robertson Ranch triangle have been deeply saddening and that the truth had been stretched. In some cases there have been honest errors and inaccuracies and in other cases actions have been deliberate. Avoidance has existed for two way dialog addressing the many tough questions and issues raised by The Colony residents. As evidence of this avoidance, Ms. Agosti stated that the City declined participation in meetings held by The Colony residents and denied The Colony's request to attend a scheduled meeting between the City and the applicant. She stated that she was told there was a deadline for presentation materials of Monday at 7:30 AM, and was provided the last approved traffic report Thursday, September 24 leaving only one business day for review and analysis. Ms. Agosti feels that The Colony deserves a face to face two way dialog addressing the City staff's last minute response. Prior to making a decision tonight, Ms. Agosti invited the Commission to ask themselves "Is this the right thing?" Greg Agosti, 4730 Edinburgh Drive, Carlsbad, commented on the Tamarack access point shown in Alternatives 2 and 3. He stated his understanding of Alternative 2 and the right in, right out access at Tamarack as having 700 ADT. On Alternative 3 a signal light is shown at the Tamarack access point and the figures represent a 2,400 ADT. He inquired where the difference was represented and how it was arrived at. Mr. Agosti requested further discussion of a right in, right out Tamarack access with Alternative 3. Knut Madden, 2705 Glasgow Drive, Carlsbad, stated that he is in support of Alternative 3 and concurs with his neighbors in The Colony. Susan Pynes, 2746 Inverness Drive, Carlsbad, stated that advocating Alternative 3 provides more connectivity between neighborhoods for pedestrians than the other plans presented. She views Alternative 3 as a means to contain the traffic flow to the main arteries and out of the neighborhoods. Ms. Pynes explained that The Colony neighborhood is a pedestrian friendly neighborhood and requests an audience consensus regarding traffic calming devices being placed in The Colony. Chairperson Montgomery reminded Ms. Pynes that she would have to address the Commission directly and any questions she may have of the audience would be asked by the Commission. Susan Pynes apologized and resumed her discussion with the opinion that traffic calming devices would devalue the property in The Colony. Ms. Pynes reminded the Commission that staff, the Fire Department and the developer have all approved Alternative 3 and urges the Commission to give great consideration to Alternative 3. John DeLaurentis, 4250 Trieste Drive, Carlsbad, spoke about the issue of certainty. The Colony residents want certainty but all of these projections are uncertain. No one really knows what the impact of this development will be on the surrounding residents including those in the area north of Tamarack off of La Portalada. He stated he felt it was negligent to leave this neighborhood out of the discussion and decision making process. He urged the Commission to integrate this area of the community into the process prior to making any decision. Mr. DeLaurentis fears a negative impact will be felt with the adoption of any one of the three alternatives presented. Mr. DeLaurentis addressed the issue of traffic calming effectiveness and his view is that perhaps traffic circles are not as effective at discouraging and slowing traffic as speed humps are. Mr. Kruger stated that he prefers travel in traffic circles to travel over speed humps and for that reason Mr. DeLaurentis believes that speed humps are a more effective deterrent. Chairperson Montgomery asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak to the Commission regarding Agenda Item 1. He reminded the group that the audience has only one opportunity to speak, seeing none he closed public testimony. Planning Commission Minutes September 20, 2006 Page 11 Chairperson Montgomery explained that he and Commissioner Baker would address questions that arose during public testimony with the help of the applicant, Ms. Kennedy, and Mr. Riddle. Commissioner Baker directed questions to Mr. Riddle and Ms. Kennedy. Mr. Riddle responded to Ms. Wofford's comments with regard to the volume of traffic that could be experienced by The Colony at Edinburgh and Glasgow. To clarify, the 1,122 dwelling units proposed represent the entire Robertson Ranch, not the West Village specifically. There are actually approximately 600 dwelling units situated in the West Village that would be impacting Z Street and both Edinburgh and Glasgow. Mr. Riddle addressed the traffic calming techniques and the 45% estimated reduction projected. The traffic circles were not used independently in the Robertson Ranch development plan; they are part of a comprehensive design that includes turns, length of roadways, and other traffic calming devices used in conjunction with traffic circles to achieve the estimated 45% decrease in traffic volume. Chairperson Montgomery directed Mr. Riddle and stated that he would prompt the responses. He asked Mr. Riddle to explain the uncertainty in the terminology used in the traffic studies. Mr. Riddle addressed the terminology used within the traffic studies and explained that the words "should" and "could" would be present in most technical reports that you would ever review. There are always projections and assumptions made in preparing technical reports. The word "shall" is considered a definite term and we all agree there are no definitive's here, we do not see the absence of the word "shall" as a negative because the reports are making assumptions about what is likely to occur. With respect to the use of the terms "should" and "could", staff is in agreement with that usage because it is a target, an estimation being made by professionals. Chairperson Montgomery asked Ms. Kennedy to address the issue of school district student generation rates and the use of the current rates in light of the possibility of updated rates forthcoming. Ms. Kennedy stated that she had spoken with the Carlsbad Unified District and it was confirmed that there is speculation regarding changing the student generation rates, but at this point there is no certainty that a fifth set of numbers will be any higher or lower that what is currently provided. The numbers used in this evaluation are the current numbers. Chairperson Montgomery asked Mr. Millich if the applicant's expert, Mr. Kruger could address the Commission with regard to final questions presented by Ms. Wofford. He directed Mr. Kruger to the front and asked him about the statistics and reports used by Ms. Wofford in her presentation, specifically her calculated average of all traffic calming techniques outlined in the FHWA report. She arrived at an average of 23.9% versus the 45% presented in Mr. Kruger's report. Mr. Kruger addressed the calculations presented by Ms. Wofford and stated that he wouldn't calculate averages based on her method. Mr. Kruger explained that his analysis is case specific calculating travel times from each planning area to the eastern perimeters of the development. From some areas it was faster to travel El Camino Real to Tamarack and from other areas it was faster to travel Edinburgh or Glasgow. The assumptions used are based on averages in reduction of speed and time to travel through traffic calming devices. Mr. Kruger used the circuitous traffic calming devices and speed humps exclusively to completely eliminate traffic coming into a neighborhood and traveling through as an expeditious means to reach the other side. In his expert opinion, removing traffic from a neighborhood is purely a travel time approach. When taking a shortcut through a neighborhood becomes a longer commute, it will cease to be appealing as a means to an end. Mr. Kruger stated that he did not use the FHWA book in any of his analysis. He used only an analytical method and cannot answer Ms. Wofford's question directly. Chairperson Montgomery stated his belief that one of the slides presented by Ms. Wofford did state that traffic calming devices can be case specific so maybe Mr. Kruger's answer falls into the case specific category rather than going chart to chart and compiling numbers. Mr. Kruger stated he did not use charts. Commissioner Dominguez stated he is familiar with Mr. Kruger's work to the north of San Diego and questioned the absence of variety in the use of traffic calming devices on other projects. Mr. Kruger stated that policy in that city prohibited the use of more drastic methods of traffic calming. Planning Commission Minutes September 20, 2006 Page 12 Commissioner Dominquez asked Mr. Kruger if he does have methods other than circuitous routing and speed humps available to him. Mr. Kruger confirmed that he does have other more drastic methods available, but has found in his experience that they generally irritate the public unnecessarily. Commissioner Baker asked Mr. Kruger and Mr. Riddle to comment on the issue of the proposed traffic signal at Tamarack and the opinion stated earlier that it would be better to divert traffic onto Tamarack as opposed to through the neighborhoods. Chairperson Montgomery interjected his request to hear comments regarding the exploration of the right in, right out option for the Tamarack access point. Mr. Riddle stated his understanding of Mr. Kruger's earlier presentation with regard to the ADTs at the Tamarack connection. In the Alternative 2 scenario the ADT is projected to be 710 and with Alternative 3 the projection increased to 2,400 ADT. One of the reasons the Alternative 2 scenario projects an ADT of 710 is that it offers a fourth ingress and egress point into the Robertson Ranch development area. Offering a fourth access point opens up an additional opportunity for portions of the planning area to use this roadway. It doesn't force them to, but it opens up the option. The Alternative 3 scenario effectively cuts off the Glasgow connection and limits the ability of the majority of the West Village to utilize the northbound roads, either Edinburgh or Glasgow. By doing that, the Tamarack connection ADTs will escalate to the estimated level of 2,400 as projected in the traffic studies. This circumstance necessitates a more controlled intersection approach that would lead to a potential signal. Chairperson Montgomery asked Mr. Riddle if all of the projected ADTs numbers at all the connections in the varying alternatives add up to a whole number. Mr. Riddle answered yes they do add up. There are no differences, they are all controlled outlets and once one of them is severed the numbers divert to another direction and all the sums do add up to a whole. Chairperson Montgomery stated that the question was directed to Mr. Agosti's earlier comments with regard to the delta. He asked Mr. Riddle to comment on questions raised regarding the necessity of a signal at the Tamarack access point in the Alternative 3 scenario and any opportunity for negotiation on that point. Mr. Riddle stated that he can speak from an engineering standpoint and expressed staff concerns about providing one signalized access point and one limited access point for over five hundred dwelling units. In this review process, staff has made the recommendation that a signal warrant be performed. This would trigger the need for a signal. A signal wouldn't be built immediately; we would most likely condition the developer to post a bond and security to place the City in the position to actually build the signal if warrants were actually triggered in a physical sense as opposed to a theoretic sense. The decision would then be placed with the City traffic engineer. Chairperson Montgomery asked if that was typical of the City engineering department. Mr. Riddle confirmed that it is typical procedure. Commissioner Segall asked if the Tamarack access point would initially be an intersection without a signal until the warrants proved the necessity of installation of the signal. Mr. Riddle answered affirmative. Until the warrants are met it would actually be a tee connection resembling the connections of Pontiac and La Portalada to Tamarack. Commissioner Segall asked about left turn access out of the development without the presence of a signal. Specifically he asked if a traveler would be able to come to a stop and attempt a left turn onto Tamarack without the assistance of a signal device. Mr. Riddle stated yes, but this maneuver would not be encouraged. It would be treated as a right in, right out limited access point in that scenario. For that reason, with the projected quantity of trips and from a safety stand point, staff recommends a signal at the Tamarack access point. Most likely the warrants would be kicked in early on from the traffic engineer and the signal would be installed. They would probably wait until the dwelling units were built up enough within those villages to necessitate a signal. Commissioner Segall asked if it would be right in, right out access until it was needed. Mr. Riddle responded, yes that is what is done with most development. Planning Commission Minutes September 20, 2006 Page 13 Commissioner Segall asked if Alternative 3 were adopted and The Colony neighborhoods were gated off, would there be a right in, right out access at Tamarack until the West Village community was built up and the warrants necessitated a signal installation. Mr. Riddle confirmed Commissioner Segall's statement. Commissioner Segall asked if Alternative 3 were adopted could the Commission require a lighted signal at the Tamarack access point at the time of construction or would the Commission be required to go through a formalized process. Mr. Riddle stated that the Commission would have the opportunity to make that choice and override the traffic engineer's review process. Commissioner Whitton inquired about the approximate distance, from the intersection of Tamarack and El Camino Real to the driveway access into PA 1. Mr. Riddle stated that it would be approximately 600 feet. Commissioner Whitton asked what the approximate distance, would be from the driveway access into PA 1 to the proposed Tamarack access point. Mr. Riddle stated that it would be approximately 710 feet. Commissioner Whitton stated his understanding that the total distance from the intersection of Tamarack and El Camino Real to the proposed Tamarack access point to the development would be 1,310 feet. Mr. Riddle confirmed Commissioner Whitton's calculation. Commissioner Whitton stated that in addition, Pontiac and La Portalada would be entering Tamarack in this confined area and would probably be better off without the proposed Tamarack access point. We are just piling up traffic. Mr. Riddle stated that traffic congestion is an issue that has been raised and staff understands this concern. Adding the Tamarack connection will undoubtedly be another injection of traffic into a congested area. This is one reason that Alternative 1 doesn't include the Tamarack connection. Commissioner Whitton asked if the traffic stacking would cause concern for the Fire Department. Mr. Riddle stated that the Fire Department representative would be better suited to address concerns with regard to safety as a result of the Tamarack access point. Chairperson Montgomery stated that the impact of a right in, right out access point at Tamarack would not impact the intersections of Pontiac and La Portalada as a signalized intersection would. Mr. Riddle stated that the intersections of Pontiac and La Portalada would not be directly impacted. Commissioner Baker addressed the comments made by Mr. Miller and Mr. DeLaurentis who reside on Trieste. Concern was expressed with regard to the inclusion and involvement of their neighborhood in the planning process. Additionally, Mr. Miller asked if the configuration of La Portalada was being considered. Mr. Riddle stated that the review process of Robertson Ranch does not include changing the configuration of La Portalada. Commissioner Baker asked about the general comment expressed that the residents north of Tamarack and west of El Camino Real had been left out of the planning process. Ms. Kennedy stated that some residents in Trieste did receive notices based on the City standard that residents within a 600 foot radius of a project receive notice. In addition, a notice is provided in the newspaper. Chairperson Montgomery stated the extent of noticing goes to a certain point and those beyond who may possibly be affected are not directly noticed, except by the newspaper. Ms. Kennedy confirmed Chairperson Montgomery's statement. Commissioner Baker addressed a comment made by Mr. Hahnel concerning the extension of Glasgow; that the plan to extend Glasgow isn't true. Extension signage has only been in place for about six or seven years and the issue has come up many times in different places within the City. Mr. Riddle stated that research regarding the timing of extension signage was conducted by Bob Johnson, and the signs were installed in approximately April of 2001. The City Council had directed the City traffic department to add terminology to the signs that would alert the community about the potential extensions on certain dead end streets. Many of the streets had wooden barricades in place, but didn't have signs in place giving notice of the intent of what was expected to occur in the future. Commissioner Baker stated that her understanding is if it is a dead end street with a barricade rather than cul-de-sac, the plan is to extend the street at a later date. Mr. Riddle stated his agreement and that he had reviewed the final map that created The Colony development. If the streets in question were not Planning Commission Minutes September 20, 2006 Page 14 intended to be extended they would have terminated in cul-de-sacs in the original design. That is the basis of subdivision design. When there is the intent to continue a straight road it would be terminated with a barricade and eventually that roadway would extend to allow connectivity to continue. With this project we don't see cul-de-sacs and with the original final map they weren't dedicated and built like that. Staff is reading the intent to extend from the original development. Commissioner Baker thanked Mr. Riddle. Mr. Riddle requested permission to add to his statement with regard to the one foot blocker strip that had been mentioned previously. He stated the policy of adding the one foot blocker strip was used ten to twenty years ago. It was a common practice to take a dedication to the City within that one foot blocker strip. If one were to review the assessor's parcel maps or a title report, they would actually show a small extension of the property in front of the street which would show the intent that they owned it but the City would retain a dedication over that one foot strip. That was used as a controlling measure so the City could maintain control over the extension of roadways. At this point in time the practice is no longer needed and not used. Chairperson Montgomery asked for comments on Ms. Gongola's statements regarding the three traffic reports presented. Specifically the modifications made to the most recent report using traffic calming measures. Mr. Riddle stated that the report staff requested the developer prepare in November was a broad based report containing broad assumptions with regard to what Edinburgh and Glasgow could expect to experience in the future. That report didn't include the specifics that The Colony was requesting. This issue was raised in the first Planning Commission meeting. The second report was updated in June and contained potential Calavera Park trips and school trips with its own set of ADT projections accommodating potential cut-through traffic. Those additions pushed the projections to the limit of 95% and 99%. The first page of the June report clearly stated that it did not contain the effects of circuitous routing. As part of the third hearing today a revised traffic report has been presented which incorporates the effects of circuitous routing and brings forward a third set of projected numbers. All three of these reports contain different numbers based on the variances in content and have been prepared in an attempt to demonstrate our effort to present the detail that has been requested. David Hauser added clarification with regard to the traffic signal warrants. Traffic warrants are not a mandate to perform the warranted action, but are subjective in nature and provide insurance that funding will be available. The mere fact that staff projects the proposed intersection at Tamarack and the West Village meet the traffic warrants does not in and of itself require that the traffic signal installation be completed at that time. Chairperson Montgomery stated his assumption that there are several intersections throughout the City that meet warrants and don't have signals. Mr. Hauser stated that there are probably 20 or 30 intersections that meet warrants and don't have the traffic signal installed. Chairperson Montgomery asked what triggers the installation of a signal light. Mr. Hauser stated that there are several factors including traffic volume, neighborhood consensus, and pedestrian movement that can trigger the installation of a signal in addition to the warrant requirement being met. Chairperson Montgomery asked if there were any further questions for Mr. Hauser. Seeing none, he asked The Colony residents in the audience a question on behalf on Susan Pynes. Chairperson Montgomery directed the residents to raise their hands in response to his question. He asked if any of The Colony residents' present wished to implement traffic calming measures within their community at this time as a part of the Robertson Ranch project. Noting that no hands were raised Chairperson Montgomery proceeded. Chairperson Montgomery addressed the ethical concerns raised by Ms. Agosti relating to the processing of the project. He stated his understanding of the impact a project like this could have on the residents of the surrounding area. Fear of the unknown may drive one to feel there may be some ulterior motives involved. Through the years Ms. Kennedy, Mr. Riddle, and their associates have been found to be nothing short of the very top of the ethical chain. He noted that his experience with them has always been very professional both in his professional practice and while serving as a Commissioner. If mistakes were made or reports weren't delivered in time, it is not my belief that it was anything purposeful in nature. Sometimes we as a Commission receive reports in an untimely fashion or very large reports that would require more time for review. It is not necessarily the fault of the staff of the City of Carlsbad. It is just a Planning Commission Minutes September 20, 2006 Page 15 matter of trying to the best job in the time allotted and several staff members work overtime and weekend hours in an attempt to accomplish everything in a timely manner. Commissioner Segall asked about time constraints that Ms. Agosti stated were placed on delivery of her presentation. Chairperson Montgomery stated that he wasn't sure if he understood Ms. Agosti's claim correctly because he is of the understanding that anyone can attend a Planning Commission meeting and speak the same evening. He believes he heard Ms. Agosti state a deadline of Monday for presentation materials. Ms. Kennedy stated that she was unclear where that information came from; she had told The Colony that their presentation materials would be needed the day of the Commission Meeting at 10:00 a.m. in order to ensure technical compatibility. In fact, the presentation materials were received by The Colony representatives at about 2:00 p.m. today and no difficulties were encountered. Chairperson Montgomery stated typically staff prefers presentation materials early. Ms. Kennedy stated that the day of the scheduled hearing is typically allowed. There might have been a confusion of dates; representatives of The Colony were informed that in order to forward information to the Planning Commissioners those materials would need to be received by Monday. This allows an opportunity to give the Commissioners that information during briefings. As far as presentations to load onto the computer, the day of the hearing is fine. Chairperson Montgomery stated that the Commission had received all of the documents and letters sent by The Colony representatives and have reviewed them. The Commission appreciates the research conducted by The Colony residents and their representatives and applauds their efforts. Commissioner Montgomery asked the Commissioners if there were any questions for staff. Commissioner Dominguez asked about a perceived gap in trust with respect to the implementation of traffic calming strategies within the master plan itself. He asked what review processes would take place when the traffic calming plan is complete. Ms. Kennedy stated that there will be two areas of traffic calming. First of all, the plans you see tonight with the alternatives for traffic calming in the West Village only show the circuitous routing. The master plan also includes design criteria to add additional traffic calming that is too detailed to show at this point. When the subdivision comes forward you will see the more detailed types of traffic calming in the West Village. Commissioner Dominguez asked if the Commission would be reviewing the traffic calming devices as specific plans come in. Ms. Kennedy stated yes, as the subdivision plans come in. Commissioner Dominguez stated that he now understands the plan process. Ms. Kennedy stated that if traffic calming within The Colony neighborhood is a condition that is added, the Commission would see those plans at the same time as the West Village subdivision plans. Commissioner Segall stated that he thought the traffic engineer was going to address the other communities across Tamarack and how they would be impacted by this development; that hasn't been done yet. Chairperson Montgomery asked Mr. Riddle to address the issue of placing a signal at the Tamarack connection to the West Village in Robertson Ranch and what impact that may have to the communities directly to the north of Tamarack. Commissioner Segall stated that the question went further than that. There were two people who spoke of the impact to their community and whether or not they were included in the planning process. Chairperson Montgomery stated that Ms. Kennedy had already addressed this issue. Planning Commission Minutes September 20, 2006 Page 16 Commissioner Segall stated that his understanding to be that the traffic engineer would address this issue separately. Mr. Riddle stated that he would prefer to have the applicant's consultant respond to any particulars on the valuations that have been performed so far with respect to the signals and the traffic studies actually included within the traffic reports. Chairperson Montgomery asked the applicant's consultant to state his name and address for the record and reminded him that the questions are not in regard to Alternative 1 which doesn't have any connection to Tamarack. He reminded the applicant that the question being asked regards the impact of the Tamarack connection and the right in, right out or signal and how that might impact the communities to the north of Tamarack. Sam Kab, Urban Systems Associates (USA), 4540 Kearny Villa Road Suite 106, San Diego, 92123, stated that USA prepared the traffic report for Robertson Ranch and all the supplemental reports showing traffic to The Colony and the West Village. In the case of the right in, right out at the Tamarack connection there would be no effect on the signals located to the east of El Camino Real. In the case of a traffic signal at the same location there would be the addition of left turns so, there would be more traffic crossing the La Portalada intersection. Some of the traffic from Robertson Ranch development would divert through the El Camino Real and Tamarack intersection as an alternate route out of the community. Not all of the traffic would choose this route, but some would. USA studies show that there is very little cross traffic between these communities. There is about a 1% draw of traffic to and from La Portalada into this area. Chairperson Montgomery asked what impact cars traveling westbound on Tamarack during peak hours and turning left onto southbound El Camino Real in a single stacking left hand turn lane have on the La Portalada connection. Mr. Kab stated he doesn't believe there will be any effect on the westbound to south left turns because vehicles will not necessarily travel that path to head south on El Camino Real. Some vehicles would travel though the West Village to Lisa Street at El Camino Real and make the southbound turn from there. The only effect could be to traffic turning left onto Tamarack traveling west toward I-5 or traveling north on El Camino Real toward Highway 78. That traffic would probably split and some of that would come off of El Camino Real and reduce the impact in the northbound direction but increase it slightly in the westbound to northbound direction. Chairperson Montgomery asked Mr. Kab what the negative impacts of a signal at Tamarack could be. Mr. Kab stated he didn't believe there would be any negative impacts and that he believes it meets the traffic signal spacing for this classification of roadway. It would not be unusual to see the traffic signals and intersections spaced in this manner on a secondary arterial such as this. Chairperson Montgomery asked the Commission if there were any other questions of Mr. Kab. Commissioner Segall stated that his impression of the concerns expressed by the residents of Trieste Drive were with regard to traffic entering their community as opposed to traveling on Tamarack. He asked Mr. Kab if his statement was that there would be no impact to Trieste Drive. Mr. Kab stated that the studies conducted by USA show a slight draw of traffic between the two communities. Probably the residential traffic using the shopping facilities within the West Village would be approximately 1% of the total traffic into the West Village. Commissioner Whitton stated that he is unsure that Mr. Kab's answer addressed the specific question. He asked about projections of traffic traveling westbound and turning right onto La Portalada and traveling as far as Chestnut and then cutting over to Highway 78 as opposed to the other way around. Mr. Kab stated that based on the statistics used from the SANDAG build out traffic model there would be no attraction in that direction from the West Village. Commissioner Whitton asked if westbound travelers queuing up on Tamarack at the El Camino Real intersection would cut through on Trieste or Pontiac to head toward Highway 78. Mr. Kab stated that the studies conducted by USA showed that the traffic signal at the intersection of Tamarack and El Camino Real would function acceptably at build out of the Robertson Ranch project. We don't expect any traffic Planning Commission Minutes September 20, 2006 Page 17 delays or backups to force traffic to choose that diversion. It would not be a time effective choice. Mr. Hauser added that when traffic studies are conducted there is a cut-off point in terms of identifying every possible impact. The SAN DAG criteria dictate a certain percentage and when that has been reached the limit has been met. In traveling westbound on Tamarack there is seldom, if ever, any back up experienced at the northbound right turn onto El Camino Real. Chairperson Montgomery asked Commissioner Whitton if his question had been answered. Commissioner Whitton stated that yes; he understood the bottom line to be an insignificant impact to the neighborhood of Trieste and Pontiac. Mr. Hauser confirmed that the bottom line is an insignificant impact. The actual ADT increases to the numbers were not specifically addressed because the studies have shown a less that 1% increase as a result of a signal installation at the Tamarack and El Camino Real intersection. Chairperson Montgomery asked if there were any other questions of staff and requested that Mr. Millich make rebuttal comments. Mr. Millich stated that he would avoid any re-statement of numbers and figures. He assured the Commission and residents present that Corky McMillin would implement any alternative chosen. He stated he has faith in the analysis presented by the experts. The studies conducted by USA and TJKM Transportation Consultants utilized completely different methods and arrived at the same conclusion; traffic calming does work. Corky McMillin implored the Commission to make a decision to approve the project and ample opportunity has been provided for review of all of the issues which have become overly complicated. The roadway connections were always planned and they are offering ways of reducing the impact to the community as a result of those connections. Three alternatives have been presented and we are prepared to implement any one of those alternatives. Chairperson Montgomery thanked Mr. Millich for his statements and his patience throughout the process. Chairperson Montgomery addressed Mr. Kruger's experience in traffic calming projects, some with extremely significant ADT far greater that the amount we are speaking about tonight. He asked Mr. Kruger to address the Commission with regard to assurances of the elimination of cut-through traffic. He defined cut-through traffic as being traffic entering The Colony and the West Village from outside of the area. Mr. Kruger stated that the traffic calming measures will require the right and left turns to be fairly sharp in order cause a slow down at the turns. The circles will definitely slow traffic. If Alternative 1 or 2 were chosen, the implementation of traffic calming in the West Village would need to ensure the design of the streets would have short turning radiuses which would physically guarantee that traffic would have to slow down in order to negotiate these turns. If you add enough of these devices, they have a cumulative effect on travel speeds. There are no absolute assurances, but the City's standards of review would ensure that proper design and operation of these streets would occur. Chairperson Montgomery asked if the implementation of traffic calming in Robertson Ranch would reduce or eliminate cars cutting through to travel on these streets because people will choose a route that will take less time. Mr. Kruger stated that he believes there would be a complete elimination of outside traffic choosing to take these routes more than once. With traffic calming devices in place, the routes on Edinburgh and Glasgow become a longer commute. Very few people will travel these routes, but not everyone will choose to take the shortest path. Chairperson Montgomery stated that the traffic that will go through The Colony will come through the West Village and the traffic that comes from the eastern side of Robertson Ranch will come from The Colony itself, but nothing beyond that. Mr. Kruger confirmed Chairperson Montgomery's statement. Chairperson Montgomery asked Commissioner Whitton if he had any further questions of Mr. Kruger. Commissioner Whitton stated that he did not have a question at this time. Chairperson Montgomery asked the Commission if there were any further questions of staff. Commissioner Whitton asked where the proposed sites for a new fire station within the development would be located. Ms. Kennedy explained that there is an existing site located near Calavera Park that would be a possible location site. The alternative location could be in PA 22 which is now an unplanned area along Cannon Road or it could possibly be in the option parcel located next to PA 22. Planning Commission Minutes September 20, 2006 Page 18 Commissioner Baker asked Ms. Kennedy to put the slide with the traffic percentages back up on the screen for reference during the discussion. She asked when the architectural detail would be up for review by the Commission and if at that time they would come back with the final map or with elevations and street plotting. Ms. Kennedy responded that the subdivisions would allow delayed architecture review. The Commission might see a subdivision showing the lots and then they would come back in subsequently with the site development plan. You would see the architecture for the multi-family sites and the developer would be required to conform to the City's existing policies, Policy 44, Policy 66 and the master plan also has additional design criteria overall for the whole master plan and even more specifically for each of the planning areas. Certain considerations are included for each Planning Area. For example, if the community is backing up to circulation element roadways, enhanced elevations would be required. Commissioner Baker stated that many hours have been spent on the issue of circulation and very little time has been spent on the other details of the master plan. There would be no intention to delay any further, but she did request assurance that there would be further opportunity for review prior to actual construction. Chairperson Montgomery stated that his understanding of the application presented shows the East Village with a mass grading plan. Ms. Kennedy confirmed Chairperson Montgomery's statement and added that the mass grading plan divides the East Village into planning areas. Chairperson Montgomery stated that obviously Mr. Millich is looking for approval of the East Village, but unfortunately the West Village is tied to the East Village and the whole master plan approval and it's important to address the West Village. Tonight the East Village and mass grading plan are both before the Commission. After those are approved the Commission will still receive subdivision maps and minor grading or grading adjustments of each individual subdivision. Ms. Kennedy confirmed Chairperson Montgomery's statement and added that the City has received applications for the subdivisions of planning areas 16,17, and 18 and the recreation center that would serve the East Village community. We also have an application in for the affordable housing site, for grading in the corridor, and grading the park site. Chairperson Montgomery stated that the Commission would be involved in all of those issues and as Commissioner Baker stated, as the communities come in the Commission would review those elevations. Ms. Kennedy confirmed the statements made by Chairperson Montgomery and added that as far as architecture is concerned, the Commission would most likely see the affordable housing site first. There would be a delayed architecture review for the subdivisions. Chairperson Montgomery stated that specifically in relation to the West Village there is only the master plan at this point, but the West Village will receive all the other things at a later date. Ms. Kennedy stated that the first application would be a master tentative map dividing the West Village up into the various planning areas. But, the City has not received an application for that yet. Chairperson Montgomery asked if it would be at that point the Commission would verify the routing of streets, the mass grading and all the other issues. Ms. Kennedy confirmed that. Chairperson Montgomery asked if there were any further questions of staff regarding these issues and asked Commissioner Baker if her question had been answered. Commissioner Baker responded that she had received an answer. Chairperson Montgomery asked if there were any further questions of staff regarding these issues. Seeing none, he requested final comments from the Commissioners. Commissioner Whitton asked for an answer to the earlier question posed by Commissioner Baker with regard to the trail placement. Planning Commission Minutes September 20, 2006 Page 19 Commissioner Baker stated her question of trails being placed near the roadway on El Camino Real was addressed by Ms. Kennedy. Ms. Kennedy stated that the issue was addressed in the master plan with that option. Chairperson Montgomery asked if there was agreement on the trail issue and requested comments. Commissioner Whitton asked Commissioner Heineman if he would like to take a break or continue. Commissioner Heineman stated that he would like to continue and finish the process. Commissioner Whitton asked if he should address each alternative. He stated he is not in favor of Alternative 3 for a number of reasons. One being he is not in favor of a gated community on Edinburgh because the end result will require the homeowners in PA 9 and PA 10 pay for things that they may not necessarily want and that benefit The Colony by providing a gated access in and out of the community itself. I have question of the reasonableness of that. The Commission is trying to make decisions based on uncertainties and trying to guess what the future residents of Robertson Ranch would like. The Commission knows what the residents of The Colony would like and he can sympathize with a lot of that, however I am not at all in favor of Alternative 3 because of the gated community. Commissioner Whitton stated that he doesn't like the idea of totally gating off the Glasgow route and understands that doing so could pose problems with the fire equipment. Also, with the fire station being in the Calavera Park area there are two access points into the development: one at Glasgow and one at Edinburgh. Additionally, he stated that with the installation of the traffic calming devices the traffic entering the area through Glasgow and Edinburgh would be much less than what is being anticipated. Commissioner Whitton stated his belief that there will be more traffic conning from The Colony and traveling through the Villages than in the opposite direction. He is in favor of elective traffic calming within The Colony and feels that if you have egress and ingress through Edinburgh into the West Village you are also blocking off some traffic that would put an excess load on Gateshead Road that may be unanticipated. He believes this will be the case. Commissioner Whitton stated that he is not totally in favor of the Tamarack access point. He is flexible on this point but doesn't think it will provide the benefit that is being anticipated. He agreed with Commission Baker regarding the trail placement along El Camino Real. Commissioner Whitton stated that he finds Alternative 3 unfavorable because of his opinion that a lot of traffic will be forced onto Tamarack Avenue unnecessarily, but added that he still needs time to think about that. Chairperson Montgomery requested a vote to extend the meeting. MOTION ACTION: Motion by Chairperson Montgomery, and duly seconded, to extend the Planning Commission meeting beyond 10:00 p.m. VOTE: 7-0 AYES: Chairperson Montgomery, Commissioners Baker, Cardosa, Dominguez, Heineman, Segall, and Whitton NOES: None Commissioner Segall stated that he feels Mr. Millich has done an excellent job on preparing a vision that perhaps we have lost sight of over the last three hearings. The plan is here and is solid. Commissioner Segall thanked Ms. Kennedy for insuring the high levels of quality are present and the Commission supports that. Commissioner Segall stated that he feels it will be a wonderful community and supports Alternative 3. The first reason for this choice is the critical matter of preserving the existing character of a neighborhood. In past hearings a big impact has been made when the city has entered an existing community with the intent to change the character and dynamics. The Colony is a solid and unique community and there is concern about destroying that. Planning Commission Minutes September 20, 2006 Page 20 Commissioner Segall stated his second concern is in relation to Alternatives 1 and 2. The concept of developing traffic calming in such a way that people will have to travel 15 mph on those roadways. He stated that he feels the residents will be very frustrated in a very short period of time because of traffic calming device installation. It is important to have communities that have traffic calming to keep traffic calm and slow, but not to deliberately make it so slow that people don't even want to take that route. Commissioner Segall stated his understanding that people will avoid these types of roads, but residents won't even want to drive in their own neighborhood in a brand new community. It doesn't appear that The Colony supports traffic calming in their neighborhood. That community may have a difficult time gaining consensus on desired continued mitigation in the area. Commissioner Segall stated his past concern that the two points of ingress and egress in the East Village are not sufficient, but that is what is being proposed. Having one ingress/egress point on El Camino Real and one coming through Tamarack in the West Village mirrors the East Village. Both villages have roughly the same number of dwelling units, if it is good enough for the east then it is good enough for the west. Finally, in order to support Alternative 3, the signal would need to be installed at Tamarack. Tonight it has been explained that the signal at Tamarack would be installed only after the warrants prove its necessity. Commissioner Segal stated his concern about this issue and expressed his understanding, based on information obtained at the briefing, differs from tonight's presented information. He asked that Tamarack Avenue becomes a signalized intersection so that two points of ingress and egress are created for the West Village. Commissioner Segall stated that he concurs with Commissioner Baker in regard to the trails along El Camino Real. Commissioner Heineman stated that despite the detours we have experienced tonight, the residents of The Colony have made it clear that they prefer Alternative 3 and he concurs. Alternative 3 is the best of the three and it will do the job that the residents want. Thinking back to the public comment section of tonight's meeting; Alternative 3 was chosen without exception. In addition to the choice of Alternative 3, Mr. Kruger's comments were clear with respect to traffic calming and should be observed. Traffic calming needn't require everyone travel at speeds of 10 mph. That being true, the idea of using traffic calming throughout the West and East Villages would be advisable. A great deal of progress has been made and he stated that favors Alternative 3. Chairperson Montgomery asked Commissioner Heineman about the issue of trails and the master plan. Commissioner Heineman stated that he is in favor of the set-back trails on El Camino Real and the Robertson Ranch master plan. Commissioner Dominguez stated that this has been a long and arduous process and he is in support of the master plan. The Corky McMillin team has done a tremendous job of putting it together. There were some pointed issues that were raised during the process. Some degree of resolution has been reached by the reduction of density, the addition of senior housing, re-designation of the elementary school, and providing some improvements that the City has sought for the protection of some of the existing communities. Commissioner Dominguez stated that he supports the IOD and the trail system and concurs that it should be set-back from the roadway. Commissioner Dominguez stated he supports Alternative 2 because of the reduction in traffic that it provides. On Edinburgh it raises the ADT by only 9% and on Glasgow the ADT is raised by only 19%. This is a fantastic accomplishment based on the number of units proposed. Commissioner Dominguez stated that he would like to emphasize points illustrated by Mr. Kruger. There are several options available for traffic calming; from the light side to the heavy side. He stated that he believes that this is the first time the City of Carlsbad has ever implemented traffic calming devices in a new community and it should work better than retrofitting an existing community where a problem already exists. Of equal importance is the Fire Department response times associated with Alternative 2 as well as better points of evacuation. Keeping in mind there is a lot of coastal sage scrub that can become a dangerous fire conductive. Planning Commission Minutes September 20, 2006 Page 21 Commissioner Dominguez stated that Alternative 2 complies with fire and engineering studies, discourages cut-through traffic, provides neighborhood connectivity, which is very important and was played down by certain testimony this evening. Alternative 2 provides the addition of traffic calming to The Colony if they wished, it provides four points of access to the development, and doesn't increase westbound traffic on Tamarack or add to traffic in the intersections, it requires modification to the HMP hard line, but actually increases the biological concentration for that area. Alternative 2 requires relocation of the RV storage area, which was poorly sited to begin with, and there is no significant effect on traffic, biology or visual impacts. Commissioner Dominguez stated that he strongly supported Alternative 2 and encourages his fellow commissioners to do the same. Commissioner Cardosa stated that he thinks that Mr. Millich and Corky McMillin homes have made tremendous strides in a very difficult project; there is a lot to be said about unit reduction by 260 plus units. Planning Area 7 was re-classed to allow senior housing; a very strong and important element in the community of Carlsbad. The possibility of an elementary school on site is also a very positive element, and traffic calming suggestions will result in a safer Colony community. Commissioner Cardosa stated that he is absolutely not in favor of Alternative 3; it adds false impacts on part of the community and unfairly relieves other parts of the community. The master plan was well prepared and Commissioner Cardosa supports the improvement of the trail system. Commissioner Cardosa stated that he is mixed between Alternative 1 and 2. Chairperson Montgomery reminded Commissioner Cardosa that a decision would need to be made soon. Commissioner Baker thanked everyone from The Colony and City Staff. Very significant changes have been made to the project as a result of the participation of The Colony residents; most notably the reduction in the number of units, the senior housing and the school site dedication. Commissioner Baker informed The Colony residents that the Commission had read and considered every letter and appreciates the time invested in providing information to the Commission. Commissioner Baker stated that there is a lot to like about the master plan and she is in support of it. The diversity of housing provides many people the opportunity to live in the community regardless of their financial status. Affordable housing, senior housing, smaller lots, and density in some areas ensure that diversity. The trail system is an asset. This area is one of the last large pieces of land to be developed and the architecture will have close scrutiny. Commissioner Baker stated that she has served as a Commissioner for six to seven years and hopes that she has learned from some of her mistakes, and will be paying close attention to the details of the project as they are presented. Commissioner Baker added that the group is aware of her support of adjustments to the trail system and won't belabor that point. Commissioner Baker stated that she does not support Alternative 3 for the reason she believes that connectivity is a primary issue and those roads were always intended to be extended. It will be a benefit to The Colony to have the ability to travel south. For instance, it would be outrageous for a resident on Gateshead, who has a student at the new elementary school, but would have to travel out of your community to Tamarack and down to El Camino Real then re-enter to get to the school. It is as much as an advantage to The Colony residents to be able to access the Village as it would be for the very few people that would be traveling through The Colony neighborhood. Commissioner Baker stated that if she thought for a minute that the projected traffic numbers would ruin the community, she would not be in favor of it. But, the numbers are such that she does not believe that is the case. It will be a benefit to move throughout this community. As far as Alternative 1 and 2, more discussion is warranted. Commissioner Baker stated that she could be in support of either of them. Chairperson Montgomery stated that he is in favor of the Robertson Ranch development. The vision of the community has gelled over several years with the input of not only the original owners, but certainly with the new applicants. The City staff has created a project that brings so many amenities within a Planning Commission Minutes September 20, 2006 Page 22 community. Chairperson Montgomery stated that every time he reviews a project that Ms. Kennedy has worked on he enjoys the nuances and flavor within it. Ms. Kennedy seems to spend a lot of time enforcing her strong opinions as to how a community should be placed together. Speaking specifically of Robertson Ranch, he stated if he were a resident there he would appreciate all that is offers. There is a huge park, a school site, shopping, senior housing, affordable housing, and several other residential communities. The wildlife corridor basically connects the Pacific Ocean through Agua Hedionda; through these corridors and into the back country. They are vital and were always a part of the original vision of the habitat management plan that took the City over ten years to ultimately obtain approval from the Coastal Commission and other agencies. Chairperson Montgomery applauded the efforts and is in favor of the routing of trails as Commissioner Baker had stated. He suggested the Commission come to some type of agreement with regard to the Irrevocable Offer of Dedication (IOD). Chairperson Montgomery stated his support of the acceptance of an IOD along Tamarack as a condition of the project. This would ensure the City's long term ability to add a second left hand turn lane on westbound Tamarack to access El Camino Real. The accomplishment of the alignment of the additional turn pocket appears to be difficult at this time and would be left up to the City. The IOD appears to be a necessary tool in order to accommodate anticipated growth in the northeast quadrant. Chairperson Montgomery stated that he is in favor of the Tamarack connection, but not in favor of Alternative 1. He stated that he was split between Alternatives 2 and 3. In light of the further discussion, Alternative 3 appears to be the best application of preserving The Colony and allowing the Robertson Ranch to be a unique community. Alternative 3 allows for trails and connections in between the communities to continue to afford a walkable sense. Chairperson Montgomery stated he is not necessarily in favor of the idea of a gated off area at the Glasgow connection. He added that he had a different view of this section of roadway and would have preferred another gated community in that Glasgow area similar to the one that is on the Edinburgh side. That would have allowed some traffic on Glasgow, which is deserved. This is not an option presented tonight. Chairperson Montgomery stated that he does not like the idea of a signal at the Tamarack connection. As far as planning purposes and enforcement he stated he is not at all in agreement. Chairperson Montgomery stated his support of Alternative 3 less the signal at Tamarack. A right in, right out choice would be acceptable and Mr. Hauser did explain that often warranted signals are never installed. The option presented tonight is Alternative 3 with a signalized intersection and that could be matter of discussion as this project moves forward. For that reason, Chairperson Montgomery stated he is in favor of Alternative 2, but understands the importance of Alternative 3 and how it affects the community. Chairperson Montgomery recapped by stating that it appears that there are two Commissioners in favor of Alternative 3, two Commissioners on the fence between Alternatives 1 and 2, and 3 Commissioners in favor of Alternative 2. Commissioner Baker stated that she could adopt Alternative 2. Commissioner Segall asked if the issue before the Commission this evening could be divided so he could support the master plan but not support the alternatives. Chairperson Montgomery stated that he was thinking about the same thing. Commissioner Segall stated that he would hate to vote against this item, but will not support Alternative 2. Commissioner Whitton stated that he would like to go with Alternative 2. Chairperson Montgomery stated that a main motion would be placed on the table for the Robertson Ranch development and its master plan, including the IOD. A secondary motion would then be made with regard to the circulation pattern alternatives. Commissioner Baker asked about the errata items. Don Neu, Assistant Planning Director added that he has a draft of the IOD condition if the Commission chose to consider it. Planning Commission Minutes September 20, 2006 Page 23 Commissioner Baker suggested that a main motion be made including the errata and then an amendment with regard to the alternatives. The erratum contains other matters of consideration beside the alternatives. Commissioner Segall requested that the issue be completely divided so that there would be two separate actions. Chairperson Montgomery stated that what is on the floor is the main issue of Robertson Ranch and the secondary motion which passes a particular alternative and those who are not in favor of the alternative presented could vote against it. Commissioner Baker asked if it was necessary to have the main motion on the floor without necessarily voting. The motion would be made and seconded and then a motion for an amendment would be made. Commissioner Baker then asked for assistance from the Deputy City Attorney. Mr. Kemp interjected that he believes the Commission could split the issues and vote separately. He stated that he believes it is a matter of phrasing and reminded the Commission that the request has been made that item four regarding the school be removed. Commissioner Baker acknowledged the reminder from Mr. Kemp. MOTION ACTION: VOTE: AYES: NOES: Motion by Commissioner Baker, and duly seconded, 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 including the errata sheet; 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 including the errata sheet but not Alternatives 1, 2, or 3 and delete from page two condition number four. Also including the IOD which is to read, concurrent with the master tentative map for the West Village the developer of the West Village shall cause the property owner to execute an Irrevocable Offer to Dedicate a public road easement along planning area one adjacent to Tamarack Avenue. In the event the signal of El Camino Real and Tamarack Avenue does not meet City Growth Management Requirements, said easement shall accommodate future dual left turn lanes on Tamarack Avenue as it approaches El Camino Real. The width and extent of the IOD shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 7-0 Chairperson Montgomery, Commissioners Whitton, Segall, Heineman, Dominguez, Cardosa, and Baker None MOTION ACTION: VOTE: AYES: NOES: Motion made by Commissioner Baker, and duly seconded, that the Planning Commission adopt Alternative 2, which is circuitous routing through Robertson Ranch with a connection on Tamarack be accepted as the circulation element. 6-1 Chairperson Montgomery, Commissioners Whitton, Heineman, Dominguez, Cardosa, and Baker Commissioner Segall Chairperson Montgomery closed the Public Hearing for Item 1. 493 Planning Commission Minutes September 20, 2006 Page 24 PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS Chairperson Montgomery thanked the applicant and City staff efforts, and most importantly thanked the public for their support. Additionally he wished the applicant good luck at City Council. Chairperson Montgomery stated that he would be absent from the next Planning Commission meeting and that Commissioner Baker would Chair the meeting and Commissioner Cardosa would act as Vice Chair. Commissioner Cardosa stated that he would be absent from the next Planning Commission meeting as well. Chairperson Montgomery stated that in Commissioner Cardosa's absence, Commissioner Dominguez would act as Vice Chair. Commissioner Dominguez stated that he may be absent from the next Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Whitton stated that he too may be absent from the next Planning Commission meeting. PLANNING DIRECTOR COMMENTS Mr. Neu, Assistant Planning Directory introduced the new Minutes Clerk, Michelle Gregory to the Planning Commissioners. CITY ATTORNEY COMMENTS None. ADJOURNMENT MOTION By proper motion, the regular meeting of the Planning Commission of September 20, 2006, was adjourned at 10:32 p.m. Don Neu Assistant Planning Director Michelle Gregory Minutes Clerk EXHIBIT? All Receive For the Information of the- CITY COUNCIL September 21, 2006 TO: RAY PATCHETT FROM: Fire Chie ROBERTSON RANCH CONCEPT CIRCULATION PLAN ALTERNATIVES In response to the Mayor's inquiry regarding whether the Fire Department prefers Robinson Ranch Circulation Plan Alternative No. 1 or Alternative No. 2, the Fire Department supports Alternative No. 2. The Fire Department's primary concerns in evaluating development plans are access for emergency vehicles and emergency evacuation routes. The preferred development plan is the one which provides the greatest number of primary access points. In the proposed Robertson Ranch development, Concept Circulation Plan Alternative No. 2 is the preferred plan because it provides four (4) primary access points. Background The following Robertson Ranch Concept Circulation Plan alternatives were reviewed and discussed at the Planning Commission meeting held on September 20, 2006. Alternative One - Circuitous Routing: Description: The original plan, which includes extensions of Glasgow and Edinburgh and a signalized intersection at El Camino Real (ECR) and Lisa Street. A circuitous street design is used in the West Village to reduce cut-through traffic. Number of Primary Access Points: Three (3) Gates: None Alternative Two - Tamarack Connection (Local Street Standards): Description: Includes all of Alternative One with the addition of a right-in and right-out at a new street (A.K.A. Tamarack Connection) on the south side of Tamarack Avenue generally located midway between La Portalada Drive and Pontiac Drive. Number of Primary Access Points: Four (4) Gates: None Alternative Three - Collector Tamarack Connection/Gated Glasgow and Edinburgh: Description: Includes the Tamarack Connection with a signalized intersection, a gated community for Robertson Ranch Planning Areas 9 and 10 (bordering Edinburgh) and a gated emergency evacuation point at Glasgow. Number of Primary Access Points: 2 Gates: Two (2) - (A community with two (2) gated primary access points) KEVIN CRAWFORD A SEP 2006 (Sty Manager's Office City of Caflsbad September 21,2006 Dear City Council and Mayor, I am a resident of Carlsbad's Colony neighborhood and attended last night's Planning Commission meeting to consider the Robertson Ranch Master Plan. The Commission rejected the street connection plan known as Alternative 3 which was overwhelmingly supported by The Colony neighborhood residents. Soon the Robertson Ranch Master Plan will be presented to the City Council for consideration and I wanted to give you some points to ponder and questions to ask your staff members and commissioners. Ingress and Egress to the West Village. Commissioner Segal noted that the East Village area of the master plan only contains two ingress/egress points along Cannon Road, and so therefore what is good for the goose should be good for the gander. Why can't the West Village be serviced by two ingress/egress points at El Camino Real and the new Tamarack intersection? I believe connections to the Colony's streets, gated or not are unnecessary with the main entrances on El Camino and Tamarack. The only logical reason I can come up with to have connections through the Colony are to enhance revenues at the proposed commercial center. This is a poor excuse to put the safety and livability of an established neighborhood at risk. Connectivity. A lot of discussion and logic was centered on the admirable goal of neighborhood connectivity. But why does the East Village have no connectivity to the new Ravinia neighborhood houses and Mariposa affordable housing apartments? When Ravinia and Mariposa were planned, why didn't they have road connections to the future East Village? If it is OK for Ravinia and Mariposa to be "unconnected", and the entire East Village to be "unconnected" why is it suddenly so important that The Colony be connected to new development? Probably for the reason I stated above concerning revenue at the commercial center. Also, I believe another important reason that Ravinia and the East Village were planned as "unconnected" is because city staff and the developer knew they would encounter the type of objections to quality of life impacts that Colony residents are now raising. City staff likes to keep pointing out that^Edinburgh and Glasgow were always planned to go through. But that doesn't mean it has to be so, plans can be changed, they are not set in stone. I believe the goal of connectivity and neighborhood fellowship is better served by walk-able (and bike friendly) streets and trails, rather than automobile connections. When is the last time you met a new neighbor while driving by their house at 30 MPH with the windows rolled up? Intersections. I am puzzled my commissioner Marty Montgomery's opposition to Alternative 3 based solely on the recommendation for a signalized intersection at the new Tamarack connection. The city's traffic engineer specifically stated it would have neither adverse impacts to traffic flow on Tamarack nor any adverse impacts on the neighborhoods to the north. In addition, the two currently existing intersections of Pontiac and Tamarack, and La Portolada and Tamarack are not signalized and they serve communities of a similar size as the proposed West Village. Why would Alternative 3 require a siRnalized intersection? Why break what isn't broken? One of the Colony residents pointed out that all of the traffic calming measures proposed for both the West Village and Colony neighborhoods are troublesome from the get-go. Why would we plan a neighborhood that from the start needs all these unconventional street designs to impede traffic? The new residents won't find these streets pleasant on their daily trips to and from their houses. Commissioner Segal echoed these sentiments and stated (I am paraphrasing): "All of these measures will likely make it unbearable for cut-thru drivers to travel these streets and it will also make them unbearable for the new residents to travel on them". Why would we plan in such a manner? The bulk of the problems with the West Village planning as I see it are caused by creating new roads that in simple terms connect Tamarack in the north with El Camino Real in the south. This new connection would circumvent the need to use the existing intersection at Tamarack and El Camino (or travel College to Cannon). By eliminating this proposed connector route, most of the Colony resident concerns over safety and quality of life with the new development are resolved. Personally, I don't think gated communities are great, and I don't see the need for one in Alternative 3. The major issues can be resolved by leaving Edinburgh and Glasgow as dead end streets and having the ingress/egress requirements of the West Village met with two entrances; one on El Camino Real and another on Tamarack. This would meet city requirements on all fronts just like the East Village ingress/egress solution. I would be happy to meet with any one of you to discuss my thoughts and concerns in person. Thank you for your time in reading my letter, and I hope I have given you new points to consider in the upcoming review of the Robertson Ranch application. Sincerely, Ted Galh 4799 Gateshead Road Carlsbad, CA 92010 September 24, 2006 Carlsbad Planning Commission Carlsbad, CA Carlsbad City Council Carlsbad, CA From: Donald Miller MD 4610 Trieste Drive Carlsbad, CA92010 760-729-3832 dtmiller@aap.net Re: Robertson Ranch Development Dear Commissioners, Thank you for the opportunity to address your commission at the September 20th hearing. I am enclosing what was to be my original statement and questions. The content of that letter still reflects some of my questions and concerns. I was unable to stay late enough to get the answer to my question about the plans for the egress from my neighborhood on La Portalada onto Tamarack. My comments and concerns changed, however, after hearing some of the information presented by the Commission staff, the developer and engineers, and the other members of the public. As such, I add the following points. I vociferously oppose any plan that would add a lighted intersection of with the new neighborhood and Tamarack, especially as it would be only 1 of 2 exits by auto or emergency vehicles from the new neighborhood. Adopting this change would undoubtedly force traffic and cars onto our streets north of Tamarack, as more drivers try to bypass the light and bypass Tamarack in the morning or in the late afternoon. Also, this plan would require the residents of Robertson Ranch to meander around their own neighborhood, drive onto Tamarack or El Camino Real, head north or east up the road and turn on Carlsbad Village Drive — just to take the family to Calavera Park! With adopting this change, those in my neighborhood would demand a full analysis of the traffic impact on the various streets that connect Chestnut and Tamarack. I doubt the Commission would want to tackle this additional work and analysis, which should not be necessary. A street with a "right-in, right-out" only configuration onto Tamarack from the new neighborhood would likely avoid these problems, but this compromise should not be done en lieu of having some east-west connections with the new neighborhood and "the colony." Our street already has problems with speeding cars. I am attaching the latest photo of my wife's car, hit by a speeding car going north as she backed out of the driveway. The green figure is "Herman", a plastic turtle with a "slow" sign that my daughters put near the street when they are playing in the driveway (not the street). I would gladly accept any offer for some traffic-slowing modifications to our street. We currently only have a single, unimpressive speed limit sign (see photo) at the top of the hill. We do not have roundabouts, tree-lined areas, angled turns, or other sign postings that might be helpful and that were offered to the neighborhood east of Robertson Ranch ("the colony"). Some speakers from "the colony" were hoping for "certainty" in looking at the analysis of traffic numbers and car trips and speeds. There is no "certainty" in this type of planning, or in any engineering project. I did notice that one of the speakers looked at traffic calming information and quoted an "average" of the various impacts of the traffic calming interventions, and noted that this did not meet the 45% goal that the commission had set. I hope that your commission and other engineers in the room would have realized that these changes are additive and that the average means little. A round- a-bout may be a 15%-reducer, a sign may be a 5%-reducer, tree-lined streets may be a 20%-reducer, additional sign postings may be a 10%-reducer, and the sum of these changes would equal the predicted traffic changes. I assume that these elements act independently. This method is the same thinking that would be used in engineering a building or doing a science experiment, I assume. I know that there was some "grumbling" when I mentioned that cul-de-sacing and gating neighborhoods and not-connecting roads does not promote less-driving. Your own literature that I picked up from the library, as well as information from the San Diego Master Plan for Childhood Obesity and other similar groups would support those comments. Placing such restrictions on the flow of people and traffic within Robertson Ranch will force people in the cars to drive around more, to head onto major thoroughfares, and to take longer, circuitous routes to get from one point to another. Those cars will be driving more ---- perhaps they just would not be driving in "the colony." A new neighborhood is a shared responsibility, a shared opportunity and a shared burden and challenge. We cannot just "box in" the new Robertson Ranch Development and "wall it off." Those in my neighborhood are thankful that, at least, we are not going to see a big box market, a small strip mall, a gas-station and mini mart on the corner of El Camino and Tamarack. The struggle for how this land will look, after farming, has been a 30 year struggle that predates the existence of "the colony." As a pediatrician, I would be more concerned for safety and for the "fitness" and "walk-ability" of the neighborhood if it was boxed with gated-only accessibility to other streets, than I would be by seeing connections, easy emergency vehicle access, and calming street design and trails, paths and parks. I am very much interested in the coordination of trails and paths through the new development, and with that the access by foot or bike between my area and Calavera Park and Lake Calavera. I hope that the gradients of trails and sidewalks are such that there is an opportunity to avoid the "hike" up Tamarack or trying to navigate the sidewalks of El Camino Real. I appreciate your reading of this letter and of your diligence and patience with this large project. Donald Miller 4610 Trieste Drive Carlsbad, CA 92010 760-729-3832 dtmiller@aap.net Addendum: I noticed in the newspaper after the meeting that the Planning Commission voted 6-1 in favor of one of the plans that connects Robertson Ranch with the colony, and avoids a new traffic-light intersection on Tamarack. I hope that that Carlsbad City Council concurs with your recommendations. o o NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, {DATE}, to consider a certification of an Environmental Impact Report and adoption of the Candidate Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and approval of 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 on property which 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 and more particularly described as: Those portions of Lots D and E of Rancho Agua Hedionda, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California. According to Map thereof No. 823, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, November 16, 1896, described as follows: Parcel 1: Parcel 1 on Certificate of Compliance recorded November 28, 2001, as File No. 2001-0865064 of Official Records. Parcel 2: Parcel 2 on Certificate of Compliance recorded November 28, 2001, as File No. 2001-0865065 of Official Records. Parcel 3: Parcel 1 and the remainder parcel of Carlsbad Minor Subdivision 02-10 as shown on Parcel Map No. 19804 recorded August 3, 2005, as File No. 2005- 0659805 of Official Records. Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public hearing. Copies of the agenda bill wilf be available on and after {DATE}. If you have any questions, please call Barbara Kennedy in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4626. If you challenge the certification of the Environmental Impact Report adoption of the Candidate Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Master Plan, General Plan Amendment, Local Facilities Management Plan Amendment and/or Habitat Management Plan Permit in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad, Attn: City Clerk's Office, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008, at or prior to the public hearing. CASE FILE: EIR 03-03/MP 02-03/GPA 02-04/LFMP 14(B)/HMP 06-04 CASE NAME: ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN PUBLISH: {DATE} CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL 1/8 Page Ad Please SITEMAP NOT TO SCALE ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN EIR 03-03/MP 02-03/GPA 02-04/LFMP 14(B)/HMP 06-04 PROOF OF PUBLICATION (2010 & 2011 C.C.P.) This space is for the County Clerk's Filing Stamp STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of San Diego I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid: I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to or interested in the above- entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of North County Times Formerly known as the Blade-Citizen and The Times-Advocate and which newspapers have been adjudicated newspapers of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of San Diego, State of California, for the City of Oceanside and the City of Escondido, Court Decree number 171349, for the County of San Diego, that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy (set in type not smaller than nonpariel), has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit: November 04th 2006 I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated at SAN MARCOS California This 06th , Day of November, 2006 Signature Jane Allshouse NORTH COUNTY TIMES Legal Advertising Proof of Publication of monca a*1 rtltt 1C HfAHffHB 14 Local Facilities Mam.UMB it i_wvai rcu*inuoa meutauo-ment and Habitat Managementnan niiioiiuiiioiii emu i lauiiai mauauoniPermit for Incidental Take consistent with Parcel 1 on Certifica28,2001,88 iance recorded No-1-0865064 of Offi- and the remainder parcel of Carlsbad Minorlion 02-10 as shown on Parcel Map No.icorded August 3, 2005, as File No. 2005- n Amenoment Plan Amendmentement Plan Permit In court, you m' only those issues you or someone else raisepacrtbed in this notice or incoiresDortoeneaaOTvar CASE FILE: EIR 03r03/MP 02-03/GPA 02-04/LFMP NAME: ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PUBLISH: November 4,2006 NCT1999052 iF CARLSBAD~ INCIL City of Carlsbad August 31, 2006 Office of the City Clerk Records Management Department Jill Agosti 4730 Edinburgh Drive Carlsbad, CA 92010 Ms. Agosti, As per your request, the City Clerk's office has included the names attached to your letter dated August 28, 2006 with our Public Hearing materials for the Robertson Ranch project. This will ensure that when the item is noticed for a City Council Public Hearing, those individuals who gave their address and signed the attachment to your letter will be properly noticed. In addition to adding the names to our database, we have created labels containing the addresses and forwarded a set of the labels to the Planning Department on August 30, 2006. The Planning Department will have these labels available for future Robertson Ranch Planning Commission Public Hearings. I have attached a copy of the labels for your review. If I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to call me at 760-434-2927. Sincerely, Sheila R. Cobian Deputy City Clerk Attachment C: Marcela Escobar-Eck, Planning Director Lorraine M. Wood, City Clerk 12OO Carlsbad Village Drive • Carlsbad, CA 92OO8-1989 • (76O) 434-2808 Use Avery* TEMPLATE 5160* FRANCIS & JRASEMA PERROT 2726 GLASGOW DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92010 www.avery.com 1-800-GO-AVERY MELVYN & KAREN TAYLOR 4738 EDINBURGH DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92010 AVERY® 516 STAGEY BAKER 4754 GATESHEAD ROAD CARLSBAD, CA 92010 SHAWNI MILLER 4753 GATESHEAD ROAD CARLSBAD, CA 92010 BILL & VICKI COUNTREMAN 4781 EDINBURGH DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92010 BRUCE H. MEYER 4775 BROCKWOOD COUR1 CARLSBAD, CA 92010 ARTHUR WOOD 4770 BROOKWOOD CARLSBAD, CA 92010 SANDRA E. MEYER 4775 BROOKKWOOD COURT CARLSBAD, CA 92010 JOANNE BROUK 4776 BROOKWOOD COURT CARLSBAD, CA 92010 KIM MILLER 4779 BROOKWOOD COURT CARLSBAD, CA 92010 JUDI STEIA 3694 SHRATA DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92010 ABBY VANTUSSEL 1850 N. VULCAN CARLSBAD, CA 92010 KARI ATHERTON 4781 BROOKWOOD COURT CARLSBAD, CA 92010 KENDAL DON PATTERSON 2768 DUNDEE COURT CARLSBAD, CA 92010 TIM TRABER 4780 BROOKWOOD COURT CARLSBAD, CA 92010 SCOTT MILLER 4779 BROOKWOOD COURT CARLSBAD, CA 92010 CHARLIE & NANCY GATES 4725 EDINBURGH DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92010 MARY BETH CASEMENT 4773 BROOKWOOD COURT CARLSBAD, CA 92010 WENDY TRABER 4780 BROOKWOOD COURT CARLSBAD, CA 92010 MICHELLE WAGNER 4765 EDINBURGH DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92010 FRANCES CAMINET 4718 INVERNESS COURT CARLSBAD, CA 92010 JENNIE & RICHARD VANCE 4718 EDINBURGH DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92010 EMMA L. SCOTT 4728 EDINBURGH DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92010 MERRY ANN VAN HOUTEN 2758 INVERNESS DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92010 LYNN & ROBERT TUCKER 4917 EDINBURGH DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92010 HUBERT & JOYCE SMITH 2719 GREENOCH COURT CARLSBAD, CA 92010 TED & CHRISTINE GALLUP 4799 GATESHEAD ROAD CARLSBAD, CA 92010 JANE DROST 4747 EDINBURGH DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92010 BYRON & JOANN MANEK 2688 GLASGOW DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA92010 JEAN WALKER 2753 GLASGOW DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92010 AU3AV-OD-008-1 ®091S ....r.~.uiui> -"MMwuayw vi d secnage rapiae Utilisez le 'gabarit 5160° www.avery.com 1-800-GO-AVERY AVERY® 5160 GRAHAM ESPIE 4717GATESHEAD ROAD CARLSBAD, CA 92010 MARTIN ZIMMERMAN 2740 GLASGOW DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92010 VALERIE MADDEN 2705 GLASGOW DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92010 ZANE MAUCK 2688 GLASGOW DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92010 COLLEENINGALLS 2709 GLASGOW DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92010 MIKE INGALLS 2709 GLASGOW DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92010 JEFF & SONJA LUESCHEN 2717 GLASGOW DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92010 SUSAN BRAZEAU 2696 GLASGOW DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92010 JACK & GREGG WILSON 2734 INVERNESS DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92010 ELIZABETH & GEOFFREY KEOGH 2710 INVERNESS DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92010 MICHAEL HIGGINS 2722 INVERNESS DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92010 OSCAR AYAVA 2718 INVERNESS DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92010 LILLIE MINSON 2718 INVERNESS DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA92010 BETH & BRETT FRANKBERZ 2714 INVERNESS DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92010 JENNIFER URIBE 2680 GLASGOW DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92010 MICHELLE TRANT 2706 GLASGOW DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92010 HEATHER THOMPSON 2710 GLASGOW DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92010 VINCENT & LAURA MORALE* 2721 GLASGOW DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92010 JILL & JIM GONGOLA 4805 GATESHEAD ROAD CARLSBAD, CA 92010 DAVID & FIONA ROUSE 4801 GATESHEAD ROAD CARLSBAD, CA 92010 HARVEY J. SCHROEDER 4795 GATESHEAD ROAD CARLSBAD, CA 92010 DAVID & MARY BUTTERFIELD 4797 GATESHEAD ROAD CARLSBAD, CA 92010 EVAN ALMANZA 4793 GATESHEAD DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92010 ELISA & GLENN WILLIAMSON 4791 GATESHEAD ROAD CARLSBAD, CA 92010 JOSHUA WILLIAMSON 7791 GATESHEAD ROAD CARLSBAD, CA 92010 CHRIS & LORI TAMMARIELLO 4789 GATESHEAD ROAD CARLSBAD, CA 92010 CATHY & MICHAEL GUNZELMAN 4785 GATESHEAD ROAD CARLSBAD, CA 92010 LILLIAN PRIORE 4780 GATESHEAD ROAD CARLSBAD, CA92010 MARION & MARIA POWERS 4776 GATESHEAD ROAD CARLSBAD, CA 92010 BETH PEARCY 4772 GATESHEAD ROAD CARLSBAD, CA 92010 AM3AV-O9-008-1 .«»|^«>«IVII •..• — . Utilisez le gabarit 5160® www.avery.wm 1-800-GO-AVERY AVERY® 5160® PAULETTE/GARY/MEGAN PHILLIPS 4770 GATESHEAD ROAD CARLSBAD, CA 92010 LOUISE VIRGADAMO 4768 GATESHEAD ROAD CARLSBAD, CA 92010 CAROL & TOM KING 4781 GATESHEAD ROAD CARLSBAD, CA 92010 LIZ MAYER 2738 GLASGOW DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92010 MINTE & ERICA NEWCOM 2733 GLASGOW DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92010 BRAD & STEPHANIE KNUDSON 2730 GLASGOW DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92010 SHARON BARNES 2722 GLASGOW DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92010 COLLEEN BARRETT 2714 GLASGOW DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92010 SUSAN & PETER TRENT 2706 GLASGOW DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA92010 BILL BRAZCALL 2696 GLASGOW DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92010 MARILYN & BOB HAHNEL 2692 GLASGOW DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92010 JEFF & IRENE L. ZIMMERMAf* 2740 GLASGOW DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92010 ALMA LUESCHEW 2717 GLASGOW DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92010 CASEY MAYER 2738 GLASGOW DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92010 LOLA BUONAGUIDI 2725 GLASGOW DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92010 FERNONDO URIBE 2680 GLASGOW DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92010 JAMES STURIALE 2742 GLASGOW DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92010 JOHN MAYER 2738 GLASGOW DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92010 PAT & MAURICE CAMERENA 2734 GLASGOW DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92010 JESSICA MAYER 2738 GLASGOW DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92010 LUKE ARIDIACONO 2774 DUNDEE COURT CARLSBAD, CA 92010 TIM MONK 2772 DUNDEE COURT CARLSBAD, CA 92010 CHRISI HARD 2770 DUNDEE COURT CARLSBAD, CA 92010 NANCY & WILLIAM MCMILLIN 2777 GLASGOW DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92010 JILL & CHRIS COOPER 2769 GLASGOW DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92010 KELLIE SCHRICK 2765 GLASGOW DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92010 RANDY & AULANI ADAMS 2761 GLASGOW DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92010 JEANNETTE CASSEL 2757 GLASGOW DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92010 TODD WALKER 2753 GLASGOW DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92010 JAIME/WENDY/CLIFF JOHNSON 2741 GLASGOW DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92010 00915 3>AU3AV AHIAV-OEMWS-l (8)091.5 31V1dWai gAiaAV asn aajj aBpnuis pue uuer ....r.-«iv»> -••»••»— wn aye Utilisez le-gabarit 5160® teenage rapme www.avery.com 1-800-GO-AVERY AVERY® 5160 FONDA ARCIDIACONO 2774 DUNDEE COURT CARLSBAD, CA 92010 JANN & ROBERT PETERSON 2766 DUNDEE COURT CARLSBAD, CA 92010 JOHN & BARBARA FOULK 2773 GLASGOW DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92010 MICHELLE COOPER 2745 GLASGOW DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92010 MARGARET ALLEN 2750 BAUF COURT CARLSBAD, CA 92010 JIM SHEFFIELD 2752 BAUF COURT CARLSBAD, CA 92010 JEANNE & JOHN SANDERS 4746 INVERNESS COURT CARLSBAD, CA 92010 HAZEL WHITTAKER 4742 INVERNESS COURT CARLSBAD, CA 92010 ASHOK BHARDWAJ 4740 INVERNESS COURT CARLSBAD, CA 92010 KATHLEEN & CHARLES MCCAIN 4734 EDINBURGH CARLSBAD, CA 92010 JUDY & KEN MILLER 4753 GATESHEADS ROAD CARLSBAD, CA 92010 TERESA & STEVE BRANDT 4757 GATESHEAD ROAD CARLSBAD, CA 92010 GEORGE HABER 4761 GATESHEAD ROAD CARLSBAD, CA 92010 RALPH & DARLENE PORTER 4769 GATESHEAD ROAD CARLSBAD, CA 92010 PAM & BOB FOX 4742 GATESHEAD ROAD CARLSBAD, CA 92010 RICK & CARLEEN SMEDLEY 4725 GATESHEAD ROAD CARLSBAD, CA 92010 ANTHONY & CHERYL HARTVIGSEN 4749 GATESHEAD ROAD CARLSBAD, CA 92010 ABBY GON 4765 GATESHEAD ROAD CARLSBAD, CA 92010 BOB HILL 4741 GATESHEAD ROAD CARLSBAD, CA 92010 JOHN SAPPINGTON 4746 GATESHEAD ROAD CARLSBAD, CA 92010 DAN & RHONDA VAN TASSEL 4750 GATESHEAD ROAD CARLSBAD, CA 92010 ROBERT SITE 4737 GATESHEAD ROAD CARLSBAD, CA 92010 CHELSEA GATES 4725 EDINBURGH DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92010 MATT & AMANDA SHAFFER 4721 EDINBURGH DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92010 DAVID & SUSAN BEITH 4729 EDINBURGH DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92010 FRED REALE 2766 INVERNESS DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92010 GLENN & HOWARD HARMON 2762 INVERNESS DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92010 DAN RUNNESTROUD 2750 INVERNESS DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92010 TRACI WALLACE-COPPLE 2744 INVERNESS DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92010 LINDA GUANARSON 2754 INVERNESS DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92010 AH3AV-OD-008-1 ®09LS Altitun aiiuwwui iajje tsi a secnaye rapiae Utilisez le 0abarrt 5160* www.avery.com 1-800-GO-AVERY AVERY® 5160« ALEX & DON PATTERSON 2768 DUNDEE COURT CARLSBAD, CA 92010 SUSAN & HAROLD HARRIS 4778 BROOKWOOD COURT CARLSBAD, CA 92010 JOHN/JOHN JR./SHIRLEY GALEY 4772 BROOKWOOD COURT CARLSBAD, CA 92010 CINDI MILLER 4772 BROOKWOOD COURT CARLSBAD, CA 92010 DIANE & RICHARD TARUT 4750 ABERDEEN COURT CARLSBAD, CA 92010 DAVID/MARCIA/JILL BLAYLOCK 4752 ABERDEEN COURT CARLSBAD, CA 92010 ROBERT SHEPPARD JANISD'ASSALENAUX 4754 ABERDEEN COURT CARLSBAD, CA 92010 JANINE KORF 4756 ABERDEEN COURT CARLSBAD, CA 92010 LOUISE & TOM BARCLAY 4771 BROOKWOOD COURT CARLSBAD, CA 92010 TOM ATHERTON 4781 BROOKWOOD COURT CARLSBAD, CA 92010 LAURA PRZESMICKI 4774 BROOKWOOD COURT CARLSBAD, CA 92010 MICHAEL & DIANE MCMANUJ 4761 EDINBURGH DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92010 GEORGE & JENNIFER GWIAZLOWSKI 4769 EDINBURGH DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92010 DAVID MCINTYRE 4777 EDINBURGH DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92010 MARK & GAIL SILBERBERGER 4785 EDINBURGH DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92010 SCOTT P. CANTREMAN 4781 EDINBURGH DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92010 ELIZABETH S. MCINTYRE 4777 EDINBURGH DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92010 WILLIAM DALE KOREN 2717 GREENOCK COURT CARLSBAD, CA 92010 GLORIA WITTENDORFER 2721 GREENOCK COURT CARLSBAD, CA 92010 SHERIDAN C. QUINN 2729 GREENOCK COURT CARLSBAD, CA 92010 JIM MCFARLAND 2733 STIRLING COURT CARLSBAD, CA 92010 SCOTT TYREE 2735 STIRLING COURT CARLSBAD, CA 92010 SEAN TYREE 4762 GATESHEAD CARLSBAD, CA 92010 EVELYN & THEODORE RICHTER 2737 STIRLING COURT CARLSBAD, CA 92010 STEPHEN HJELT 2739 STIRLING COURT CARLSBAD, CA 92010 KRISTEN BATTAILE 2743 STIRLING COURT CARLSBAD, CA 92010 HALSEY & CAROLYN KING 2731 GREENOCK COURT CARLSBAD, CA 92010 MARY TORRETTE 2725 GREENOCK COURT CARLSBAD, CA 92010 ROBERT VIRGADAMO 4768 GATESHEAD ROAD CARLSBAD, CA 92010 KENDAL MADDEN 2705 GLASGOW DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92010 AM3AV-O9-008-1 009LS aSpnuis pue uier Utilisez 10 gabarit 5160® secnage rapiae MICAELA & DIANA MADDEN 2705 GLASGOW DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92010 www.avery.com 1-800-GO-AVERY EMILY ALLAN 4734 GATESHEAD ROAD CARLSBAD, CA 92010 AVERY® 516( KATELYN HARTVIGEN 4749 GATESHEAD ROAD CARLSBAD, CA 92010 KATHRYN ALLAN 4734 GATESHEAD ROAD CARLSBAD, CA 92010 MICHELE TRENT 2706 GLASGOW DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92010 LOUIS & KATHRYN PIPER 4714 EDINBURGH DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92010 JUNE HEANEY ROSEMARIE BURNS 4710 EDINBURGH DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92010 TRACY & BILL MCMILLAN 4706 EDINBURGH DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92010 SUSAN & STEVE PYNES 2746 INVERNESS DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92010 MELANIE & JOHN SCHERFF 4713 EDINBURGH DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92010 DAVID & PAULA STOFFEL 4705 EDINBURGH DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92010 BARBARA PETERS 4773 EDINBURGH DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92010 AM3AV-O9-008-1 Jam and Smudge Free Printing UsS Avery® T0y>IPLATE 5160® CARLSBAD UNIF SCHOOL DIST V6225 EL CAMINO REAL CARLSBAD CA 92011 www.avery.com 1-800-GO-AVERY SAN MARCOS SCHOOL DIST STE 250 255 PICO AVE SAN MARCOS CA 92069 - AVERY® 5160® ENCINITAS SCHOOL DIST 101 RANCHO SANTA FE RD ENCINITAS CA 92024 SAN DIEGUITO SCHOOL DIST 701 ENCINITAS BLVD ENCINITAS CA 92024 LEUCADIA WASTE WATER DIST TIM JOCHEN 1960 LA COSTA AVE CARLSBAD CA 92009 OLIVENHAIN WATER DIST 1966OLIVENHAINRD ENCINITAS CA 92024 CITY OF ENCINITAS 505 S VULCAN AVE ENCINITAS CA 92024 CITY OF SAN MARCOS 1 CIVIC CENTER DR SAN MARCOS CA 92069-2949 CITY OF OCEANSIDE 300 NORTH COAST HWY OCEANSIDE CA 92054 CITY OF VISTA 600 EUCALYPTUS AVE VISTA CA 92084 VALLECITOS WATER DIST 201 VALLECITOS DE ORO SAN MARCOS CA 92069 I.P.U.A. SCHOOL OF PUBLIC ADMIN AND URBAN STUDIES SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY SAN DIEGO CA 92182-4505 CALIF DEPT OF FISH & GAME 4949VIEWRIDGEAVE SAN DIEGO CA 92123 REGIONAL WATER QUALITY STE 100 9174 SKY PARK CT SAN DIEGO CA 92123-4340 SD COUNTY PLANNING STEB 5201 RUFFIN RD SAN DIEGO CA 92123 LAFCO 1600 PACIFIC HWY SAN DIEGO CA 92101 AIR POLLUTION CNTRL DIST 9150 CHESAPEAKE DR SAN DIEGO CA 92123 SANDAG STE 800 401 B STREET SAN DIEGO CA 92101 U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE 6010 HIDDEN VALLEY RD CARLSBAD CA 92011 CA COASTAL COMMISSION STE 103 7575 METROPOLITAN DR SAN DIEGO CA 92108-4402 ATTN TED ANASIS SAN DIEGO COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY PO BOX 82776 SAN DIEGO CA 92138-2776 SCOTT MALLOY - BIASD STE 110 9201 SPECTRUM CENTER BLVD SAN DIEGO CA 92123-1407 CITY OF CARLSBAD RECREATION CITY OF CARLSBAD PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING DEPT- PROJECT ENGINEER JERMEY RIDDLE CITY OF CARLSBAD PROJECT PLANNER BARBARA KENNEDY PLANNING SYSTEMS STE 100 1530 FARADAY AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008 MCMILLIN COMPANIES LLC 2750 WOMBLE RD SAN DIEGO CA 92106 10/17/2006 AJHAV-O9-008-I. apide.) aBeipas e ia aSejjnoqiiue uoissajdiui Jam and Smudge Free Printing Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5160® .BROOKFIELDTAMARACK LLC 12865 POINTE DEL MAR DEL MAR CA 92014 CALAVERA HILLS II 2750 WOMBLE RD SAN DIEGO CA 92106 www.avery.com 1-800-GO-AVERY LLC AVERY® 5160® KEN CABLAY PO BOX 4659 CARLSBAD CA 92018-4659 10/17/2006 «,09LS AH3AV-O9-008-1 IlirfvX IDAO'AAAAAA ®091S I afipiinnnnnp Jam and Smudge Free Printing Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5160® BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS * 2800 COTTAGE WAY SACRAMENTO CA 95825 www.avery.com 1-800-GO-AVERY BUSINESS, TRANS & HSG AGENCY STE 2450 980 NINTH ST SACRAMENTO CA 95814 AVERY® 5160® 7575/HE^ROPOLITAN DR I DIEGO CA 921084402 CANNEL ISLANDS NATL PARK SUPERINTENDENTS OFFICE 1901 SPINNAKER DR SAN GUENA VENTURA CA 93001 cr COASTAL CONSERVANCY STE 1100 1330 BROADWAY OAKLAND CA 94612 COUNTY OF SO SUPERVISOR RM335 1600 PACIFIC SAN DIEGO ca 92101 DEPT OF DEFENSE LOS ANGELES DISTENG PO BOX 2711 LOS ANGELES CA 90053 DEPT OF ENERGY STE 350 901 MARKET ST SAN FRANCISCO CA 94103 DEPT OF ENERGY STE 400 611 RYAN PLZDR ARLINGTON TX 760114005 DEPT OF FISH & GAME ENV SERV DIV PO BOX 944246 SACRAMENTO CA 942442460 DEPT OF FOOD & AGRICULTURE AGRICULTURAL RESOURSES RM100 1220 N ST SACRAMENTO CA 95814 DEPT OF FORESTRY ENV COORD PO BOX 944246 SACRAMENTO CA 942442460 DEPT OF HOUSING & URBAN DEV REG ADMIN 450 GOLDEN GATE AVE SAN FRANCISCO CA 94102 DEPT OF JUSTICE DEPTOFATTYGEN RM700 110 WEST AST SANDIEGOCA92101 DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION RM 5504 1120NST SACRAMENTO CA 95814 FED AVIATION ADMIN WESTERN REG PO BOX 92007 LOS ANGELES CA MARINE RESOURCES REG DR & G ENV SERVICES SPR STEJ 4665 LAMPSON AVE LOSALAMITOSCA 907205139 OFF OF PLANNING & RESEARCH OFF OF LOCAL GOV ARRAIRS PO BOX 3044 SACRAMENTO CA 958123044 SAN FRANCISCO BAY CONSERV & DEV COM STE 2600 50 CALIFORNIA ST SAN FRANCISCO CA 941114704 SANDAG EXEC DIRECTOR STE 800 1STINTLPLZ401BST SAN DIEGO CA 92101 SD COUNTY PLANNING & LAND USE DEPT STE B-5 5201 RUFFIN RD SAN DIEGO CA 92123 SDGE 8315 CENTURY PARK CT SAN DIEGO CA 92123 STATE LANDS COMMISSION STE 1005 100 HOWE AVE SACRAMENTO CA 958258202 STATE LANDS COMMISSION STE 1 DOS 100 HO WE AVE SAN DIEGO CA 92123 US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEER STE 702 333 MARKET ST SAN FRANCISCO CA 941052197 US BUREAU OF LAND MGMT STE RM W 2800 COTTAGE WY SACRAMENTO CA 95825 US BUREAU OF RECLAMATION MID PACIFIC REG 2800 COTTAGE WY SACRAMENTO CA 95825 US FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICES 2800 COTTAGE WAY STEW-2605 SACRAMENTO CA 958251888 USDA RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPT 4169 . 430 GST DAVIS CA 95616 ®09is AM3AV-OD-008-L ®09lS*ueqe6a|zasi|iin apidej aBeipas e ia aBejjnoquue uoissajdtui repression antibourrage et d s£chage rapide Jtiliseztegabarit5160® www.avery.com 1-800-GO-AVERY AVERY® 5160® lA/ATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD PO BOX 100 SACRAMENTO CA 95801 AU3AV-OD-008-1 lUODVOa/VB'MMM 6ui)uud aajj aBpnius pue uier Jam and Smudge Free Printing Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5160® CONNY SHADAN 3049 RANCHO LA PRESA CARLSBAD CA 92009 www.avery.com 1-800-GO-AVERY DIANE NYGAARD PRESERVE CALAVERA 5020NIGHTHAWKWY OCEANSIDE CA 92056 AVERY® 5160® JANET JONES 2613 BANBURY CT CARLSBAD CA 92008 LARRY TUCKER GRANT TUCKER PROPERTIES PO BOX 7974 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92658 JIM HICKS 675 SIERRA ROSA #102 RENO NV 89511 MONIKA HAWLEY 3952 DOVE ST SAN DIEGO CA 92103 MICHAEL REDELA 855 MOLA VISTA WY SOLANA BEACH CA 92075 JOAN HAYASHI 4798 NEBLINA DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 BAYKEEPER ALLISON ROLFE STE 220 2924 EMERSON ST SAN DIEGO CA 92106 UC SAN DIEGO ISABELLE KAY 9500 GILLMAN DR LAJOLLA CA 92093-0116 BILL KAMENJARIN 4430TRIESTEDR CARLSBAD CA 92008 DOROTHY INDRIERI 4992 VIA MARTA CARLSBAD CA 92008 KELLY MCLAUGHLIN 3236 HIGHLAND DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 STEVE MILLS 5103 FROST AV CARLSBAD CA 92008 NANCY WARREN 5118 WHITMAN WY #112 CARLSBAD CA 92008 ROGER GREGG 3120 SKYLINE DR OCEANSIDE CA 92056 CLAUDIA AND AUBREY KUEPPER 2324SUMMERWINDPL CARLSBAD CA 92008 EVAN ALMANZA 4793 GATESHEAD CARLSBAD CA 92008 JAMES FLEMING 4810 KELLY DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 ROSS KOHL, PRESIDENT RANCHO CARLSBAD OWNER'S ASSOCIATION 5200 EL CAMINO REAL CARLSBAD CA 92008 BILL ARNOLD, CHAIR RANCHO CARLSBAD OWNER'S ASSOCIATION 5200 EL CAMINO REAL CARLSBAD CA 92008 BONNIE CALCAGNO 17 MASSACHUSETTS DR NEWBURGH NY 12550 MICHELE AND BOB WAGSTAFF 4422 SALISBURY DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 PATRICIA PIZZO 28875 BOOTH BAY RD TEMECULACA 92591 D. MILLER 4610 TRIESTE DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 GRG MANAGEMENT 3088 PIO PICO DRIVE CARLSBAD CA 92008 JILL AGOSTI 4730 EDINBURGH DRIVE CARLSBAD CA 92010 90915 ®A£I3AV AH3AV-OD-008-1 ®091S »ueqe6 a] zasi|i»n apldei aSemas e ia aBejjnoauue uoissaiduii Jam and Smudge Free Printing Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5160® EDSECARD 2579 LISA STREET CARLSBAD CA 92008 www.avery.com 1-800-GO-AVERY LINDA-JEAN FREDRICKSON 2284 JULIE DRIVE CARLSBAD CA 92008 AVERY® 5160® STEVEN DELTOR 4771 GATESHEAD RD CARLSBAD CA 92008 LES DELLOW 4957 CINDY AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008 W. R. BEVERLY 4605 LA PORTALADA DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 TOM KING 4781 GATESHEAD RD CARLSBAD CA 92008 W J REEVES 4959 CINDY AVE CARLSBAD 92008 W ALLAN KELLY 4912 VIA AREQUIPA CARLSBAD CA 92008 BILL ARNOLD 3432 DON ORTEGA DRIVE CARLSBAD CA 92008 BOB AND CAROL SIZE 4737 GATESHEAD ROAD CARLSBAD CA 92008 ARTHUR WOOD 4770 BROOKWOOD CT CARLSBAD CA 92008 JACK JAFFE 5144DONRODOLFODR CARLSBAD CA 92008 STEVE GRANT 1 UPPER NEWPORT PLAZA NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660- 2630 TIM DONOVAN 4451 DORCHESTER PL CARLSBAD CA 92008 MARVIN AND LUICA SIPPEL 5200 HEMINGWAY DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 ROB GRANT 65 EMERALD BAY LAGUNA BEACH CA 92651 DIANE WARNER 3484 DON ALBERTO DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 DOLORES DALY 4595 ESSEX CT CARLSBAD CA 92008 BILL DUNMEYER 4382 STANFORD ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 SYLVIA FORD 4583 CHELSEA CT CARLSBAD CA 92008 KASEY CINCIARELLI 2727 LYONS CT CARLSBAD CA 92008 FERNANDO AND JENNIFER URIBE 2680 GLASGOW DRIVE CARLSBAD CA 92008 BIRTHE PAVLOFF 2740 SOUTHAMPTON RD CARLSBAD CA 92008 P W HEZTHUZU 5186 DON RODOLFO DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 NANCY KILGORE 3443 DON ALBERTO DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 ADRIENNEARON 5120DONMATA CARLSBAD CA 92008 CLIFF JOHNSON 2741 GLASGOW DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 Admin/Labels/Robertson Ranch Interest Party List ®09is A«3AV-O9-008-L aoidej a6emas e la aBejjnoanue Jain and Smudge Free Printing Use Avery® TtffoPLATE 5160® • VIVIAN KILGORE 3443 DON ALBERTO DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 www.avery.com 1-800-GO-AVERY DAWN SHEALS 4515 SALISBURY DRIVE CARLSBAD CA 92008 AVERY® 5160® RAMSEY BRACIK 4738 GATESHEAD RD CARLSBAD CA 92008 JANET JONES 2613BANBURYCT CARLSBAD CA 92008 DAVID HADDAD 4645TRIESTEDR CARLSBAD CA 92008 BEVERLY HAUPERT 4433 MAYFAIR CT CARLSBAD CA 92008 HELEN WELLS 4775 GATESHEAD RD CARLSBAD CA 92008 ROBERT LEIDER 4499 SALISBURY DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 JUDY POOLE 4407 MAYFAIR CT CARLSBAD CA 92008 MICHELLE MILLER 4922 LOMA LAGUNA DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 STEVE AHLE 4733 GATESHEAD DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 GORDON SHEALS 4515 SALISBURY DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 JANET WILLRICH 4587 CHELSEA CT CARLSBAD CA 92008 EVELYN RICHTER 2737 STERLING CT CARLSBAD CA 92008 BRYAN GILES 4774 BROOKWOOD CT CARLSBAD CA 92008 ART GREER 3449 DON JOSE DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 BOB PETERSON 2766 DUNDEE CT CARLSBAD CA 92008 JUDYAND KATHLEEN MILLER 4753 GATESHEAD ROAD CARLSBAD CA 92008 DAVID BUTTERFIELD 4797 GATESHEAD DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 STEVE AND CAROLYN YENGEN 2653 COVENTRY RD CARLSBAD CA 92008 LYNNE SEABLOOM 2840WINTHROPAVE CARLSBAD CA 92008 JIM GONGOLA 4805 GATESHEAD RD CARLSBAD CA 92008 KNUT MADDEN 2705 GLASGOW DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 RUSS KOHL 3317 DON PABLO CARLSBAD CA 92008 AMY AND DONALD MILLER 4610 TRIESTE DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 ART SERRIN 4423 SALISBURY DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 YOLANDA WALLIG 5356 DON RICARDO DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 Admin/Labels/Robertson Ranch Interest Party List ©cms ®AU3AV AH3AV-O9-008-1 apidej a6eip?s e ja aSej-moquue uoissaiduii Use^Avery® TEMPLATE 5160® -CAROL LANELIS 4507 SALISBURY DR * CARLSBAD CA 92008 1-800-GO-AVERY CHARLES CETES 4725 EDINBURGH DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 900Z/ZI/W COR AND PHYLLIS DELANGE 3569 DON CARLOS CT CARLSBAD CA 92008 JUDY BENSON 4405 LA PORTALADA DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 JOSE AND JENNIFER CERVANTES 4884 SEVILLA WAY CARLSBAD CA 92008 TOM AND JEANNE PAPPAS 441 OLA PORTALADA DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 DAVID BENTLEY 7449 MAJELLAN CARLSBAD CA 92008 MARGARET MASSEY 4710AMBERWOOD CARLSBAD CA 92008 GEORGE BRIEST ENGINEERING MANAGER 1966OLIVENHAINRD ENCINITAS CA 92024 GARY AGLIATA 4745 GATESHEAD RD CARLSBAD CA 92008 BOB AND CAROL SIZE 4737 GATESHEAD ROAD CARLSBAD CA 92008 MARGARET MASSEY 4710AMBERWOOD CARLSBAD CA 92008 DARLENE FRENCH-PORTER 4769 GATESHEAD RD CARLSBAD CA 92008 FRAN AGLIATA 4745 GATESHEAD RD CARLSBAD CA 92008 <\dmin/Labels/Robertson Ranch Interest Party List AH3AV-OD-008-1©0915 ®091S *Heqe6 a) e *a a6e.unoq!iue Jam and Smudge Free Printing Use Avery® TEMPLATE 51 fin® www.avery.com 1-800-GO-AVERY AVERY® siso® MCMILLAN WILLIAM 4706 EDINBURGH DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 BURNS/HEANEY TRUST 4710 EDINBURGH DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 PIPER LOUIS 4714 EDINBURGH DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 VANCE 2004 FAMILY TRUST 4718 EDINBURGH DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 VORHIS RANDOLPH 4720 EDINBURGH DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 DALSIN FAMILY TRUST 4722 EDINBURGH DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 MAZYCK STANLEY 4726 EDINBURGH DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 SCOTT EMMA TRUST 4728 EDINBURGH DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 AGOSTI GREGORY & JILL 4730 EDINBURGH DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 MCCAIN 1998 TRUST 4734 EDINBURGH DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 TAYLOR MELVYN 4738 EDINBURGH DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 BHARDWAJ ASHOK & ANITA 4740 INVERNESS CT CARLSBAD CA 92010 WHITTAKER JAMES & HAZEL TRUST 4742 INVERNESS CT CARLSB AD CA 92010 MILLER DONALD 4744 INVERNESS CT CARLSBAD CA 92010 SANDERS JOHN 4746 INVERNESS CT CARLSBAD CA 92010 CAMINER SURVIVORS 1998 TRUST 4748 INVERNESS CT CARLSB AD CA 92010 GUNNARSON LINDA 2754 INVERNESS DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 VANHOUTEN MERRY 2758 INVERNESS DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 HARMON LIVING TRUST 2762 INVERNESS DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 REALE FRED 2766 INVERNESS DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 MARTIN DENIS 4737 EDINBURGH DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 DEEGAN JOHN 4733 EDINBURGH DR CARLSB AD CA 92010 BEITH TRUST 4729 EDINBURGH DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 GATES CHARLIE 4725 EDINBURGH DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 SHAFFER MATTHEW 4721 EDINBURGH DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 TUCKER ROBERT 4717 EDINBURGH DR CARLSB ADC A 92010 MCMILLAN FAMILY TRUST 2777 GLASGOW DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 FOULK FAMILY TRUST 2773 GLASGOW DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 COOPER CHRISTOPHER 2769 GLASGOW DR CARLSB AD CA 92010 ALEXANDER BARBARA 1756ZINNAST RAPID CITY SD 57703 ®09LS CDAU3AV AU3AV-OD-008-1 ®091S »MBqe6 a\ aBeipas e ia aBejjnoq^ue Jam and Smudge Free Printing Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5160® www.avery.com 1-800-GO-AVERY AVERY® 5160® ADAMS RANDOLPH 2761 GLASGOW DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 ALVARADO ANGIE 2757 GLASGOW DR CARLSBADCA92010 WALKERTRUST 2753 GLASGOW DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 BRIERLEY REVOCABLE TRUST 2744 BANFF CT CARLSBAD CA 92010 HAASIS BARBARA 2746 BANFF CT CARLSBAD CA 92010 HYNDS MARINA 2748 BANFF CT CARLSBAD CA 92010 ALLEN MARGARET LIVING TRUST 2750 BANFF CT CARLSBAD CA 92010 .SHEFFIELD JAMES 2752 BANFF CT CARLSBAD CA 92010 PETERSON FAMILY TRUST 2766 DUNDEE CT CARLSBAD CA 92010 PATTERSON FAMILY TRUST 2768 DUNDEE CT CARLSBAD CA 92010 HARD ELIZABETH 2770 DUNDEE CT CARLSBAD CA 92010 MONK TIMOTHY 2772 DUNDEE CT CARLSB ADC A 92010 ARCIDIACONO LUKE 2774 DUNDEE CT CARLSBAD CA 92010 DEWS MELANIE 4713 EDINBURGH DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 REIMER JUDITH 4709 EDINBURGH DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 STOFFEL FAMILY TRUST 4705 EDINBURGH DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 SEACOAST ESCROW 251 N EL CAMINO REAL ENCINITASCA 92024 FOX GARY 4760 ABERDEEN CT CARLSBAD CA 92010 DUETTRUST 5306 FAIRWAY DR ROCKLIN CA 95677 KORF BRETT 4756 ABERDEEN CT CARLSB AD CA 92010 SHEPPARD & DASSALENAUX TRUST 4754 ABERDEEN CT CARLSB AD CA 92010 GILSTRAP DAVID 4752 ABERDEEN CT CARLSBAD CA 92010 TARUT TRUST 4750 ABERDEEN CT CARLSBAD CA 92010 GONGOLA FAMILY TRUST 4805 GATESHEAD RD CARLSB ADC A 92010 WILDERS FAMILY REVOCABLE TRUST 4803 GATESHEAD RD CARLSBAD CA 92010 ROUSE DAVID 4801 GATESHEAD RD CARLSBAD CA 92010 GALLUP FAMILY TRUST 4799 GATESHEAD RD CARLSBAD CA 92010 BUTTERFIELD DAVID TRUST 4797 GATESHEAD RD CARLSBAD CA 92010 STURIALE JAMES & DIANA 2742 GLASGOW DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 ZIMMERMAN MARTIN 2740 GLASGOW DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 ®09is AH3AV-O9-008-I. apidej ®091S e ia a6ejjnoquue Jam'and Smudge Free Printing Use-Avery® TEMPLATE 5160® www.avery.com 1-800-GO-AVERY AVERY® 5160® MAYER JOHN 2738 GLASGOW OR CARLSBAD CA 92010 CAMERENA FAMILY TRUST 2734 GLASGOW DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 KNUDSEN BRADLEY 2730 GLASGOW DR CARLSBAD C A 92010 PERROT FAMILY TRUST 2726 GLASGOW DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 SMITH FAMILY TRUST 2729 GLASGOW DR CARLSBADCA92010 NEWCOM MONTGOMERY 2733 GLASGOW DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 RADLICK GEORGE 2737 GLASGOW DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 JOHNSON CLIFFORD 2741 GLASGOW DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 COOPER MATTHEW 2745 GLASGOW DR CARLSBADCA92010 WEBBER FRANK 2749 GLASGOW DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 RUNNERSTRAND DANIEL 2750 INVERNESS DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 PYNES STEVEN 2746 INVERNESS DR CARLSBADCA92010 DUARTE ALEXANDER 2744 INVERNESS DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 WILSON JACK 2734 INVERNESS DR CARLSBADCA92010 CREWSE LAURA 2730 INVERNESS DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 MCFARLAND JAMES 2733 STIRLING CT CARLSBAD CA 92010 HJELT STEPHEN TRUST 2739 STIRLING CT CARLSBAD CA 92010 ERNST WILLIAM 190 SPRING RIDGE CT ROSWELL GA 30076 BATTAILE FAMILY TRUST 2743 STIRLING CT CARLSBAD CA 92010 GOEDERTTRUST 2753 INVERNESS DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 SALTZ STEVEN 2757 INVERNESS DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 DROST KIRK 4747 EDINBURGH DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 PATERSON KENT 4749 EDINBURGH DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 MURRAY WAYNE 4751 EDINBURGH DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 GARRETT BRITTON 4753 EDINBURGH DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 WOFFORD DONALD 4757 EDINBURGH DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 MCMANUS MICHAEL 4761 EDINBURGH DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 WAGNER CRAIG 4765 EDINBURGH DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 RUSSIAN NANCY PO BOX 13402 LA JOLLA CA 92039 PRZESMICKI LAURA 4774 BROOKWOOD CT CARLSBAD CA 92010 (9)091.5 AU3AV-09-008-1 a6eipes e ®09tS Jam'and Smudge Free Printing Use-Avery® TEMPLATE 5160® www.avery.com 1-800-GO-AVERY AVERY® 5160® CLAVIER GRANT 4774 GATESHEAD RD CARLSBAD CA 92010 COLONY AT CALAVERA HILLS GRG MANAGEMENT 3088 PIO PICO DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 AM3AV-OD-008-1 ®091S *H aRt>iinnniiui> Impression antibourrage et a sechage rapide Utilisez le gabarit 5960MC WILLIAM A & JEAN HELFRICH . 5376 DON RICARDO DR CARLSBADCA92010 www.avery.com 1-800-GO-AVERY DAVID J TANCREDI 3444 DON PORFIRIO DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 AVERY© 5960MC SIGMUND &ANNSNELSON PO BOX 1175 EASTSOUND WA 98245 WALLIG 5356 DON RICARDO DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 GEORGE & MARJORIE HILL 5348 DON RICARDO DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 JEAN W WARREN 5342 DON RICARDO DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 NANCY RICKERT 5336 DON RICARDO DR CARLSBADCA92010 ROBERT T & KAREN CHURCHILL 26 WRIGHT PL WILBRAHAM MA 1095 DAVID CROWE 5320 DON RICARDO DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 MARY MACDONALD 5314 DON RICARDO DR CARLSBADCA92010 MARK J & GERALYN SKAPIK 16175 CASTILE DR WHITTIER CA 90603 ROBERT L & J PELUSO 5302 DON RICARDO DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 ROCHELLE T WOLF 5301 DON RICARDO DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 MIDKIFF 5307 DON RICARDO DR CARLSBADCA92010 MILDRED E MONTOYA 5315 DON RICARDO DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 JULIAN P & JOY PHILLIPS 5321 DON RICARDO DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 NEOMA J ESSERT 5327 DON RICARDO DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 SULLIVAN 3480 DON LORENZO CARLSBAD CA 92008 SEILER 1994 5343 DON RICARDO DR CARLSBADCA92010 DAVID CLOW 1956 VIZCAINO CT ESCONDJDO CA 92026 EDDIE S MALCHASKI 5359 DON RICARDO DR CARLSBADCA92010 MICHAEL M WARNER 5367 DON RICARDO DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 VANDERSLICE FAMILY 5302 DON MIGUEL DR CARLSBADCA92010 CONCETTA MCALLISTER 5310 DON MIGUEL DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 PARVINDOKHT GHASSEMI 5318 DON MIGUEL DR CARLSBADCA92010 C ARLSBERG RANCHO LTD UNIT 100 6171 W CENTURY BLVD LOS ANGELES CA 90045 KRIMIAN 5330 DON MIGUEL DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 LTD URY BLVD A 90045 DONALD M VEALE 5346 DON MIGUEL DR CARLSBADCA92010 JANET B RASMUSSEN 5354 DON MIGUEL DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 m096S ®A£I3AV AU3AV-OD-008-L m096S 31Vldl/\l3i ®Aia*V 9sn 6ui)uu<| aejj e6pniu$ pue uier Impression antibourrage et d sechage rapide Utilisezlegabarit5960MC RICHARD F & MARY HULL 9408LONALNNE ALBUQUERQUE NM 87111 www.avery.com 1-800-GO-AVERY BURTON A LEVINE UNIT 26 3390 DON DIABLO DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 AVERY® JOAN PLESSNER 3384 DON DIABLO DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 LAWRENCE E FLANIGAN 3378 DON DIABLO DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 DEANNA HARRIS 3372 DON DIABLO DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 KURTH 3366 DON DIABLO DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 EDWARD A THORPE 3358 DON DIABLO DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 CLAUDE R & KATHERINE RHEAD 4016VIADELAPAZ OCEANSIDE CA 92057 EDWARD MCCLEAN 3342 DON DIABLO DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 ROBERT L & RUTH KLINGBEIL 3336 DON DIABLO DR CARLSBADCA92010 JOSEPH S NICKEL 3328 DON DIABLO DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 ROCKLIN J BERSCHNEIDER 3318 DON DIABLO DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 KENNETH JOHNSTONE 3312 DON DIABLO DR CARLSBADCA92010 DONLEY 3302 DON DIABLO DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 KIM J HAMPTON 3301 DON PABLO DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 KOHL 3317 DON PABLO DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 EUGENE KREINICK UNIT 270 191 CALLE MAGDALENA ENCINITAS CA 92024 TURNER 3327 DON PABLO DR CARLSBADCA92010 DANIEL G & SHIRLEY LEIBELT 3333 DON PABLO DR CARLSBADCA92010 JOANN JOHNSON 3339 DON PABLO DR CARLSBADCA92010 CELESTE M DRIVER 3343 DON PABLO DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 OSCAR & MARILYN RYFLE 3349 DON PABLO DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 CRAIG B & NANCY COLBURN 3355 DON PABLO DR CARLSBADCA92010 LONGENECKER UNIT 3 124SELMDR BEVERLY HILLS CA 90212 FRANK W & MARILYN STRANGE 3367 DON PABLO DR CARLSBADCA92010 STORTI 3373 DON PABLO DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 JAMES &MARLYSMOIR 3379 DON PABLO DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 FRANCIS T & BARBARA FOX 3385 DON PABLO DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 JOSEPH M JOHNSON 3340 DON PABLO DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 DELORES J WEKSLER 3545 DON CARLOS DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 ®AU3AV AU3AV-OD-008-1 Mi096S 31\ndl/\l31 (D&aAV a$n 6ujiuu<i aajj aBpnius pue mer Impression antibourrage et & sechage rapide Utilisez le gabarit 5960MC ENVIRONMENTAL 7879 EL CAJON BLVD LAMESACA91941 STATE OF C www.avery.com 1-800-GO-AVERY IA DEPARTMENT O AVERY® 5960UC BADJJNIFffiD SCHOOL DISTRK^ 'RNIA VA PO BOX 942895 SACRAMENTO CA 94295 RANCHO CARLSBAD OWNERS 5200 EL CAMINO REAL CARLSBAD CA 92010 LIEBERMAN 3346 DON QUIXOTE DR CARLSBADCA92010 ^NCHO CAJR£SBAD OWNERS 5200^L;eAMINO REAL CARCSBADCA 92010 WAYNE I HERBERT 3338 DON QUDCOTE DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 DIANNE C PICCINI 3330 DON QUIXOTE DR CARLSBADCA92010 JAMES & JEANNE HARN 3322 DON QUIXOTE DR CARLSBADCA92010 RATHBONE 3314 DON QUIXOTE DR CARLSBADCA92010 KIZEN MOU UNIT 7 3302 DON QUIXOTE DR CARLSBADCA92010 CHARLES A & LUCIA GENSLER 3301 DON TOMASO DR CARLSBAD C A 92010 RODGER J MICELI 3315 DON TOMASO DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 BETTY L REINHOLZ 3323 DON TOMASO DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 SWARTZRP&M 7043 VIA CANDREJO CARLSBAD CA 92009 NOVAK-FINNEY 3339 DON TOMASO DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 RAYMOND G MASON 3347 DON TOMASO DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 HELEN L MARTELL 3348 DON TOMASO DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 GERARDO N TEMPESTA 69 RICE RD WAYLAND MA 1778 STANDERFER 3332 DON TOMASO DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 VINCENT A MARCHESI 3324 DON TOMASO DR CARLSBADCA92010 JUNE D MAXVILLE 3314 DON TOMASO DR CARLSBADCA92010 DAVID ERICKSON 3302 DON TOMASO DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 RITA J FANNING 3301 DON DIABLO DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 PRICE 3311 DON DIABLO DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 EDWARD F & ANGELA CROWE 9520 STOAKES AVE DOWNEY CA 90240 BARNETT 3420 DON JOSE DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 CHARLES H & LINDA HENRY UNIT 24 3337 DON DIABLO DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 ©A1I3AV AM3AV-09-008-1 6ujiuu<| aatj a6pnui$ pue uier Impression antibourrage et a sechage rapide Utilisez le gabarit 5960MC KENNETH B SMITH 5362 DON MIGUEL DR CARLSBADCA92010 www.avery.com 1-800-GO-AVERY HELEN L STANLEY 5370 DON MIGUEL DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 AVERY® 5960MC NADINE C BURROUGHS 5373 DON MIGUEL DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 CARLO & MICHELE TITONE 5365 DON MIGUEL DR CARLSBADCA92010 JESSE L STILLIONS 2430 SIERRA MORENA AVE CARLSBAD CA 92010 EDWARD A SHIPMAN 5349 DON MIGUEL DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 JOHN F & DOROTHY GREEN 5341 DON MIGUEL DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 W &EWHALEN 5335 DON MIGUEL DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 MARK J & GERALYN SKAPJX 5327 DON MIGUEL DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 M BEAULIEU 5321 DON MIGUEL DR CARLSBADCA92010 JEAN NELSON 5313 DON MIGUEL DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 SHERRY L GRIEPP 5301 DON MIGUEL DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 DAVE) E & SUSAN GEHRKE 4508 SALUTO CT S AN DIEGO C A 92130 HUMBLET UNIT 445 629 S RANCHO SANTA FE RD SAN MARCOS CA 92078 MICHAEL M SAILER 5256 DON MIGUEL DR CARLSBADCA92010 MASAKI &JOYHANAWA 5573 COYOTE CT CARLSBADCA92010 JOSEPH &M PERRY 5236 DON MIGUEL DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 CINDY HAMMAN 1614 BROWN ST CARSON CITY NV 89701 CLARK ERICKSON 29 CORNELL RD BALA CYNWYD PA 19004 GLORIA A LEE 5216 DON MIGUEL DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 CHO LTD Y BLVD CA 90045 WILLIAM C ATKINSON 5202 DON MIGUEL DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 WILLIAM & HELEN CHESTNUT 5271 DON VALDEZDR CARLSBAD CA 92010 YUN CHO 5265 DON VALDEZ DR CARLSBADCA92010 ULYATE 3458 DON LORENZO DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 JAMES M MCLOUGHLIN 5245 DON VALDEZ DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 JENNIFER L MITCHELL 3080 CAMJMTO TERCER VERDE DEL MAR CA 92014 ANNE & LORRAINE CROOK 5229 DON VALDEZ DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 ROBERT B DANZIGER 5223 DON VALDEZDR CARLSBAD CA 92010 PAULINE C BENNETT 5217 DON VALDEZDR CARLSBAD CA 92010 wi096S ®AU3AV AU3AV-O9-008-1 Ni096S 31\ndl/\l31 ®AJ3AV asn 6ujiuu<i 394j aBpnuis pue uier Impression antibourrage et a s&chage rapide Utlflsez le gabarit 5960MC LQRAAOTT 5209 DON VALDEZ DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 www.avery.com 1-800-GO-AVERY BARBARA FERRIS 5201 DON VALDEZ DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 AVERY® 5960MC KAREN S VOLZ 5202 DON VALDEZ DR CARLSBADCA92010 HARRY D & BARBARA PRIGG 5208 DON VALDEZ DR CARLSBADCA92010 ALVIN & JEWELL HARRIS 5218 DON VALDEZ DR CARLSBADCA92010 WILLIAM M & MARY FISCHER 5228 DON VALDEZ DR CARLSBADCA92010 MALVIN A WALDEN 5232 DON VALDEZ DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 GABLE 5240 DON VALDEZ DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 LOUISE A EAHEART UNIT 123 5246 DON VALDEZ DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 WATSON FAMILY 5258 DON VALDEZ DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 REED & ANITA HARRIS 5268 DON VALDEZ DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 WHEAT 5272 DON VALDEZ DR CARLSBADCA92010 BETTY L BRADFIELD 5279 DON RICARDO DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 JESSE & KATHLEEN AMADO UNIT 128 5267 DON RICARDO DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 CHRISTIE L DURNAN 4900NEBLINADR CARLSBAD CA 92008 DELORES J WEKSLER 3545 DON CARLOS DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 HARRY A & ELEANOR TORREY UNIT1 1167 S ORANGE GROVE BLVD PASADENA CA 91105 ALFRED A & HARRIET BSHARAH 5239 DON RICARDO DR CARLSBADCA92010 JOSEPH M PASCUCCI 5227 DON RICARDO DR CARLSBADCA92010 MILDRED C WOODS UNIT 134 5215 DON RICARDO DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 ROBERT P & MARY LANDES 5211 DON RICARDO DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 FRANCIS X HUNDSHAMER 5201 DON RICARDO DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 ANNE C WOODARD 5165 DON RICARDO DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 HOWARD S DATTAN 5163 DON RICARDO DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 ARDYTH COURTNEY 5152 DON RICARDO DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 MARY A BLAIR UNIT 202 3860 RIVIERA DR SAN DIEGO CA 92109 CHARLES A SIEGEL 5136 DON RICARDO DR CARLSB ADC A 92010 GEORGE H & HELEN CULLINS 5128 DON RICARDO DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 RUSSELL GRAY 5118 DON RICARDO DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 FRANCIS E & DORIS BURCH 5101 DON RICARDO DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 AU3AV-O9-008-I. uiorAJ3Aewuvuv\ wi096S aBpnuis pue uier Impression antibourrage et a sechage rapide Utilisez le gabarit 5960MC GIBSON 5119 DON RICARDO DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 ^^^ www.avery.com — 1-800-GO-AVERY JAMES & CATHERIN BOWEN 5125 DON RICARDO DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 AVERY® 5960MC •s* GOLDSTEIN UNIT 147 5135 DON RICARDO DR 147 CARLSBAD CA 92010 SULLIVAN 3480 DON LORENZO DR CARLSBADCA92010 TERRY W STEPHENS 5147 DON RICARDO DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 MARVIN B CHRISTLE 5155 DON RICARDO DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 LUCILLE OLIVER 5108 DON MIGUEL DR CARLSBADCA92010 MARIA T MICHIELI 5114 DON MIGUEL DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 JERRY LROMBOTIS 1730CALAVOCT CARLSBAD CA 92008 HODGES 5126 DON MIGUEL DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 INTERVIVOS LARSON 5134 DON MIGUEL DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 RICHARD E BLAKELEY 5140 DON MIGUEL DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 ERWIN & LOUISE SOLLOWAY 5146 DON MIGUEL DR CARLSBADCA92010 CAROLEE P ZffiGMAN 5157 DON MIGUEL DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 GLADYS LEPTON 5151 DON MIGUEL DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 THEIS 5145 DON MIGUEL DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 DARRYL & CINDY SMITH 5139 DON MIGUEL DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 HARMUTH 5133 DON MIGUEL DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 BETTY LOWE 5127 DON MIGUEL DR CARLSBADCA92010 MARTHA L LANCIAL 5121 DON MIGUEL DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 DALE & DONNA REICH 5115 DON MIGUEL DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 EWELL OBRYAN 5109 DON MIGUEL DR CARLSBADCA92010 WILLIAM F MAHRDT 5105 DON MIGUEL DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 JOHANSSON 5101 DON MIGUEL DR CARLSBADCA92010 TR DUNGAN 5102DONMATADR CARLSBAD CA 92010 DON W & BETTY RITTER 5106 DON MAT ADR CARLSBADCA92010 STEPHENSON 5110DONMATADR CARLSBAD CA 92010 DEELEY-BARNARD 5116 DON MAT ADR CARLSBAD CA 92010 HILDAJSHAW 5120DONMATADR CARLSBAD CA 92010 JAMES W & MARY GIBSON 5124 DON MAT ADR CARLSBAD CA 92010 ©AU3AV A«3AV-O9-008-l lUOD'AjaAB'MMM IU.096S 31VWW31 ®A»AV asn Bujiuud aay eBpnius pue uier Impression antibourrage et a. sechage rapide Utilisez le gabarit 5960^ GORDON L & LUCILLE DUFFIN. 5128 DON RODOLFO DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 www.avery.com 1-800-GO-AVERY STOABS 5184 DON RODOLFO DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 AVERY® 5960MC RAYNELIPRUITT 5136 DON RODOLFO DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 HILLIARD 5140 DON RODOLFO DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 JAFFE 5144 DON RODOLFO DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 ANNE S WELLS 5148 DON RODOLFO DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 ROGER C & PEGGY SHADRICK 5152 DON RODOLFO DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 SANDRA HALL 5156 DON RODOLFO DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 TOM & HARRIET WATSON 5160 DON RODOLFO DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 JOE P MOZINGO 5164 DON RODOLFO DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 HUGH J & BARBARA STIPP 5168 DON RODOLFO DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 CLARENCE A & JUDITH JUHL 5172 DON RODOLFO DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 BRUCE B HENDERSON 5176 DON RODOLFO DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 MURPHEY 5180 DON RODOLFO DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 STOABS 5184 DON RODOLFO DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 HEATHMAN 5186 DON RODOLFO DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 HESTER 5188 DON RODOLFO DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 HEATHMAN UNIT 192 5186 DON RODOLFO DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 RUPERT C & D MORGAN 5192 DON RODOLFO DR CARLSBADCA92010 JOE R & SHIRLEY BEEMER 5194 DON RODOLFO DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 HARRY L & BETTE OOSTEROM 5198 DON RODOLFO DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 JULES W & HELEN GAGE 5163 DON RODOLFO DR CARLSBADCA92010 ESKIBORN 5155 DON RODOLFO DR CARLSBADCA92010 JOYCE M BRISTOW 5147 DON RODOLFO DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 MARTIN C WESLEY 5139 DON RODOLFO DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 SALVATORE & ALICE DEELI 5131 DON RODOLFO DR CARLSBADCA92010 MARTIN R CARBONE 5123 DON RODOLFO DR CARLSBADCA92010 ALAN & PHYLLIS ROCK 5178DONMATADR CARLSBADCA92010 OSCAR KUVER 5172 DON MAT ADR CARLSBAD CA 92010 JERALD K GARBER 5166DONMATADR CARLSBAD CA 92010 A«3AV-OD-008-t UIOD'AjaAB'MMM 6uji.ui.id aaj j aBpnius pue uier Impression antibourrage et a sechage rapide Utifisez le gabarit 5960MC BRYAN C & IRENE THOMSON . '5158DONMATADR CARLSBAD CA 92010 www.avery.com 1-800-GO-AVERY RICHARD BARKER 5150DONMATADR CARLSBAD CA 92010 AVERY® 5960"c PATRICIA K WHERLEY 5144DONMATADR CARLSBADCA92010 HELLEN F STEADMAN 5132DONMATADR CARLSBAD CA 92010 DAVID R & ELLEN CUNRADI 5128DONMATADR CARLSBADCA92010 ROBINSON 5117 DON RODOLFO DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 WES J & PATRICIA SABOURIN 5101 DON MAT ADR CARLSBAD CA 92010 CHARLOTTE STOLMAKER 5107 DON MAT ADR CARLSBAD CA 92010 ANAMAE B GRAND ALL 5115 DON MAT ADR CARLSBAD CA 92010 ROBERT K ETNIRE PO BOX 85552 SAN DIEGO CA 92186 JUDITH A MOORE 5129DONMATADR CARLSBADCA92010 N BARKER 5135DONMATADR CARLSBAD CA 92010 DAVID CLOW 1956VIZCAINOCT ESCONDIDO CA 92026 SUCHWALA 5151 DON MAT ADR CARLSBADCA92010 PACE FAMILY 5157DONMATADR CARLSBAD CA 92010 BRUCE P ENIGENBURG 5163DONMATADR CARLSBADCA92010 FRED J BRAXTON 5171 DON MATA DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 ELYSIA BOOZER 5177DONMATADR CARLSBAD CA 92010 S&S 5183DONMATADR CARLSBADCA92010 ROBERT S & PATRICIA WYATT 3443 DON ALVAREZ DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 JEAN E COSTAIN 2074 STEIGER LN OCEANSIDE CA 92056 LAMBERTHA WILLSON 3427 DON ALVAREZ DR CARLSBADCA92010 MARY J GROESBECK 3419 DON ALVAREZ DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 TURNER LAWRENCE D 3411 DON ALVAREZ DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 SUSAN DEVANE 5157DONMATADR CARLSBAD CA 92010 JAMES C & NOREEN WALTRIP 3406 DON COTA DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 ROBERT H LYMAN 3414 DON COTA DR CARLSBADCA92010 JOHN G & M GLEDHILL 3422 DON COTA DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 DAVID W & JEAN CRAWFORD 3430 DON COTA DR CARLSBADCA92010 BILL & ANN TAYLOR 3438 DON COTA DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 AH3AV-O9-008-1 «i096S 31VUIN3J. ®&OAV asn 6ujiuu<| aajj aBpnuis pue uier Impression antibourrage et a sechage rapide Utilisezlegabarit5960MC EARL J MUNRATH '3446 DON COTA DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 www.avery.com 1-800-GO-AVERY EMIL &JEANSCHMPF 3454 DON COTA DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 AVERY® 5960^ WILLIAM M BENJAMIN 9860LATORTOLAPL SAN DIEGO CA 92129 GERALD G CRAMM 3445 DON COTA DR CARLSBADCA92010 DONALD E MCKINNEY UNIT 239 3437 DON COTA DR 239 CARLSBAD CA 92010 JOHN D & KARLA ANTOL 3429 DON COTA DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 WILMA MILLER 3421 DON COT ADR CARLSBAD CA 92010 ROBERT & MARIA MOLLE 3413 DON COTA DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 ARTINGSTALL 3407 DON COTA DR CARLSBADCA92010 DOLORES JOHNSON 5302 DON ALVAREZ DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 SNOW 5310 DON ALVAREZ DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 INTER CADE 5318 DON ALVAREZ DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 LYMAN W BROWN 5326 DON ALVAREZ DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 VAVEL J WRIGHT 5342 DON ALVAREZ DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 SCHAAF 5350 DON ALVAREZ DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 VALERIE A CLEM 5358 DON ALVAREZ DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 JOHN O & ALLEGRA ERNST 2408 1 STAVE SAN DIEGO CA 92101 SUZANNE MURRAY 3402 DON JOSE DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 LAURIE A SHEAHAN 375 N MELROSE DR G VISTA CA 92083 GUESS 3414 DON JOSE DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 BARNETT 3420 DON JOSE DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 PATRICIA J KINBERG 7345ALTIVAPL CARLSBAD CA 92009 KENNETH E COTTINGHAM 3432 DON JOSE DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 JOHN & SANDRA HUNSICKER 343 8 DON JOSE DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 NEAL 3444 DON JOSE DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 CURTIS 3450 DON JOSE DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 CHARLES L SAJJ3ENBERG 3456 DON JOSE DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 DAVID F SELKOWITZ 3462 DON JOSE DR CARLSBADCA92010 VINCENZO DMINNO 3468 DON JOSE DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 JOSEPH A & BEATRICE HRACA 3474 DON JOSE DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 AH3AV-O9-008-L.m096S 31VldW31 ®A»AV asn aai j e6pnuis pue uief Impression antibourrage et a sechage rapide Utilisez le gabarit 5960MC NORMAN WMCLEOD 3475 DON JOSE DR CARLSBADCA92010 ARTHUR WGREER UNIT 268 3449 DON JOSE DR 268 CARLSBAD CA 92010 www.avery.com 1-800-GO-AVERY EL KUVER GEORGE E & RITA NORTH 3441 DON JOSE DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 AVERY® 5960HC KOPLOF 3457 DON JOSE DR CARLSBADCA92010 PRICE 3433 DON JOSE DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 SURVIVORS CALLAHAN 3423 DON JOSE DR CARLSBADCA92010 GALLERY 3415 DON JOSE DR CARLSBADCA92010 PAULINE KAUFMAN 3420 DON JUAN DR CARLSBADCA92010 RAY E & VERNA KRAHN 3438 DON JUAN DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 GRACE E SLAUGHTER 3434 DON PORFIRIO DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 KAREN L CHRISTY 3444 DON PORFIRIO DR CARLSBADCA92010 EARLE E BISHOP 3452 DON PORFIRIO DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 DAVID A PUZO 3460 DON PORFIRIO DR CARLSBADCA92010 BRUCE KIRBY 3468 DON PORFIRIO DR CARLSBADCA92010 IRMA BOWEN 3476 DON PORFIRIO DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 JONES 3489 DON PORFIRIO DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 RICHARD BARKER 5150DONMATADR CARLSBAD CA 92010 SIMMONS 3473 DON PORFIRIO DR CARLSBADCA92010 JAMES A & PATRICIA LAYMAN UNIT 284 3465 DON PORFIRIO DR 284 CARLSBAD CA 92010 DOROTHY L KAISER 3457 DON PORFIRIO DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 JOHN S & JEAN MALTROTTI 3447 DON PORFIRIO DR CARLSBADCA92010 MARION J COURTNEY 3441 DON PORFIRIO DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 DAVID & CHRISTY TANCREDI 3444 DON PORFIRIO DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 STEVEN HARKINS 3432 DON ARTURO DR CARLSBADCA92010 CORALIE A BENTLEY 3440 DON ARTURO DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 ALBENO L & MARY BOTTO 3446 DON ARTURO DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 CHRISTINA R ARMSTRONG 3452 DON ARTURO DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 GRACE THULIN 3458 DON ARTURO DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 RICHTER 3464 DON ARTURO DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 AU3AV-OD-008-t »u096S 31V1dW31 ®AiaAV esn a6pnuus pue uier Impression antibourrage et a sechage rapide Utilisez le gabarit 5960^ BELTON & MERLE JOHNSON . 3472 DON ARTURO DR CARLSBADCA92010 www.avery.com 1-800-GO-AVERY GERALD L BAKER 3480 DON ARTURO DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 AVERY® 5960MC ALBERT C & MARY ROBLES 3488 DON ARTURO DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 1STRICT SEEKER DEVELOPMENT L L C PO BOX 1676 RAMONA CA 92065 CALAVERA HILLS IIL L C 2727 HOOVER AVE NATIONAL CITY CA 91950 DARREN S & JENNY BOWES 3451 PLEASANT VALE DR CARLSBAD CA KYLE L LANCASTER 3447 PLEASANT VALE DR CARLSBAD CA EDUARDO T BUAN 3443 PLEASANT VALE DR CARLSBAD CA ADAM & KIMBERLY TOWLE 3439 PLEASANT VALE DR CARLSBAD CA RYAN D SCHROEDER 3460 GENTLE KNOLL ST CARLSBAD CA 92010 VIRGINIA C PACKARD 3464 GENTLE KNOLL ST CARLSBAD CA 92010 JORGE F & CARMEN RIVERA 3468 GENTLE KNOLL ST CARLSBADCA92010 MICHELLE NGUYEN 3472 GENTLE KNOLL ST CARLSBAD CA DARREN M BROWN 3476 GENTLE KNOLL ST CARLSBAD CA 92010 DHAVAL S & AMI DESAI 3456 PLEASANT VALE DR CARLSBAD CA DAVID W RAYMOND 3452 PLEASANT VALE DR CARLSBAD CA KI S CHOI 3448 PLEASANT VALE DR CARLSBAD CA NAYAN B PATEL 3444 PLEASANT VALE DR CARLSBAD CA DANIEL L POPPEN 3449 RAVINE DR CARLSBAD CA MICHAEL R SEYLE 3453 RAVINE DR CARLSBAD CA MAN & SARAH TSANG 3457 RAVINE DR CARLSBADCA92010 BRETT J STREETER 3461 RAVINE DR CARLSBADCA92010 MARK S & MYRNA POBLETE 3465 RAVINE DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 CHAD & DANIELLE CLEAVER 3469 RAVINE DR CARLSBAD CA LAURENS B & LINDA GRANDY 3473 RAVINE DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 JASON & NATALIE JAMES 3462 RAVINE DR CARLSBAD CA SHAHRIAR &ARIANAAYAZI 3458 RAVINE DR CARLSBADCA92010 STEPHEN D GEORGE 3454 RAVINE DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 PANKAJ A DESAI 3455 GENTLE KNOLL ST CARLSBAD CA 92010 Aa3AV-09-008-t Hi096S UVldVMll @AraAV asn 6ut)uud aajj aBpnius pue uier Impression antibourrage et a sechage rapide Utilisezlegabarit5960MC VIRGINIA CALDERON 3445 MOON FIELD DR CARLSBADCA92010 www.avery.com 1-800-GO-AVERY MATTHEW BLECHA 3453 MOON FIELD DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 RICHARD &REBEKABESS 3441 MOON FIELD DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 AVERY® 5960"*: BEN J KACKSTETTER 3449 MOON FIELD DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 TIMOTHY H SCHINHOFEN 3437 MOON FIELD DR CARLSBADCA92010 JUAN J & DEBORAH PEREZ 3433 MOON FIELD DR CARLSBADCA92010 WILLIAM J COOPER 3429 MOON FIELD DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 RYAN & CASSANDRA GOLD 3425 MOON FIELD DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 JORGE &ODILAENCISO 3441 RICH FIELD DR CARLSBAD CA PARVIN REZAINIA 3438 RICH FIELD DR CARLSBADCA92010 JASON A & DENISE PITTS 3440 RICH FIELD DR CARLSBAD CA GREGORY SPREHN 3442 RICH FIELD DR CARLSBAD CA MARK H & TAMMY POLLOCK 1868 HIGH RIDGE AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008 CAL^&AW LLC CLAUDIA A NARVAEZ 3448 RICH FIELD DR CARLSBAD CA LIONEL MARTOCCIA 3450 RICH FIELD DR CARLSBAD CA TITO C & JULIET MALIG PO BOX 775 CARLSBADCA92018 KEITH & BEVERLY TONEY 3454 RICH FIELD DR CARLSBAD CA YAU-DE & ANNETTE SUNG 3456 RICH FIELD DR CARLSBAD CA HAMID ZAR 3458 RICH FIELD DR CARLSBAD CA MARCOS A THOMAS 3460 RICH FIELD DR CARLSBAD CA THOMAS & TAMMY NOTO 3463 RICH FIELD DR CARLSBAD CA CARLRPRESCOTT 3461 RICH FIELD DR CARLSBAD CA JAMIE & JENNIFER FAMILO 3459 RICH FIELD DR CARLSBAD CA LANE J RADERMACHER 3457 RICH FIELD DR CARLSBAD CA MARIETTA E ORCHARD 3534 KNOLLWOOD DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 GARY S & JILL IKARI 3432 MOON FIELD DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 BRANDON A DIETER 3436 MOON FIELD DR CARLSBADCA92010 CHRIS & KATE ENGELSMAN 3440 MOON FIELD DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 AH3AV-O9-008-1 UlODVtiaAB'MMM 6ui}uu<| aajj aBpnius pue uier Impression antibourrage et a sichage rapide Utilisez le gabarit 5960MC GLENN A MALONE 3444 MOON FIELD DR CARLSBADCA92010 www.avery.com 1-800-GO-AVERY MICHELLE CASANADA 3448 MOON FIELD DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 AVERV® 5960"= GARY E & ALICE MARSHALL 3452 MOON FIELD DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 THEODORE D & DEBRA EDSON PO BOX 9000 OCEANSEDECA 92051 AARON & TRUDY HAINES 3460 MOON FIELD DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 CXIAVERA KIEL'S H L L C R AVE CITY CA 91950 C AlXyERA HILljS IIL L C 2727 H&OyjiltAVE NATIpN^LCITY CA 91950 ^^ \ JILL A GERGURICH 3439 RICH FIELD DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 REAGAN K ADAMS 3437 RICH FIELD DR CARLSBAD CA GHENT &C 1995 3435 RICH FIELD DR CARLSBADCA92010 ERIC A & THERESA NICHOLAS 3433 RICH FIELD DR CARLSBAD CA MICHAEL J MORGAN 3431 RICH FIELD DR CARLSBAD CA RUDOLF A HEREDIA 3432 RICH FIELD DR CARLSBADCA92010 FRIEDENBERG 3434 RICH FIELD DR CARLSBAD CA RICHARD W YOUNGER 3436 RICH FIELD DR CARLSBADCA92010 CALAVERA HILLS II H&OS ASN 2727 HOOVER AVE NATIONAL CITY CA 91950 CAtAVERA fflKLS II H&OS ASN 2727SHOp¥ERAVE CITY CA 91950/" \ WAYNE S & TAMARA FOX 3462 RICH FIELD DR CARLSBAD CA LISA M DEEMER 3464 RICH FIELD DR CARLSBAD CA MICHAEL L YOUNG 11419CORLEYCT SAN DIEGO CA 92126 KEITH MOTTUS 3468 RICH FIELD DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 ALAN M LAUW 3470 RICH FIELD DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 ANDREW C & NICOLE HARRIS 3172 RICH FIELD DR CARLSBADCA92010 SAMANTHA J GOEDERT 3474 RICH FIELD DR CARLSBADCA92010 JOHN G & SUSANA KENDRA 3476 RICH FIELD DR CARLSBADCA92010 MINKLER 3478 RICH FIELD DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 KENNETH K & MIA CHOI 3480 RICH FIELD DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 RYAN J & JENNIFER BIRDSEYE 4672 MEADOW DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 HIENT NGUYEN 9072 WESTVALE RD S AN DIEGO C A 92129 SOO H PARK 3726 MYKONOS LN SAN DIEGO CA 92130 «a096S AH3AV-O9-008-1 BUIIUUJ BBJJ a6pnius pue uiep Impression antibourrage et a sechage rapide Utilisez le gabarit 5960MC RONALD D HADLEY 4678 MEADOW DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 www.avery.com 1-800-GO-AVERY BRADLEY A THURMAN 4680 MEADOW DR CARLSBADCA92010 AVERY® 5960MC BRIAN & BRANDIKIESLING 4682 MEADOW DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 MOHAMMAD TARSA 3476 MOON FIELD DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 LINDA MCDONNELL 4665 MEADOW DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 NANCY M SCHNEIDER 4663 MEADOW DR CARLSBADCA92010 DEREK HUTCHISON 3483 RICH FIELD DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 THANH MVU 232 MARQUETTE AVE SAN MARCOS CA 92078 STEVEN A SCIBILIA 3479 RICH FIELD DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 DRAGOMIRKA LAZIC 3477 RICH FIELD DR CARLSBADCA92010 FRANCISCA N GALVAN 3475 RICH FIELD DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 ALLEN S & LISA CORNWALL 1969EPOINTEAVE CARLSBAD CA 92008 KEN A & ATOSSA STANLEY 3471 RICH FIELD DR CARLSBADCA92010 GEORGE LOYD 3469 RICH FIELD DR CARLSBAD CA JOSE N RODRIGUEZ 3467 RICH FIELD DR CARLSBAD CA GARY & JULIE SILVERMAN 3465 RICH FIELD DR CARLSBAD CA ROBERT R DIANATI 3462 MOON FIELD DR CARLSBADCA92010 KEITH S & MARY BADINER 3464 MOON FIELD DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 CHARLES A & JULIE BENNER 3466 MOON FIELD DR CARLSBADCA92010 ALAN W CHEUNG 3468 MOON FIELD DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 MAGDALENA P LAWSON 3482 RICH FIELD DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 JAMES & JANICE TREANOR 3484 RICH FIELD DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 DANIEL W & TIFFANY VENOR 3486 RICH FIELD DR CARLSBADCA92010 DOUGLAS A & ROBIN CASEY 3488 RICH FIELD DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 DANIEL C CICHASKY 3490 RICH FIELD DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 MADIREDDY R REDDY 3492 RICH FIELD DR CARLSBADCA92010 MINK H & LISA STAVENGA 3494 RICH FIELD DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 CHRISTIAN E HAMME 3496 RICH FIELD DR CARLSBADCA92010 PAMELA M PIERCE 4651 MEADOW DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 ALEXIS &AILEENLAO PO BOX 5620 CARLSBADCA92018 AH3AV-O9-008-1 6uj}UHd aaij aBpnuis pue uief Impcession antibourrage et & s&chage rapide Utilisezlegabarit5960MC JAE H & KYUNG KIM 3489 RICH FIELD DR CARLSBADCA92010 www.avery.com 1-800-GO-AVERY MARVIN A ROBINSON 3487 RICH FIELD DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 AVERY® 5960MC JUN LI 3485 RICH FIELD DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 CARLSBAD GREENS L L C PO BOX 819 CARLSBADCA92018 HAROLD D & GAIL STIDOLPH 4814 KELLY DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 VERIZON WIRELESS 4901 EL CAMINO REAL CARLSBAD CA 92008 ION PCS LF ICATIONS PCS WIRELESS LF WILLIAM J & SONIA WITT 4827 KELLY DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 LESS AMJNO REAL CA 92008 BONNIE L SMELTZER 4823 KELLY DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 MAURICE R & YVETTE TAUZIN 25 IS BEDFORD DR BEVERLY HILLS CA 90212 MARK & ROSEMARIE PORTER 4815 KELLY DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 JOHN & SUSAN BLOSCH 4811 KELLY DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 THERESA M BENJAMIN 4809 KELLY DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 MICHAEL J CLARKE 4807 KELLY DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 MABEL BARBER 2416 SONORA CT CARLSBADCA92010 STEFFLER 4820 KELLY DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 JOSEF K & HALYNA HOLY 4824 KELLY DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 LOUIS A WALLACE 4826 KELLY DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 SANDRA FLOOD 4830 KELLY DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 JOHN P MURPHY 4836 KELLY DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 RALPH J WLEKLINSKI 4840 KELLY DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 JAMES J & SHARON FLEMING 4810 KELLY DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 DANIEL J & DEBORAH BANNON 4842 KELLY DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 MARIA E THOMAS 4803 KELLY DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 DONALD E MORJN 4805 KELLY DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 KIRT J WATSON 4948 PARK DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 STEVEN H KELLER UNIT 186 2658 DEL MAR HEIGHTS RD DEL MAR CA 92014 wi096S AU3AV-O9-008-1 6u;;uud aaJJ aSpnius pue uier Impression antibourrage et a sechage rapide Utilisezlegabarit5960MC JAMES W & DONNA ROBINSON. 4952 PARK DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 ^^^" www.avery.com —™- 1-800-GO-AVERY MARCUS & LINDA ENGSTROM 4954 PARK DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 AVERY© 5960MC DANIEL R & LINDA COMPOS 4956 PARK DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 LEARY 4958PARKDR CARLSBAD CA 92008 BRIAN B BUNNELL 4960 PARK DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 GEORGE H FLINT 4962 PARK DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 PHILLIP T & MARY SARVER 4964 PARK DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 CALEB H & KAREN TAYLOR 4966 PARK DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 BONAGURA 4968 PARK DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 FOX FAMILY 4970 VIA MARTA CARLSBAD CA 92008 TERESA C MURRELL 4972 VIA MARTA CARLSBAD CA 92008 CAROL M RICCITELLI 4676 CORALWOOD CIR CARLSBAD CA 92008 SHARI L MILLMAN 4674 CORALWOOD CIR CARLSBAD CA 92008 SUSAN L LAROCHE 4672 CORALWOOD CIR CARLSBAD CA 92008 RICHARD B IRELAND 4670 CORALWOOD CIR CARLSBAD CA 92008 OBERT 4668 CORALWOOD CIR CARLSBAD CA 92008 REES 4666 CORALWOOD CIR CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD PALISADES UNIT 105-4 6965 EL CAMINO REAL CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD PALISADES 4662 CORALWOOD CIR CARLSBAD CA 92008 JACK G LAVEILLE 3430 DON CARLOS DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 WEIN-QUARTARONE 4754 SUNBURST RD CARLSBAD CA 92008 BARBARA RUSCITTI 4656 CORALWOOD CIR CARLSBAD CA 92008 PHILIP L & SUSAN HOYER 4654 CORALWOOD CIR CARLSBAD CA 92008 VIRGINIA L STEFFAN-MOORE 4652 CORALWOOD CIR CARLSBAD CA 92008 KARL H FELDMEEER 4650 CORALWOOD CIR CARLSBAD CA 92008 JOHN A HALLORAN 4648 CORALWOOD CIR CARLSBAD CA 92008 HEIDI KHEATON UNIT 82 1357 SILVER MEADOWS DR PARK CITY UT 84098 PATRICIA A MARTIN 4673 CORALWOOD CIR CARLSBAD CA 92008 DOUGLASS 2037 CANYON RD ARCADIACA91006 RAMONABFINNILA 4669 CORALWOOD CIR CARLSBAD CA 92008 AM3AV-OD-008-1 UlOD'AjaAB'MMM «i096S aBpnius pue iuef Impression antibourrage et a s£chage rapide Utilisez le gabarit 5960MC JOANNE DEUTSCH 4667 CORALWOOD CIR CARLSBAD CA 92008 www.avery.com 1-800-GO-AVERY KATHLEEN E STANLEY 911CANDLELITEDR SAN MARCOS CA 92069 AVERY® 5960"= JO ANN R ALLANMEYER PO BOX 325 SOLANA BEACH CA 92075 CARLSBAD PALISADES PO BOX 1114 CARLSBADCA92018 BUSTER C & LILLIAN MOORE 4702 AMBERWOOD CT CARLSBAD CA 92008 MARCELINO ALLISON 4704 AMBERWOOD CT CARLSBAD CA 92008 CHRISTINE M MASON 4706 AMBERWOOD CT CARLSBAD CA 92008 BREEA L BLOMDAHL 4708 AMBERWOOD CT CARLSBAD CA 92008 LEROY P MASSEY 4710 AMBERWOOD CT CARLSBAD CA 92008 RICHARD W CRAWFORD PO BOX 81722 SAN DIEGO CA 92138 KRISTINE A KATSUNE 4714 AMBERWOOD CT CARLSBAD CA 92008 RAYMOND &JANATOMPKINS 4716 AMBERWOOD CT CARLSBAD CA 92008 LESLIE J MURRELL 4718 AMBERWOOD CT CARLSBAD CA 92008 GOLAS 4720 AMBERWOOD CT CARLSBAD CA 92008 GWENDOLYN J GILLIS 4722 AMBERWOOD CT CARLSBAD CA 92008 JOHN & PEGGY WHISENHUNT 4724 AMBERWOOD CT CARLSBAD CA 92008 DARIN A DEFOREST 4726 AMBERWOOD CT CARLSBAD CA 92008 TERRI WIMBERLY 4728 AMBERWOOD CT CARLSBAD CA 92008 DAVID G LAWRENCE 4730 AMBERWOOD CT CARLSBAD CA 92008 DAVID M ELLIS 4732 AMBERWOOD CT CARLSBAD CA 92008 LORNA V FARRANT 4734 AMBERWOOD CT CARLSBAD CA 92008 ARTHUR HAWKINS 4736 AMBERWOOD CT CARLSBAD CA 92008 MARTHA J DORNON 4738 AMBERWOOD CT CARLSBAD CA 92008 GERRYARANGLAS UNIT 202 3444 CAMINO DEL RIO N S AN DIEGO C A 92108 DORRIS MARRIN 4742 AMBERWOOD CT CARLSBAD CA 92008 ROBERT J NOLL 4741 AMBERWOOD CT CARLSBAD CA 92008 R S WILSON 4739 AMBERWOOD CT CARLSBAD CA 92008 LEVINE 4737 AMBERWOOD CT CARLSBAD CA 92008 JUDITH L ALLDAY 4723 AMBERWOOD CT CARLSBAD CA 92008 MACKEY 4721 AMBERWOOD CT CARLSBAD CA 92008 wi096S ®AU3AV AH3AV-OD-008-1 UlCO'AjaAB'MMM 6u|iuud aay aBpnius pue uief Impression antibourrage et a s£chage rapide Utillsez le gabarit 5960MC SHIRLEY A MISLOSKI 4711 AMBERWOOD CT CARLSBAD CA 92008 www.avery.com 1-800-GO-AVERY WILLIAM T READY 4709 AMBERWOOD CT CARLSBAD CA 92008 AVERY® 5960MC EUGENE V & DIXIE YOCUM 1984 ANDREWS CT OCEANSIDE CA 92054 LAURETTA A BOYINGTON 4705 AMBERWOOD CT CARLSBAD CA 92008 ANDREW D CUMMINS 4703 AMBERWOOD CT CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD PALISADES PO BOX 1114 CARLSBAD CA 92018 LINDA D SILVEY 2946 HIGHLAND DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 WANG PO BOX 1552 CARLSBADCA92018 VICTOR J ZNORSKI 1624 CORMORANT DR CARLSBAD CA 92011 DANIEL J MCALEAVEY 4635 DRIFTWOOD CIR CARLSBAD CA 92008 CHRIS C & SARRAH GIELOW 4712 BIRCHWOOD CIR CARLSBAD CA 92008 TIMOTHY A & ELLA KITTELL 4880 VIA PIEDRA YORBA LINDA CA 92886 LONG 4716 BIRCHWOOD CIR CARLSBAD CA 92008 SEAN HALLMAN 4718 BIRCHWOOD CIR CARLSBAD CA 92008 ROBERT W STEGMAN 4720 BIRCHWOOD CIR CARLSBAD CA 92008 HOLLY SPRINGS LTD PO BOX 2484 CARLSBADCA92018 TROYEHARTMAN 4724 BIRCHWOOD CIR CARLSBAD CA 92008 HENRY M & VESTA KIDD 4726 BIRCHWOOD CIR CARLSBAD CA 92008 RAYMOND CORONADO 4728 BIRCHWOOD CIR CARLSBAD CA 92008 JOAN BRUNNER PO BOX 130790 CARLSBADCA92013 BRYON E & PAMELA BLACK 2317ALTISMAWAY CARLSBAD CA 92009 CHARLES CLIMENSON 4734 BIRCHWOOD CIR CARLSBAD CA 92008 WANDA HANNA 4737 BIRCHWOOD CIR CARLSBAD CA 92008 DUANE A BROWN PO BOX 3429 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92659 JAMES B BOND 4741 BIRCHWOOD CIR CARLSBAD CA 92008 STEVEN C ARMSTRONG 4701 BIRCHWOOD CIR CARLSBAD CA 92008 THOMAS A & VICKI WORTH 1435 FOREST AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008 ARTHUR B WARSHAWSKY 1027 SAINT ALBANS PL ENCINITAS CA 92024 MARIO & LOUISE CHAPPINS 4707 BIRCHWOOD CIR CARLSBAD CA 92008 ALISADES 114 AD CA 92018 m096S AM3AV-OD-008H «i096S 6u;;ujJd aaij a6pnuis pue uier Impression antibourrage et d sechage rapide Utilisez le gabarit 5960MC SUSAN E ESCHER UNIT 201 4637 CELIA WAY BELLINGHAM WA 98226 www.avery.com 1-800-GO-AVERY JOHN L INGRAM 2278 LISA ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 AVERY® 5960UC SECARD 2279 LISA ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 MARY T LEESE 2277 LISA ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 CHEN 2275 LISA ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 DONALD SINUTKO 4973 CINDY AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008 ALBERT SOMIT 4971 CINDY AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008 EPPERSON 1991 4969 CINDY AVE T CARLSBAD CA 92008 JUTTA E SGAMBELLURI 4967 CINDY AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008 IVA V BLEDSOE 4965 CINDY AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008 JOSEPH & MARY POLLARD 4963 CINDY AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008 ANDERSON 4961 CINDY AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008 DAVID & BOBBIE IFLAND 4959 CINDY AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008 DAVID M KLINGER 1233 N DEARBORN ST REDLANDS CA 92374 THORNE 4955 CINDY AVE T CARLSBAD CA 92008 KEENE 2282 JULIE PL CARLSBAD CA 92008 LINDA J FREDRICKSON 2284 JULIE PL CARLSBAD CA 92008 VICKI S KEMPTON 2283 JULIE PL CARLSBAD CA 92008 MARIANNE DIETZ 2281 JULIE PL T CARLSBAD CA 92008 SAMUEL &ANNALYTTLE 4964 CINDY AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008 EL CAMINO ESTATES INC 4966 CINDY AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008 TAMARACK POINT MASTER UNIT 160 5075 SHOREHAM PL SAN DIEGO CA 92122 \ jfSTATJL0F CALIFORNIA KHALED CHEHADE 1362 SUGARBUSH DR VISTA CA 92084 TAMARACK POINT MASTER UNITN160 5075 SBdREHAM PL CA 92122 GUY OLIVER 6465 FRANCISCAN RD CARLSBADCA92011 KHALED CHEHADE 13 62 SUGARBUSH DR VISTA CA 92084 SAVE/0FCALIFORNIA A 560 N COAST HIGHWAY 101 ENCINITAS CA 92024 PETER &TOBITROTTA 4210 LA PORTALADA DR CARLSBADCA92010 AU3AV-O9-008-L 6ui)UM(j aaij aBpnuis pue uier Impassion antibourrage et a sechage rapide UtilisezlegabaritSSeO"0 MESSINA 4620 LA PORTALADA DR CARLSBADCA92010 ^^^m www.avery.com ~>~™1 1-800-GO-AVERY DANIEL F & JODA GLASSEY 4630 LA PORTALADA DR CARLSBADCA92010 AVERY® 5960MC FRANK ESQUEDA 4640 LA PORTALADA DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 JALAL S MOETAMEDI 4650 LA PORTALADA DR CARLSBADCA92010 SLIWA 4645 LA PORTALADA DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 MORRALL 4635 LA PORTALADA DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 CAROL CULLINS 4625 LA PORTALADA DR CARLSBADCA92010 RANDOLPH A & BOBETTE STEWART 4615 LA PORTALADA DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 BEVERLY 4605 LA PORTALADA DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 DONALD T & AMY MILLER 4610 TRIESTE DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 MARIA E THOMAS 1868 PALISADESDR CARLSBAD CA 92008 GEORGE TAYLOR 4630 TRIESTE DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 ALEX G & CAMILLE MITKEVICH 4640 TRIESTE DR CARLSBADCA92010 SCHWEITZER 4650 TRIESTE DR CARLSBADCA92010 GALANTE 4660 TRIESTE DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 CHARLES B HARTZELL 4009 CRESCENT POINT RD CARLSBAD CA 92008 GUILLERMO & AMY GOMEZ 4655 TRIESTE DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 DAVID B & LEIGH HADDAD 4645 TRIESTE DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 IRENE FUCHS 4625 TRIESTE DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 ELAINE TUTTERROW 4625 TRIESTE DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 JOHN ACQUARELLI 4615 TRIESTE DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 MCCANDLESS 4605 TRIESTE DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 BRENT VANDERLINDEN 4617 SIERRA MORENA AVE CARLSBADCA92010 DARLENE CECIL-LANDRUM 4615 SIERRA MORENA AVE CARLSBAD CA 92010 ORLAND W HOFFMAN 4613 SIERRA MORENA AVE CARLSBAD CA 92010 JAMES E CARMEAN 3 VIA MENTA RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA CA 92688 WILLIAM & ROBIN KEMP 4609 SIERRA MORENA AVE CARLSBAD CA 92010 GRANT & KATHLEEN CHU 4608 SIERRA MORENA AVE CARLSBADCA92010 COLONY AT CALAVERA HILLS 9373 MIRA MESA BLVD SAN DIEGO CA 92126 JAMES & DIANA STURIALE 2742 GLASGOW DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 AH3AV-OD-008-1 6ui;uud 99JJ eSpnuis pue uier (repression antibourrage et a sechage rapide Utilisez le gabarit 5960MC MARTIN L ZIMMERMAN 2740 GLASGOW DR CARLSBADCA92010 ^^^m www.avery.com — 1-800-GO-AVERY JOHN M & ELIZABETH MAYER 2738 GLASGOW DR CARLSBADCA92010 AVERY® 5960MC CAMERENA 2734 GLASGOW DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 BRADLEY J KNUDSEN 2730 GLASGOW DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 PERROT 2726 GLASGOW DR CARLSBADCA92010 LOLITA E BUONAGUIDI 2725 GLASGOW DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 GARY & SHELLEY SMITH 2729 GLASGOW DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 MONTGOMERY S NEWCOM 2733 GLASGOW DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 GEORGE RADLICK 869 DANA POINT LN OCEANSEDE CA 92056 CLIFFORD JOHNSON 2741 GLASGOW DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 MATHEW J COOPER 1828PALISADESDR CARLSBAD CA 92008 FRANK & DOROTHY WEBBER 2749 GLASGOW DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 DANIEL J RUNNESTRAND 2750 INVERNESS DR CARLSBADCA92010 STEVEN J & SUSAN PYNES 2746 INVERNESS DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 ALEXANDER DUARTE 2744 INVERNESS DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 JACK D WILSON 2734 INVERNESS DR CARLSB ADC A 92010 LAURA MCREWSE 2730 INVERNESS DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 RUTH L HANSEN 2726 INVERNESS DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 JAMES D & RENE MCFARLAND 2733 STIRLING CT CARLSBAD CA 92010 TYREE 2735 STIRLING CT CARLSBAD CA 92010 THEODORE J RICHTER 2737 STIRLING CT CARLSBAD CA 92010 STEPHEN E HJELT 2739 STIRLING CT CARLSBAD CA 92010 WILLIAM & HEATHER ERNST 190 SPRING RIDGE CT ROSWELL GA 30076 BATTAILE 2743 STIRLING CT CARLSBAD CA 92010 GOEDERT 2753 INVERNESS DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 STEVEN A & LORI SALTZ 2757 INVERNESS DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 R & JANE DROST 4747 EDINBURGH DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 KENT R & PAMELA PATERSON 4749 EDINBURGH DR CARLSB ADC A 92010 ROBERT F ALEXANDER 4751 EDINBURGH DR CARLSB ADC A 92010 MARLET GAPULTOS 1575 WALNUT GROVE AVE ROSEMEAD CA 91770 ®Afcl3AV AH3AV-OD-008-L m096S 31V1dW3JL ®A»AV asfi 6u|}uud aaij e6pnuis pue uier Irrtpression antibourrage et a sechage rapide Utilisezlegabarit5960MC DONALD A & ROBIN WOFFORD 4757 EDINBURGH DR CARLSBADCA92010 www.avery.com 1-800-GO-AVERY MICHAEL F MCMANUS 4761 EDINBURGH DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 AVERY® 5960MC CRAIG S WAGNER 4765 EDINBURGH DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 GEORGE GWIAZDOWSKI 4769 EDINBURGH DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 BARNES 2722 GLASGOW DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 HOPPER 2718 GLASGOW DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 BARRETT 2714 GLASGOW DR CARLSBADCA92010 STEVEN E THOMPSON 2710 GLASGOW DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 TRENT 2706 GLASGOW DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 GRAHAM J ESPIE 4717GATESHEADRD CARLSBAD CA 92010 RANDELL A AGADONI 4721 GATESHEAD RD CARLSBAD CA 92010 RICHARD H & C SMEDLEY 4725 GATESHEAD RD CARLSBAD CA 92010 SCOTT D DONOHUE 4729 GATESHEAD RD CARLSBAD CA 92010 TR AHLE 4733 GATESHEAD RD CARLSBAD CA 92010 993 4737 GATESHEAD RD CARLSBAD CA 92010 ROBERT D & HOLLY HILL 4741 GATESHEAD RD CARLSBAD CA 92010 GARY C & FRANCES AGLIATA 4745 GATESHEAD RD CARLSBAD CA 92010 JEFFREY RSPRAGUE 4691 TELESCOPE AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008 KENNETH J & JUDY MILLER 4753 GATESHEAD RD CARLSBADCA92010 STEVEN & TERESA BRANDT 4757 GATESHEAD RD CARLSBADCA92010 GEORGE HABER 4761 GATESHEAD RD CARLSBADCA92010 GOMEZ 4765 GATESHEAD RD CARLSBAD CA 92010 RALPH A & D PORTER 4769 GATESHEAD RD CARLSBAD CA 92010 BARBARAH PETERS 4773 EDINBURGH DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 DAVID L MCINTYRE 4777 EDINBURGH DR CARLSBADCA92010 WILLIAM COUNTREMAN 4781 EDINBURGH DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 MARC D SILBERBERGER 4785 EDINBURGH DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 SCOTT A & NADINE TYREE 2735 STIRLING CT CARLSBAD CA 92010 DANIEL MASSON 4758 GATESHEAD RD CARLSBAD CA 92010 PAUL S & TERESA HO 7543 NAVIGATOR CIR CARLSBAD CA 92011 m096S A«3AV-OD-008-l wiQ96S pue uier Impression antibourrage et a sechage rapide Utilisezlegabarit5960MC DANIEL E VANTASSEL 4750 GATESHEAD RD CARLSBAD CA 92010 www.avery.com 1-800-GO-AVERY JOHN A SAPPINGTON 4746 GATESHEAD RD CARLSBAD CA 92010 AVERY® 5960"e FOX 4742 GATESHEAD RD CARLSBAD CA 92010 N BARCIK 4738 GATESHEAD RD CARLSBADCA92010 MILLICENT C ALLAN 4734 GATESHEAD RD CARLSBAD CA 92010 ZOE M SHOMATE 2715GREENOCKCT CARLSBAD CA 92010 WILLIAM D & DONNA KOREN 2717GREENOCKCT CARLSBAD CA 92010 HUBERT SMITH 2719GREENOCKCT CARLSBAD CA 92010 WITTENDORFER 2721GREENOCKCT CARLSBADCA92010 DIANE M LEWIS 7741 QUITASOL ST CARLSBAD CA 92009 J TORRETTO 2725 GREENOCK CT CARLSBAD CA 92010 NASSER 2727 GREENOCK CT CARLSBAD CA 92010 SHERIDAN L CANNY-QUINN 2729 GREENOCK CT CARLSBAD CA 92010 KING FAMILY 2731 GREENOCK CT CARLSBAD CA 92010 NANCY E RUSSIAN 1897 HAMILTON LN ESCONDIDO CA 92029 OSCAR O AY ALA 2718 INVERNESS DR CARLSBADCA92010 BRETT FRANKENBERG 2714 INVERNESS DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 JEFFREY R SPRAGUE 4691 TELESCOPE AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008 JOHN W MCCARTHY 2706 INVERNESS DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 MADDEN 2705 GLASGOW DR CARLSBADCA92010 JAMES W SHEFFIELD 2752 BANFF CT CARLSBAD CA 92010 NEW CENTURY MORTGAGE 1610 E SAINT ANDREW PL SANTA ANA CA 92705 LUESCHEN 2717 GLASGOW DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 VINCENT D & LAURA MORALES 2721GLASGOWDR CARLSBAD CA 92010 FERNANDO GURffiE 2680 GLASGOW DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 LENORE SHARP 2684 GLASGOW DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 BYRON &JOANNMAUCK 2688 GLASGOW DR CARLSBADCA92010 ROBERT J HAHNEL 2692 GLASGOW DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 BILL & SUSAN BRAZEAU 2696 GLASGOW DR CARLSBAD CA 92010 ARTHUR G & BARBARA WOOD 4770 BROOKWOOD CT CARLSBAD CA 92010 «u096S AU3AV-O9-008-1 6ujiuud aajj aBpnius PUB iuef Impression antibourrage et a sechage rapide Utiliseztegabarit5960MC JOHN A & SHIRLEY GALEY 4772 BROOKWOOD CT CARLSBADCA92010 www.avery.com 1-800-GO-AVERY LAURA L PRZESMICKI 1775 E POINTE AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008 AVERY® 5960"c ATTILA H & PATTIFELSEN 813 JENSEN CT ENCINITAS CA 92024 HAROLD T & SUSAN HARRIS 4778 BROOKWOOD CT CARLSBADCA92010 TRABER 4780 BROOKWOOD CT CARLSBAD CA 92010 THOMAS ATHERTON 4781 BROOKWOOD CT CARLSBAD CA 92010 MILLER 4779 BROOKWOOD CT CARLSBAD CA 92010 FRANK &JOANNEVOLPE PO BOX 23689 ROCHESTER NY 14692 MEYER 4775 BROOKWOOD CT CARLSBAD CA 92010 MARY B CASEMENT 4773 BROOKWOOD CT CARLSBADCA92010 LOUISE BARCLAY 4771 BROOKWOOD CT CARLSBAD CA 92010 ROBERT P & LOUISE VIRGADAMO 4768 GATESHEAD RD CARLSBAD CA 92010 HARVEY J SCHROEDER 4795 GATESHEAD RD CARLSBAD CA 92010 EVANGELINE E ALMANZA 4793 GATESHEAD RD CARLSBAD CA 92010 WILLIAMSON FAMILY 4791 GATESHEAD RD CARLSBAD CA 92010 CHRIS & LORI TAMMARIELLO 4789 GATESHEAD RD CARLSBAD CA 92010 MARILYN A DAY 4787 GATESHEAD RD CARLSBAD CA 92010 MICHAEL A GUNZELMAN 4785 GATESHEAD RD CARLSBAD CA 92010 MOHNACKY 4783 GATESHEAD RD CARLSBADCA92010 THOMAS A & CAROL KING 4781 GATESHEAD RD CARLSBAD CA 92010 DENNISON 4777 GATESHEAD RD CARLSBADCA92010 JOHN & HELEN LUITGAARDEN 4775 GATESHEAD RD CARLSBAD CA 92010 MASAMOTO 4773 GATESHEAD RD CARLSBAD CA 92010 SB &ADECTOR 4164 PRADO DE LOS PAJAROS CALABASASCA91302 MICHAEL P & JULIE KEMP 1579 W ELM AVE EL CENTRO CA 92243 JOHNSON 126VIADELAVALLE SOLANA BEACH CA 92075 JACK C WAGNON 4573 ESSEX CT CARLSBAD CA 92010 WENDY M WOEHL 4575 ESSEX CT CARLSBAD CA 92010 KATHY NOURSE 4577 ESSEX CT CARLSBAD CA 92010 JON D OXTDINE 4579 ESSEX CT CARLSBAD CA 92010 AM3AV-O9-008-L t<is\f< laAD-JIAMIUV 6ui}UiJ(j aajj aBpnuis pue Impression antibourrage et a sichage rapide Utilteezlegabarit5960MC ROBERT NIELSEN 4581 ESSEX CT CARLSBAD CA 92010 www.avery.com 1-800-GO-AVERY PATRICIA A PIZZO 28875 BOOTHBAY RD TEMECULA CA 92591 AVERY® 5960"c SYLVIA P TAYLOR 4585 ESSEX CT CARLSBADCA92010 ALAN HOCKNELL 4587 ESSEX CT CARLSBADCA92010 JR DOUGLAS 4623 BUCKINGHAM LN CARLSBADCA92010 TERESA PAWLOWICZ 4625 BUCKINGHAM LN CARLSBAD CA 92010 TERESA PAWLOWICZ 4627 BUCKINGHAM LN CARLSBADCA92010 PAVLOFF 2740 SOUTHAMPTON RD CARLSBADCA92010 JANET M WILLRICH 4587 CHELSEA CT CARLSBADCA92010 SYLVIA FORD 4583 CHELSEA CT CARLSBAD CA 92010 EDWARD F SHEDLEY 2445 SIERRA MORENA AVE CARLSBADCA92010 COOK 4575 CHELSEA CT CARLSBAD CA 92010 LETTS 2004 4571 CHELSEA CT CARLSBAD CA 92010 ERIC & TANYA WATANABE 4567 CHELSEA CT CARLSBADCA92010 SHAHRNAZ MOTAKEF 4565 CHELSEA CT CARLSBAD CA 92010 BEN & DORENE MORALES 1320 N WILDFLOWER DR CASA GRANDE AZ 85222 SUSAN B STRAYHORN 4551 CHANCERY CT CARLSBAD CA 92010 ORLENAMDURKEE 4555 CHANCERY CT CARLSBAD CA 92010 CHRISTIAN & CYNTHIA LOPEZ 4559 CHANCERY CT CARLSBADCA92010 BRUCE W & CHERYL TALL 4563 CHANCERY CT CARLSBAD CA 92010 RICHARD J SEMER 4415 E JAEGER RD PHOENIX AZ 85050 JASON L & BROOKE GOFF 4571 CHANCERY CT CARLSBAD CA 92010 DUSTIN DESMARAIS 4575 CHANCERY CT CARLSBAD CA 92010 EDWARD T FORBES 4579 CHANCERY CT CARLSBAD CA 92010 TAKAYUKI &YUKIKOTORII 4583 CHANCERY CT CARLSBADCA92010 RANDELL L SHULTZ 2731 SOUTHAMPTON RD CARLSBADCA92010 LILLIAN FAUCI 3541 CORTE DULCE CARLSBAD CA 92009 JOANNE MARTINEZ 2727 SOUTHAMPTON RD CARLSBADCA92010 SCOTT D WARWICK 2725 SOUTHAMPTON RD CARLSBAD CA 92010 RENATA A HARTLEY 2723 SOUTHAMPTON RD CARLSBADCA92010 ©A1I3AV AM3AV-OD-008-1 «i096S 6ujiuu<] aaij aSpnuis pue tuer Impression antibourrage et a s6chage rapide UtHisezlegabarit5960"c (*. MCCREESH 226 NAUTILUS ST LA JOLLA CA 92037 www.avery.com 1-800-GO-AVERY ROBERT H SPRINGER 2719 SOUTHAMPTON RD CARLSBADCA92010 AVERY® MICHAEL J JENSEN 2717 SOUTHAMPTON RD CARLSBAD CA 92010 KUBIAK 2715 SOUTHAMPTON RD CARLSBADCA92010 RYMSZA 2713 SOUTHAMPTON RD CARLSBAD CA 92010 MARK A NELSON 2711 SOUTHAMPTON RD CARLSBAD CA 92010 PETERABERTINO 2709 SOUTHAMPTON RD CARLSBAD CA 92010 PAUL A WILLIAMS 123 PROMONTORY DR W NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 MATTHEW P & DARYL ROCCO 2705 SOUTHAMPTON RD CARLSBAD CA 92010 WILLOUGHBY 2703 SOUTHAMPTON RD CARLSBAD CA 92010 MICHAEL SHRIVER 2383MERWINDR CARLSBAD CA 92008 NATALIA GAVRILENKO 2387MERWINDR CARLSBAD CA 92008 SCOTT D & NANCY CROSS 2391MERWINDR CARLSBAD CA 92008 MICHAEL D HASELHUHN 2395 MERWIN DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 DEGRAW 2399 MERWIN DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 RUSSELL V LAPORTA 2380 MERWIN DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 FELIX B DELAMATA 2376 MERWIN DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 MARK R RALSTON 2368 MERWIN DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD CANTERBURY UNIT 200 10721 TREENA ST SAN DIEGO CA 92131 .SBADP&NTERBURY ASC 10721/l^EENA ST SA*TDIEGQCA92131 CANTERBURY ASC 'REENA ST GO CA 92131 GLENES D STAPLETON 2822 FOREST VIEW WAY CARLSBAD CA 92008 ALAN K HAUB ACH 4986 CRESTVffiW DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 DANIEL OCONNELL 4990 CRESTVffiW DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 JESUS A & MARCIA REYNA 4994 CRESTVffiW DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 AZAM M MIRSHOJAEE 4998 CRESTVffiW DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 MARK A & CYNTHIA STEPKA 4991 CRESTVffiW DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 AHMAD RAHMANIAN 4995 CRESTVffiW DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 CHRISTOPHER C & ERIN POCI 4999 CRESTVffiW DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 KENNETH A & ALICIA MORAN 2361 SUMMERWIND PL CARLSBAD CA 92008 wi096S AaiAV-OD-008-l Ni096S ajLVldWil ©AJ9AV asn a6pnius pue uier Impassion antibourrage et a s&chage rapide Utilisez le gabarit 5960MC BRADFORD G & VANDY RUTH- 2353 SUMMERWIND PL CARLSBAD CA 92008 www.avery.com 1-800-GO-AVERY PRASAD MANCHEM 2349 SUMMERWIND PL CARLSBAD CA 92008 AVERY® MARIO & MICHELE DENYS 2345 SUMMERWIND PL CARLSBAD CA 92008 ANDREW J GEDMINAS 2341 SUMMERWIND PL CARLSBAD CA 92008 JOSEPH M CASEY 2324 SUMMERWIND PL CARLSBAD CA 92008 JORGE L & PURA CABALLERO 2328 SUMMERWIND PL CARLSBAD CA 92008 JOHN S & STARR GRUNDY 2332 SUMMERWIND PL CARLSBAD CA 92008 ERIK K & NICOLE TAPPIN 2336 SUMMERWIND PL CARLSBAD CA 92008 EUGENE GOORCHENKO 2340 SUMMERWIND PL CARLSBAD CA 92008 DONNA KLUESNER 2344 SUMMERWIND PL CARLSBAD CA 92008 BRUCE L HEADRICK 2348 SUMMERWIND PL CARLSBAD CA 92008 KATHRYN CHANDLER 2352 SUMMERWIND PL CARLSBAD CA 92008 SLAVKO SRIJEMAC 39025 ZACATE AVE FREMONT CA 94539 MASK W & LILLIAN LAUMAN 2360 SUMMERWIND PL CARLSBAD CA 92008 SLAVKO SRIJEMAC 39025 ZACATE AVE FREMONT CA 94539 ROBERT S & L GINSBURG 2368 SUMMERWIND PL CARLSBAD CA 92008 JAMES X & SHEILA QIU 2372 SUMMERWIND PL CARLSBAD CA 92008 HIDDEN RIDGE AT CARLSBAD SUITE B 212 15375 BARRANCA PKWY IRVINE CA 92618 HIDDEN RIDGE AT CARLSBAD SUITE B 212 15375 BARRANCA PKWY IRVINE CA 92618 RANCHO CARLSBAD SUITE 510 1801 AVENUE OF THE STARS LOS ANGELES CA 90067 m096S AU3AV-O9-008-I. iiuud aaij a6pnuis pue uier NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, {DATE}, to consider a certification of an Environmental Impact Report and adoption of the Candidate Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and approval of 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 on property which 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 and more particularly described as: Those portions of Lots D and E of Rancho Agua Hedionda, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California. According to Map thereof No. 823, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, November 16, 1896, described as follows: Parcel 1: Parcel 1 on Certificate of Compliance recorded November 28, 2001, as File No. 2001-0865064 of Official Records. Parcel 2: Parcel 2 on Certificate of Compliance recorded November 28, 2001, as File No. 2001-0865065 of Official Records. Parcel 3: Parcel 1 and the remainder parcel of Carlsbad Minor Subdivision 02-10 as shown on Parcel Map No. 19804 recorded August 3, 2005, as File No. 2005- 0659805 of Official Records. Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public hearing. Copies of the agenda bill will be available on and after {DATE}. If you have any questions, please call Barbara Kennedy in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4626. If you challenge the certification of the Environmental Impact Report adoption of the Candidate Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Master Plan, General Plan Amendment, Local Facilities Management Plan Amendment and/or Habitat Management Plan Permit in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad, Attn: City Clerk's Office, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008, at or prior to the public hearing. CASE FILE: EIR 03-03/MP 02-03/GPA 02-04/LFMP 14(B)/HMP 06-04 CASE NAME: ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN PUBLISH: {DATE} CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL 1/8 Page Ad Please wor ro SCALE SITE MAP ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN EIR 03-03/MP 02-03/GPA 02-04/LFMP 14(B)/HMP 06-04 c»0) £<o _ooo Oi Reason For The Stability in our Little Colony CommunityC" £o> O)1 o •o 3 .c c at o >, & os M£o oX O o *Many of the original homeowners are still in the area. Also, almost all theresidents make a constant effort to maintain their properties in a clean andattractive manner. There is also a unique camaraderie throughout thedevelopment that promotes a good social environment for adults and childrenalike. This is probably due to our geographical construction - many cul-de-sacsand minimal traffic on most days. We feel safe, secure and a sense of cozinessanywhere within our Colony - it truly is a working "Colony."We moved here because we loved theneighborhood - well kept up homes and yards anda quiet neighborhood with a good mixture ofresidents: young families, retirees and somemiddle aged singles.iCOI>-, CM -o o ^CO CO-O COCO oa j| •^ o> _c 2 ^1 believe that the stability of the neighborhood comes from the fact that the peopiin the neighborhood have similar values about home, family, and community. 1heard a statistic once that said that 80% of volunteers involved in the City comefrom our quadrant of the city, and many of those live in the Colony and EdinburgEstates. In our 170plus homes, we have a school board member (ElisaWilliamson), president of the Senior Commission and Friends of the Library (ArtrWood), former PTA presidents for both Hope and Calaveras Hills, former ArtsCommission Chair.... and these are just the ones I know. There are many, man^more.We lived nearby for 10 years previously. We likedthe colony because of its neighborhood feel, thefact that the properties were neat and kept up,and because there were people of all ages livingthereen S>^ ^•*~ <nCD §, D_ 1 3 COm m Amongst all the developments since the early 1990's, the Colony has remained ismall, quaint and quiet neighborhood - a good environment for families of all ag<Orange County was too expensive at the time.Looked at all the North County cities and thoughtCarlsbad was the nicest. Looked in Carlsbad forover 1 yr and chose the Colony because it was asmall, quaint and quiet neighborhood.COs>. CMCM 1O)^c :=~"3 O)G)<5 The fact that so many people here are long time residents.We wanted to start a family in a safe community !with nice people where we could enjoy raising ourchildren.CO•B oE ent — CD czo _. "S3JDCOrsi UJ oa T3 0 -2 _ -«2 15 Communities are built on neighborhoods. Neighborhoods are built on stableneighbors. The colony, with its' limited access and moderate number of homes,a very quiet, stable, safe place to raise children. We don't have people using ouroads to go other places. The only purpose people have for entering the colonyto visit someone in the colony. This creates safe streets, and a neighborhood this easy to police by parents and authorities.Relocated from Michigan. Chose Carlsbad for itsgreat school system. The colony was chosenbecause of the way it, and the rest of CalaveraHills, was tucked away in a corner of CarlsbadCO CO >, en CO &COO J— jCO•^r °° CO O 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.We thought it would be a great starter house, butwe fell in love with the neighborhood and decidednever to leave.2* $>.r— -o ^=- 1 C ooc os oO Quality of life, location, atmosphere of neighborhood.City's reputation of planned & controlled growth.Moved from Orange County where growth waschoking infrastructureCO CO >, COeg T3 CO toCDcz £Z13CC .9? =1CO tCOQ 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.Neighborhood "feeling" - people out walking thestreet, talking / socializing with neighbors, largeyards - kid friendlyJO COO)S, TJ- , CD "coCD CD CO .&• <? §'§-1 &E •%o ' 0 03h= COo£ • _d 03 o ^."D ~ CZ•d -g 03 Q. 5 0. .&• ' re"•?= cz jz The small town feel, the feeling of being safe, commurfeels suburban not urban (we don't want it to feel urbamore traffic and the resultant congestion will cause toT3cz TJ *We selected Carlsbad because we were tolCarlsbad was very concerned about growththere was a moratorium on growth.JL -IPlSrC co ^ > ,- > S-co S •*= >• o >. *»CJ3 S 0 CD ° -g1 -ft^ § -5 £ g'.ffi w CO ° 0 T3 "Q. CO "0 ™ g-g reS ^| S.-5,.sa 92 ® g So> -c: to CD ja i: .-, •r- 0 CC JZ CO « S *_ S.CDs >,"O cO 08 03CJ r^m LUco S-sw^ ^J<5 gz •= g^-£ Sr*- COCO E >• occ >XHI CO — ^ 03.-•§CD CO •5. E Definitely because of the mix of family and retired peoOF COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBORHOOD. We haveliving here.§> SQJ 6 CD °- Z E £ 2 c re &Originally from New Zealand and 1 chose toto Carlsbad in approx 1980 because I thinkpopulation at that time was approx. 30,000-which was about the size of my home townZealand. A very good size in which to raisefamily; and a very strong sense of communiCO >.,oCM re mE .1 2 QItCO zj_ .0 §=§ oO LU ^ S.y fi.> W- c- CDCZo CDCZ re czreCL >.lots of good folks-neighborly and family valuesDo planners need to destroy one community while theCD Escaoe the hiqh-densitv and traffic of Grantrecz"en•cz^o. CO COCD>1 COCM ;^- 0 co -o'>COQ c:Z3oO "co* "czCD TO"co £ 0 OO -DczCD tr CD5 -£Z0 l£Z5 .&• "czZ3fZ QO We have stabilized and consolidated into a quiet safeto protect3re We wanted a quieter, smaller and more intiisocietyCOi>,•** CM v_ .2.g4— 'i 03ISICO~T~ o£3 E ^ CD TDi_CL •oCZ CO CZ•sCO.0c: ZJ E o Our QUIET and SAFE STREETS and neighborhood cS O3 We are original owners and moved here inCD CO 03 CO 5 03 ^-\ i CO OI « JjT'osC*J • — CM o CDCL O.O"1~ CD"coZJco 03.g 2 co .CO CDCO 1om -Q -nre-QCO The Colony is one of the most desired locations in Caiclean neighborhood and very friendlythe area because it was it was new, quitereasonable and sort of isolated.e S>* i—CM CJ _ 1 CD O) £%re (3 CM.0 030 CDCQ CM T3CZ CO CO 03 1CO CL SCO "GO _co en"_QJ The community feeling is so great what with block parthe holiday decorations03"o E 1 loved the open fields behind me and did mrealize that there would be thousands of hoibuilt there-a J1&-r^. 03CO >en CDZ^~a —^-^ CD •«—CO | 0re £ CD £,03 "S> Co> re •?=i- -£Z E CO "CD 5 czCD"d COen.±±Z3I CZ03 03m CLlcCO CDc:go TZI "o CO "o CDCOcz CDCOi--Family oriented; old fashion neighborhood commitmerand pride in our colony.£• czZJ Was looking for an upgrade from the commwhere 1 lived in Oceanside.CO cB>, CJ> CO1 COEre2 Sticking together and watching out for each otherEmployment transfer.e 1,__ CM s <S G> reQ °a CDZ3 CO CL SCO O '*3-!=• co O) CD 1=1 CO * io> ** s.32 re5 03•^ ^— »_J •*—•£ 8 S 0)O CD It is a close-knit community. We all watch out for eachup and help our neighbors. 1 love my neighbors-the bhere.^socz -o _w We left Orange County because my husbarwanted a shorter commute. Unfortunately, i'the same as before we moved.2re >,^» CO § 03Q- V) c.re LL °a CO "8.> "iCOjz: _9i 8 CL "coO CD People know their neighbors and care about each othihere for years!We keep an eye out for each otherS 3§>«_First home in CA after relocating from MichiWe liked what we heard about the school 35and Carlsbad's proximity to the beach.e Ico CDQ. Q_ 3 oj} >.fci*: 5o CO -oc CO CD COO j£S re Somewhat secluded. Low crime rate and neighbors threspect for each otheri.^ s^-ire CD ^ o>re <—Peaceful neighborhood in a cul-da-sac andfrom the traffic and crime in Tanglewood, wlpreviously lived for 10 years.e?re £.,_ ••" CDCOZ3occ ci _>. re "i £ $> « • oCD cn-*- mS -B - 1cz "co S- £*— rt< O O3*- £ CD coc: 3 Q- re i '5 » "o £ S £ CD O -^ CDP P >- x:£ fc CD *=8 <« e i 1 "3 ° m^ J3 -£Z ?^The colony attracts a certain type of person and familylooking for the latest and greatest "brand new" home, 1diverse environment - a safe place for kids to play witltend to know their neighbors and to look after each otl£ «Z3 CD•JS "d =J5 c CD 'EE ™ ^ .1 Quality of life; stable, mature neighborhood;trees; quiet area; no new home constructiorrelated issues; cul de sac / protected; enjoyfields and hiking; mix of older and younger 1CO >* ^NT^ CO _cz "ECO^ CD CO OSe-ro C3 pride and co-ownership of the community. There is a sense of "home" here. Iconvenient to good schools and parksA sense of communityPlanned community, Town interested incommunity, Quiet area out of major traffic flowCOCD ^ CDCL O > CD d COO5 °» dCO LU People are friendly here, in general have a pride of ownership, the streets arequiet, the schools are good, and our neighborhood feels like a "little piece ofparadise".COCO We wanted a quiet "established' residentialneighborhood. Lots of trees and birds singing. Eaccess to the community.£2COCD -* g LL. .O m CO Q-The physical design of the neighborhood, the cul d sacs, the quietness of thestreets, encourages people to linger in the front, for kids to play in the front. Wecan use our streets for parties. We gather often as a community, which createsstrong ties.Because of the quaint, quiet neighborhood andlarge ami of open space in back yard.1 "fr CL -2 CO CD CD CO•!=.c:O "Si—Well kept neighborhoodCOCD ^ L_ _o h- czQJ c& "CD S Good location, good schools, great lots WONDERFUL, INVOLVED NEIGHBORSJob relocationCO CO Q)T3 CO ^g ^^08 CD CD CO Very quiet neighborhood that is kept up (not overrun), and seems like an oasis inthe middle of the Carlsbad explosion. Also, we have a great set of neighbors, andwe respect each other.We used to live off Pontiac and Victoria, andadmired this neighborhood. When we relocatedback, we were thrilled to find a home over here.The schools are awesome, especially CHES &CHMS!COCD •^ QJ-0 CO |r^^ Ei —(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.oCO We loved the house and the neighborhood wasfull of children. Also, people were friendly to useven when we were just looking.>, CO T3 CD *£; CD. m T3'> COO08 CO5 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.CDCZ My wife cannot climb stairs. We moved to to a ostory home here on Brookwood Court1••- >•* CD rnu -= f~co | — i 1 We literally put up our fences together with our neighbors, shared the same| landscapers, carpooled to school togethero IE 1COCLCO CD CLO CD dCO CD O.C CD ^ "0 8 J°—1 CL "COC. '§ COco 52 >, * •«- o CoCO CO ~z g « LU 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.It was a nice quiet community, the houses werebuilt on larger lots and the traffic was non-existet2 1 c^ zj(— CO ^>o s CD .CO O -£3dCO CD s 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 fortunateCDCO We already lived in Carlsbad off of Kelly Street.We liked the area and wanted to buy a new hou:COcz!o> O JD ci5>- c: CM O CD ^_g* ZJ 08 dCD - oo1 O3re COCM rjo 1re ere c, w \-Q Hello re co > 03 -C CO CO S S 03 o> >^==£ £ o « - S S "S co •^.3 J^« C"o> CD <o _ooo 0) oo h glivefine place£2reO3 o o 031I'g. o-| g re o gc «S -R 2 § ac: o re v- ^ 0i o-e 111si3 10" |f •*-* oCD 05 0 " g CO« s IS II; 03 CO 03 se,areiet (rdl is adafeel|glfim oc •ocre 03 cfg re8 Q. re re gQ 0 1- 2 oji ^ >(0 £ .C 2 ?50-1- j* ^ .£ oW CO TS c i- Q> J= <D CO 3U CO > CD O Ili^sCO I— CD C 0Q- = > .2 a o o- * -•o E o <DQ) to t; ^£ -cS I i 0 T3O O August 28,2006 To: Carlsbad City Council Members (Lewis, Hall, Kulchin, Packard, Sigafoose) Carlsbad Planning Commissioners (Montgomery, Baker, Segall, Whitton, Cardosa, Dominguez, Heinemann) Carlsbad City Manager, Raymond Patchett Carlsbad Community Development Director, Sandra Holder Re: Robertson Ranch Master Plan Application Dear City Leaders: As the leaders of Carlsbad, we need your assistance to facilitate the implementation of appropriate actions and forward movement of the subject application. We are looking to you, our City leaders, to help protect our interests as citizens. We have never opposed the subject development; we have major concerns regarding the adverse safety and integrity impacts of access through our neighborhood as a result of this development. We are long-time residents with a vested interest in preserving the unique neighborhood in which our families live and that has been a part of the "Village By The Sea" for almost 25 years. We have strived to be professional and have worked closely with City staff to find resolution. There remain several concerns that homeowners have not been able to resolve with the City. In a unanimous 7-0 vote at the first Planning Commission Hearing on May 31,2006 the Commission directed City staff and the Applicant to work with residents of the Colony and come up with a better plan that would not cause significant negative impact to the Colony neighborhood. At the second Hearing on June 21,2006, a decision could not be made since concerns and flaws were identified with the alternative proposals presented to the Commission. It was also made very clear that the Commission would not approve the application unless they were sufficiently convinced that the projected traffic through our neighborhood would be minimal. We invited City staff to two homeowners' meetings (6/19/06 and 8/17/06) to be held jointly with the Applicant. The City declined to attend both meetings. We asked the City Planning Director for a town hall meeting. This meeting will occur on Thursday, August 31st at 6:00 m at the Faraday facility, and your attendance is strongly encouraged. Both the City staff and Applicant verified this week that the Wildlife Agencies have approved a second ingress/egress point (aka Collector Tamarack Connection) in the development With this second ingress/egress point two solutions now exist that are a win-win-win for all parties involved. The two solutions: -» Satisfy the needs of the Developer, City and Colony -» Meet all Code requirements including the Fire Departments buy-in (July 11th) -> Eliminate the significant safety and adverse impacts caused by the development to our neighborhood -» Maintain the integrity and quality of life of our almost 25-year old neighborhood -> Provide four emergency ingress/egress points. City Leaders - The Colony, An Established "Village By The Sea" Community, pg. 2 The two solutions include "back-to-back cul-de-sacs" in one and a gated community in the other. Originally, buy-in for the "back-to-back cul-de-sacs" solution was not supported by the City Planning staff because of concerns with emergency vehicle access. We've consulted with and obtained testimonials from several experts, including a Battalion Chief/Deputy Fire Marshal with 34 years of experience, that claim the concerns are unfounded. The other solution, a gated community (of which there are 161 gates already in Carlsbad), was presented to the Colony on July 11,2006 and the City staff, City Fire Department, Applicant and Colony all agreed to its feasibility. In late-July we learned that the Applicant and City staff no longer support this solution, but we have been unable to get a direct answer as to why. The Applicant proposed both of these alternatives. We have identified our concerns bebw, and provided additional information supporting these concerns (attachment enclosed). 1. Safety vs. Access 2. Gates (and Other Closure Tools For Easy Emergency Access) 3. Validity and Reliability of Data -Traffic Study & El R Information 4. Noticing Requirements - Robertson Ranch (i.e., Master Plan Amendments) 5. Development Requirements - Growth Management Plan (Prop. E) Your assistance in moving the process of resolution forward is appreciated. We wish to meet with each of you to discuss these issues. Thank you in advance for your attention to the citizens. Regards, The Colony: An Established 'Village by the Sea" Community Representatives Greg &flll Agosfi/ Kari Atherton Robin Wofford 4730 Edinburgh Dr. 4781 Brookwood Ct. 4757 Edinburgh Dr 729-4928 Evenings 858-229-5368 619-504-8253 949-368-8856 Daytime Attachment: Robertson Ranch - Impacts To Colony & Concerns Enclosure: Colony Signatures, The Colony-Who Are We? City Leaders - The Colony, An Established "Village By The Sea" Community, pg. 3 ROBERTSON RANCH - IMPACTS TO COLONY & CONCERNS 1. Safety vs. Access . How does one put a percentage figure on the increased risk to kids, pedestrians and pets in a quaint, established, residential neighborhood of 174 homes? . Is the frequency of car, pet, and pedestrian accidents more important than the frequency of emergency vehicle access? . For the Mira Monte closure with gates decision, Mayor Lewis said, "Small roads opened up turn into major arteries." April 25,2006, City Council Meeting. • Since the opening of Glasgow off of Carlsbad Village Drive, one particular location in our neighborhood (see graphic below) is already experiencing increased accidents and near misses due to additional traffic volume. There is an apex point where the two primary streets within the Colony come together and Glasgow crosses the apex in both directions. If Edinburgh and Glasgow are allowed to become through streets into and out of Robertson Ranch, safety will be further impacted. . Cut through traffic at Glasgow and Edinburgh has already resulted in one major accident, in which a vehicle was "totaled" and was reported in April 2004. . Calavera "Hills" logically indicates that streets are not level. Speeds naturally increase when going downhill and so does the risk of safety. 2. Gates (and Other Closure Tools For Easy Emergency Access) . Expert testimonials and consultation indicate very few problems with gates a. Greg Dahlem, Battalion Chief, Baltimore Fire Dept. b. Dan Runnestrand - Battalion Chief/Deputy Fire Marshal c. Ralph Davis - Captain, Corona Fire Dept. d. Greg Largent - Paramedic, Los Angeles County Dept e. Carlsbad Fire Dept (Engine Co. to remain anonymous) . Knox Company (Knox-Box Rapid Entry System) - Western Acct Mgr., Marlene Briones a. Installed in over 9,000 Fire Departments nationwide b. US Military uses Knox Box system worldwide (incl Camp Pendleton & Mira Mar) c. Carlsbad is a long time Knox Box user d. Carlsbad has a great Knox Box program and a wonderful relationship w/ Knox Box City Leaders - The Colony, An Established 'Village By The Sea" Community, pg. 4 e. No equipment failures have ever been reported to Knox Box by Carlsbad f. Gate failures are usually due to dust or dirt on the contact switch-and easily fixed by spraying canned compressed air or gumoutfor heavier build up. Carlsbad has 161 gates in various communities, but no gate policy - specifically a maintenance policy. Because a policy does not exist means that a policy should be created and not denying gates where it is prudent to do so no matter where in Carlsbad. In addition, PA 1 of Robertson Ranch may be a planned gated community, further supporting application of gates where appropriate. Carlsbad's Deputy Fire Marshall, Greg Ryan, claims records are not kept on failed gate incidents. If this is true, the statements and claims by the Fire Dept pertaining to gate failures is hearsay. Is it prudent to decide an established family-oriented neighborhood's future on something that doesn't exist? A manual gate secured with a Knox pad lock and chain provides easy and inexpensive emergency access; first with a Knox key for the pad lock, and second if the lock fails, the chain can be cut using the "three-foot key" method a.k.a. bolt cutters. Chain links are cut so a chain can be used many times before needing replacement. For electronic applications, Knox Box has a key switch override option and a 2-position switch for both the open and closed positions. City Leaders - The Colony, An Established 'Village By The Sea" Community, pg. 5 Carlsbad's Deputy Fire Marshall also stated that so far gate delays have not resulted in the loss of life or property. While not the most aesthetically pleasing, several cities use delineators, commonly referred to as bollards, for closures. Emergency access is easily accomplished as they are designed to be driven over by emergency vehicles and either spring back into place or snap off. They can be used in both permanent and temporary applications. Very low maintenance is required. These are currently on El Camino Real in several locations in Carlsbad. 3. Validity and Reliability of Data • Traffic Study & Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Information . The Average Daily Traffic (ADT) of Glasgow and Edinburgh has consistently changed with each traffic study. a. The first traffic study remarkably claimed that only 6% of the entire Robertson Ranch development (1,383 units) would cut-through Glasgow and Edinburgh. SMDU's b. Further review, showed Glasgow and Edinburgh ADT at 99% and 95% capacity, respectively. c. The third study, while in draft, shows yet another figure remarkably hard to believe. With 1,100+ homes, the traffic increase on one street segment will be only .03%. This is unrealistic. For the closure of Mira Monte, the traffic study that was relied on estimated almost 16,000 more cars on a key traffic segment (College between 78 & Plaza) than the Robertson Ranch study (RR = 15,000 and MM = 31,000.) Obviously, by using the smaller number of the RR study it reduces the ADT calculation applicable to the streets within the Colony. It could be argued that the numbers are being skewed in order to obtain an intended result. (Oceanside's figure for the same traffic segment was 49,000.) City Leaders - The Colony, An Established 'Village By The Sea" Community, pg. 6 . When asked by the Planning Commissioners, the City Engineer, Jeremy Riddle, confirmed that the traffic numbers are "guesswork". a. The Colony demonstrated this at both Commission Hearings (May 31 and June 21). b. Our future cannot be decided upon on guesswork. . The Commission asked, "What contingencies can be guaranteed if traffic numbers are significantly wrong?" "Looking at the potential scenarios when they occur" is not acceptable, per the Commission in response to the City Engineer's response. . The EIR contained a table entitled, "Existing Plus Project"; the numbers should have been identical, but they were not. After bringing it to the Applicant's attention, the Applicant acknowledged that 14 of 21 entries were in error and revised the entries accordingly. . The EIR did not address the noise impacts on Glasgow & Edinburgh. Whether believed to be insignificant or not they still should have been addressed. • The Commission and Council cannot rely on inconsistent, flawed and possibly biased data. Two solutions exist and satisfy the needs of the City, Applicant and the Colony; meet all Code requirements; and will not destroy a neighborhood that has been part of the 'Village by the Sea" for almost 25 years. 4. Future Noticing Robertson Ranch (i.e., Master Plan Amendments) In the aerial image below, the red line illustrates the number of Colony residents that were legally notified. Residents below the red line were notified (approx.1/3); those above the red line were not (approx. 2/3). The HOA and residents have asked the Applicant to add all 174 names and addresses of the Colony to the existing database. To ensure this request is not overlooked, each resident who has signed below hereby informs the City that they request to be notified by the developer and City of any public noticing requirements pertaining to the Robertson Ranch Master Plan development including, but not limited to, Master Plan Amendments. City Leaders - The Colony, An Established "Village By The Sea" Community, pg. 7 5. Development Requirements • Growth Management Plan (Prop. E) . The Fall 2006 Carlsbad Community Services Guide says, "The Plan.. .a/so resulted in a vision for ensuring that development would pay for the impact of new housing on the community."1 • There is no price that can be paid when a life is lost because of an unfortunate and even innocent traffic accident The new housing of Robertson Ranch impacts the Colony neighborhood by increasing the risk of safety to residents and decreasing the integrity of an established neighborhood. . For the Mira Monte closure with gates decision, Mayor Pro Tem, Matt Hall said, "Growth Management Plans were designed to protect quality of life." April 25th 2006, City Council Meeting. . Density of Robertson Ranch has tentatively been agreed to not exceed 1,154 DU. But that figure can be decreased and should not hinder consideration of any solution. On May 15, 2006 during the first Colony homeowners meeting the Applicant was specifically asked if they could economically live with 983 DU's. Brian Milich stated, "We would be willing to re-examine the 983 units we originally requested; they wouldn't be happy, but would we still make money? Yes." 1 Carlsbad Community Services Guide, Fall 2006, page 2 City Leaders - The Colony, An Established 'Village By The Sea" Community Letter Dated August 28, 2006 PRINT LEGIBLY- STREET ADDRESSPRINT LEGIBLY- NAME City Leaders - The Colony, An Established 'Village By The Sea" Community Letter Dated August 28, 2006 PRINT LEGIBLY-NAME PRINT LEGIBLY- ADDRESS City Leaders - The Colony, An Established "Village By The Sea" Community Letter Dated August 28,2006 Y??/ ft -k-/&*trj& PRINT LEGIBLY. NAME PRINT LEGIBLY- STREET ADDRESS Signature City Leaders - The Colony, An Established "Village By The Sea" Community Letter Dated August 28, 2006 PRINT LEGIBLY- NAME PRINT LEGIBLY- STREET ADDRESS Signature City Leaders - The Colony, An Established 'Village By The Sea" Community Letter Dated August 28,2006 PRINT LEGIBLY-NAME City Leaders -The Colony, An Established 'Village By The Sea" Community Letter Dated August 28,2006 PRINT LEGIBLY- STREET ADDRESSPRINT LEGIBLY. NAME x£d,M,bx\-ULCxlA O -i City Leaders - The Colony, An Established 'Village By The Sea" Community Letter Dated August 28, 2006 PRINT LEGIBLY- NAME PRINT LEGIBLY- STREET ADDRESS City Leaders - The Colony, An Established 'Village By The Sea" Community Letter Dated August 28,2006 PRINT LEGIBLY. NAME PRINT LEGIBLY- ADDRESS City Leaders - The Colony, An Established "Village By The Sea" Community Letter Dated August 28,2006 PRINT LEGIBLY-NAME PRINT LEGIBLY- STREET ADDRESS r Signature *^f ,TTS—•••—""^ 9 9 ff^^-,^ <44^Z^ •p-itfc^tjg)*,!?* y^g^W(^z*W~'^&#,7^7 ^U/? n (y z /PX IJvTl TV / / /-jJtvslKLtJ&t'J fj ff^f< /V#***f JJ-M.oV».r\A^£ol' 7 City Leaders - The Colony, An Established "Village By The Sea" Community Letter Dated August 28, 2006 City Leaders - The Colony, An Established "Village By The Sea" Community Letter Dated August 28,2006 PRINT LEGIBLY-NAME PRINT LEGIBLY- STREET ADDRESS City Leaders - The Colony, An Established "Village By The Sea" Community Letter Dated August 28, 2006 uftm Y ] ^^* -—1^\ ) *~*e^-»~~-~. City Leaders - The Colony, An Established 'Village By The Sea" Community Letter Dated August 28, 2006 ^/ City Leaders - The Colony, An Established 'Village By The Sea" Community Letter Dated August 28,2006 PRINT LEGIBLY- NAME BAP^^P.A ?£tL*?,s PRINT LEGIBLY- STREET ADDRESS 41-3-3 Cd', nbv Rflh D« -u ^ ^ Signature OtlAr>d7l/>^ \£-[tlL£9— Robertson Ranch Master PlanRobertson Ranch Master PlanEIR 03EIR 03--03/MP 0203/MP 02--03/GPA 0203/GPA 02--04/LFMP 14(B)/HMP 0604/LFMP 14(B)/HMP 06--0404 Location MapLocation MapAVILA AV VIA MARTAY OS EM ITE ST GATESHEAD RDMILANO DRCRATER RIM RDMEADOW DRSOUTHAMPTON RDMERWIN DRPONTIAC DRGLASGOW DRS IE R R A M O R E N A A V KELLY DRTRIESTE DRRAVINE DRC OLL E GE BLRICH FIELD DRCHELSEA CTM O ON FIELD D R AVALON AVTIBURON AVBRIGHTON RDSAUSALITO AVPLEASANT VALE DRINVERNESS DRPARK DRTAMARACK AVS T A NFORD ST YORK RDVALEWOOD AVSUTTER STLOMA LAGUNA DRSA LISBURY DRBERKELEY AVEDINBURGH DR EL CAMINO REALTAMARACK AVVIA HINTONHILLSIDE DRCANNON RDLISA STWEST VILLAGEEAST VILLAGE L A R ED O S T VIA MARTAATHENS AVC O L L E G E B L GATESHEAD RDTAMARACK AVPONTIAC DRGLASGOW DRT R IE S TE DRCANNON RDK IN G S T O N S T KELLY DREL CAMINO REALRICH FIELD DRCARLSBAD VILLAGE DRSIERRA M O R E N A A V VALEWOOD AVAVALON AVTIBURON AVINVERNESS DRTAMARACK AVS T A N FORD ST CHESTNUT AVYORK RDSUTTER STVICTORIA AVS ALISBURY DRE D INBURGH DR L A P O R T A L A DA DRHILLSIDE DRFROST AVEIR 03-03/MP 02-03/GPA 02-04/LFMP 14(B)/HMP 06-04ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN2,000 01,000FeetWest VillageEast VillageRobertson Ranch East Village Master Tentative MapCT 02-16/ HDP 02-27/ SUP 02-05PONTIAC D R LISA STCRESTVIEW DR Robertson Ranch Master PlanRobertson Ranch Master PlanPlanning Commission HearingsPlanning Commission Hearings––May 31st, June 21st, and Sept. 20th 2006May 31st, June 21st, and Sept. 20th 2006Recommended Certification of EIR 03Recommended Certification of EIR 03--03, 03, and Approval of Robertson Ranch Master and Approval of Robertson Ranch Master Plan, GPA 02Plan, GPA 02--04, LFMP 14(B) and HMP 0604, LFMP 14(B) and HMP 06--0404Approved East Village Master Tentative Map Approved East Village Master Tentative Map CT 02CT 02--16, HDP 0216, HDP 02--07 and SUP 0207 and SUP 02--05 subject 05 subject to City Council approval of the Master Planto City Council approval of the Master Plan Planning Context for Master PlanPlanning Context for Master PlanPP--C zone requires approval of a Master PlanC zone requires approval of a Master PlanComply with the CityComply with the City’’s Habitat Management Plans Habitat Management PlanEnsure compatibility with adjacent land usesEnsure compatibility with adjacent land usesComply with Growth Management PlanComply with Growth Management Plan •Complies with Habitat Management Plan•Preserves over 140 acres of Open Space (35% of project area) PA 5PA 9PA 10PA 16PA 17PA 18PA 3PA 6PA 1PA 21PA 15PA 8PA 7PA 4PA 19ElementarySchoolPA 11Village Commercial/Community FacilitiesRVPA 22ParkWest Village East VillageRLM 96 -RM 170 304RMH - 87RH 387 78Total: 653 units 469 unitsTotal Master Plan: 1,122 units**1,154 “without school” alternativeIncludes 100 units of Senior Housing East VillageVillageWestEAST VILLAGE•Dedication of Open Space•Full-width improvements on College Blvd.•Full-width improvements on Cannon Road•Two new signalized intersections•84” Storm Drain Line•Grading of Park and Habitat CorridorWEST VILLAGE•Dedication of Open Space•Full-width improvements on El Camino Real•Signalized intersection at “Z” Street (Lisa St.)•Additional right-in, right-out access point at Tamarack Ave•Traffic Calming Plan for the West Village •Does not increase west-bound traffic on Tamarack or add to traffic at intersection•Projected ADT does not exceed road capacity•Discourages cut-thru traffic•Provides 4 points of access•Traffic-calming added to the ColonyExisting 45%Proposed 64%Existing 60%Proposed 69%•Complies with Fire and Engineering Stds.•Provides neighborhood connectivity Future Citywide trail in CMWD EasementBus stop (typical) Master Plan Modifications to Master Plan Modifications to Planned Development OrdinancePlanned Development OrdinanceMinor modifications to setbacksMinor modifications to setbacksParking would allow tandem spaces for high Parking would allow tandem spaces for high density multidensity multi--family condominiumsfamily condominiumsRequires recreation space for apartmentsRequires recreation space for apartmentsResults in flexibility for creative design Results in flexibility for creative design solutionssolutions Master Plan Modifications to Master Plan Modifications to City Council Policy 20City Council Policy 20--Street NamingStreet NamingPolicy 20 requires topographic namesPolicy 20 requires topographic namesIn addition: In addition: East Village proposes East Village proposes ““Trail ThemesTrail Themes””West Village proposes West Village proposes ““Historic ThemesHistoric Themes”” RLM – Residential Low Medium Density (0-4 du/ac)RM – Residential Medium Density (4-8 du/ac)RMH – Residential Medium High Density (8-15 du/ac)RH – Residential High Density (15-23 du/ac)E – Elementary SchoolL – Local Shopping CenterCF – Community FacilitiesOS – Open SpaceUA – Unplanned AreaRMRMRMRMRMRMRLMRLMRLMRHRMHL/CFOSOSOSRHRHEEOSOSOSOSOSUAGENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT City Council Policy 43City Council Policy 43--Proposition E Proposition E ““Excess DwellingExcess Dwelling””Unit BankUnit Bank1,122 1,122 --1154 units proposed by Master Plan1154 units proposed by Master PlanRequest for 171 Request for 171 ““Excess DwellingExcess Dwelling””UnitsUnitsGrowth ManagementGrowth Management––1,122 units estimated in original Zone 14 LFMP1,122 units estimated in original Zone 14 LFMP––951951--983 units allowed per updated constraints 983 units allowed per updated constraints analysis analysis Number of units built may not exceed the Northeast Number of units built may not exceed the Northeast Quadrant Dwelling Unit CapQuadrant Dwelling Unit CapAllocation of Excess Allocation of Excess DUsDUsis at the sole discretion of is at the sole discretion of the City Councilthe City CouncilProjects must meet Projects must meet ““qualifyingqualifying””criteriacriteria City Council Policy 43City Council Policy 43--Proposition E Proposition E ““Excess DwellingExcess Dwelling””Unit BankUnit BankPROJECT CHARACTERISTICSPROJECT CHARACTERISTICS••Affordable (income qualified) HousingAffordable (income qualified) Housing••Senior HousingSenior Housing••High Density Housing areas help meet the CityHigh Density Housing areas help meet the City’’s Regional s Regional Fair Share (income qualified & market rate)Fair Share (income qualified & market rate)••Located near commercial areaLocated near commercial area••Located adjacent to public transportationLocated adjacent to public transportation••Located near employment opportunitiesLocated near employment opportunities••Not adjacent to existing singleNot adjacent to existing single--family areasfamily areas••Streets are adequate for increased trafficStreets are adequate for increased traffic Dwelling Unit Estimates & Limitations Dwelling Unit Estimates & Limitations --By By QuadrantQuadrantMay 1, 2006May 1, 2006NORTHWEST12,657 Existing units2,713 Future15,370 Total *SOUTHWEST10,749 Existing units2,110 Future12,859 Total *SOUTHEAST14,491 Existing units2,837 Future17,328 Total *NORTHEAST5,416 Existing units3,626 Future9,042 Total ** Based on Proposition ‘E’ Caps added to the existing units in 1986 City Council Policy 43City Council Policy 43--Proposition E Proposition E ““Excess DwellingExcess Dwelling””Unit BankUnit BankExcess Dwelling Unit Bank: 3,146 Excess Dwelling Unit Bank: 3,146 DUsDUsProjects in NE Quadrant built below densityProjects in NE Quadrant built below density––Carlsbad Highlands (824 Carlsbad Highlands (824 DUsDUsless)less)––CantariniCantariniRanch & Holly Springs (374 Ranch & Holly Springs (374 DUsDUsless)less)––CalaveraCalaveraNature Preserve (56 Nature Preserve (56 DUsDUsless)less)Estimated NE quadrant buildEstimated NE quadrant build--out: 7,435 out: 7,435 DUsDUsCurrent buildCurrent build--out estimate is over 1,600 units out estimate is over 1,600 units below NE Quadrant Capbelow NE Quadrant Cap Zone 14 LFMP AmendmentZone 14 LFMP AmendmentReflects adjustments to:Reflects adjustments to:––General Plan Land Use Designations General Plan Land Use Designations ––BuildBuild--out projections out projections ––Demands for urban public facilitiesDemands for urban public facilitiesFacilities Impacts based on:Facilities Impacts based on:––Robertson Ranch Master Plan Land UsesRobertson Ranch Master Plan Land Uses––42 acres of High School 42 acres of High School (located outside of Master Plan)(located outside of Master Plan)––375 acres of Open Space in 375 acres of Open Space in CalaveraCalaveraNature Preserve and Lake Nature Preserve and Lake CalaveraCalaveramitigation sitemitigation site Zone 14 LFMP AmendmentZone 14 LFMP AmendmentAnalyzes 11 Public Facility Performance StandardsAnalyzes 11 Public Facility Performance StandardsSpecial Conditions:Special Conditions:––Payment of Sewer Connection Fees & Sewer Connection Payment of Sewer Connection Fees & Sewer Connection ImprovementsImprovements––Water facilitiesWater facilities––Payment of Drainage FeesPayment of Drainage Fees––8484””Storm Drain and other drainage improvementsStorm Drain and other drainage improvements––Circulation Element Roadway Improvements (ECR, Cannon & Circulation Element Roadway Improvements (ECR, Cannon & College)College)––Dedication of park landDedication of park land––Dedication and Management of HMP Open SpaceDedication and Management of HMP Open Space Environmental ReviewEnvironmental ReviewProgram EIR was prepared for the Robertson Ranch Program EIR was prepared for the Robertson Ranch Master PlanMaster PlanCirculated for review on October 4, 2005Circulated for review on October 4, 2005All significant impacts can be mitigated to below a All significant impacts can be mitigated to below a level of significance except direct and cumulative level of significance except direct and cumulative effects to Traffic/Circulation and Air Quality (Longeffects to Traffic/Circulation and Air Quality (Long--term Mobile Emissions) term Mobile Emissions) All impacts and mitigation measures are outlined in All impacts and mitigation measures are outlined in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)(MMRP) Statement of Overriding ConsiderationsStatement of Overriding ConsiderationsUnmitigated Direct and Cumulative Impacts to Unmitigated Direct and Cumulative Impacts to Traffic/Circulation and Air Quality Traffic/Circulation and Air Quality (Long(Long--term term Mobile Emissions) rMobile Emissions) results from the marginal esults from the marginal contribution that the project will make when contribution that the project will make when combined with impacts from other projects to combined with impacts from other projects to prepre--existing conditions that currently fail to meet existing conditions that currently fail to meet standards. standards. The City must adopt a Statement of Overriding The City must adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations for these unmitigated impacts.Considerations for these unmitigated impacts. Statement of Overriding ConsiderationsStatement of Overriding ConsiderationsJustification for Overriding Considerations:Justification for Overriding Considerations:Provides for approximately 157 acres of open space Provides for approximately 157 acres of open space consisting of preservation of sensitive habitat areas, a consisting of preservation of sensitive habitat areas, a new public park with sports fields, community recreation new public park with sports fields, community recreation areas and other open space areasareas and other open space areasProvides a wide range of housing types for all economic Provides a wide range of housing types for all economic segmentssegmentsCitywide road network improvements to Cannon Road, Citywide road network improvements to Cannon Road, College Boulevard and El Camino RealCollege Boulevard and El Camino RealInstallation of an 84Installation of an 84””storm drain line north of Cannon storm drain line north of Cannon Road to reduce flooding impacts to the Rancho Carlsbad Road to reduce flooding impacts to the Rancho Carlsbad CommunityCommunity RecommendationRecommendationROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLANROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN––Certify Program EIR 03Certify Program EIR 03--03 and Adopt the Candidate 03 and Adopt the Candidate Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Consideration, and Mitigation Monitoring and Consideration, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program;Reporting Program;––Approve the Robertson Ranch Master Plan (MP 02Approve the Robertson Ranch Master Plan (MP 02--03), General Plan Amendment (GPA 0203), General Plan Amendment (GPA 02--04) , Zone 04) , Zone 14 LFMP amendment (LFMP 14B) and HMP permit 14 LFMP amendment (LFMP 14B) and HMP permit (HMP 06(HMP 06--04)04) GatedCommunity•2 points of access provided to each development area• Complies with Fire and Engineering Standards• No traffic-calming in the Colony• Emergency Access at Glasgow• Gated Community at PA 9 & 10• Modified Grid-pattern for West Village CirculationExisting 45%Proposed 45%Existing 60%Proposed 69%• Projected ADT does not exceed road capacitySignalized intersectionSignalized intersection East Village:East Village:••176 acres 176 acres ••10 lots10 lots••Requires HDP & Requires HDP & Floodplain SUPFloodplain SUPRobertson Ranch East Village Robertson Ranch East Village Master Tentative Map Master Tentative Map (CT 02(CT 02--16)16) The Colony Residents forResponsible Development of Robertson RanchRepresentativesGreg AgostiJill AgostiRobin Wofford What We’re Going to Tell You• Introduce Colony• What We Want & Why (Alternative 3)• Myths –Gated Communities– Growth & Density– Traffic– Reliability of Data The Colony Our Neighborhood Neighborhood 4thof July Edinburgh Drive Glasgow Drive Our Concerns and Fears• Safety• Density • Cut-through traffic• Quality of life What Do We WantAlternative 3 Why We Want Alternative 31. Reliability of data no longer in question2. Staff, Fire & Applicant buy-in3. Emergency response time improves4. Adverse safety impacts eliminated5. Limited traffic calming required6. Increased traffic acceptable to the Colony7. No cut-through traffic8. Integrity of Colony 9. Opportunity for W. Village to create its own unique community 10. Colony & W. Village still connected via trails and paths Tamarack Connection & Circuitous Routing - Alternative 2 • Why approve uncertainty when Alternative 3 provides certainty right now?• What happens to the Colony if traffic calming cannot be agreed to? Myth #1: The Colony Wants to be a Private Gated Community• Looking for a feasible solution • Reliable degree of certainty • Protects our concerns Myth #2: The Colony Opposes Growth and Robertson Ranch Application Density• Recommending what is already promisedGrowth Mgmt Plan (1986):1,154• Analysis by Staff: 983• Willing to accept more than our fair share of low income housingProposed Density49% Single-Family51% Multifamily20% = low income31%= “High Density Residential Sites”aka Apartments Myth #3Notification & Signage Effective Myth #3Notification & Signage EffectiveSignage on ECR at Cannon and Tamarack Myth #4: Gates/Other Barriers Prohibit Emergency Access• Expert testimonials indicating emergency access concerns are unfounded.- 2 Battalion Chiefs/Deputy Fire Marshall's, each with over 34 years of experience- 1 Captain, 25+ yrs - 1 Paramedic, 20 yrs • Knox Company – Western Account Mgr- 9,000 Fire Departments nationwide - US Military, Knox Box system worldwide (incl Camp Pendleton & Mira Mar)- Carlsbad is a long time Knox Box user - Great Knox Box program and a wonderful relationship w/ Carlsbad Myth #5: Cut-Through Traffic Will Be Minimal• Cut-Through traffic already present • Glasgow Dr - Speed Reduction Ordinance • Cannon Road Extension • Point A to B - especially commuters •“Small roads opened up turn into arteries”, Mayor Bud Lewis, 04/25/06 Myth #5Cut-Through Traffic Will Be MinimalSB on Cannon at ECRMay 2006 Myth #5 Cut-Through Traffic Will Be MinimalECR between Tamarack & CannonMay 2006College Approaching CB Village DrMay 2006 Myth #5Cut-Through Traffic Will Be MinimalNB College Between Tamarack N & LakeMay 2006NB College Backup to CannonMay 2006 Myth #5Cut-Through Traffic Will Be MinimalWB on Tamarack at ECRMay 2006 Myth #5Cut-Through Traffic Will Be Minimal• Apex point • Two primary streets come together (E&G)• Increased accidents and near misses Myth #6: Data From Studies Is Reliable•Traffic- Will the real traffic study please stand up?- Assumptions –Planning Commission7-0 vote: Improvement Needed (05/31/06)7-0 vote: Improvement Still Needed (06/21/06)ADT - College At Plaza Dr & Hwy 78ADTMira Monte Traffic StudyRobertson Ranch Traffic StudyCity of Oceanside Traffic Study31,00015,00049,000 Myth #7: Tamarack Connection Must Be A Lighted Intersection If Alternative 3• Pontiac designated for lighted intersection• Can Be Right-In, Right-Out• Montgomery –“Mr. Hauser did explain that often warranted signals are never installed.”• Segall –“What’s good for the E. Village is good enough for the W. Village.”• Via Portalada & Pontiac– Traffic Engineer– No impact since Tamarack is the arterial street Alternative 2 Mitigation Condition• Bond for street closure• Traffic studies 3 months prior to access, and every year thereafter• ADT increases 15%, then gates or other emergency access devices installed• 5 years after final occupancy in W. Village ConclusionThe ColonyAlternative # 3 UNANIMOUS APPROVAL AT PLANNING COMMISSIONUNANIMOUS APPROVAL AT PLANNING COMMISSIONFIVE AND A HALF YEAR LONG PROCESSFIVE AND A HALF YEAR LONG PROCESSCOMMUNITY OUTREACH COMMUNITY OUTREACH (Rancho Carlsbad, Preserve Calavera, The Colony)(Rancho Carlsbad, Preserve Calavera, The Colony)ACHIEVES FOUR IMPORTANT CITY GOALSACHIEVES FOUR IMPORTANT CITY GOALSHHISTORYISTORY Implement the Carlsbad Implement the Carlsbad Growth Management PlanGrowth Management PlanImplement the CarlsbadImplement the CarlsbadHabitat Management PlanHabitat Management PlanImplement all Goals in theImplement all Goals in theCarlsbad General PlanCarlsbad General PlanProvide important CityProvide important CityBenefits and Public FacilitiesBenefits and Public FacilitiesFFOUROURIIMPORTANTMPORTANTGGOALSOALS Implement the CarlsbadImplement the CarlsbadGrowth Management PlanGrowth Management PlanFFOUROURIIMPORTANTMPORTANTGGOALSOALS ••Existing LFMP Existing LFMP allocates 1154 allocates 1154 units (1122 with units (1122 with school) school) ••Planning Planning Commission Commission reduction of 261 reduction of 261 units (20%)units (20%)GGROWTHROWTHMMANAGEMENTANAGEMENTPPLANLANSSTANDARDSTANDARDS Implement the CarlsbadImplement the CarlsbadHabitat Management PlanHabitat Management PlanFFOUROURIIMPORTANTMPORTANTGGOALSOALS RROBERTSONOBERTSONRRANCHANCHHHABITATABITATCCORRIDORSORRIDORSAGUA HEDIONDA LAGOONLAKE CALAVERA & MOUNTAIN RROBERTSONOBERTSONRRANCHANCHMMISSINGISSINGLLINK INK IIN N HMPHMP OOPENPENSSPACE PACE PPRESERVATIONRESERVATIONANDANDMMANAGEMENTANAGEMENTAPPROX $1.5M FOR PERPETUAL MAINTENANCEAPPROX $1.5M FOR PERPETUAL MAINTENANCE Implement all Goals in the Implement all Goals in the Carlsbad General PlanCarlsbad General PlanFFOUROURIIMPORTANTMPORTANTGGOALSOALS RROBERTSONOBERTSONRRANCHANCHBBALANCEDALANCEDCCOMMUNITYOMMUNITYGGOALSOALS RROBERTSONOBERTSONRRANCHANCHTTRAILRAILCCONNECTIONSONNECTIONS Provide Important Community Provide Important Community Benefits and Public FacilitiesBenefits and Public FacilitiesFFOUROURIIMPORTANTMPORTANTGGOALSOALS TTRANSPORTATIONRANSPORTATIONIIMPROVEMENTSMPROVEMENTSSSTORMTORMDDRAINRAINIIMPROVEMENTSMPROVEMENTSCCOMMUNITY OMMUNITY PPARK ARK LLAND (13.5 AAND (13.5 ACRESCRES))$15.6M$15.6M$3.0M$3.0MTTOTALOTAL$20.2M$20.2MPPOTENTIAL OTENTIAL FFIRE IRE SSTATION TATION LLOCATIONOCATIONTTRAILS & RAILS & OOPEN PEN SSPACE PACE SSYSTEMYSTEM RROBERTSONOBERTSONRRANCHANCHNNEIGHBORHOODEIGHBORHOODOOUTREACHUTREACHThe ColonyRancho CarlsbadPreserve Calavera RRANCHOANCHOCCARLSBADARLSBADDDRAINAGERAINAGEIIMPROVEMENTMPROVEMENTPPLANLAN RRESPONDINGESPONDINGTTOOCCOMMUNITYOMMUNITYIINPUTNPUTUUNPLANNEDNPLANNEDAAREAREA--PA 22PA 22 PPRESERVERESERVECCALAVERA ALAVERA AAGREEMENTGREEMENT RROBERTSONOBERTSONRRANCHANCHNNEIGHBORHOODEIGHBORHOODRROADWAYOADWAYCCONNECTIONSONNECTIONSTTHEHECCOLONYOLONY ••REDUCEDREDUCEDPROJECT DENSITY BY 261 UNITS PROJECT DENSITY BY 261 UNITS (20% OVERALL (20% OVERALL --176 UNITS FROM WEST VILLAGE)176 UNITS FROM WEST VILLAGE)••PROVIDED SENIOR HOUSING ON WEST VILLAGEPROVIDED SENIOR HOUSING ON WEST VILLAGE••REDESIGNATED PA 13 & 14 AS AN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SITEREDESIGNATED PA 13 & 14 AS AN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SITE••OBTAINED APPROVAL FROM USFWS & CDFG FOROBTAINED APPROVAL FROM USFWS & CDFG FOR““TAMARACK CONNECTIONTAMARACK CONNECTION””••CIRCUITOUS STREET DESIGN WITHIN WEST VILLAGECIRCUITOUS STREET DESIGN WITHIN WEST VILLAGE••PROVIDE TRAFFIC CALMING WITHIN THE COLONYPROVIDE TRAFFIC CALMING WITHIN THE COLONY Meets Growth Management and General Plan GoalsMeets Growth Management and General Plan GoalsPreserves Important Open Space (Missing Link in HMP)Preserves Important Open Space (Missing Link in HMP)Provides Key Traffic ImprovementsProvides Key Traffic ImprovementsCompletes Critical Drainage Improvements Completes Critical Drainage Improvements ––8484””Storm DrainStorm DrainCommunity ParkCommunity ParkA Balanced Plan for New HousingA Balanced Plan for New Housing 6% P6% PROJECT ROJECT DDISTRIBUTIONISTRIBUTION Traffic Study AssumptionsTraffic Study Assumptions• Drivers will choose the shortest travel time• Each turn and traffic circle adds 10 seconds• Circuitous routing also adds distance– + 0.3 miles via Edinburgh (+36 seconds)– +0.7 miles via Glasgow (+84 seconds)• Use of 2030 volumes is conservative (arterial route travel times are longer) Comparison of Comparison of Travel TimesTravel Times Conclusions About TrafficConclusions About Traffic• Circuitous routes and calming will work• Not likely to experience any cut-through• Volumes on Edinburgh and on Glasgow– Increases depend upon plan alternative– All well under design capacity• Traffic calming in The Colony not assumed– Colony calming will further reduce volumes• Urban Systems Associates report is valid CCIRCUITOUSIRCUITOUSSSTREETTREETRROUTINGOUTINGGLASGOW =GLASGOW =2.7x LONGER2.7x LONGEREDINBURGH = 1.6x LONGEREDINBURGH = 1.6x LONGER EEXISTINGXISTINGVSVSFFUTUREUTURETTRAFFICRAFFIC TTRAFFIC RAFFIC IIMPROVEMENTSMPROVEMENTS