The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2006-06-21; Planning Commission; ; EIR 03-03|MP 02-03|GPA 02-04|LFMP 14B|HMP 06-04 - ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN AND CT 02-16|HDP 02-07|SUP 02-05 - ROBERTSON RANCH EAST VILLAGE MASTER TENTATIVE MAPThe City of Carlsbad Planning Department A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION P.C. AGENDA OF: June 21, 2006 Item No. 0 Application complete date: NIA Project Planner: Barbara Kennedy Project Engineer: Jeremy Riddle SUBJECT: EIR 03-03/MP 02-03/GPA 02-04/LFMP 14<B}/HMP 06-04 -ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN and CT 02-16/HDP 02-07/SUP 02-05 ROBERTSON RANCH EAST VILLAGE MASTER TENTATIVE MAP - Request for: 1) a recommendation for certification of an Environmental Impact Report, and recommendation of adoption of the Candidate Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and a request for a recommendation of approval for the Robertson Ranch Master Plan, General Plan Amendment, Zone 14 Local Facilities Management Plan Amendment, and Habitat Management Plan Permit for Incidental Take consistent with the City's Habitat Management Plan for the Robertson Ranch Master Plan; and 2) a request for approval of a Master Tentative Tract Map, Hillside Development Permit, and Floodplain Special Use Permit for the 176 acre East Village of the Robertson Ran~h Master Plan. The Robertson Ranch Master Plan encompasses a 398 acre site located north of El Camino Real, east of Tamarack Avenue, and east and west of College Boulevard, and east and west of Cannon Road in Local Facilities Management Zone 14. I. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission: 1) ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 6105 RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION of EIR 03-03 and RECOMMENDING ADOPTION of the Candidate Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 6106, 6107, 6108, and 6109 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of MP 02-03, GPA 02-04, LFMP 14(B) and HMP 06-04-ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN; and, 2) ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions No. 6110, 6111 and 6112 APPROVING CT 02- 16, HDP 02-07 and SUP 02-05 -ROBERTSON RANCH EAST VILLAGE MASTER TENTATIVE MAP; based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. II. INTRODUCTION The applicant requested a continuance of this item from the May 31, 2006 Planning Commission hearing so that the applicant could meet with representatives of the Colony neighborhood to resolve some of the traffic and circulation issues that were raised during the hearing. The Planning Commission also directed the applicant to try to determine how traffic calming would be integrated in to the West Village development areas and to contact the Carlsbad Unified School District to verify that the elementary school site was still not desired. () EIR 03-03/MP 02-03/GP A 02-04/LFMP l 4(B)/HMP 06-04 -ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN and CT 02-16/HDP 02-07/SUP 02-05 -ROBERTSON RANCH EAST VILLAGE MASTER TENTATIVE MAP June 21, 2006 Pae 2 III. DISCUSSION On June 6th, the applicant and City staff (Kennedy, Riddle and Johnson) met with nine of the Colony residents to discuss traffic and circulation issues. Mr. Milich presented a plan showing a conceptual street layout and traffic calming features for the West Village. The concept plan (Attachment 2) demonstrates a circuitous street pattern throughout the West Village which is designed to deter cut-through traffic to and from Edinburg Drive and Glasgow Drive to the north. Traffic calming features such as round-abouts, raised medians, mid-block chokers, and bulb-outs would also be incorporated into the final street design. In the meeting, Mr. Milich explained existing biological and topographical constraints along El Camino Real and Tamarack Avenue that lead to considering roadway connections for serving the West Village. After these constraints were explained, Mr. Milich also discussed other design alternatives, which were reviewed, but not supported by staff. The alternatives included deleting full access to Edinburg Drive and Glasgow Drive using cul-de-sacs, but including emergency access gates at the end of the streets. In conjunction with the gated access points, one alternative showed a right in/right out on ECR just east of the commercial site in Planning Area (PA) 11 and the second proposed providing access to the site via three lanes in each direction at "Z" street (Lisa Street). These alternatives were not supported by staff for a number of reasons including: • Any type of physical barrier placed at either Edinburg Drive or Glasgow Drive may result in potential delay times in providing emergency services to the community. • Having open roadway connections (connectivity) is a preferable layout for designing of new development. • Cul-de-sacs with this size of project violates the single entry project standards. • The widening of Z-Street with extra lanes does not result in an effective second point of access. • The proposed right-in, right-out driveway along El Camino Real does not meet City intersection spacing requirements. At the meeting, the Colony residents stated the following concerns: • Residents want clarification regarding why gated access is not supported. • Residents request that staff evaluate the possibility of a more direct access point on Tamarack Avenue in the vicinity of PA 2 to connect with the main West Village development area. • Residents are concerned that the traffic study was not done on multiple days and that it did not include weekends. Residents are concerned about the increase in traffic and demand a new traffic study. • Residents oppose increased density. • Residents would like to change PA 7 to affordable senior housing. At the end of the meeting, the Colony Residents requested a meeting with the Fire Marshall, Karyn Vaudreuil, to understand why gated access points are not acceptable to the Fire Department. EIR 03-03/MP 02-03/GP A 02-04/LFMP J 4(B)/HMP 06-04 -ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN and CT 02-16/HDP 02-07/SUP 02-05 -ROBERTSON RANCH EAST VILLAGE MASTER TENTATIVE MAP June 21, 2006 Pae 3 The residents were given copies of the Traffic Management Program along with an aerial photo of their neighborhood. Mr. Johnson indicated that usually traffic calming in existing neighborhoods was the third step in the program. But since the developer has offered to consider implementing traffic calming in the Colony, the residents should come to consensus about what type of improvements would be supported. At the end of the meeting, the Colony residents stated that they would disseminate the information to the rest of the neighborhood. Issues: The following summarizes the issues raised requested by the Planning Commission and Colony residents and the actions taken to resolve them: I. Provide a concept for traffic calming in the West Village. As discussed above, a concept plan that meets City standards is included as Attachment 2. This exhibit could be included in the Master Plan as Figure IV-4A if the Planning Commission recommends approval of the concept. Additional traffic calming for the Colony neighborhood can be included as a West Village condition of approval for the Master Plan. 2. Meet with the Fire Marshall to discuss why gated access or cul-de-sacs are not supported for Glasgow Drive and Edinburgh Drive. On June 7'\ two Colony residents met with staff (Vaudreuil, Ryan, Riddle, Johnson and Kennedy) to discuss this issue. Ms Vaudreuil reiterated that gated access is not supported because it interferes with response times and life safety concerns need to prevail. The Fire Department stated their support for traffic calming efforts and diversions such as round-abouts as opposed to cul-de-sacs and gated access points. All weather access roads must be provided and grass-crete or other non-traditional access roads are only approved in situations where a secondary access is needed for rare events such as evacuations. Whenever there is an ability to connect a road that has been proposed as a future extension, that would be the preferred solution for providing secondary access to a development. The future road extensions would also provide better service for Colony residents in response to emergency calls where every second can be the difference between life and death. 3. Explore providing an access point on Tamarack Avenue in the vicinity of PA 2. Staff has had preliminary discussions with USFWS and there may be a possibility to include an additional access point in this location. Further negotiations will be necessary with the Wildlife Agencies and further studies will be needed to determine the design criteria for the intersection and roadway. It is envisioned that this would be a signalized intersection to provide a more direct northbound access route for residents within the West Village. Because of the steep topographical conditions, the concept plan (Attachment 3) shows the need for slopes ranging in height to 65 feet which would change the visual character of the hillside. If the access from Tamarack is provided, staff EIR 03-03/MP 02-03/GPA 02-04/LFMP 14(B)/HMP 06-04 -ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN and CT 02-16/HDP 02-07/SUP 02-05 -ROBERTSON RANCH EAST VILLAGE MASTER TENTATIVE MAP June 21, 2006 Pae 4 would not recommend deleting the connections to Glasgow Drive or Edinburg Drive. Edinburg Drive is needed to provide a second point of access to serve the units in P As 9 and I 0. Although is possible that the Glasgow Drive extension could be eliminated, it would result in any northbound or southbound traffic through the Colony to be shifted to Edinburg Drive. Therefore, staff recommends keeping both extensions so that the traffic can be shared on both streets. Access at this point would likely require modification to the proposed RV storage site since the anticipated area for storage would be reduced by approximately two-thirds. A future Minor Master Plan Amendment would be required to show an alternative site for RV storage if necessary. Provisions are currently included in the Master Plan to allow for relocation of the RV storage site. 4. Concern about the validity of the traffic study. The developer has indicated to staff that additional traffic counts have been taken and the results will be presented at the hearing on June 21st. Additionally, the applicant's Traffic Engineer (USA) and the City's consultant for third-party EIR review of the traffic study (VRP A) will be available to answer technical questions and give an overview of the traffic analysis. 5. Neighborhood opposition to increased density. Staff continues to support the request for an allocation of 400 excess dwelling units. The allocation of units to the project does not violate the City's Growth Management Plan nor would it exceed the number of dwelling units anticipated for the northeast quadrant. The allocation of units is consistent with the City's General Plan Policies and helps to meet the goals of the Housing Element to provide affordable housing. The higher density neighborhoods are located near the major circulation roadways, transit stops, and the commercial area, while the lower density neighborhoods are located near the existing, lower-density residential development. 6. Residents would like to change PA 7 to affordable senior housing. Staff supports designating PA 7 as a mixed-rate (affordable and market rate) senior housing site. Location guidelines for senior housing include: • Located close to a wide range of commercial retail, professional and social and community services or have it's own private shuttle to these services; • Located within reasonable walking distance of bus or transit stop; and • Located in a topographically level area. The site is adjacent to the commercial and community facilities site (PA 11 ), is located adjacent to a bus stop on ECR, and the site is proposed to be graded to a more EIR 03-03/MP 02-03/GPA 02-04/LFMP 14(B)/HMP 06-04-ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN and CT 02-16/HDP 02-07/SUP 02-05 -ROBERTSON RANCH EAST VILLAGE MASTER TENTATIVE MAP June 21, 2006 Pa e 5 topographically level area in order to meet access requirements and to provide positive drainage from the site. If the Planning Commission supports this option, minor modifications to the Master Plan text for PA 7 would be required to require the site to be: 1) developed as senior housing, 2) to allow senior housing as an alternative land use, or 3) to allow development of PA 7 with a combination of senior housing and multi-family housing. 7. Contact Carlsbad Unified School District regarding the Elementary School Site. Coincidentally, staff was contacted by CUSD Superintendent John Roach regarding the Robertson Ranch elementary school site. Mr. Roach indicated that the district is working on their long-range facilities master plan and that in fact, maybe it had been too early to make a decision to reject the Robertson Ranch elementary school site. The developer has also been in contact with the district and has offered to again include a school use as a primary land use on P As 13 and 14. If the site is developed as a school, it would reduce the number of dwelling units by 201 units for a new total of 1,182 units. Staff believes the issues can be resolved although there are compromises which may need to be made from both the resident and developer perspectives. The compromises should be weighed against the overall public benefit that the Robertson Ranch Master Plan would provide if approved which includes: • An 84" storm drain line would be constructed to reduce flooding in Rancho Carlsbad. • Cannon Road and College Boulevard would be widened to the full-width improvements of two-lanes in each direction which would increase capacity and reduce traffic congestion on these major arterials. • El Camino Real would be widened to the full-width improvements of three lanes in each direction which would increase capacity and reduce traffic congestion on this prime arterial. • Tum lanes and traffic signals will be installed as part of the overall street improvements. This would open up opportunities for future synchronizing of traffic signals on ECR. Many of the traffic constraints are due to ECR not being at full capacity. • 9.8 acres of park land would be dedicated and three new full-size soccer fields would be provided for the community. Any reduction in dwelling units would reduce the park land dedication requirement by approximately 7 /10 of an acre for every 100 dwelling units. • Over 140 acres of open space would be preserved with an endowment for long-term management and maintenance of the preserve area. • A portion of the City-Wide Trails network would be installed along Cannon Road and College Boulevard with additional City-wide and community trails throughout the Robertson Ranch development. • High density housing at 20 du/ac would be provided to help meet the City's Housing Element goals for Certification of the City's Housing Element. Without certification EIR 03-03/MP 02-03/GPA 02-04/LFMP l 4(B)/HMP 06-04 -ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN and CT 02-16/HDP 02-07/SUP 02-05 -ROBERTSON RANCH EAST VILLAGE MASTER TENTATIVE MAP June 21, 2006 Pae 6 • High density housing at 20 du/ac would be provided to help meet the City's Housing Element goals for Certification of the City's Housing Element. Without certification of the Housing Element, the City could lose transportation funding, state funding such as the work force housing grant, and ultimately lose the authority to grant all building permits, including permits for residential additions. • A Village Commercial Center and Community Facilities site for day care and other community uses would be provided to serve the needs of local residents. IV. SUMMARY Staff requests direction from the Planning Commission for the items listed above. Staff also recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Master Plan and Program EIR and approve the East Village Master Tentative Map. The errata included as Attachment 4 contains suggested conditions or actions for each of the discussion items. In addition, the errata includes the previous errata items from the May 31 st hearing and the Rancho Carlsbad HOA request (as agreed to by the developer) to include a number of conditions related to the future development of PA 22. Staff has also included responses to the letters received from the City of Oceanside, Caltrans, American Lung Association and the Environmental Health Coalition; and additional correspondence received after May 31, 2006. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Traffic Calming Concept for the West Village 3. Two concepts for a public road from Tamarack Avenue (PA 2 to PA 3). 4. Errata Sheet 5. City response to letters from the City of Oceanside, Caltrans, American Lung Association and the Environmental Health Coalition 6. Correspondence received after May 31, 2006 7. Planning Commission Staff Report with Attachments dated May 31, 2006 (previously distributed and available on the City website.) NOT TO SCALE SITE MAP ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN EIR 03-03/MP 02-03/GPA 02-04/LFMP 14(8)/HMP 06-04 Robertson Ranch East Village Master Tentative Map CT 02-16/ HOP 02-07/ SUP 02-05 PA 1 PA 7 "~'r--· l ~ " Circuitous Routing Concept Circulation Plan -West Village ROBERTSON RANCH ,:--, ,,,.,.~. .,· ,-,.-_,.,,,,;.. .... j, ~ '---·· Q" ...... ,....,-/. r ~ '! ·Sf1~j ~, ...... , I ,-"-,, I); ~ f (~ ,, A·' ·t .--.. } ',-., -<::,-• .. ~ ' - l - ,,..-(',-,,, ,, i ! ,r ·-~- .. ·:':1 (. -__ ... i -. JOl'l:SI~ IW't,-- ,· ~ '· -,,,'I ..... .......-... . .....,.,....,.. •• "' W=~~~TANlS LI I~ -.lllpilmlngawn ~ ~ p... +to. Gh \'\I\ e "-+ '2. ---------.\-------;c::.. .. ::.-~ -$l.iJPE_, ~.G"o/-70 13 '¼ -Ei'/'-P;,lh ..,-v IOtl s/9 -,,.,,,~ ~-5 Scale: 1· = 200' -7 ~ GM,)E .. i--1,A,JJA-or~ w~sJ C$S Scale: 1• = 200· lr1,,~~1?s~; I •• , _ S\"SffAt; • -_ . ' . :·:-' := .. June 21, 2006 ITEM # 1 TO: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS FROM: Barbara Kennedy, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ERRATA SHEET FOR EIR 03-03/MP 02-03/GPA 02-04/LFMP 14(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 1. Direct staff to include Attaclunent 2, West Village Traffic Calming Concept as a new Figure IV-4A in the Robertson Ranch Master Plan. 2. Add a new condition to Master Plan Resolution 6106: In conjunction with the submittal of the First Tentative Map for the West Village, the developer of the West Village shall coordinate with the Colony HOA or it's designated representatives to determine what methods of traffic calming, if any, are acceptable to the residents according to the procedures in the Traffic Management Program. Any approved traffic calming measures shall be designed and secured by the developer prior to the recordation of the First Final Map within the West Village. Traffic calming measures shall be installed prior to the extensions of Glasgow Drive and Edinburgh Drive. 3. Direct staff to revise Figures II-4, III-2, III-3, and IV-1 of the Master Plan to include a conceptual access point from Tamarack Avenue at PA 2 to PA 3. 4. Add a new condition to Master Plan Resolution 6106: In conjunction with the submittal of the First Tentative Map for the West Village, the developer of the West Village shall coordinate with the City and Wildlife Agencies to determine if a public road can be constructed from PA 2 to PA 3. If allowed, the restoration plans shall be revised to reflect the new roadway and shall incorporate any additional measures needed to reduce edge effects. 5. Direct staff to revise the text for PA 7 to require the site to be 1) developed as senior housing, 2) to allow senior housing as an alternative land use, or 3) to allow development of PA 7 with a combination of senior housing and multi- family housing. 6. Revise the text and graphics for PA 13 and 14 to allow development of the site as an elementary school as a primary use. PA 13 and 14 shall be offered for dedication to CUSD upon approval of the First Tentative Map within the Master Plan in accordance with Section 664 78 of the Subdivision Map Act. The currently multi-family development proposal may be allowed as an alternative land use. 7. Add a new condition to Master Plan Resolution 6106: Any future development proposals for Planning 22 or the Option Parcel shall take into consideration the following: a. Line of sight from Rancho Carlsbad to the proposed development; b. Hours of operation of any proposed uses; c. Noise and light mitigation from the proposed project; and d. Site designs that reduce Iandform alteration, where feasible, and reduce the removal of healthy mature trees. ERRATA ITEMS FROM THE MAY 31, 2006 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING: Staff Report: Page 31: Add: Attachment 21. Response to Comments for the Final EIR Resolutions 6105 through 6107 and 6109 through 6112: Change the typographical error on the first page of each resolution, first paragraph, fourth line, of the legal description from November 16, 1986 to 1896. Proposed Revised Wording for Reso. No. 6110, Condition #43 43. If the City Recreation Department is able to obtain approval for a future trailhead, parking areas, and related trails located within PA 23E prior to completion of all construction activities associated with the development of the Robertson Ranch East Village, then the Developer shall be responsible for the funding and construction of these regional trail features, including a parking area for no more than 10 cars and a nature trail from the parking area to the west side of Calavera Creek. The Developer shall prepare the plans and forward for review to the City Trails Manager. The plan together with the security posted shall ensure that the improvements are constructed, pending approval of the plan. If the approved plans allow for a crossing of the creek, and the City desires to construct the creek crossing and/or a bridge, then the City shall be responsible for financing and construction of the creek crossing only. June 14, 2006 City of Oceanside, City of Carlsbad l=dibll•Z¢i·lltt•-111-11;;44;;,1., Attn: John Amberson, Transportation Planner 300 N. Coast Highway Oceanside, CA 92054 SUBJECT: OCEANSIDE COMMENT LETTER REGARDING ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN EIR (CT 02-16, MP 02-03, EIR 03-03) Dear Mr. Amberson: Thank you for your letter in regards to the Program EIR for Robertson Ranch Master Plan (Project), dated November 14, 2005. As part of the Response-to-Comments (RIC) of the Project EIR in April, 2006, we responded to your issues (See Attachment 1). However, after the public commenting period ended for the Project EIR, you provided a follow-up letter, dated April 28, 2006, repeating some of your previous comments (during the EIR review period) but then adding new comments about the project. During a phone conversation with you, we expressed our understanding with addressing your comments in the RIC, however, on May 31, 2006 you offered public testimony and reiterated your concerns regarding the Project, specifically regarding the traffic study criteria/methodology, and improvements within the City of Oceanside. This letters serves to respond to each of your issues with the intent of resolving presumed discrepancies. Your comments and our responses are listed below: 1. Use HCM methodology for analyzing all existing intersections within Oceanside. The City of Carlsbad does not use the HCM methodology. We use the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology for calculating the capacity of intersections within the City of Carlsbad. The ICU approach is part of the City of Carlsbad Growth Management Program. As the traffic study for this Project extended into your City to address potential traffic impacts as part of the EIR, we used a consistent (ICU) approach in calculating intersection capacity. The report clearly identifies road segment and intersection failures (with and without the Project). Therefore, we do not agree to modify the analytical approach to meet your specific requirements. The conclusions of the EIR remain valid. 2. Use daily volume-to-capacity methodology to analyze Oceanside street segments. The City of Carlsbad does not use daily volume-to-capacity methodology. Carlsbad uses peak-hour volume-to-capacity -methodology as defined by Carlsbad's Growth Management Program and SANTEC guidelines. We believe 1635 Faraday Avenue• Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-2720 • FAX (760) 602-8562 @ Oceanside comments -Robertson Ranch June 14, 2006 Page 2 of 5 our approach to be accurate as it considers capacity during peak traffic hours, in which road segments are likely to fail. Since we have applied the same approach toward analyzing our road segments as well as those within your City. Toe conclusions of the EIR remain valid. 3. Our records show the existing daily traffic volume on College south of Plaza Dr. is 49,000 ADT, not 15,000 ADT. This repeated comment was already answered in the Project EIR RTC. This information no longer constitutes a discrepancy since, in the RTC, we incorporated your ADT information along the pertinent segment of College Blvd. We also clarified the: 1) segments of College, 2) existing ADT'S, and 3) Level-of-Service of those segments affected by the information you provided. Here is the tabulation we provided you: Colleae Blvd. Seamen! ADT No. of Lanes LOS 111* Plaza Dr. To Lake Blvd. ·49,000 6-PA C South of Lake Blvd. 15,000 4-MA A '{1) See Table 0-2, 2002 SANDAG Congestion Management Program {allached) As indicated in the RTC, the ADT information you provided did not affect the conclusions of the EIR with respect to traffic/circulation requirements. Based on this information we feel this comment has been adequately addressed. 4. The study area should be expanded to include the intersections of El Camino Real at the eastbound and westbound SR78 on/off ramps and El Camino Real at Vista Way. This is a repeat comment that has already been answered in the Project EIR RTC. We noted that the eastbound and westbound SR78 on/off ramps were included within the study area of the project. Please see Attachment 2 for an excerpt of the traffic report that shows these ramps were considered. Regarding the El Camino Real ramps at Vista Way, as stated in the RTC, these ramps were not included within the study area as the Project is not projected to add more than SO-peak hour trips. Using SANTEC guidelines, these ramps do not need to be included in the study. In addition, Caltrans, during their EIR review, did not have specific comments relative to either of these ramps that you have commented on. 5. The projected 2010 ADT of 38,000 on College Blvd between Lake and SR 78 is below existing ADT. The SANDAG Combined North County Sub-Area Model forecast for 2010 shows approximately 58,000 on College south of Plaza Drive. This is a new comment not originally provided in your EIR comments. At the time of preparing this traffic study, the SANDAG 2010 Combined North County Sub-Area Model was not yet available. While preparing this study, the SANDAG 2030 model became available and was incorporated into th~ study, but the updated 2010 model became available at a later time. But considering the updated 2010 ADT, the level of service for the road segment during peak hours Oceanside comments -Robertson Ranch June 14, 2006 Page 3 of5 still fall within an acceptable LOS (note that during 2030 a projected ADT of 64,000 on this segment still operates at LOS A). Since the traffic study was prepared with the best available traffic model information at the time, the conclusions in the EIR are valid. 6. The project shows failing conditions without the project at the intersections of College Blvd and Plaza Dr. The project should be required to contribute its fair share towards mitigation improvements within Oceanside. The City of Oceanside does not agree with the statement "due to the fact that the significant cumulative impacts identified are primarily a result of regional traffic, the City of Oceanside should be responsible for these improvements.· We share your concern that improvements be made to address future anticipated failures of road segments and intersections within the City of Oceanside. However, we included in the EIR a mitigation measure is that requires the Developer to participate in paying their fair-share towards mitigation improvements within your City, once a program is · established by Oceanside. Since this mitigation occurs across City boundaries Carlsbad cannot force improvements to occur within your City. Since the road and intersection failures are expected to occur with or without this Project, it is clear that regional traffic causes the projected deficiency, not the Robertson Ranch Project. This explains why the Developer is not required to develop the regional solution for you. Therefore, we hope this prompts the City of Oceanside to focus efforts on establishing an improvement program that allows cash-in-lieu payments for projects to pay their fair-share contribution and that identifies what improvements are necessary to address the deficiencies outlined in the EIR. Once Oceanside completes this effort, this will allow this Developer to pay their fair- share towards the improvements as outlined in the mitigation and monitoring report. Since Carlsbad does not control Oceanside's effort to develop and fund this improvement program of a regional solution, a statement of overriding considerations was made for this mitigation measure. 7. Oceanside· requires daily volume-to-capacity ratio methodology for street segments. See our response to comment 2. 8. The study should include buildout network alternatives with and without Marron Road. This is a repeat comment that has already been answered in the Project EIR RTC. We noted that Marron Road still remains included as adopted General Plan Circulation Element roadway. Removal of this roadway from the Circulation Element would require their separate General Plan modifications, public review, and environmental documentation necessary to support the circulation change. This is not a required circumstance for this Project to consider within its scope. 9. Figues 7-1 and 7-1 do not show Marron Road, but Figure 7-3 does. The report should clearly state whether Marron Road is assumed to connect El Camino Real Oceanside comments -Robertson Ranch June 14, 2006 Page4 of5 and College Blvd. This is a new comment not originally provided in your EIR comments. However, to address your added concern, you should already note that the SANDAG 2030 road network assumes this road segment is constructed. See Attachment 3 that shows the SANDAG 2030 road network. Since the 2030 subarea model is used for this traffic stufy, the future installation of Marron Road is contemplated in the SANDAG 2030 Sub-area Traffic Model. The figures you mentioned focus on the intersections and road segments that are being analyzed as part of the Project. Since Marron Rd was not a study segment it was not shown in these figures so other text information could be added. 10. It is unclear in the report why 2030 ADT's on College Blvd between SR 78 and Lake are lower than existing ADT's. This is a new comment not originally provided in your EIR comments. The 2030 ADT's on College per SANDAG and per this report list 64,000 ADT along this segment (see Attachment 4). We do not understand where you find that 2030 ADT's are lower than existing ADT's along this segment. 11. Oceanside requires daily volume-to-capacity ratio methodology for street segments. See our response to comment 2. 12. The project shows failing conditions without the project at the intersections of College Blvd and Lake Blvd The project should be required to contribute its fair share towards mitigation improvements within Oceanside. The City of Oceanside does not agree with the statement "due to the fact that the significant cumulative impacts identified are primarily a result of regional traffic, the City of Oceanside should be responsible for these improvements. Our response to comment 6 applies to this comment as well. 13. While intersection delay time is slightly less than 2 seconds with the project, the City of Oceanside requires a fair-share contribution towards measures to reduce intersection delay time during peak hours. The project should contribute their fair-share toward adaptive hardware upgrades at this intersection. Your understanding that mitigation be required when thresholds of significance are not met does not extend to Carlsbad's understanding of nexus nor CEQA. If the thresholds for mitigation are not met, Carlsbad cannot require the developer to mitigate them. If there is a regional improvement required to address a deficiency within your City, we suggest you address it via an Oceanside improvement program. We understand, and respect, that you do not recognize certain analytical approaches that Carlsbad applies toward measuring capacity road segments and intersections. Different Cities may have different approaches to sizing facilities. However, in applying our approach consistently, the traffic report clearly identifies certain projected intersection and road segment failures within your City boundaries. We hope this raises your Oceanside comments -Robertson Ranch June 14, 2006 Page S ofS awareness to further analyze these areas and work to develop an improvement program to address any projected deficiencies. We believe we have performed our obligation, as an adjacent City, to require the Developer to participate in paying their fair-share toward improvements within your City. We hope this addresses your concerns in regards to this Project and the completeness of the traffic study prepared for this EIR. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact me at (760) 602-273 7. Attachments C: Barbara Kennedy, Project Planner Bob Johnson, Deputy City Engineer -Traffic Bob Wojcik, Deputy City Engineer-Development Service Skip Hammann, City Engineer Brian Milich, Mcmillin Land Development File (CT 02-16, #3R) > ""'3 ~ (") I z ""'3 ~ u; • CITY November 14, 2005 Barbara Kennedy -~ ) Comme~I_,, Letter CO OF OCEANSIDE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ,,.<;:.-:..:::·:;: . ;•::_, ,... j 1·1· Carlsbad Planning Department 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 ,,· ... i# ,~, L ! _i/t ~,,t;f . ·-:-"·"-'L_c;,.~ /· RE: Droft Robertson's Ranch Environmental Impact Report-TrDffic Comments Ms. Kennedy: The City of Oceanside Transportation Division has ~viewed the traffic section of the Draft Robertson's Ranch EJR. We have several areas or concern regarding projected inlcrscction and roadway segment impacts whhin the City of Oce~nside. Areas Of concern lll'tl outlined below: 1, Existing CondlUonst a. Our records show. that lhc existing daily traffic volume on Collca,e Boulevard IOU~ of Plaza Drive is approximately 49,000 ADT. The Ora.fl Em shows 15,000 ADT for College Boulevard south of PlllU Drive. IC01 b. We disagree with the intersection levels of service findings in this scenario being ico2 mostly LOS A or B. Our records show LOS C or worse. c, We would like. to see lhe study area expended to include the lntcnectlons of El Camino.Real at the eastbound and westbound SR78 on./off-mmp, and El Camino JC03 Real al Vista Way. The project' may be required to contribute their fair share loward futum improvements at the SR78/EI Camino Reid intcrschongc. 2. Year 2010 Conditions: a. ll is our underslonding lhot Cannon Road Reach 4 should be completed by 20!0. , The traffic report should assume the connection and anoJyic affected Oceanside C04 intersections and related segments nccordingly, · b. The projcclcd Impacts to Intersections and scgmonta on College Boulevard are ~lgnjQcllJ!t projec~ Impacts. The project shi;,u~d prepare for our consideration and I approval, appropriate mitigation ~casu~ While lhc study sho~ failing C05 conditions Whhoui tho project, the inc~asC in delay Is over 2 seconds and is therefore slgnificanL The projcet should be required lo, at a minimum, contribute Robertson Ranch Master Plan Anal BR RTC-31 'J RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTER: FROM CITY OF OCEANSIDE, DATED NOVEMBER 14, 2005 Response lo Comment C01: This comment states lhal Iha College Boulevard avercige" dally traffic (ADT) volume south of Plaza Drive is approximately 49,000 ADT. The EIR Incorrectly deplete~ the exisl~g AOT al this location as 1 5.000. An evaluation of this segment using this revised ADT volume Is provided.below. CoUege _Blvd. Segment I ADT I ~o. of b9n~s I LOS (1 l• P_!Q~g Dr. lg lake Blv_Q, I ·•9.000 I 6-P~ I C Soufh of Lake Blvd, I 15,000 _ I 4-MA I A ·•11) See Table 0-2, 2002 SAND AG Congestion Management Program (alloched) The SANTEC/ITE GuldeUoes for Tmfflc lmoacl Studies In the Sao Pieao Reaioo March 2. 2000; suggests that significant projecl Impacts could occur at LOS "E", or "P' but that LOS "D" or betler Is acceptable. Therefore, for these segmenls of CoUeQe Boulevard the project Impact Is considered less than significant for existing plus profecl conditions. This informallon does no! change the condusloi:is of the EIR with respect to lrafflc/clrculalion Impacts. · Response to Comment CO2: The lnlersectlOn levels of service calculallons for existing conditions were conducted using the Intersection Capacity Utlllzatlon (ICUJ method as required by the City of Carlsbad Growth Management Pfan Traffic Monitoring Program. Other methods of calculation of levels of service may yield slightly different results. further. In response to this comment. lhe Intersection colcuJalions for locations within Oceanside were checked and were determined lo be correct using the ICU method. Response lo Comment C03: The traffic Onalysls study area does Include the Intersections of El Camino Real of fhe· eastbound and westbound SR-78 on/off ramps. However. fhe El Camino RealNlsta Way lnlersecfion was not included since the skJdy area was defined as those locations wllh 50 or more project trips added during peak hours, In one· direction. The project Is projected to produce fewer lhan 50 peak hour lrlps added at the B Camino Real/Vista Way Intersection. Response to Comment C~: The Carfsbad Year 2010 Traffic Model was used for the EIR's Year 2010 traffic analysts. The City of Carlsbad does not anticipate that the Cannon Road Reach 4 connection wlll be compteted by 2010 and thus the 2010 traffic model does not Include this connection In the available traffic patlern. lf Cannon Road Reach • Is to be q>nstrvcted prior to Year 2010, on ~nvironrnenlal document and evoluallon of the roadway project, Including potential traffic Impacts, wll April2006 Robertson Ranch Master Plan Anal EIR RTC-32 --L:, \._,) RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTER FROM CITY Of OCEANSIDE, DATED NOVEMBER 14, 2005 (cord'd) Response to Comment C04 (cont'd)! be prepared by the City of Carlsbad. Traffic Impacts lo segmenls and Intersections wlll be evaluated at thal time. However, lhe Year 2030 with Cannon Road Reach 4 analysis did evaluate affected Intersections In Oceanside, and Is considered a woot--case evaluatlon compared to Year 2010, since traffic volumes are generally higher In Year 2030 as compared lo Year 2010. Response lo Comment C05: The project Is required lo parlicipate, on a fair share basis, lo Intersection Improvement projects fo, CoUege Boulevard between W. Vista Way and lake Boulevard If the City of Oceanside adopts a program to accepl payments In lleu ot construct/on. The following falr-shOl"e conlributlon formula would apply, based on City of Carlsbad fak'-share melhodotagy: XXI luHdoul ADY at lnhtnecllon (total oJ al d .. actlons) (·I Minus YYI Exlsilng ADY at Wen;ecllon (total of al directions) ,., fquob lll Tofal Fulure ADY at lnlan;ecUon AAI Robertson lanch r1ojec;t Only ADY at Intersection (total of all dlr•cUons} N DMdedo, lll Total future ADJ at lntenecUon t•J Equo& HI lobarl1on Ranch Project Percentage of Mme ADJ of lol•necllon (XJ Muflfpled by CCI Estimated cost of lnler .. cllon n&J)fovamant1 (-I Equals DDf Robertson Ranch ProJecl lolof amount Mfolr Share" April 2006 \__) r . \.._;) i ; , I \._J Robertson Ranch Moster Pion Final EIR RTC-33 ,._) RESPONS~ TO COMMENT.LIDER FROM CITY OF OCEANSIDE, DATED NOVEMBER 14, 2005 (conl'd) Response to Comment C05 (conl'd)= N Divided by EEi Robertson Roneh Iola! ADJ f=J Equo1s· fff fee per ADT However, because there Is no evidence that the City of Oceanside hos adopled such program or that the City of Oceanside will implement the necessary Improvements If the project makes a fair shore payment or that the Improvements are In foci physically feasible, the Impact at the subject Intersection Is considered significant and vnavoldoble. · April2006 their fair share toward mi ti gallons measures they prepare, and arc approved by the I COS City of Oceanside, . kconrd) c, College Boulenrd Is currently 6 Janes between Vista Way and Lake Boulevard. JC06 3, Year 2030 Conditions: n. The study should include buildout network. assumptions that includes altneratlves I with and wilhout the Rancho Del Oro interchonge, with and without Marron CO7 Road. b. The LOS B capacity assumed for College BO!-llevord between VlsJa, Way and f Lak0 Boulevard la not acceptable to the City of ~Ide. Our 6-lanc primary 08 arterial LOS B capacity la 60,000 ADT. ';fhc study shows 64,000 Aiff al LOS A. c. The intersection of College Boulevard at Vista Way is projected to opera.le at LOS P wllh and without the prriject. While intersection deJay is less than 2 lcog seconds with the project, the City of Oceanside requires a fnir share contribution 1oward creative measures lo enhance progression through the intersection during the peak houn. The project should contribute their •hare toward adaptive tramc signal hnrdwacc upgrades at this intersection. d. The study incorreclly assumes that lhc City of Oceanside completcal improvemcnla 10 College Boulevard under 2010 conditions at our own expense, CO10 resulting in improved Intersection LOS conditions. Titia is unacceptable. e. The project should mitigate significant project impacts at the Intersection 01lco11 College Boulevard and Lake Boulevard. . We would Uke a c;opy of the full traffic study report for further review. Please feel fice tol · contact me at your convenience na we would like IO have an opportunity to discuss our CO12 comments and concerns with you. You may can me direct at (760) 435-5091 or you can send e-mail to l@mherson@ci ocewldc,ca,us. ~-- cc Pronk Waaanabo. Dep111y Publlc Worb Director Jerry Hhtlcnnn. Senior Planner Robertson Ranch Moster Plan Rnal EIR u RTC-34 u Rl:SPONSE TO COMMENT LEITER FROM CITY OF OCEANSIDE, DATED NOVEMBER 14; 2005 (cont'd) Response to Commenl CO6: Comment noted. This infofJTlOllon does not change the conclusions of the EIR. Response to Comment C07: At the lime of preparation of the Draft EIR. both the Rancho Del Oro Interchange In the City of Oceanside and Morron Road In the City of Consbad were, and stDI are, Included as adopted General Plcin Circulation Element roadways, Therefore, these lmp10vemenls were assumed In the 2030 traffic analysis scenario. Remqval of these roadways from the respective Clrculollon Elements of the cities would require processing of revisions to approved circulation poDcy documents. including publlc review and approval of General Pion Amendmenls, and supporting envlronmenlol analysis and documentation. Response lo Comment COB: The City of Oceanside street segment criteria would result In level of service "F'' for the segment of College Boulevard between Vista Way and Lake Boulevard. However, the project only volume capacity ratio (V/CJ increase (880 ADT/64,000 ""0.015) Is less than two percent of the segment capacily, so thal lhe project Impact lo this segment does no! meet the threshold of significance, using the SANTEC/ITE Gulde~es. Response to Comment CO9: Comn,enl noted. Please refer to response to comment COS. Response lo Comment COl0: The EIR acknowledges that the construction of Improvements lo facilities Impacted by the proposed project ls no! guaranteed and that If such Improvements are n01 Implemented the Impacts would remain slgniflcanl and unavoidable (see BR pages 2-7 through 2· 11, 5.2-18, 5.2-21, 5.2·31 lhrough 5.2·34, 5.2-40 and 5,2·4 l). The project Is required lo participate, on a fair share basis If lhe City of Oceanside adopts a program to accept payments In Heu of construction. Response to comment COS describes the proposed fai"..share ·methodology for project-related Impacts. Response lo Comment COl 1: The prefect Is required to participate, on a fair .shme basis, to Improvement projects for College Boulevard If the City of Oceanside adopts a program to accept payments In Ueu of construction. The proposed fai"•shore conlrlbutlon formula Is described In response tO comment COS. Response to Comment CO12: As requested by the -commentor, the City of Carlsbad provided a complete copy of lhe traffic technical analysis (E1R VoJume HJ lo lhe City of Oceanside. April 2006 i'J Robertson Ranch Calavera Hills 11, LLC 3.2 INTERSECTIONS Figure 3-3 shows the key to study area intersections, by number. Figure 3-4 shows existing intersection Jane configurations. ©Urban Systems Associates, Inc. September 1, 2005 Figures 3-5 and 3-6 show existing AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes at the study area intersections. The lane configurations at intersections are also shown on these figures. Table 3-2 includes the results of the intersection level of service evaluation for existing conditions. The study area intersections are shown to be opernting at acceptable levels of service ("D" or better LOS) for existing conditions, except at the El Camino Real/Palomar Airport Road intersection, which is at level of service "E" during the PM peak hour and Palomar Airport Road/Melrose Drive at level of service "E"·during the AM peak hour. However, plartned roadway improvements such as the Faraday Avenue construction to complete the ~ast-west link between El Camino Real and Melrose Drive would provided alternative routes, diverting traffic from Palomar Airport Road. These roadway segments should be completed before traffic from the Robertson Ranch project is added to existing conditions. 3.2 RAMP METERS Table 3-3 shows the existing rainp meterrates and queues at the existing ramp meters at I-5/Cannon Road, SR-78/El Camino Real, and Plaza Drive/eastbound SR-78 ramps. The current ramp meter queues can be accommodated on the existing ramps and adjacent surface streets. Appendix A includes existing conditions traffic counts and levels of service worksheets. 003101 3-5 3101-Report_A.wpd ATTACHMENT 2 ) ) m ..................... 6~ M-1 ,r::~~-:-i~~~~ 0 -~~~ aL!a.m .....>--::-;:-, - ·1-.r-.~. . -... \ . . ' ' ~(\ . j~ ~.• .. ~~~~/'&' . .... •": .... : .. . .. . ...... : 30 .... ····· :-~~ c· r ,:::~ \7 ~ '\. -~ .. ~············ ,/ .1o ···•·.··.;t . ·. . . ./ '·, .... -~ . "'' .. 1: ... ·····... ~". 40 ·••• ..... .... :!: . ~~--n=~~ ····· " , .. ~11···· , ! · ~ .i · . _/ ; . -=~ . ~"o . •o )) "' . r· . "'-. .... ~"'"".~ -' , .i·:,..~ .. , __ ... ,, . •-. : I . _.. , .. 'I \, _..,. ~•,-.,._p .r-· .... ( Marron Road . ·~~:/· ,Y ••• .i SANDAG ~ .. , ' .~·:~-.~~. '. ; ,:.,,,_, . \, . ; ·, ·"'"'~,. ,,: i ..... ~ ·. ············· j ·•.f.!O•• . ,, 1, f . l' jii> '/~·"<:.~i / II .. .... ······· Cities/County Forecast' r==-i ~··· City of CARLSBAD · '~ ... ·.•;.~]C' --===-=•· ~~.~.~-~~~eet Net~.~rk .... ~ / ... ·-.... ~:.::~;: ... •····~ :-.-::l~ --. . ... •······ ✓ _:/." • ) Robertson Ranch Ca/avera Hills II, LLC TABLE7-1 ©Urban Systems Associates, Inc. September/, 2005 Year 2030 With Project Street Segment Levels of Service Location Cannon Road I-5 -Paseo Del Norte Paseo Del Norte -Lego Dr. Lego Dr. -Faraday Ave. Faraday Ave. -El Camino Real El Camino Real -College Blvd. College Blvd. -East City Limit East City Limit -Melrose Dr. College Boulevard Palomar Airport Rd. -El Camino Real El Camino Real -Cannon Rd. Cannon Rd. -Carlsbad Village Dr. Carlsbad Village Dr. -Lake Blvd. Lake Blvd. -SR-78 EI Camino Real SR-78 -Marron Rd. Marron Rd. -Carlsbad Village Dr. Carlsbad Village Dr. -Tamarack Ave. Tamarack Ave. -Cannon Rd. Cannon Rd. -College Blvd. College Blvd -Faraday Ave. Faraday Ave. -Palomar Airport Rd. Tamarack Avenue El Camino Real -Carlsbad Village Dr. Legend 6PA 4MA 4SA 003101 = 6-lane primary arterial = 4-lane major arterial = 4-lane secondary arterial Classification 4MA 4MA 4MA 4MA 4MA 4MA 4MA 4MA 4MA 4MA 4MA 6PA 6PA 6PA 6PA 6PA 6PA 6PA 16PA · 4SA 7-5 VPHPL CPL LOS Average Peak Daily Peak VHPU Volume VPHPL CPL LOS 34,000 1,025 0.58 A 20,000 755 0.42 A 22,000 595 0.33 A 23,000 595 0.33 A 19,000 570 0.32 A 30,000 650 0.36 A 33,000 810 0.45 A 29,000 595 0.33 , A 42,000 595 0.33 A 31,000 650 0.36 , . A 46,000 1,055 0.59 A 64,000 865 0.48 A 43,000 775 0.43 A 34,000 615 0.34 A 35,000 575 0.32 A 49,000 790 0.44 A 42,000 705 0.54 A 58,000 975 0.49 A 52,000 885 0.49 A 13,000 380 0.21 A 3101-Tab7-IC.wpd = Vehicles per hour per lane = Capacity per Jane@ 1,800 VPH = Level of service ATTACHMENT 4 City of Carlsbad l=dibll•'ki·IIS-i 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: CAL TRANS 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 I-5 / Tamarack Avenue and I-5 / Carlsbad Village Drive. Carlsbad uses "SANTECIITE Guidelines for Traffic Impact Studies ([IS) in the San Diego Region", dated March 2000. This document serves to identify the limits and scope of a traffic study by indicating those road segments and intersections to be evaluated by a traffic study*. In accordance with SANTEC guidelines, the study shall analyze: • All local roadway segments (including all State surface routes), intersections, and mainline freeway locations where the proposed project will add 50 or more peak-hour trips in either direction • All freeway entrance and exit ramps where the proposed project will add a significant number of peak-hour trips that cause traffic queues to exceed their storage capacities ..... . Per the "Project Distribution" (Attachment 2) in the traffic study, the Robertson Ranch project expects 4.5% of the Project traffic directed to the Tamarack Avenue / I-5 ramps and 1 % to the Carlsbad Village Drive/ I-5 ramps. Per the Distribution, the Robertson • In accordance with the City of Carlsbad Growth Management requirements, Carlsbad also requires traffic studies to include (within the study limits) those intersections and roadway segments that are subject to 20% of the project-generated traffic. 1635 Faraday Avenue• Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-2730 • FAX (760) 602-8562 @ Caltrans comments Robertson Ranch June 14, 2006 Page 2 of3 Ranch Project would create an additional 792 average daily traffic (ADT) and 176 ADT, respectively between the two ramps. Upon using peak-hour trip analysis (see Attachment 3), this Project is not projected to add more than 50 peak-hour trips toward these ramps. Since the current levels-of-service (LOS) for those ramps are at LOS C or better, we see no need to analyze these ramps. In regards to your comment that all state-owned signalized intersections be evaluated using Intersection Lane Vehicle (IL V) procedure, using 2030 forecast, the current interchange ramps operate within Cal trans' 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 IL V /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 I-5 widening project. It is our understanding the I-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 I-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 I-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 I-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, Year 2030 with and without the Project analysis). The project's contribution to the cumulative impact at the subject locations is considered Jess 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. Attachments C: Barbara Kennedy, Project Planner Bob Johnson, Deputy City Engineer-Traffic Bob Wojcik, Deputy City Engineer -Development Service Skip Hammann, City Engineer Brian Milich, McMillin Land Development File (CT 02-16, #3R) S'J'AI§: 9E C:t,1 IPQllNTA-::BJISINMS: ISM1$P'ORT47TON A'Nn HOIJSTNO AGENCY .DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION District 11 • 40S0 Taylor Street • M.S. 50 San Dleio, CA 92110-2737 PHONE (619) 688°6954 FAX (619) 688-4299 May31,2006 Ms. Batbara Kennedy City of Carlsbad Planning Dept. 163S Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92024-3633 0:KNlUPM'HWMfCOWDIDN ltltYIIN Fl"' ,iour pow,rl B• ""''ZY riflol.,.1/ ll-SD-005 PM49,28 RE: Robertson Ranch Master Plan -Final Program EIR {SCH 2004051039} Dear Ms. Kennedy: The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) appreciates the opportunity to review the City of Car1$bad's responses to Calttans' comments regarding· the Program Enviromnenial Impact Report (EIR) for the Robmson Rancli Master Plan project. This project involves the construction of 1,383 residential dwelling units and 175,000 square foot of commercial USC$ on 404 acres located east of the Interstate 5 (I-S) at the eastern comer of the Tamarack Avenue / El ('.amino Real intersection in the City of Carlsbad. We have the following comments. Acconfing 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 I-S / Tamarack Avenue interchange, as well as other intersections in the vicinity. The Traffic Impact Study (TIS) included in the EIR. is incomplete as it does not include the entrance and exit ramps at 1-5 / Tamarack Avenue, nor does it include the interchange at I-5 / Carlsbad Villa&e Drive, Cumulative impacts of a project, together with other related projects, must be considered when determining the project's impacts. A cumulative impact is the sum of the impacts of existing conditions, other projects, and the project itself -no matter how small the contn'bution is from the project itselt There is no nrinimum size limitation on projects that may be required to mitigate for cumulative impacts if the project oontnoutes to a traffic problem in any amount. Caltrans 5Upport5 the eoQ.ccpt of "Fair Share" contributions on the part of developers for future improvement to the State Highway System projects and/or other rncuurcs needed to mitigate for traffic impacts created by proposed developments. In order to detennine traffic impacts and to assess potential mitigation, State-owned, ATTACHMENT 1 . . Ms. Barbara Kennedy May 31, 2006 Page2 signalized intersections must be analy.z;ed using the Intersecting Lane· V chicle (IL V) procedure from the Cal1rans Highway Design Manual Topic 406, page 400-21 using the year 2030 traffic forecast Ca11rans 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 analy;:ed and mitigated. Caltrans is c1.1JTeI1tly developing the 1-5 North Coast project in order to increase capacity on the I-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 project$ or to collect fees (Response to Co=ent 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. cc: BMcDonald AJacobo EGojuangco SMorgan Planning I-S,PM Frwy. Ops. State ClearingHouse (SCH) >l<>I< TOTRL PAGE.03 >IOI< ) :_J Robertson Ranch Calavera Hills II, LLC LEGEND § = Project Only Distribution Percentages · -• • • • • -· = Future Roads SOURCE Year 2030 Forecast (With Adjustment for Missing Street Segments) FIGURE 5-1 ©Urban Systems Associates, Inc. September 1, 2005 Project Only Directional Distribution Percentages For Existing Conditions 3101-Graphlcs_H.gwg 003101 5-2 ATTACHMENT 2 U 1£DA1 'I .:> .L .:> .l L1Y.l.:> .r.1..:,.:, V\..,.l./:1. .l L.:>1 .lll \..,. ---.,.~,:,i PLANNING & TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, MARKETING & PROJECT SUPPORT CONSULTANTS TO INDUSTRY AND GOVERNMENT ATTN: COMPANY: FROM: DATE: Jeremy Riddle City of Carlsbad/_ Sam P. Kab, II 7 June 13, 2006 TIME: 4:53 pm E-MEMO e-mail.,,. jridd@ci.carlsbad.ca.us SUBJECT: Caltrans Comment Letter Regardin TOTAL PAGES: 2 +Attachments TRANSMITTED VIA: E-Mail Robertson Ranch Master Plan Confidential Communications This Memo transmittal is intended for the recipient named above. Unless otherwise expressly indicated, this entire communication is confidential and privileged information. If you m not the intended recipient, do not disclose, copy, distribute or use this infom1ation. If you received this transmission in error, please notify us im~ediately 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 1~5/Carlsbad Village Drive or 1-5/famarack A venue interchanges since these locations were determined to be outside the study area for the project · The "SANTECillE Guidelines for Traffic Impact Studies (TIS) 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. AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour IN OUT IN OUT 100% 425 811 1.063 638 1% 4 8 11 6 . 4.5% 19 36 48 29 003101 Page 1 4540 Kearny Villa Road, Suite I 06 • San Diego, CA 92123 • (858) 560-4911 • Fax (858) 560-9734 ATTACHMENT 3 Jeremy Riddle June I 3, 2006 Urban Systems Associates, Inc. As indicated in this table, the project only peak hour trips are expected to be fewer than the 50 trips in one direction that the regional guidelines recommend for inclusion in the study area. Levels of Service at 1-5/Carlsbad Villafle Drive, 1-5/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 IL V /HR values, using the CALTRANS method, assuming a tight diamond interchange. LOS AM PM ICU LOS ICU LOS I-5/Carlsbad Village Drive -northbound 0.54 A 0.72 C I-5/Carlsbad Village Drive -southbound 0.50 A 0.73 C I-5/Tarnarack Avenue -northbound 0.47 A 0.56 A I-5/Tarnarack Avenue -southbound 0.60 A 0.49 A ILV/HR AM PM I-5/Carlsbad Village Drive 986 1364 I-5/Tarnarack Avenue 903 919 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 SAND AG 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 IL V /HR values would remain acceptable, and no mitigation should be needed at the ramp intersections. 003101 Page2 3101-061306-ememo-spk. wpd City of Carlsbad IRF •,l,il,1·1·14·6111,,14,11 Ms Jan Cortez American Lung Association 2750 Fourth Avenue San Diego, CA 92103 RE: EIR 03-03 -ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN PROGRAM EIR Dear Ms Cortez: Thank you for your comments dated May 27, 2006 for the Robertson Ranch Program EIR. Although the comment period for the draft EIR ended on December 2, 2005, the City's is providing the following responses to your comments: This letter discusses the potential health effects associated with air pollution, primarily ozone and diesel soot. The potential health effects of air pollution, including those identified in the comment letter, are well- known, and form the basis for the preparation of the comprehensive air quality analysis provided in the EIR. The air quality conformity assessment (EIR Volume Ill, Appendix C) provides an analysis of the proposed project's impact associated with these pollutants consistent with established protocol and recognized significant thresholds/criteria. The EIR identifies a significant, unavoidable impact to air quality as a result of mobile emissions. This conclusion is based on the fact that the projected traffic from the project would generate emissions in excess of established air quality significance thresholds. Mitigation measures are proposed in the EIR to reduce air emissions to the extent feasible. However, in order to reduce mobile air emissions to a level so that the significance thresholds would not be exceeded, would require limiting the project to no more than approximately 200 dwelling units (200 units x 10 trips/unit = 2,000 ADT). Projects in excess of 2,000 ADT typically generate mobile emissions in excess of established pollutant thresholds. This reduction in the project size would not achieve the goals and objectives of the project. The project does in fact maximize design measures that promote a walkable and transit-friendly community. A component of a walkable and transit-friendly community is increased density, and creation of mixed-uses, all of which are characteristics of the proposed project. Also, mitigation measures to reduce potential air emissions, similar to those suggested by the commenter, are proposed in the EIR. If you have any additional comments or questions, please contact me at (760) 602-4626. Sincerely, fu~Vv ~if~ BARBARA KENNEDY, AICP Associate Planner 1635 Faraday Avenue• Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us @ 2750 Fourth Avenue San Diego, CA 92103 Phone: 619-297-3901 Fax; 619-297-8402 1-800-LUNG-USA www.lungusa.org P.O. Box 977 El Centro, CA 92244 Phone: 760-356-5656 Fax: 760-353-8!09 150 Valpreda Road, Ste 204 San Marcos, CA 92069 Phone: 760-761-4803 Fax: 760-761•4806 Carlee Harmonson Chair Janie Davis President/CEO AMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATIONe of San Diego ond Imperial Counties Your community leader in lung disease prevention, research, and education. COMBINED HEALTH AGENCIES United~ Way~_ I 00 YEARS • 1904-2004 Improving Life, One Breath at a Time 0 Printed on recycled paper May 27, 2006 Barbara Kennedy Senior Planner City of Carlsbad Planning Department 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 bkenn@ci.carlsbad.ca.us =t= AMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION® of San Diego and Imperial Counties www.lungsandiego.org Re: American Lung Association's concern over increased air pollution emissions from traffic due to proposed Robertson Ranch project. Dear Ms. Kennedy: The American Lung Association of San Diego and Imperial Counties has served the community since 1946. Our mission is to prevent lung disease and to promote lung health. Toward that end, we provide programs to reduce the risk factors that contribute to lung disease such as cigarette smoking, tuberculosis and unhealthful air quality. It has come to our attention that families living near the proposed Robertson Ranch project are concerned about the health impact from increased traffic and related air pollution emissions. They have read the EIR and are justified in their concerns over the Category 1 -Significant and Unavoidable Impacts for Traffic and Air Quality (Long-term Mobile Emissions). Traffic and air pollution are related because in San Diego County about 50% of our ozone air pollution comes from mobile sources such as cars and trucks. Ozone is a powerful respiratory irritant that contributes to asthma and decreased lung growth in children. Numerous studies have shown that individuals living in close proximity to freeways or high traffic volume roadways have higher asthma rates. A new study published in Environmental Health Perspectives during May 2006, presents research on asthma and busy roads. The study involved 5,000 children and key findings were: • Children who live near busy roads are more likely to have symptoms of asthma than those who do not. • Those that lived within 250 feet of major roads have a 50 percent higher risk of having asthma symptoms. • Asthma risk decreased to normal for children living 600 feet or more away from a busy road. Page 2, May 27, 2006 American Lung Association Traffic is not just limited to family cars but also includes diesel trucks hauling supplies in and out of communities. A second recent study emphasizes the importance of families limiting their exposure to diesel exhaust from trucks, buses and off-road diesel engines. Michael Jerrett from the University of Southern California released the results of his new diesel study in March 2006. His research indicates how lethal exposure to diesel soot is to health. Specific findings were: • Deaths from breathing sooty smog in California may be more than twice as high as previously estimated, based on the new University of Southern California study in the Los Angeles basin. • Researchers found two to three times greater risk of death from heart attacks, lung cancer and other serious illness tied to chronic exposure to fine particulate matter than did previous studies. • Fine particulate matter spewed by cars, trucks, trains, ships, planes, refineries and other sources lodges deep in the lungs and is considered the most lethal form of air pollution. It should also be pointed out that the American Lung Association's State of the Air 2006 report gave San Diego County an "F" grade for ozone because our community is still not meeting the 8-hour federal ozone standard. Further, the Metropolitan Statistical Area of San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos was ranked "14" out of the top 25 worst U.S. Cities most polluted by 24-hour particulate matter 2.5 pollution. The EIR for the proposed Robertson Ranch project clearly states that traffic and air quality from long-term mobile emissions will have significant unavoidable impacts. The American Lung Association disagrees with the term "unavoidable". Mitigation measures should be put into place which will lesson the negative impacts to air quality and health. We recommend the following: • Reduce the scale of the project resulting in less density to decrease traffic volume and air pollution emissions to protect respiratory health and meet threshold limits established by the San Diego Air Pollution Control District. • Maximize design measures that promote a walkable and transit-friendly community. • Maximize design features to support telecommuting and use of clean fuels. • Plant and maintain as many shade trees as possible to promote energy efficiency by naturally cooling homes and buildings and help filter air pollutants. Page 3 May 27, 2006 American Lung Association Continued Recommendations: • Promote installation of clean fuels infrastructure near the project such as a natural gas fueling station. • Plant low pollen trees and shrubs to reduce asthma and allergy symptoms. Thank you for your consideration of our recommendations. Should you have an(, questions I can be reached at 619-683-8646. I will be on vacation from May 30'' - June 13th• Sincerely, "Jan H. Cortez, M.P.H. Vice President, Research and Environmental Health cc: Ross Porter Janie Davis Debbie Kelley City of Carlsbad IAEl,i,11,i·M •I§ ·Flii,,14,11 June 14, 2006 Ms Melanie Mccutchan Environmental Health Coalition 401 Mile of Cars Way, Suite 310 National City, CA 91950 RE: EIR 03-03 -Robertson Ranch Master Plan Program EIR Dear Ms Mccutchan: Thank you for your comments dated May 31, 2006 for the Robertson Ranch Program EIR. Although the comment period for the draft EIR ended on December 2, 2005, the City's is providing the following responses to your comments: 1. Adequately Assess and Mitigate Diesel Exhaust Impacts The EIR provides a comprehensive analysis of air quality impacts associated with the proposed project. The air quality technical analysis includes an assessment of the potential health effects associated with diesel exhaust emissions as a result of construction operations associated with the project. (The air quality technical report is provided in EIR Volume Ill, Appendix C, and is summarized in EIR Volume I, Section 5.3 Air Quality). Specifically, a screening risk assessment of diesel-fired toxics was performed using the SCREEN3 dispersion model developed by the Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. The diesel-related construction emissions risk was analyzed pursuant to California Air Resources Board (CARS) methodology and standards. In terms of risk thresholds, the County of San Diego Department of Planning and land Use adopted thresholds were utilized, which is related to the risk exposure due to diesel particulates (benzene) in 1 O micron parts per million. The risk threshold is whether the cancer exposure risk is 1 person in 1,000,000 people over a 70-year exposure risk duration. Based on the model results, all criteria pollutants were below the recommended risk level with a PM 10 risk probability of 18.51 one-hundredths of a percent risk per 70-year exposure duration. The potential health risk associated with the proposed construction operations was determined to be less than significant because: 1) there would not be a significant pollutant concentration; and, 2) the exposure would be far less than 70 years in duration. 2. Fully Characterize Particulate_ Matter AQ Impacts The San Diego Air Pollution Control District and the County of San Diego are still looking at the validity of potential health risk associated with PM2_5 emissions. As acknowledged in the EHC comment letter, the attainment of PM2.5 standards has not yet been incorporated into the San 1635 Faraday Avenue• Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us @ EIR 03-03 -ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN PROGRAM EIR June 14, 2006 Pa e2 Diego Air Basin's State Implementation Plan. The Air Quality Conformity Analysis provided in the EIR utilizes the Caline4 and SCREEN3 air quality impact assessment models. These models were developed by the California Air Resources Board, and utilize PM10 as the criteria pollutant (not PM2.s). There is currently no standardized, or accepted model for analyzing PM2.s, partly because PM2.s has not been established as a criteria pollutant in the County. As discussed in item #1, the air quality modeling conducted for the proposed construction activities has determined that there would not be an impact related to this issue, based on currently adopted modeling protocol. 3. Mitigate Air Quality Impacts from Increased Energy Demand As stated in the Responses to Comments document (EIR Volume IB), any increase in electrical consumption is conducted on a basin-wide level as a joint effort between the electrical producer, the local energy concern, CARB, and the California Energy Commission (CEC). All power generation facilities within the State are heavily regulated by the CEC and require highly detailed air conformity assessment as part of the required Application for Certification (AFC) program. These emissions are accounted for at this point. Additionally, the City has considered the various mitigation measures suggested by the commentor (Petra Pless, November 30, 2005) related to energy consumption. As indicated in response to comment PPL 17 (EIR Volume IB), additional measures, as determined feasible, have been added to proposed Mitigation Measure AQ-3 as follows: • Increase walls and attic insulation beyond Title 24 requirements. • Plant shade trees in parking lots to reduce evaporative emissions from parked vehicles. • Use lighting controls and energy-efficient interior lighting, and built-in energy efficient appliances. • Use double-paned windows. • Use energy-efficient low sodium parking lot and street lights. If you have any additional comments or questions, please contact me at (760) 602-4626. Sincerely, ~~#ii~ BARBARA KENNEDY, AICP Associate Planner BK:bd Environmental Health Coalition ----.-1•tt!•W1•Hi•1•t 1•1f•CiM=1i=•ajfj1 ---- 401 Mile of Cars Way, Suite 310 • National City, CA 91950 • (619) 474-0220 + FAX: (619) 474-1210 ehc@environmentalhealth.org • www.environmentalheallh.org May 31, 2006 Barbara Kennedy Associate Planner Planning Department City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Ave. Carlsbad, CA 92008 VIA E-MAIL: bkenn@ci.carlsbad.ca.us Re: EIR on the Robertson Ranch Master Planned Community Dear Ms. Kennedy, Environmental Health Coalition (EHC) is concerned that the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) dated September 2005 for the Robertson Ranch Master Planned Community does not provide adequate assessment of air quality impacts associated with the project, nor include sufficient mitigation measures to reduce adverse air quality impacts. , EHC is a non-profit community organization that has worked to protect public health and the environment in the San Diego region for over 25 years. We respectfully submit this letter to outline our concerns and ask that the City of Carlsbad delay final approval of the EIR until air quality impacts from the project are properly assessed and adequate mitigation measures are included. We have reviewed public comments on the DEIR that were submitted by Petra Pless of Leson and Associates on November 30, 2005. We are disappointed that the City has not incorporated certain mitigation measures suggested by Ms. Pless that would help protect the health of residents and workers. EHC regrets that we were not involved with this issue at the time of the official public comment period on the DEIR. The City of Carlsbad will live with the impacts of this development for years to come, however, so taking the time to resolve outstanding air quality issues related to this project is a worthwhile investment. Page 1 of4 EHC requests that the City of Carlsbad do the following: 1) Adequately Assess and Mitigate Diesel Exhaust impacts EHC is concerned that diesel exhaust emissions from construction equipment associated with the project will subject surrounding residents and workers to significant health risks. Diesel exhaust is a complex mixture of thousands of gases and fine particles that consists of more than 40 toxic air contaminants. It is a potent carcinogen and can also create immediate health problems such as headaches, irritation of the mucous membranes, and inflammation in the lungs, which may aggravate chronic respiratory symptoms and increase the frequency or intensity of asthma attacks.1 Particulate matter, a major component of diesel exhaust has been linked to a number of adverse health effects including increased rates of asthma and lung disease, decreased lung function, heart attacks and premature death.2 EHC is troubled that the DEIR contains a misleading statement regarding the hazards of diesel exhaust and fails to use complete information to determine threshold levels of significance for this pollutant. Page 5.3-13 of the DEIR states that the "US EPA has not yet declared diesel particulates as a toxic air contaminant". The DEIR neglects to mention, however, that the California EPA's Air Resources Board has declared diesel exhaust a Toxic Air Contaminant.3 The California EPA's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has set a chronic reference exposure level (REL) for diesel exhaust of 5 ug/m3.4 The Robertson Ranch DEIR, however, did not compare the project's diesel emission impacts to the OEHHA REL. Just one of the components of the diesel exhaust impacts predicted in the DEIR, the diesel PM10 impacts (at 6 ug/m3), would exceed the REL. The OEHHA REL should be considered as a measure of significance. The DEIR's use of only a cancer risk threshold to characterize diesel impacts is incomplete, as diesel exhaust can also create a number of non-cancer health problems. While significance thresholds are important considerations, there is sufficient uncertainty in air quality and emissions modeling, and there are sufficient health hazards associated with diesel exhaust to justify a precautionary approach to avoiding health risks, regardless of model predictions. The mitigation measures for diesel exhaust outlined in the DEIR will reduce impacts to a degree, but they are inadequate. For one, many of these measures are not required, and instead are to be done where 'feasible'. For mitigation measures to protect people's health and meet the intent of CEQA, they must be required. Also, the City should require additional diesel exhaust mitigation measures, including the use of construction equipment with cleaner engines 1 Cal EPA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. Diesel Exhaust Fact Sheet. http://www.oehha.ca.gov/public infotracts/dieselfacts.html. Accessed May 30, 2006. 2US Environmental Protection Agency. Health and Environmental Effects of Particulate Matter http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpq/naagsfin/pmheallh.html. Accessed February 17, 2006. 3 California Air Resources Board. Resolution 98-35, August 27, 1998. http://www.arb.ca.gov/regacUdiesltac/res98-35.pdf Accessed May 30, 2006. • Cal EPA, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. Table of all chronic RELs-~ir as of Feb 2005. http://www.oehha.ca.gov/air/chronic rels/AIIChrels.html Accessed May 30, 2006. Page 2 of4 and/or that run on cleaner fuel, and the installation of particulate traps and catalytic converters. 2) Fully Characterize Particulate Matter AQ Impacts EHC is concerned that the DEIR did not adequately assess impacts from particulate matter air pollution. It Is not clear why fine particulate matter (PM2.5) impacts from the proposed project were not evaluated, given that PM2.5 is a criteria pollutant for which National and State Ambient Air Quality Standards have been set. Although attainment of PM2.5 standards has not to our knowledge been incorporated Into the San Diego Air Basin's State Implementation Plan, PM2.s impacts are relevant to air quality impacts near or at the development site, what the DEIR terms "microscale" impacts. Particulate matter that is 2.5 microns or less (PM2.s) is especially of concern, as these particles are more likely to travel deep into the lungs where they can seriously damage lung tissue. 5 A battery of studies have linked PM to a number of health hazards, including increased rates of asthma and lung disease, decreased lung function, heart attacks and premature death.6 EHC asks that the City of Carlsbad assess the PM2.5 impacts from this project as part of the EIR process. 3) Mitigate Air Quality Impacts from Increased Energy Demand As was communicated by Ms. Pless in her public comments dated Nov. 30, 2005, the DEIR fails to account for air pollution impacts associated with the additional energy demand that will be created by the Robertson Ranch development. EHC believes that this is a valid concern and that more stringent mitigation measures regarding the 'energy footprint' of the Robertson Ranch development should be included in the EIR. Particularly given Carlsbad's location downwind of the Encina power plant, increased energy demand may have a direct air quality impact on Carlsbad residents along with contributing to region-wide pollution. The City's response to Ms. Pless' comment that the State (CEC and GARB) are ultimately responsible for regulating impacts from energy generation neglects the important role that local jurisdictions must play in mitigating impacts from fossil fuel based energy production. The City of Carlsbad can, through its land use, planning, and CEQA authority, help reduce the AQ impacts created by fossil fuel based energy use. In the context of the Robertson Ranch development, EHC asks that the City of Carlsbad 5 Lipmann, M. et. al. (2003). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Particulate Matter Health Effects Research Centers Program: A Midcourse Report of Status, Progress, and Plans. Environmental Health Perspectives 111 (8) 1074•1092. •us Environmental Protection Agency. Health and Environmental Effects of Particulate Matter http:llwww.epa.govlttn/oarpq/naaqsfln/pmhealth.html. Accessed February 17, 2006. Page 3 of4 implement the energy use mitigation measures outlined in Section 111.C.2. of Ms. Pless' comment letter. In addition to these measures, we urge the City to include a requirement that the residential and commercial buildings in the development be configured to be 'solar ready' to allow home and business owners to easily install after- market solar PV panels. A solar ready building would include proper orientation to facilitate rooftop solar panels, suitable wiring, and other design features. We look forward to a revised EIR for the Robertson Ranch Community Master Plan that addresses the requests we have outlined. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, I . /~ _,, 1/4..-A....t'f.. Melanie Mccutchan Research and Community Assistance Associate Pege 4 of4 From: To: Date: Subject: "elizabeth" <elizabeth@elevatedstate.com> <council@ci.carlsbad.ca.us> 06/02/2006 7:05:33 AM For City Council Hearing June 20 I'd like to let my City Council know I appreciate the great job you are doing managing the growth of our beautiful City. Please know I would like funds allocated in the budget for open space preservation, specifically around Mt Calavera in the proposed Robertson Ranch development area. Thank you, Elizabeth North 3513 Somerset Way Carlsbad, CA 92010 From: To: Date: Subject: June 1, 2006 martzim <martzim@yahoo.com> <council@ci.carlsbad.ca.us> 06/01/2006 3:29:42 PM Robertson Ranch Development Mayor Claude A Lewis Mayor Pro Tern Matt Hall Council Member Ann J. Kulchin Council Member Mark Packard Council Member Norine Sigafoose Folks, After attending last night's Planning Commission session on the proposed Robertson Ranch development, I now feel strongly that this project should not be approved in its present form. It's clear that the project's developer has not done adequate research and planning in many areas, the most glaring being the dramatic impact on traffic and on the quality of life in the immediate area (not to mention the shaky estimates of the impact on outlying areas as well). It also became quite clear that plans for the project are vague and amorphous, and that the city is relying too much on the developer to fill in the gaps --and there are quite a few serious gaps. There were many, many issues and many, many good points raised last night. I urge you not to approve this project until those concerns are fully addressed. Good planning requires good ~versight. You have the authority, the power and the responsibility to see that this development is done right. Thank you, Martin Zimmerman Resident, Calavera Hills Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From: To: Date: Subject: "Norma Wolk" <jeanwolk@webtv.net> <council@ci.carlsbad.ca.us> 06/01/2006 9:03:33 AM overbuilt city Mayor Lewis, City Council Members, Does any of you look at or drive our overcrowded streets? I live on a very short street, Levante, 25 mile speed limit. Because it connects with Rancho Santa Fe Dr. and Lacosta Av. , it is like a freeway these days. Traffic on El Camino Real is unreal. Now you want to develope yet another 1383 home project for Robertson Ranch! NO,NO,NO! Another 17,000 a day is not acceptable, in traffic. Concentrate on our street congestion and traffic overload ..... Please! NormaJ Wolk 2457 Levante St La Costa 92009 760-632-7344 or 760-944-6700 Carlsbad Planning Commission, Carlsbad, CA 92010 Dear Commission Members, Re Robertson Ranch 3553 Don Carlos Dr., Carlsbad, CA 92010 I respectfully submit to you the concern and disappointment, and the outright opposition my husband and I have to your decision allowing the reconfiguration of the Robertson Ranch project to 13,83 units from the original 983. These beautiful rolling hills and unspoiled ridge lines are the last remaining pristine acres in Carlsbad. We all realize some kind of development is inevitable, given our money driven society, but surely as Planning Commissioners you should be guardians of our environment, the keepers of the public trust, and you should not allow them to be bull-dozed and leveled beyond recognition, and plastered with wall to wall mini mansions. Have you not given any consideration to the enormous increase in traffic on El Camino Real and environs, already close to gridlock at certain times of day, and yet to feel the impact of the huge Bressi Ranch development? What are you thinking of allowing such a heavy concentration of development with out the necessary infrastructure? It is simply appalling that so little consideration seems to be given to the quality of life of the current residents of our once lovely town. Surely part of your duty is to protect us from developers who, for the most part, have never had any compunction about turning formerly beautiful areas into endless miles of concrete, choked with traffic and pollution, and then simply moving on to ever more greener pastures. Sincerely, June 20, 2006 Barbara Kennedy Re: Robertson Ranch Hearing June 21, 2006 Barbara, \' RECEIVED JUN 2 0 2006 CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING DEPT We overlooked this with the information provided by the Colony to the City yesterday morning. We will be discussing this information at Wednesday's hearing. Sincerely~~ ~ ' . Jill Agost 4730 Edinburgh Dr 5 Enclosures My name is Ralph Elwin Davis and I'm a retired Fire Captain ,y\th the Corona Fire Department.· I had 28 years as a fire fighter, engineer, and captain. During my career, I have encountered many instances where response time and access to an emergency scene became an issue. 1 agreed to write this lettG>r for the homeowners of The Colony after I was consulted as to if there were any situations when;, access through barriers, gated or chained roads was an issu..i. ln addition, I was _asKed if Corona has cul-de-sacs that are joined by an emergency road that provides acces~ for fire equipment. Enclosed a,·e several photographs in which gated and chained roads are utilized throughout the City Corona. You wilt notice that one location is a cul-de-sac that is joined to another neighborhood through an emergency access road that is chained. Corona Fire department equipment all carry a common· key for situations where chains or manual gates are used by Fire/Emergency respon&e personnel to be unlocked for access. They also carry an electronic gate opener that allows the emergency vehicles to activate the opening mechanism on gates to allow access. ~ I provided several examples of where these exist within the jurisdiction of the Corona Fire Department. We have had very little problems wi!h automatic gates not operating properly or keys not opening chained locks or manual gates. I know of no known code violations within the city of Corona that would prevent the fire department from gaining access on an emergency road tor emergency vehicles only. The photos that I provided are actual, current locations and these have never had an instance that I am aware of where access became a problem. The chained location is between Sunkist Cir and Todd Cir. The other location with the gated access was installed to prevent excessive commuter traffic. It seems hundreds of commuters were using residential streets to bypass crowded main routes to the extent that local residents couldn1 even back out of there own drivaways. This gate is located on San Ramon St in the Sierra Del Oro track on the west side ot Corona CA. off of Green River Dr. and the 91 FRWY. As you may or may not be aware, Corona has been experiencing significant and exponential growth for the past 10-15 years. Corona had and still does have the traffic challenges that Carlsbad is experiencing. There are several areas in Corona where traffic congestion exists due to out of area commuters using residential neighborhoods as short cuts to avoid main street and freeway congestion. With proper police pa!rols and community awareness, these locations have remained trouble free in terms of vehicles, trailer, motorhomes, or people playing in the cul-de- sac blocking th>!> aecess. From a fireman's point of view, I think the proposed idea of having a limited access road between cul-de-sacs is excellent solution for emergency access and that eliminatss commuter traftic. Feel free to ver~y my credentials with the Corona Fire Department and if you have any question", I can be reached at 951-736·0567. Sincerely, 7~-;:~~~ t f's/ off ., _ i : r= _. ....: DR. & MRS. DAVID B. HADDAD 26 May 2005 and again on 19 June 2006 City of Carlsbad Planning Commission RE: Robertson Ranch Master Plan My wife and I welcome the ongoing development of our city. It is critical to our continued enjoyment of northern Carlsbad, however, that the number of new units being added at the Robertson Ranch be limited in size and number. We write this as residents and property taxpayers of nearly 10 years. Leigh is an environmental designer and I am a doctor of organizational psychology who closely studies the effects of overcrowding on human society. We strongly urge the Planning Commission and City Council to adopt the following modifications to the currently proposed Robertson Ranch Master Plan. 1) That all units planned to occupy 5,000 sq. ft. lots, about 417 of them, be limited to lots no less than 7500 sq. ft. This would result in a 33% reduction in units constructed to 278 from 417. 2) That all units planned to occupy 6,000 sq. ft. lots, about 143 of them, be limited to lots no less than 7500 sq. ft. This would result in a 20% reduction of units constructed to 114 from 143. 4645 TRIESTE DRIVE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92010 We make these recommendations for 3 reasons: a) Privacy. 7500 square foot lots are the smallest lots single family units can fill and also preserve a healthy degree of privacy. Privacy, especially from one's immediate neighbors, is an essential aspect of the quality of life. b) Traffic Management. Reducing the total number of units cited above to 392 from 560 also means permanently limiting the potential and actual number of cars vying for space on Carlsbad roads. The increase of new vehicles would be limited to 784 rather than 1120. Carlsbad's roads are already choked. Better traffic management helps keep Carlsbad a more desirable place to live, the gem of San Diego's North Coast. c) Desirability. Larger lots means higher value property which means higher property tax revenue per unit on the fewer units that are built. We will eventually want to buy a new house in this vicinity, but we will not pay more for less land, less privacy, and higher traffic volumes. I want our move to be an increase in quality, updating our standard of living. The fact that such a move includes higher property taxes we accept as a given fact of life. There's only one Carlsbad, California. Let's not permanently spoil it, regretting the sorry results of overbuilding evident in the beach cities of Orange County. DR. & MRS. DAVID B. HADDAD What's the tradeoff? In the short run the developers earn less. Fewer units means less profit. That is too bad. Before becoming an organizational psychologist I was a professional in the securities industry for 14 years. I know the value of maximizing profit. But it would be unwise and unacceptable to allow temporary financial profits for a few to take priority over the permanent, long term living standards of thousands of Carlsbad residents. That's a higher price than should be paid. The other tradeoff is tax revenue. Again, in the short run because fewer units are built under our recommendation, less can be collected into the City's coffers from property and sales taxes. Nevertheless, larger lots would, as I mentioned above. be taxed on a higher per unit basis. Since they would sell for higher prices this would slightly compensate for tax revenue lost by building fewer total units. The City planners should desire an optimum effect on the community, balancing a higher quality of life through larger lots while accepting a short term effect of slightly reduced tax revenues. Again, there is only one Carlsbad, California. Let's not spoil it. David Benjamin Haddad, Ph.D. 26 May 2005 4645 TRIESTE DRIVE Leigh Haddad 26 May 2005 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 920 .10 Colony Reeldent:s Supporting 5124/08 Robertson Ranch Letter to Planning Commission A B C D 1 Name(&) Addreas Date Phone Number ~ f?qt.pJ.. 11. Por/(',-1/7&'1 C:,..r.,~he,.eJ ;?,;f C'c..,h.bo,ICc, ~/.;'i/06 7(,Q Y3Y j1(;/ 4 f:Jc.,lf,\ < Fre.r.ch M,,7,r 'i7b't ~kl<".sAevc4rfcl Q,l3bc.f ('._ s/4~/111,, 7t.u V~I./-S-l1o1 5 .!'....tr,,,,, .. ;____ /V\lMe-vvv<.-<4.. ·'.(7r,, fdci,-,fu..,,..,,J...Dlt. C-cti/sfr.:.J ('1L. 5/31/l•ii,. 71PO 7J'f.f;Jt/J MI /<it._ MLfl,\t~'.L T -\c-,._r,-.. _ 4 7'=! &-L-v.b<.-\cr}'=' ,{)..._. Cc.,1/5{,i,c/ Gt 9(jc,/VT£ V1 -,yl:-9 --. .17', ~ ~ d--~ ~tY.:i'1~ ~It, C-'A ~o--s/1oto1- 10 2;1 (2,/4 v(l--4-:MI\ ~4~,vA I¼ ~ 11 S/-0/Dl. 7kll ,.w~ g C,(G_,l\v-p---I• I\ 1, vl 1 \ t I 13 0i./S,W/ Ptde., r,J .;/'7t11P ~/~c-,,..J / WLSihf{) tk-sptJ}?> 7~-7.;2 14 ~~ t Af-rr ~ 4121 ~,.,\!>.J~~ 'l)IZ.. ~ (:,\. "j~olo 5-3<>·.:J~ ·7,0-72."f-5/'f<, 15 0 f-'V l/> Cllu>ut:1" M<:'..<~Tllt.lr" '"'1. "'\ 71 (Z"f.> ,.., IWl¼t• C,.'1.. ~Ac.A "'uo lo 5-?(.)-D'-, ~o --,-;;,_ "'U~, 16 J"\<:J.-~ Wfi'b~ 1119-: 8 / .;,.7qq ~(4~<(o<9 br Co.r-\s\oa.J(t\-"'{eJ.0105·-~-06 7bo C/s<f.-lD""3 11 ~.--t;~ ~ f,,V~ ..,R/l., ). -r 1-'r £rl.. ,.. ,r Of.(? t 1 1 r I l ~~ 'i)J)flb l?ovsc ?r.:YO( u/f?'Er!K~ £:r:, Cri-,i.r~,?-1) ,s--c-3/-0V 7bO-T,}.1-CfirD 20 AU,,~j'1;:;,~ t/lJ'//J_h./4,Jd , , , , 'J6t> if~l(-S= ~; 1rl~tA,;t; ffeo . , ~t,e..( Ca~_ 5-::,/-0(, t.J-~(l-7yif 23 ~' P('A-<!-0--Lj79U ):Ja ·/" /24 {~,I, s-·3/Y,.,6 7>'1-J 7; ~: ,1 , ),· , j;,;J_,,·c(c_-d-f11,,c,(l?h<°IUJ/.-u-✓ 26 _A 'f I...., C<' ?U7,_) 27 ( 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 Colony Residents Supporting 11124/06 Robertson Ranch Letter to Planning Commlfflon A B C D Ji;:i a s 200s CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING DEPT Electronic Signatures -Colony Residents Supporting Letter to Planning Commission 5/24/06 Name Address Date Phone# Jim & Jill GongoJa 4805 Gateshead Rd 05/29/06 Elisa & Glenn Williamson 4791 Gateshead Rd 05/29/06 434-4276 Vincent & Laura Morales 2721 Glasgow Dr 05/24/06 Francis & lrasema Perrot 2726 Glasgow Dr 05/24/06 434-9037 Brad & Stenhanie Knudsen 2730 Glasgow Dr. 05/25/06 Garv & Shellev Smith 2729 Glasgow Dr. 05/25/06 Pam&BobFox 4742 Gateshead Rd 05/25/06 F. Bruce & Susanne Honner 2718 Glasgow Dr 05/24/06 GreaAgosti From: To: Sent: Subject: "Ted Gallup" <tedgallup1@yahoo.com> "greg Agosti" <gregagosti@sbcglobal.net> Tuesday, May 30, 200611:29 AM Re: May 31st Meeting If you have not already, you can add my name to the list of supporters, TedG.u.r, Chri--.Gallup greg Agosti <gregagost@,sbcglobaLnet> wrote: Page 1 of 1 With the upcoming meeting, it is important that everyone make it to this meeting. Don't rely on the "other" person to represent you. You have to be therell Talk to your neighbors and ask them to attend. On that note, there are several people who cannot drive due to various reasons. If anyone can volunteer to take someone to the meeting, please contact us and we will contact those who cannot drive to arrange getting there. We had several people call last week as a result of the flier distribution who had no idea of what was going on but we explained it as best we could on the phone and invited him to come down and see the map and tell him about the project so Thank You to those who helped in the distribution. Also, Diane Nygard called to say her group was distributing fliers and saw that we had already covered that location so she was able to more onto another neighborhood. YOU CAN ANO HAVE MADE A DIFFERENCE I Finally, if you have not signed the letter and want to, we'll be home all weekend Including Monday or send us your response via e-mail that you concur and we'll add you to the list. It's Important to have a good show of support. Feel free to call! Free PC-to-PC calls. Low rates on PC-to-Phone. Get Yahoo! Messenger with Voice 5/30/2006 Greg Agosti From: To: Sent: Subject: <elisawilliamson@adelphia.net> "greg Agosti" <gregagosti@sbcglobal.net> Monday, May 29, 2006 10:52 AM Re: May 31st Meeting 4791 Gateshead Road 434-4276 Elisa Williamson ----greg Agosti wrote: In order for it to count, it must include your address and phone #. -----Original Message ----- From: elisawilliamson@adelphia.net To: greg Agosti Sent: Sunday, May 28, 2006 5:13 PM Subject: Re: May 31st Meeting Page 1 of2 Please add my name and my husband's name to those supporting the letter. Thanks for all you are doing. Elisa Williamson Glenn Williamson ----greg Agosti wrote: With the upcoming meeting, it is important that everyone make it to this meeting. Don't rely on the "other" person to represent you. You have to be there!! Talk to your neighbors and ask them to attend. On that note, there are several people who cannot drive due to various reasons. If anyone can volunteer to take someone to the meeting, please contact us and we will contact those who cannot drive to arrange getting there. We had several people call last week as a result of the flier distribution who had no idea 5/29/2006 Page 1 oft GrepApoatl Frum: To: Sent: • Jim Gongola" <aHgongGadelPhla.net> •greg Alpltf' <gragagostiOsbcgll.net> Monday, May 29, 2008 9:04 PM Sulllecl: RE: May 31st Meeting Hi Greg, Just wanted to let you know that JIU and I are both in agreement wtth your lette~ with the exception of the making the mini-park the new entrance street. Do we have to do something different because of that point or can we still be added to the list? Please let me know if we need to do something else. Regards, JIU. !l!ldJim Gongola• 4805 Gateshead Rd ' C8r1sbad, CA 92010 • --Clriglnal Message From: greg Agosti [maHtx>:gregagostl@sbcg.ne.t] Sant: SUnday, May 28, 2006 5:21 AM To: Brad Knudsen; JW Dennison; Mlchael Glmelman; Mother Anita; Otrts; Elisa WIiiamson; Paulel1e & Gary Phllllps; Rocky Virgadamo; Lou Piper; SUe & Dave Beith; Jim & Farrell Sheffield; Diana & Jim Sturiale; Liz Mayer; Gary Smith; Nancy McMllan; Kellie Schrick; Dorothy & Frank Webber; Mlchelle & Mah Cooper; Cllf & Wendy Johnson; Monte & Ertal Nt<¾IXlin; Vince & Laura Morales; Jeff & Alma L..leschen; Bob & Marilyn Hahnel; Valeria & Knut Madden; Bruce & SUe Hoopel; Ken and Judy MIier; I lellther/Steve Tilompson; Roger Holmes; Mike Mc:Manus; David & Helen Wells; Joanne & Frank Volpe; Joame Peters; Tom King; tDm King; SUsan Pynes; Judy MIier; 1111111apov.es0sbcglobal.net; Tony & Olelyl Hartvigsen; Sieve & Nancy Cllles; Don & Robin Wuffold; David & EllzabeHI McIntyre; Jim & JII Gongola; Jim & Hazel Whlttallll!r; Matt & Amlndll Shiffer; Frands Camlner; Sandy and Bruce Meyer; Jim and Marllyn Hope; Ira & Francis Perrot; David & Paula Stdfel; Karl & Tom Athel1Dn; Tim Traber; carol Size; Lynn & Tuck Tucker; Mart llutterfleld; Jane & Kirk Drost; Mike & Diane Mc:Manus; George Gwlazdowsld; Steverl Brandt; Ashok; Tom Barday; Tom & SUsan Harris; John Glllg; Bartllra Wood; Jocelyn Katlck; Jeannie & Rich Vance; em Brueau; Pat Dalsln; Ted & Olllstlue Gallup; AbtTf & Jerry Gomez; The Fox Famlly; helclllunnebergam II b,11ct: May 31st Meeting IMth the upcoming meelil ig, it la Important that everyone make it to this maeling. Don't rely on the "other" person to 1'91)1818nt you. You have to be there!! Talk to your neighbors and 81k them to allBnd. On that nole, there .,. eeveral people who cannot drive due to various rea110111. If anyone can volunteer to take ll0ITIIOM to the rMeling, pleaee contact us and -wlU contact lhoM who cannot drive to arrange gelling there. We had -. people call last-. as a result of the Iller dilltribulion who had no idea of what was going on but we eicplained it as belt we could on the phone and invlllld him to come down and aee the map and 1110 him about the project so Thank You to thole who helped in the distribution. Also, Diane Nygard called to say her group was dlltlibutlng tilers and saw that we had already covered that location so she was able to more onto another neighborhood. YOU CAN Ml> HAVE MADE A DIFFERENCE! Flnally, If JOU haft not elgned Ille lellllr and want to, we'ft be home al we•kllld Including llondly or Nnd .. your IIIPDI• ....... that JOU ooncur and we'B add JOU to the .... W. lmpoltlnt to haftagoodallcMofaupport.. 5/29/2006 GrepApostl From: To: Sent: Subject: "foxfamily" <foxfamily@sbcglobal.net> "greg Agosti" <gregagosti@sbcglobal.net> Thursday, May 25, 2006 1:33 PM Re: ACTION NEEDED: RR Planning Commission Letter Very impressive letter, thank you. we added our name to the bottom. Pam Fox -Original Message - From: greg AgosU To: 1.Jndisclo§i1d_,-_R,ecipient; Sent: wednesday, May 24, 2006 11 :28 AM Subject: ACTION NEEDED: RR Planning Commission Letter Hi Folks, Page 1 of 1 We did our best to represent the many views and concerns of residents over many months of data gathering and analysis, meetings, discussions and communications. Attached is the letter we sent to the Planning Commission (at the advice of a Council Member and Planning Director) on behalf of The Colony (with a cc to the Council). The intent of sharing this letter is twofold: (1) information for you; and (2) buy-in from you. Unfortunately. it is not for editing since that was done previously with various folks. But if you happen to note a glaring mistake or oversight we're interested in knowing about it. If you can live with this letter, please come by our house to sign before May 31st or add your name, address and date to the bottom of the list in the email and forward back to me. If you've already written a letter, you can also sign the one sent on behalf of all Colony residents. If you are not satisfied with this letter and feel such communication should be done differently, by all means write a letter in your own words to submit to the Commission/Council before May 30th. The presentation to the Planning Commission is scheduled for next Wednesday, May 31, at 6pm. Your support in person is needed and appreciated. Name(s) Greg & Jill Agost Pam and Bob Fox Address 4730 Edinburgh Dr. 4742 Gateshead Rd Date 5/24/06 5/25/06 5/25/2006 Greg Agosti From: To: Sent: Subject: "Gary Smith" <gsmith@redhorseventures.com> "'greg Agosti'" <gregagosti@sbcglobal.net> Thursday, May 25, 2006 11:28 AM RE: ACTION NEEDED: RR Planning Commission Letter From: greg Agosti [mailto:gregagosti@lsbcglobal.net] sent: Wednesday, May 24, 200611:28 AM To: Undisclosed-Recipient:; subject: ACJlON NEEDED: RR Planning commission Letter Hi Folks, Pagel of l We did our best to represent the many views and concerns of residents over many months of data gathering and analysis, meetings, discussions and communications. Attached is the letter we sent to the Planning Commission (at the advice of a Council Member and Planning Director) on behalf of The Colony (with a cc to the Council). The intent of sharing this letter is twofold: (1) information for you; and (2) buy-in from you. Unfortunately, it is not for editing since that was done previously with various folks. But if you happen to note a glaring mistake or oversight we're interested in knowing about it. If you can llve with thla letter, please come by our houae to •kin befor• May 31•t or add your name, address and date to the bottom of the list in the email and forward back to me. If you've already written a letter, you can also sign the one sent on behalf of all Colony residents. If you are not satisfied with this letter and feel such communication should be done differently, by all means write a letter in your own words to submit to the Commission/Council before May 30th. The presentation to the Planning Commission is scheduled for next Wednesday, May 31, at 6pm. Your support In person la needed and apprsclated. Name(s) Greg & Jill Agost Gary & Shelley Smith Add1'888 4730 Edinburgh Dr. 2729 Glasgow Drive Date 5/24/06 5/25/06 5/25/2006 ,,, Greg Agosti From: To: Cc: Sent: Subject: Greg & Jill, "Brad & Stephanie Knudsen" <bsknudsen@adelphia.net> "greg Agosti" <gregagosti@sbcglobal.net> "Brad Knudsen" <bknudsen@proxpharma.com> Thursday, May 25, 2006 8:18 AM Re: ACTION NEEDED: RR Planning Commission Letter Page 1 of2 Thank you for all your help in this matter. We apologize for not getting involved earlier but we fully support you and your efforts. One of us will be at the Planning Commission meeting next Wednesday. Please keep us informed and let us know if there is anything else we can do. Sincerely, Brad & Stephanie Knudsen -Original Message - From: g_r~oo_oslj To: Brad l<nudsen Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 5:35 PM Subject: Fw: ACTION NEEDED: RR Planning Commission Letter -Original Message - From: gregAgosti Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 200611:28 AM Subject: ACTION NEEDED: RR Planning Commission Letter Hi Folks, We did our best to represent the many views and concerns of residents over many months of data gathering and analysis, meetings, discussions and communications. Attached is the letter we sent to the Planning Commission (at the advice of a Council Member and Planning Director) on behalf of The Colony (with a cc to the Council). The intent of sharing this letter is twofold: (1) information for you; and (2) buy-in from you. Unfortunately, it is not for editing since that was done previously with various folks. But if you happen to note a glaring mistake or oversight we're interested in knowing about it. If you can live with this letter, please come by our house to lllg_n before May 31st or add your name, address and date to the bottom of the list in the email and forward back to me. If you've already written a letter, you can also sign the one sent on behalf of all Colony residents. If you are not satisfied with this letter and feel such communication should be done differently, by all means write a letter in your own words to submit to the Commission/Council before May 30th. The presentation to the Planning Commission is scheduled for next Wednesday, May 31, at 6pm. Your support in person i• needed and appreciated. Name(s) Addreu Date 5/25/2006 Greg & Jill Agost 4730 Edinburgh Dr. 8Fad & StephaAie Knudsen 2730 Gl11g•nr Or. 5/24/06 5/25/06 Page2 of2 S/25/2006 Greg Agosti From: To: Sent: "Laura Morales" <moreor1ess05@yahoo.com> <gregagosti@sbcglObal.net> Wednesday, May 24, 2006 3:25 PM Page 1 of2 Attach: Letter To Planners.pdf; Carlsbad Overview Map 78-College-cannon.ppt; Map of RR Impacts to Neighborhood.pp!; Photograhps Attachment.doc Subject: Fwd: ACTION NEEDED: RR Planning Commission Letter ---greg Agosti <gre_ga_gosti@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > From: "greg Agosti" <gregagosti@sbcglobal.net> > To: <Undisclosed-Recipient:;> > Subject: ACTION NEEDED: RR Planning Commission > Letter > Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 11:28:18 -0700 > > Hi Foll<s, > > > > We did our best to represent the many views and > concerns of residents over many months of data > gathering and analysis, meetings, discussions and > communications. Attached is the letter we sent to > the Planning Commission ( at the advice of a Council > Member and Planning Director) on behalf of The > Colony (with a cc to the Council). > > > > The intent of sharing this letter is twofold: ( 1) > information for you; and (2) buy-in from you. > Unfortunately, it is not for editing since that was > done previously with various folks. But if you > happen to note a glaring mistake or oversight we're > interested in knowing about it. > > > > If you can live with this letter, please come by our > house to sign before May 31st or add your name, > address and date to the bottom of the list in the 5/25/2006 > email and forward back to me. If you've already > written a letter, you can also sign the one sent on > behalf of all Colony residents. If you are not > satisfied with this letter and feel such > communication should be done differently, by all > means write a letter in your own words to submit to > the Commission/Council before May 30th. > > > > The presentation to the Planning Commission is > scheduled for next Wednesday, May 31, at 6pm. Your > support in person is needed and appreciated. > > > > Name(s) Address > Date > Greg & Jill Agost 4730 Edinburgh Dr. > 5/24/06 Vincent & Laura Morales 2721 Glasgow Dr.. 5/24/06 Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com Page2of2 5/25/2006 Greg Agosti From: To: Sent: Subject: <fbhopper@adelphia.net> "greg Agosti" <gregagosti@sbcglobal.net> Wednesday, May 24, 2006 2:59 PM Re: ACTION NEEDED: RR Planning Commission Letter ----greg Agosti <gregagos_ti_@sbcglob~l.net> wrote: > Hi Folks, > > > Pagel of2 > We did our best to represent the many views and concerns of residents over many months of data gathering and analysis, meetings, discussions and communications. Attached is the letter we sent to the Planning Commission ( at the advice of a Council Member and Planning Director) on behalf of The Colony (with a cc to the Council). > > > > The intent of sharing this letter is twofold: (1) information for you; and (2) buy-in from you. Unfortunately, it is not for editing since that was done previously with various folks. But if you happen to note a glaring mistake or oversight we're interested in knowing about it. > > > > If you can live with this letter, please come by our house to sign before May 31st or add your name, address and date to the bottom of the list in the email and forward back to me. If you've already written a letter, you can also sign the one sent on behalf of all Colony residents. If you are not satisfied with this letter and feel such communication should be done differently, by all means write a letter in your own words to submit to the Commission/Council before May 30th. > > > > The presentation to the Planning Commission is scheduled for next Wednesday, May 31, at 6pm. Your support in person is needed and appreciated. > > > > Name(s) > Greg & Jill Agost F.Bruce& Address 4730 Edinburgh Dr. Date 5/24/06 5/25/2006 Page2of2 9\lnme lt:i!opper 2718 Gla,gow Drive 5.24/06 5/25/2006 Greg Agosti From: To: Sent: Subject: "lrasema Perrot'' <pcsostraining@sbcglobal.net> "'greg Agosti"' <gregagosti@sbcglobal.net> Wednesday, May 24, 2006 5:22 PM RE: ACTION NEEDED: RR Planning Commission Letter Page 1 of 1 The letter is awesome, you have done an incredible job. I understand that you will be using a PowerPoint to show at the council meeting. I would be happy to help you with that effort, just let me know. I'm fairly free this Satuday. If you need help call me at home 434-9037 lrasema Perrot From: greg Agosti [mailto:gregagosti@sbcglobal.net] sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 11:28 AM To: Undisclosed-Recipient:;@mta110.mail.mud.yahoo.com; Subject: ACTION NEEDED: RR Planning Commission Letter Hi Folks, We did our best to represent the many views and concerns of residents over many months of data gathering and analysis, meetings, discussions and communications. Attached is the letter we sent to the Planning Commission (at the advice of a Council Member and Planning Director) on behalf of The Colony (with a cc to the Council). The intent of sharing this letter is twofold: (1) information for you; and (2) buy-in from you. Unfortunately, it is not for editing since that was done previously with various folks. But if you happen to note a glaring mistake or oversight we're interested in knowing about it. If you can live with this letter, please come by our house to algn before May 31st or add your name, address and date to the bottom of the list in the email and forward back to me. If you've already written a letter, you can also sign the one sent on behalf of all Colony residents. If you are not satisfied with this letter and feel such communication should be done differently, by all means write a letter in your own words to submit to the Commission/Council before May 30th. The presentation to the Planning Commission is scheduled for next Wednesday, May 31, at 6pm. Your support in person is needed and appreciated. Name(s) Addren Date Greg & Jill Agost 4730 Edinburgh Dr. 5/24/06 Francis B: lrasema Perrot 2726 Glasgow Drive 5124106 5/25/2006 '/ ,,___..,,.-lu Our Community Insert pictures of neighborhood events Neighborhood Quotes We used to live off Pontiac and Victoria, and admired this neighborlwod. We were thrilled to find a lwme over here. The ,fchoolv are awe.mme. It',, a quiet neighborhood that i.t kept up (not overrun). Tim Traber (7 yrs) We were told Carbbad was very concerned about growth and there was a moratorium on growth. Bruce & Sandy Meyer (19 yr,) The Colony -Comprehen.five Re,tident Re:,pon,te Traffic Our biggest threat to the neighborhood is the traffic Concern is the discrepancy with other traffic studies (one segment -College Blvd between 78 & Plaza) -Robertson Ranch 15,000 -Oceanside 49,0rxl -Mira Monte 30,000 Reviewed by an independent third party I· Neighborhood Quotes Peopk don't just drive into their garage.t and go imo their homes • they LNE in the neighborhood. They know and care about their neighbors andfriend.f. StacU Baker (14 yrs) We moved herefrom Orange County because of the City',t reputation of planned and controlled growth. Dan Runnestrand (23 yrs) We wanted JO ,ftart a family in a ,faje community with nice peopk where we coul.d enjoy raising our children. David McIntyre (19 months) Protect Our Neighborhood We need you to protect the safety and integrity of our neighborhood -Children playing in the streets -Senior CTtizens -Established neighborhood Traffic Insert table w/ Failed Intersections 1 Traffic Revised Traffic Study -All assumptions -Distribution questionable • 6% ( vs. I 0% of our traffic) -Cut through at 20% • 78 / l-5 Commuter • School • Park & Community Center • Wal-Mart City Public Opinion Surveys 2005-Growth & Ql'ercrowding have con.vivtently been top coneenu of Carlsbad, Pg 28 2004 -The most common recommenda!ion was setting limit., on growth and development, Pg 85 2003 -Growth, Overbuilding and Overcrowding was the most common complaint, Pg 109 2002, 2001, 2000-Growth, Overbuilding and Overcrowding wa.v the biggest concern regarding Carlsbad (See Chart next slide) How Is Density Not An Issue? 5 years of published survey data indicate otherwise. Total Number of DU: -1986 Growth Management Plan-1,122 -After intense City analysis -983 -Current plan 1,383 Traffic At the revised estimates: -Glasgow -99% (1,977 ADT) -Edinburgh-95% (1,898 ADT) • Margin of Error -too close to risk our safety? City of Carlsbad 2003 Public Opinion Survey Report; Pg. 109 ~--~-::7::" --·-=-- Density • Density Impacts -Traffic -Water -Power -Sewage -Air Quality -Quality of Life 2 Density Insert pie chart DENSITY Multi-Family Units at 51% -Affordable housing at 20% -What about the remaining 31 % of Multi-Family housing? Senior Housing • School Impacts • Condition in the Mastt"J" Plan re the School Site • Recent letter from Dr. Roach re High School Why Encouragement of Such High Density? l°'Jl'l>Ji<Jf<irl-liODUogl<--~-"11--llUl'-AI --------.-• ·~-_,.... __ _ "" __ , _________ .., .. , -- I· AB 2348 -Housing Element Regional Housing Need DU/AC mandates apply only to iin;cr i111 nnll hn11.11'1wld\ Section 65583.2-Pg 10 of Legislative Counsel's Digest states: "(B) The following dmtltie,t .thall be denned appropriate to aecommodale housing/or li,11·c1 111c11me ilomdwki<: • (iii) SJJburbtm. •• 2Dun.itsperacre • (iv) Metropolitan. ... 30 units per acre" City Inclusionary Housing Ordinance • Each new residential project set aside 15% for affordable, low income housing. -Robertson Ranch • 49% single-family homes • 51% Multi.family units •20% is low income •JI% identified a.,; "High Density Residential Sites" implied to be apartment.,; Land Use Map • "Unoffaci.al" as pogted on City Website & provided by Planning personnel Roberbon Ranch i5 dc5ign1ted as "RLM" (0-4 DU/AC) 1f project ha~ been in the works for 5 years, why bas lhe map not been revised accordingly? Misleading to public 3 Expectations • Clear that "something" would exist but didn't expect that "something" to be a residential development built at 141 % capacity -Expecu,tions rea.<0.,,.blc to p~vious ~vclopmcnt • Edinburgh .E.stales-two cul desac addition., •Continuation of and addition 10 existing Colony • Nol lhrough Mreet, 10 El Camino Real • Sigaage -"Future Road Extension" -Llne of sight Effectiveness of Communication Taken at 20 y-.rds away. Taken from car at TamarJCk & El Camino Real SOLUTIONS • Ingress/Egress on Tamarack -A condition of the W. Village -Eliminates use of Edinburgh & Gla.~gow -Approval can be obtained while building East Village • Doesn't hold up the application Expectations .. --✓ 'O ~·· PROTECT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD • We need you, the Planning Commission, to protect our neighborhood. Carlsbad Growth Management Plan major concept#4: "ff at any time a proposed development would result In a failure of any of the adopted fac/1/ty pertonnanee standards, the development cannot be approved unt/1 the problem Is resolved." SOLUTIONS • Connect East to West Village -Eliminates access to Edinburgh & Glasgow -Recognize it would involve more time -Working with the Enviroamental Agencies -Save OUR Habitat as well 4 SOLUTIONS • Back to Back CUl de Sacs -The Colony supports this -McMillin & Robertson Ranch support this -No City or Fire Code violations -Fire Department Concerns • Rcs-ponse time • All weather road • No barrier,; / gates -Spoken with other Fire Department~ • Corona Fin: Capain Tc,1:imonial -No worse than now SOLUTIONS SOLUTIONS • Adding another Left Turn Lane on Tamarack WB at ECR. -Alleviates commuter cut through traffic and prevents Tamarack & ECR from failing SOLUTIONS Solutions ROBERTSON RANCH SOLUTIONS • Density -Reduce Multi-Family/Apartment density -Add Affordable Senior Housing Growth& Overcrowding have consistently been top concemsot C•rlsbad I DU/AC mandates apply only to~ _JI!_come households , 5 In Conclusion • Our Future is in Your Hands • We are asking you to Protect our Neighborhood • We have given you solutions that are a win- win for everyone • Please consider our solutions before approving this plan 6 The Colony -Resident Responses Who How Long In Why Did You Move Here? Reason For The Stability in our Little Colony Community Colony? Arthur & Barbara Wood 12 years We moved here because we loved the Many of the original homeowners are still in the area. Also, almost all the neighborhood -well kept up homes and yards and residents make a constant effort to maintain their properties in a clean and a quiet neighborhood with a good mixture of attractive manner. There is also a unique camaraderie throughout the residents: young families, retirees and some development that promotes a good social environment for adults and children middle aged singles. alike. This is probably due to our geographical construction -many cul-de-sacs and minimal traffic on most days. We feel safe, secure and a sense of coziness anvwhere within our Colony -it truly is a workino "Colony.' Bruce & Sandy Meyer 19 years (1987) -We selected Cartsbad because we were told The small town feel, the feeling of being safe, community pride. Our community original owners. Carlsbad was very concerned about growth and feels suburban not urban (we don't want it to feel urban -which closer shopping, Raised our children there was a moratorium on growth. more traffic and the resultant congestion will cause to happen here and they were able to play on the streets safely, walk to school safety, etc. Susan Pynes 11 years We lived nearby for 10 years previously. We liked I believe that the stability of the neighborhood comes from the fact that the people the colony because of its neighborhood feel, the in the neighborhood have similar values about home, family, and community. I fact that the properties were neat and kept up, heard a statistic once that said that 80% of volunteers involved in the City come and because there were people of all ages living from our quadrant of the city, and many of those live in the Colony and Edinburgh there Estates. In our 170plus homes, we have a school board member (Elisa Williamson), president of the Senior Commission alld Friends of the Library (Arthur Wood), former PTA presidents for both Hope and Calaveras Hills, former Arts Commission Chair .... and these are just the ones I know. There are many, many more. Dan Runnestrand 23 years City's reputation of planned & controlled growth. Cklality of life, location, atmosphere of neighborhood. -· Moved from Orange County where growth was chokino infrastructure Charlie & Nancy Cates 19 years Relocated from Michigan. Chose Carlsbad for its Communities are built on neighborhoods. Neighborhoods are built on stable great school system. The colony was chosen neighbors. The colony, with its' limited access and moderate number of homes, is because of the way it, and the rest of Calavera a very quiet, stable, safe place to raise children. We don't have people using our Hills, was tucked away in a comer of Carlsbad roads to go other places. The only purpose people have for entering the colony is to visit someone in the colony. This creates safe streets, and a neighborhood that is easy to oolice by parents and authorities. David McIntyre 19 months We wanted to start a family in a safe community The fact that so many people here are long time residents. with nice people where we could enjoy raising our children. David Stoffel 23 years (original Escape the high-density and traffic of Orange lots of good folks-neighborly and family values Colonv residents! Countv! Do olanners need to destrov one communitv whfle thev plan a new one? Jim & Hazel Whittaker 24 years We wanted a quieter, smaller and more intimate We have stabilized and consolidated into a quiet safe community which we intend society to protect Susie Hopper 23 years --We are We are original owners and moved here in 1983 Our QUIET and SAFE STREETS and neighborhood communication and pride orioinal owners The Colony -Resident Responses Bob Hahnel 21 years the area because it was it was new, quite The Colony is one of the most desired locations in Carlsbad, because it is a rather 2692 Glasgow Dr reasonable and sort of isolated. clean neighborhood and very friendly Helen Luitgaarden Wells 19 years (1987) and I loved the open fields behind me and did not The community feeling is so great what with block parties, Christmas parades and have loved every realize that there would be thousands of homes the holiday decorations minute of it built there Mama Anita 19 years Was looking for an upgrade from the community Family oriented; old fashion neighborhood commitment; sense of solid ownership where I lived in Oceanside. and pride in our colonv Sue & Dave Beith 21 vears Emolovment transfer. Stickina toaether and watchina out for each other Ira Perrot 18 years We left Orange County because my husband It is a close-knit community. We all watch out for each other. We are willing to step wanted a shorter commute. Unfortunately, it's now up and help our neighbors. I love my neighbors-the biggest reason we are still the same as before we moved. here. Kitty & Lou Piper 18 years First home in CA after relocating from Michigan. People know their neighbors and care about each other. Most people have lived We liked what we heard about the school system here for years! and Ca~sbad's proximity to the beach. We keep an eye out for each other D. Rouse 11 years Peaceful neighborhood in a cul-da-sac and away Somewhat secluded. Low crime rate and neighbors that take care and show from the traffic and crime in Tanglewood, where we respect for each other previouslv lived for 10 years. Gary & Shelley Smith 8 ½years Quality of life; stable, mature neighborhood; mature The colony attracts a certain type of person and family -someone not necessarily trees; quiet area; no new home construction and looking for the latest and greatest "brand new" home, but a more interesting and related issues; cul de sac/ protected; enjoy the diverse environment -a safe place for kids to play with other kids. People here fields and hiking; mix of older and younger families; tend to know their neighbors and to look after each other -there is a sense of convenient to aood schools and Darks cride and co-ownershio of the communitv. There is a sense of "home' here. Frank Volpe 7 years Planned community, Town interested in A sense of community -· communitv, Quiet area out of maior traffic flow Pam & Bob Fox 4 years We wanted a quiet "established" residential People are friendly here, in general have a pride of ownership, the streets are neighborhood. Lots of trees and birds singing. Easy quiet, the schools are good, and our neighborhood feels like a 'little piece of access to the communitv. oaradise". Ted & Christine Gallop 4 years Because of the quaint, quiet neighborhood and The physical design of the neighborhood, the cul d sacs, the quietness of the large amt of open space in back yard. streets, encourages people to linger in the front, for kids to play in the front. We can use our streets for parties. We gather often as a community, which creates strong ties. Mel & Karen Tavlor 7 vears Well keel neiahborhood Valerie & Knut Madden 8.5 years Job relocation Good location, good schools, great lots WONDERFUL, INVOLVED NEIGHBORS Tim Traber 7 years We used to live off Pontiac and Victoria, and very quiet neighborhood that is kept up (not overrun), and seems like an oasis in admired this neighborhood. When we relocated the middle of the Ca~sbad explosion. Also, we have a great set of neighbors, and back, we were thrilled to find a home over here. we respect each other. The schools are awesome, especially CHES & CHMS! ' The Colony -Resident Responses Mary & David Butterfield 6 yrs We loved the house and the neighborhood was so (a)Our neighborhood meets for couples (and singles) bunco. (b) our neighborhood full of children. Also, people were friendly to us has block parties on July 4, Christmas and New Years Eve. (c) people walk their even when we were just looking. dogs and chat. (d) people take care of each other --when I was down with chemo therapy the neighbors brought dinner for my family every night checked up on us I Freauentlv. Stacie Baker 14 years Neighborhood 'feeling" -people out walking the That 'neighborhood' feeling. People don't just drive into their garages and go in street, talking/ socializing with neighbors, large their homes -they LIVE in the neighborhood. They know and care about their vards -kid friendly neiahbors and friends. John Galey 1 year My wife cannot climb stairs. We moved to to a one-Very quiet and pleasant living conditions. These conditions not only eliminate story home here on Brookwood Court many of the reasons families move from a neighborhood but also encourage the develooment of mutual sunnort within the communitv. Greg Agosti 22 years Orange County was too expensive at the time. I looked at all the North County cities and thought Amongst all the developments since the early 1990's, the Colony has remained a small, quaint and quiet neighborhood -a good environment to for families of all Carlsbad was the nicest. I looked in Carlsbad for ages. over 1 yr and chose the Colony because it was a small, auaint and auiet neiahborhood. Vicki & Bill Countreman 20 years Originally from New Zealand and I chose to move Definitely because of the mix of family and retired people; VERY STRONG SENSE 4781 Edinburgh Drive to Carlsbad in approx 1980 because I think the OF COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBORHOOD. We have made SO many friends population at that time was approx. 30,000-40,000 living here. which was about the size of my home town in New Zealand. A very good size in which to raise a familv; and a verv strona sense of communitv. Elisa Williamson 19 years (original Liked the home and the open space behind our We literally put up our fences together with our neighbors, shared the same owners) property landscaoers, caroooled to school together Don & Robin Wofford 17 years We thought it would be a great starter house, but Our community is unique because the people care for each other and watch out we fell in love with the neighborhood and decided for the kids. It is a safe and wonderful place to raise your family. -· never to leave. Mike and Diane McManus 21 years It was a nice quiet community, the houses were I think one of the main reasons for stability is that it really has become it's own little built on larger lots and the traffic was non-existent. community. Many people have raised their children here, we have raised three boys, we have gotten to know our neighbors and have grown close to them and have watched their children grow up. Our yards sale, our block parties, our holiday events have all helped to form a real special bond with everyone who lives here. People tend to stay where they are comfortable and safe and that is what this neighborhood has aiven us. Ken & Judy Miller 23 Years (Original We already lived in Carlsbad off of Kelly Street. The neighborhood has remained pretty much the same since we moved in which owners) We liked the area and wanted to buy a new house. has kept us here. It has been a safe, quiet, and secluded place to raise our kids without being worried by crime or traffic. Along with this, it has always been a visually a1tractive neighborhood that shows pride of ownership. Residents are continually making improvements to their homes and yards. I feel we're fortunate to have made this our home for the past 23 vears. gwiazdg@netzero.net 24 years A fine place to live with good schools The people that live here care about our place and make it a good community to live in. The Colony -Resident Responses Wendv Johnson 9 vears It's auiet It's a nice olace to brina uo kids Don and Kendal Patterson 15 years Fell in love with the location, view and house. Our colony is stable because, simply, no one wants to leave. And no one wants to leave because the homes are not the cookie-cutter stucco/tile roof variety, because the streets are quiet (at least for now!), the neighbors are nice, the yards are huge by today's standards, and everyone has come to know one another, aivina it that small-town feel in the middle of a busv suburban area Michelle Godefroy 1 year Moved here from Palisades Point across There is a good community feeling because it is not El Camino Real on Tamarak where we too big. I feel safe having my kids (ages: 19, 15, 5, lived for 15 yrs. We moved here because &4) living here and exploring our neighborhood. For we liked the location. Meaning, quiet them to walk to the park is great. With more traffic neighborhood, close to our old home and I will not let them. aood schools Review of Escrow Documentation For Road Extensions & Robertson Ranch I. Email sent to Colony Residents. June 18. 2006: Please look through your closing escrow documents when you purchased your home and look for illustrations/drawings and any communication depicting the future extensions on Glasgow and Edinburgh. During the purchase the seller must disclose to potential buyers anything that could affect the area (i.e., future road extensions, unstable foundations, termites, known defects, etc.). These extensions were supposed to have been disclosed. We want to know what your documents say as there seams to be a lot of inconsistency. One resident recalls that the extensions showed Edinburgh & Glasgow hooking up in a U-shape. Verification of your docs will help in addressing the 'you had to know these streets would connect to a developmenr comments -yes, but to what extent? Greg Agosti Showed Edinburgh extending into a field possibly connecting up with a street called Cannon that didn't exist at that lime (1984). I always assumed the Colony would be extended in a similar fashion to Edinburgh Estates, but never anticipated Edinburgh going all the way through to ECR. Kari & Tom Atherton The extensions showed Edinburgh & Glasgow extended and hooking up in a U-shaoe, but nowhere near ECR. Chris Cooper Found no mention of the Glasgow or Edinburgh extensions or the 2769 Glasgow addition of 1400 houses to our neighborhood. We purchased our house 760 730 3885 on Glasgow 3 years ago. The interesting thing is that both our realtor and the sellers realtor worked for McMillin realty who I assume is a sister company to McMillin the developer (tell me if I am wrong). I'm not happy about the nondisclosure. Ted Gallup I went through our docs and unfortunately didn't find anything that showed permanent closures, except that I also found nothing that disclosed where extensions would go or when. When we purchased, I did go to the Planning Dept. to get more information on the extension of College Blvd as we are across the canyon from the current construction, Ravinia by McMillin. One thing they did not disclose to me was that the Mystic Point, Montara, Ravinia etc. development would include the low income Mariposa Aprtments. They also did not mention anything to me about Robertson Ranch or extensions to Edinburoh or Glasoow. Tom King Have the original planning maps (Carlsbad General Plan) that shows fl considerable lower densit~ than what is l}_fOl}_Osed now. In addition, at that time I did go to the planning department and asked them what the plans for the extension of Edinburgh specifically was and was told that it would NEVER be a through street. It would at most service an additional small segment of homes because of the incline of Edinburgh and the HMP requirements imposed on that portion of Robertson Ranch. This is basically the same story the resident you mentioned below -where was to be a closed off U-shape servicing immediate homes -never being through to Cannon or ECR. I am sure I can dia up other useful Review of Escrow Documentation For Road Extensions & Robertson Ranch information from the HMP as well. Bruce Meyer Found one document, which I had attached to our original escrow documents from 1987. It is not clear and doesn't seem to show what you are lookina for. It savs 1 of 2 sheets -but there is no 2nd sheet. Lynn Tucker I checked our loan docs and they didn't have any graphics or mention of the future road extensions. Irene and Martin Lechowitzky I don't see anything related to street extension. We bought the house eight years ago and it is entirely possible that disclosure on this wasn't mandatory at that time and/or the street extension was not planned at that time. I simply don't know. On the other hand, if they should have disclosed that to us at that period in time, that miaht be useful to vou. TammarielloFamily Couldn't find any info. in our closing docs. that mentioned the Glasgow or Edinburah extensions Dave Rouse Ours onlv sav that Tamarack may be extended. We bouaht in 1994 Bob Peterson I just checked all my documents and found nothing that would help. Sorry Rocky Virgadamo We do not have any drawings from our closing paper work. Tom King has an area map that is quite detailed. I know for a fact that there was nothing printed on the dead end barricade for vears, so thev can't claim that we knew all alona ... Pam Fox We reviewed our relatively recent documents and no disclosures about the streets were made. Airport noise etc. was included but nothing re:roads. I am sure that the sellers and their agent believed that the signs on the ends of the streets, that were there when we purchased, were all the disclosure thev needed. Sorry not to be of more helo. Ira Perrot My escrow documents do not disclose anything about Glasgow Being opened up to El Camino Real. We've also lived here 18 years, maybe in was not in the works then. Elisa Williamson I checked our documents and thev don't show anvthina. Sorrv. David & Elizabeth Mclntvre There is nothina in ours reaardina this. Rich Vance I couldn't find anv reference ta future develooment olans. Frances Caminer We bought 1986-there is No map. When I refinanced in 2002-the map 729-1598 only shows "our' area and a bi!I blank for "The Robertson's Ranch".