HomeMy WebLinkAboutGPA 11-07; Robertson Ranch West Village Part II; General Plan Amendment (GPA)c
July 20, 2012
TO: Christer Westman, Senior Planner
Chris DeCerbo, Principal Planner
Bridget Desmarais, Administrative Secretary
Sabrina Michelson, Senior Office Specialist
FROM: Michael Elliott, City of Carlsbad's Contract Landscape Architect
RE: Landscape Architectural Review-Master Plan Amendment & Master Tentative
Map Review -5th Review
Robertson Ranch West Village, MP 02-03(C), CT 11-01, SUP 11-02
El Camino Real
PELA file: 424-Robertson Ranch West Village-Con5
Contact: Planning Systems, Phone: (760) 931-0780
Landscape Architect: SW A, Phone: (949) 497-5471
Please advise the applicant to make the following revisions to the plans so that they will meet the
requirements of the City of Carlsbad's Landscape ManuaL
MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT
REPEAT COMMENTS
1-9 Completed.
1A-2A Completed.
lB. Please replace all figure references throughout the landscape guidelines section (i-:e:-
Add "Figure III 28" to paragraph 1 on page III 129, etc.). Check all pages and review
all figure references insuring they are coordinated. 5th Review: Please see the
following pages and check all other pages:
a) See page III-I 29, East Village Entry-Should reference figures III-29 and III-30.
b) See page III-I 34, paragraph 4, Line 6
c) See page III-138, General Plan Roadway Streetscapes, Last Line -Figure III-57 does
not appear to be the correct reference.
d) See page I11-I5I, Street Z-Figure reference not provided
e) See page 11I-I59, e) .fire Fuel Modification Zone, Line I6
2B-5B Completed.
NEW COMMENTS
IC. Page III-127, 1) Streets, Tamarack Avenue and page III-138, General Plan Roadway
Streetscapes-These sections indicate that the Tamarack Avenue right-of-way is fully
landscaped and no landscaping of the right-of-way is planned. Portions ofthe existing
right-of-way landscaping are currently in disrepair and in need of refurbishment.
Please address who will be responsible for refurbishment of these areas.
0
Robertson Ranch West Village
Tentative Map Review
MASTER TENTATIVE MAP
REPEAT COMMENTS
0
July 20, 2012
Page 2
It is understood that the plans prepared are for Tentative Map review only and very conceptual in
nature. More detailed conceptual plans will be required with each Planning Area submittal.
These more detailed concept plans will be required to address all Robertson Ranch Master Plan,
Landscape Manual and City of Carlsbad Water Ordinance requirements. The Tentative Map
application has not been reviewed for all of the above requirements as the plans are too
conceptual for these reviews.
1-12 Completed.
1A-2A. Completed.
1B-2B Completed.
1 C. Completed.
c CITY OF CARLSBAD
REVIEW AND COMMENT MEMO
DATE: MAY 18, 2012
PROJECT NO(S): GPA 11-07 /MP 02-03(C)/CT 11-01/HDP 11-
01/SUP 11-02/HMP 11-03
PROJECT TITLE: ROBERTSON RANCH WEST VILLAGE
APPLICANT: PLANNING SYSTEMS/PAUL KLUKAS
TO: Land Development Engineering-Terie Rowley
Police Department-J. Sa sway
Fire Department-Greg Ryan
Building Department-Will Foss
Recreation -Mark Steyaert
REVIEW NO: 4
~
D
D
D
D
D
D
~
D
D
D
Public Works Department (Streets)-Nick Roque
_____________ Water/Sewer District
•
Landscape Plancheck Consultant -PELA
_____________ .School District
North County Transit District-Planning Department
Sempra Energy-Land Management
Caltrans (Send anything adjacent to 1-5)
Parks/Trails -Liz Ketabian
*ALWAYS SEND EXHIBITS
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
:lease revie~ and submit written comments and/or con-iii tiill iJ--K• ..
m the Plannmg Department at 1635 Faraday Avenue, b"' r;[S712. ll' you,ave "o ~omment$!-Jll.~ ..
please so state. If you determine that there are items that need to be submitted to deem the
application "complete" for processing, please immediately contact the applicant and/or their
representatives (via phone or e-mail) to let them know.
Signature Date
PLANS ATTACHED
Review & Comment 03/10
--------~~~~--~~~------------------------
c
June 4, 2012
TO:
FROM:
RE:
Contact:
Christer Westman, Senior Planner
Chris DeCerbo, Principal Planner
Bridget Desmarais, Administrative Secretary
Sabrina Michelson, Senior Office Specialist
Michael Elliott, City of Carlsbad's Contract Landscape Architect
Landscape Architectural Review-Master Plan Amendment & Master Tentative
Map Review -4th Review
Robertson Ranch West Village, MP 02-0J(C), CT 11-01, SUP 11-02
El Camino Real
PELA file: 424-Robertson Ranch West Village-Con4r
Planning Systems, Phone: (760) 931-0780
Landscape Architect: SW A, Phone: (949) 497-5471
Please advise the applicant to make the following revisions to the plans so that they will meet the
requirements ofthe City of Carlsbad's Landscape Manual.
Numbers below are referenced on the red line plans where appropriate for ease in locating the
area of the comment concern.
MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT
REPEAT COMMENTS
1. Completed.
2. (Page III 145, Figure III 38) Street tree species are subject to change. See comment #1
above. 2aa Re·vievr The applicant has responded: "Please let us know v;hen the tree
policy changes." Please revise verbiage to indicate that the street tree species selection
for El Camino Real shall be as approved by the Planning Department. 3rd Review: Page
III 144, Figure III 38 and Page III-145, Figure III-39-Please revise Figures, deleting
Platanus acerifolia in 4 locations and adding "Street trees as approved by the Planning
Department". lh Review: Page II/-143, Figure II/-37-Please revise the Figure,
deleting Platanus acerifolia and adding "Street trees as approved by the Planning
Department".
3. Deleted.
4-9 Completed.
1A. Page III 145 II/-143, Figure ~II/-37 -Liquidambar styraciflua has been diagnosed
with a bacterial pathogen that has damaged the trees in this area. Please provide a
substitute for the Liquidambar styraciflua in 2 locations or indicate "Street trees as
approved by the Planning Department". lh Review: Page /Il-143, Figure II/-37 and
Page II/-146, Cannon Road-Please revise Liquidambar styraciflua to "Street trees as
approved by the Planning Department".
2A. Page 111-188, Figure 111-59-The trail fence has been deleted to the west ofPA 13A.
Please explain. lh Review: Page II/-186, Figure 111-57-The trail fence has been
deleted to the west of PA 13A. Please explain.
c
Robertson Ranch West Village
Tentative Map Review
NEW COMMENTS
0
June 4, 2012
Page 2
lB. Please replace all figure references throughout the landscape guidelines section (i.e.
Add "Figure III-28" to paragraph 1 on page III-129, etc.). Check all pages and review
all figure references insuring they are coordinated.
2B. Please revise the figure reference to "III-36" on page III-145 for El Camino Real.
3B. Please revise the figure reference to "III-37" on page III-146 for Cannon Road.
4B. Please revise the figure reference to "III-38" on page III-148 for College Boulevard.
5B. Page III-147-Cannon Road Theme Tree-Please delete Pinus canariensis and
Lophostemon and replace with "Street trees as approved by the Planning Department".
MASTER TENTATIVE MAP
REPEAT COMMENTS
It is understood that the plans prepared are for Tentative Map review only and very conceptual in
nature. More detailed conceptual plans will be required with each Planning Area submittal.
These more detailed concept plans will be required to address all Robertson Ranch Master Plan,
Landscape Manual and City of Carlsbad Water Ordinance requirements. The Tentative Map
application has not been reviewed for all of the above requirements as the plans are too
conceptual for these reviews.
1-11 Completed.
12. RETURN REDLINES and provide 2 copies of all plans for the next review.
1A-2A. Completed.
1B-2B Completed.
NEW COMMENTS
IC. (Sheet L-2.2) Please delete "(temporary)" from the irrigation portion of the Fire Fuel
Modification Zone B-2. Permanent irrigation is required.
,. 0 0
May 24,2012
TO: Christer Westman, Senior Planner
Chris DeCerbo, Principal Planner
Bridget Desmarais, Administrative Secretary
Sabrina Michelson, Senior Office Specialist
FROM: Michael Elliott, City ofCarlsbad's Contract Landscape Architect
RE: Landscape Architectural Review-Master Plan Amendment & Master Tentative
Map Review-3rd Review
Robertson Ranch West Village, MP 02-03(C), CT 11-01, SUP 11-02
El Camino Real
PELA file: 424-Robertson Ranch West Village-Con4
Contact: Planning Systems, Phone: (760) 931-0780
Landscape Architect: SWA, Phone: (949) 497-5471
Please advise the applicant to make the following revisions to the plans so that they will meet the
requirements of the City of Carlsbad's Landscape Manual.
Numbers below are referenced on the red line plans where appropriate for ease in locating the
area of the comment concern.
MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT
REPEAT COMMENTS
1. Completed.
2. (Page III 14 5, Figure III 3 8) Street tree species are subj ectto change. See comment # 1
above. 200 Revie·vv: The applicant has responded: "Please let us knmv ·wrhen the tree
policy changes." Please revise verbiage to indicate that the street tree species selection
for EI Camino Real shall be as approved by the Planning Department. 3rd Review: Page
III 144, Figure III 38 and Page 111-145, Figure 111-39-Please revise Figures, deleting
Platanus acerifolia in 4 locations and adding "Street trees as approved by the Planning
Department". lh Review: Page J//-143, Figure ///-37-Please revise the Figure,
deleting Platanus acerifolia and adding "Street trees as approved by the Planning
Department".
3. Deleted.
4-8 Completed. )
9. (Page 111-166) -Fuel Modification Plan-Figure 111-4 7 indicates that condition B does \
not occur on site; however the Master Tentative Map plans show a condition Bon sheet
L-1.2 to the south and east ofthe Glasgow Drive cul-de-sac and to the east ofthe
intersection ofEl Camino Real and Tamarack. Please revise as appropriate. 2nd Review:
The applicant has responded: "Condition does occur in the northern portion ofPA5 and
PA6 and along the northwest side ofPA9//10. We have revised this figure to reflect this
information." The exhibit still indicates that condition B does not occur however it does
occur in several locations. Please coordinate tentative map with master plan. Check all
areas. 3rd Review: The applicant has responded: "The Fuel Modification Plan on p. III-
165 has been modified. All areas have been checked and it should be correct at this
0
Robertson Ranch West Village
Tentative Map Review
May 24,2012
Page2
time." Page III-165, Figure III-47-Fuel Modification Plan: The eKhibit still indicates
that condition "B" does not occur on site (see asterisk); however the purple color for this
condition is shovm on the CKhibit and called out on the Master Tentative Map. Please
delete the asterisk and asterisk note. The Figure still does not appear to match the Master
Tentative Map. Please review all areas and coordinate. 4th Review: The Master
Tentative Map was not received with this submittal; therefore this comment could not be
completely checked.
I A. Page III 145 III-143, Figure III-J9 III-37 -Liquidambar styraciflua has been diagnosed
with a bacterial pathogen that has damaged the trees in this area. Please provide a
substitute for the Liquidambar styraciflua in 2 locations or indicate "Street trees as
approved by the Planning Department". lh Review: Page III-143, Figure III-37 and
Page III-146, Cannon Road-Please revise Liquidambar styraciflua to "Street trees as
approved by the Planning Department".
2A. Page III-188, Figure III-59-The trail fence has been deleted to the west ofPA 13A.
Please explain. lh Review: Page III-186, Figure III-57-The trail fence has been
deleted to the west of PA 13A. Please explain.
NEW COMMENTS
lB. Please replace all figure references throughout the landscape guidelines section (i.e.
Add "Figure III-28" to paragraph 1 on page III-129, etc.). Check all pages and review
all figure references insuring they are coordinated.
2B. Please revise the figure reference to "III-36" on page III-145 for El Camino Real.
3B. Please revise the figure reference to "III-37" on page III-146 for Cannon Road.
4B. Please revise the figure reference to "III-38" on page III-148 for College Boulevard.
5B. Page III-147-Cannon Road Theme Tree-Please delete Pinus canariensis and
Lophostemon and replace with "Street trees as approved by the Planning Department".
MASTER TENTATIVE MAP
Please note that no Master Tentative Map re-submittal was received for the May 2012
submittal; therefore the following comments could not be checked.
REPEAT COMMENTS
It is understood that the plans prepared are for Tentative Map review only and very conceptual in
nature. More detailed conceptual plans will be required with each Planning Area submittal.
These more detailed concept plans will be required to address all Robertson Ranch Master Plan,
Landscape Manual and City of Carlsbad Water Ordinance requirements. The Tentative Map
application has not been reviewed for all of the above requirements as the plans are too
conceptual for these reviews.
1. The Master Plan shows this fire suppression area as a zone A. Please coordinate the
Master Plan and the Master Tentative Map. 2"ct Review: The applicant has responded:
"These plans have been coordinated." Tentative map plans are still not coordinated with
the master plan. Please coordinate. Check all areas. 3rd Review: Tentative map plans
are still not coordinated with the master plan. Please coordinate. Check all areas.
2-10 Completed.
.. c
Robertson Ranch West Village
Tentative Map Review
May 24,2012
Page 3
11. Please coordinate Section 1B with the Robertson Ranch Master Plan (show parking berm
and optional wall and indicate structure setback dimension). 2"d Review: The applicant
has responded: "Section 1B has been revised to include the requested information." The
section still does not match. Please coordinate. See Fig. III-38. 3rd Review: The
applicant has responded: "The Master Plan has been modified to be consistent with the
Landscape section." The Master Plan specifies a 50' minimum landscape buffer where
the Master Tentative Map specifies a 25' minimum landscape buffer. Please coordinate.
12. RETURN RED LINES and provide 2 copies of all plans for the next review.
1A-2A. Completed.
lB. The Master Plan Figure 111-47 shows this fire suppression area as zone B. Please
coordinate the Master Plan and Master Tentative Maps. Check all areas.
2B. These zone A fire suppression areas are not shown on the master Plan Figure 111-47,
page Ill-165. Please coordinate. Check all areas.
CITY OF CARLSBAD
REVIEW AND COMMENT MEMO
DATE: SEPTEMBER 2, 2011
2
PROJECT NO(S): GPA 11-07 /MP 02-03(C)/CT 11-01/HDP 11-01/SUP REVIEW NO:
11-02/HMP 11-03 **FIRST REVIEW
FOR GPA 11-07
PROJECT TITLE: ROBERTSON RANCH WEST VILLAGE
APPLICANT: PLANNING SYSTEMS
TO: [8J Land Development Engineering-Terie Rowley
·B Police Department-J. Sa sway
[8J Fire Department-Greg Ryan
[8J Building Department-Will Foss
0 Recreation -Mark Steyaert
0 Public Works Department (Streets)-Nick Roque
0 Water/Sewer District
[8J Landscape Plancheck Consultant -PELA
0 School District
0 North County Transit District-Planning Department
0 Sempra Energy-Land Management
0 Caltrans (Send anything adjacent to 1-5)
0 Parks/Trails-Liz Ketabian
*ALWAYS SEND EXHIBITS
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Please review and submit written comments and/or conditions to the PLANNING TRACKING DESK
in the Planning Department at 1635 Faraday Avenue, by 09/22/2011. If you have "No Comments,"
please so state. If you determine that there are items that need to be submitted to deem the
application "complete" for processing, please immediately contact the applicant and/or their
representatives (via phone or e-mail) to let them know.
Thank you 1 1
COM MENTS: __ t-J_....:::c>;___--=C_o_t-J\=---_1/V\ __ ~__:::___;;__:+-;___ ___________ _
Signature Date
PLANS ATTACHED
Review & Comment 05/11
CITY OF CARLSBAD
REVIEW AND COMMENT MEMO
DATE: SEPTEMBER 2, 2011
2
PROJECT NO(S): GPA 11-07 /MP 02-03(C)/CT 11-01/HDP 11-01/SUP REVIEW NO:
11-02/HMP 11-03 **FIRST REVIEW
FOR GPA 11-07
PROJECT TITLE: ROBERTSON RANCH WEST VILLAGE
APPLICANT: PLANNING SYSTEMS
TO: IZI Land Development Engineering-Terie Rowley
0 Police Department-J. Sa sway
IZI Fire Department-Greg Ryan
IZI Building Department -Will Foss
0 Recreation-Mark Steyaert
0 Public Works Department (Streets)-Nick Roque
0 Water/Sewer District
IZI Landscape Plancheck Consultant -PELA
0 School District
0 North County Transit District-Planning Department
0 Sempra Energy-Land Management
0 Caltrans (Send anything adjacent to 1-5)
0 Parks/Trails-Liz Ketabian
*ALWAYS SEND EXHIBITS
FROM: PlANNING DEPARTMENT
Please review and submit written comments and/or conditions to the PLANNING TRACKING DESK
in the Planning Department at 1635 Faraday Avenue, by 09/22/2011. If you have "No Comments,"
please so state. If you determine that there are items that need to be submitted to deem the
application "complete" for processing, please immediately contact the applicant and/or their
representatives (via phone or e-mail) to let them know.
Thank you
COMMENTS:. ____ ~~~~~--~r,n~~~~75-=--------------------------
?-9-11
Date
PLANS ATTACHED
Review & Comment 05/11
'-"' CITY OF CARLSBAD ~
REVIEW AND COMMENT MEMO
DATE: MAY 9, 2011
PROJECT NO(S}: MP 02-03(C}/CT 11-01/EIA 11-01/HDP 11-01/SUP REVIEW NO:
11-02/HMP 11-03
PROJECT TITLE: ROBERTSON RANCH WEST VILLAGE
APPLICANT: RANCHO COSTERA LLC
TO: [8J Land Development Engineering-Terie Rowley
[8J Police Department-J. Sasway
[8J Fire Department-James Weigand
[8J Building Department -Will Foss
0 Recreation -Mark Steyaert
0 Public Works Department (Streets) -Nick Roque
0 Water/Sewer District
[8J Landscape Plancheck Consultant-PELA
0 School District
0 North County Transit District-Planning Department
0 Sempra Energy-Land Management
0 Caltrans (Send anything adjacent to 1-5)
0 Parks/Trails-Liz Ketabian
*ALWAYS SEND EXHIBITS
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
1
Please review and submit written comments and/or conditions to the PLANNING TRACKING DESK
in the Planning Department at 1635 Faraday Avenue/ by 05/30/11. If you have uNo Comments/'
please so state. If you determine that there are items that need to be submitted to deem the
application "complete" for processing, please immediately contact the applicant and/or their
representatives (via phone or e-mail) to let them know.
Thank you
COMMENTS: AU---UIJ/15 5111ftt.,. /3G:" ft</J ~72::7) ai!Tl-f-/tU7lliH@C.
P!t<.£ .9fl/(11//KL~.5, A: ?@Iff? tb?E t9LIIUJ/Ifl6-~LlF I?B;!t?JU I
51tfttk Be oo;v !?' tu JfE')// aw S1l!.Uc;..:rrtr?7 /Wf1J~ i l>tJCU 111 BV7 11-r ?J>U
~ .. Sl.I6P111/7Af 'M 77fe"' /3ij/UJ.?IV& £i'I/IS!t17f-).,HJ1<.. (Y~;rf~t,</h
Date
PLANS ATIACHED
Review & Comment 03/10 ~
~ --"~--~~ ~---~~---·······-----------------------------------
Christer Westman
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
City of carlsbad
Planning Department
Christer Westman, AICP
Dear Mr Westman,
c
Cori Pongracz <coripongracz@hotmail.com>
Tuesday, October 16, 2012 11:48 AM
Christer Westman; kevin anderson
Re; Planning Commission Hearing Oct 17, 2012/ Robertson Ranch West Village
Thank you for providing useful information regarding the Robertson Ranch West Village development which is scheduled
for hearing Oct 17, 2012 at City Hall.
I'm a homeowner in the Colony at calavera Hills and I request that the City approve the plan to build gated connections
at the end of Glasgow Drive and Edinburgh Drive as part of the Robertson Ranch Development, further to add this
requirement as a permanent condition of approval of the Master Plan.
As this approval provides a win-win situation, for both the developer and the City to keep the neighborhood safe and
whole and allows the project to move forward to the next step in a long process.
Sincerely,
Coriolan Pongracz
4734 Gateshead Road
carlsbad, ca 92010
1
Christer Westman
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
Jill Gongola <jillygok@att.net>
Tuesday, October 16, 2012 4:51 PM
Christer Westman
Robertson Ranch Development
Hello there. I have been a homeowner in the Colony at Cal avera Hills since 1987. Being a resident and raising
our children in
this neighborhool is prompting me to send this email. I am respectfully sending you this communication to ask
that the City approve the plan to build gated connections at the end of Edinburgh Drive, and Glasgow Drive, as
part of the Robertson Ranch development.
We have seen many changes in our years in Carlsbad, and are truly hoping that you will keep in the mind the
safety of our neighbors, and our community. This lets the developer get on with their project, and will help
keep this neighborhood safer for all involved. I am a person that commutes from my home to a physicians'
office where I work in the Tri-City area. I have commuted this route for over 11 years, and I know the amount
of traffic that uses the College/Carlsbad/Oceanside access on a daily basis. Shortcuts can evolve when streets
are opened and connected, please keep this in mind. I am asking you to approve gated connections so that our
neighborhood does not evolve into just such a shortcut. I appreciate your time reading this email, and I
appreciate your dedication to the City of Carlsbad and keeping all of us safe.
Thank you and Kind Regards,
Jill Gongola
4805 Gateshead Road
Carlsbad, Ca. 9201 0
1
c
October 3, 2012
Chairman
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF CARLSBAD
1200 Carlsbad Village Dr.
Carlsbad, CA 92008
RE: ROBERTSON RANCH
Dear Carlsbad Planning Commission:
EricaNava
6711 Hyacinth Circle
Carlsbad, CA 92011
I am a resident of Carlsbad and I am in favor of the proposed development on Robertson Ranch by El
Camino Real and Cannon Road.
This development would bring new jobs, new homes and a new shopping center to our city.
New, high-quality planned developments like this generate revenues for the city and county from
development fees, property taxes and sales and income taxes. I am informed that the developer is also
keeping the environmentally-sensitive portions of the property in natural open space.
My family and I are supportive of smart growth and sustainable development while ensuring the protection
of our wildlife areas.
Please approve the Robertson Ranch development and allow them to move forward with this planned
development.
Sincerely,
EricaNava
RECEIVED
OCT 1 6 2012
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PLANNING DIVISION
Christer Westman
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Importance:
Planning Commission
City of Carlsbad
Dear Commissioners:
Ada Wilders <awilders@jacksonwilders.com>
Friday, October 12, 2012 12:14 PM
Christer Westman
The Colony at Calavera Hills and Robertson Ranch West
High
I am a homeowner in the Colony at Calavera Hills having first moved to the neighborhood in 1981. I have been
following the plans for Robertson Ranch West Village and do not support the gated communities planned for
the end of Edinburgh Drive and Glasgow Drive for primarily two reasons.
1. I believe neighborhoods should be connected and interactive and this plan is a definite attempt to
prevent integration of the neighborhoods.
2. Although 'safety" has been cited as a reason for the gated communities. I do not agree that that will
keep our streets "safe for children." Unfortunately, many children who live in this area currently whizz
down Glasgow and Edinburgh Drives on bikes and skateboards and create dangerous conditions. I'm
sure they will continue to do so. I believe traffic calming measures on these two streets will be far
more effective in protecting children. Also, the "circuitous routing" the City has designed and installed
in other locations, particularly landscaped roundabouts, are an excellent calming measure as well as an
enhancement to the appearance of streets and neighborhoods.
Although a vocal group of residents of the Colony have been active in support of the gated communities, they
do not represent all homeowners. I hope you will consider my opinions also as you make a determination.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Ada Wilders
4803 Gateshead Road
Carlsbad, CA 92010
1
10/11/2012
Planning Commission
City of Carlsbad
c
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
RE: Shapell Homes Project
Robertson Ranch West Village
Dear Members of the Planning Commission:
I recently moved to Carlsbad from the County of Ventura and enjoy the fine quality of
life here.
I am very familiar with Shapell Homes and the work they do. My dad has been
employed by Shape II Homes for over 30 years and speaks proudly of the integrity of the
company and the pride and quality of their workmanship. Knowing what I know, I would
personally love the opportunity to buy a home in the West Village of Robertson Ranch.
I support this project and look forward to it being built as soon as possible.
2f:Ce-
Jacob Rossi
314 Acacia Ave., Apt. F
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Christer Westman
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Mr. Westman,
Hart, Christopher M <christopher.m.hart@jpmorgan.com>
Wednesday, October 10, 2012 9:42AM
Christer Westman
Robertson Ranch
I'm a homeowner in the Colony at Calavera Hills and I am writing to urge you to approve the plan to build gated
communities at the end of Edinburgh Drive and Glasgow Drive as part of the Robertson Ranch development. The
gate solution will help keep our community safe. Our neighborhood and the new developer are in support of this
solution so it should be a no-brainer for approval.
Sincerely,
Christopher Hart
Homeowner, 2718 Glasgow Drive
This email is confidential and subject to important disclaimers and conditions including on offers for the purchase or sale of securities, accuracy and completeness of
information, viruses, confidentiality, legal privilege, and legal entity disclaimers, available at http://www.jpmorgan.com/pagcs/disclosurcs/cmail.
1
October 4, 2012
Planning Commission
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
RE: Case Number: GPA 11-07 I MP 02-03CI CT 11-01 I HOP 11-01 I SUP 11-021
HMP 11 -03, Robertson Ranch West Village Planning Commission Hearing
October 17,2012
To the members of the Planning Commission:
In reference to the Master Plan Amendment and Master Tentative Map currently
under review by the Planning Commission, I believe that by approving this plan,
it would not only benefit the City of Carlsbad, but the community as well. Shapell
is a reputable builder with the experience and financial resources to design and
develop a project of this size.
Upon reviewing the approved Master Plan, I believe that the proposed plan by
Shapell should be approved.
Sincerely,
Shaun Wilkins
527 E. Center Street #164
Anaheim, CA 92805
cc: Christer Westman
1 63 5 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
October 4, 2012
Planning Commission
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
RE: Case Number: GPA 11-07/ MP 02-03C/ CT 11-011 HDP 11-011 SUP 11-02/ HMP 11-03,
Robertson Ranch West Village
To the members of the Planning Commission:
As an architect, Shapell is known throughout the state of California for its design standards. As a
builder, they have a solid reputation for constructing quality homes. Combine those architectural
and construction standards with decades of experience developing communities like Gale Ranch in
Northern California and Porter Ranch in Southern California, and you have a developer equipped
to shape Robertson Ranch.
I am familiar with the Master Plan previously approved by the City Council and the subsequent
refinements currently under review that will be discussed at the October 1 7, 2012 meeting and urge
you to approve the proposed plan amendment.
Sincerely,
Clint Harper
44897 Camino Alamosa
Temecula, CA 92592
cc: Christer Westman
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
October 4, 2012
Planning Commission
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
RE: Case Number: GPA 11-07/ MP 02-03C/ CT 11-01/ HDP 11-01/ SUP
11-02/ HMP 11-03, Robertson Ranch West Village
To the members of the Planning Commission:
As an archi teet, Shapell is well known throughout the state of
California for its design standards and as a builder, they have a
solid reputation for constructing quality homes. Combine those
architectural and construction standards with decades of experience
developing communities like Gale Ranch in Northern California and
Porter Ranch in Southern California, and you have a developer
equipped to shape Robertson Ranch.
I am familiar with the Master Plan previously approved by the City
Council and the subsequent refinements currently under review that
will be discussed at the October 17, 2012 meeting and urge you to
approve the proposed plan amendment.
Sincerely,
~y~
11849 Aven{da ~ivrita
San Diego, CA 9212 8
cc: Christe r Westman
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
October 4, 2012
Planning Commission
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
RE: Case Number: GPA 11-07/ MP 02-03C/ CT 11-01/ HDP 11-01/ SUP 11-02/
HMP 11-03, Robertson Ranch West . Village Planning Commission Hearing
October 17, 2012
To the members of the Planning Commission:
In reference to the Master Plan Amendment and Master Tentative Map currently under review
by the Planning Commission, I believe that by approving this plan would not only benefit the City
of Carlsbad, but the community as well. Shapell is a reputable builder, well known throughout the
state of California, with the experience and financial resources to design and develop a project of
this size.
In reviewing the approved Master Plan, I believe that the plan proposed by Shapell should be
approved.
Sincerely,
Todd Greer
33580 Breckenridge
Wildomar, CA 92595
cc: Christer Westman
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
October 4, 2012
Planning Commission
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
RE: Case Number: GPA 11 -07/ MP 02-03C/ CT 11-01/ HOP 11 -01/ SUP 11-02/
HMP 11-03, Robertson Ranch West Village Planning Commission Hearing
October 17, 2012
To the members of the Planning Commission:
In reference to the Master Plan Amendment and Master Tentative Map currently under
review by the Planning Commission, I believe that by approving this plan , it would not only
benefit the City of Carlsbad, but the community as well. Shapell is a reputable builder with
the experience and financial resources to design and develop a project of this size.
In reviewing the approved Master Plan, I believe that the plan proposed by Shapell should
be approved.
Sincerely,
arlotte Drive
San Marcos, CA 92069
cc: Christer Westman
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
October 4, 2012
Planning Commission
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
RE: Case Number: GPA 11-07/ MP 02-03C/ CT 11-011 HDP 11-01/ SUP 11-02/ HMP 11-03,
Robertson Ranch West Village Planning Commission Hearing October 17, 2012
To the members of the Planning Commission:
In reference to the Master Plan Amendment and Master Tentative Map currently under review by
the Planning Commission, I believe that by approving this plan would not only benefit the City of
Carlsbad, but the community as well. Shapell is a reputable builder, well known throughout the state
of California, with the experience and financial resources to design and develop a project of this size.
In reviewing the approved Master Plan, I believe that the plan proposed by Shapell should be
approved.
Sincerely,
555 Eaton Street, Unit N
Oceanside, CA 92054
cc: Christer Westman
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
October 4, 2012
Planning Commission
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
RE: Case Number: GPA 11-07 I MP 02-03CI CT 11-01 I HDP 11-011 SUP 11-021
HMP 11-03, Robertson Ranch West Village Planning Commission Hearing
October 17, 2012
To the members of the Planning Commission:
In reference to the Master Plan Amendment and Master Tentative Map currently under review
by the Planning Commission, I believe that by approving this plan would not only benefit the City
of Carlsbad, but the community as welL Shapell is a reputable builder with the experience and
financial resources to design and develop a project of this size.
In reviewing the approved Master Plan, I believe that the plan proposed by Shapell should be
approved.
Sincerely,
~/---.
Robert Crisman
2302 Altisma Way #205
Carlsbad, CA 92009-6310
cc: Christer Westman
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
~·
October 4, 2012
Planning Commission
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
RE: Case Number: GPA 11-07/ MP 02-03C/ CT 11-01/ HDP 11-01/ SUP 11-02/
HMP 11-03, Robertson Ranch West Village
To the members of the Planning Commission:
As an architect, Shapell is known throughout the state of California for its design standards.
As a builder, they have a solid reputation for constructing quality homes. Combine those
architectural and construction standards with decades of experience developing
communities such as Gale Ranch in Northern California and Porter Ranch in Southern
California, and you have a developer equipped to shape Robertson Ranch.
I am familiar with the Master Plan previously approved by the City Council and the
subsequent refinements currently under review that will be discussed at the
October 17, 2012 meeting and urge you to approve the proposed plan amendment.
Sincerely,
/1 ' /;~/
Ryan Boehmer
1035 S. Clementine
Oceanside, CA 92054
cc: Christer Westman
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Oclober 4, 2012
Planning Commission
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
RE: Case Number: GPA 11-07/ MP 02-03C/ CT 11-01/ HDP 11-01 / SUP 11-02/ HMP 11-03,
Robertson Ranch West Village
To the members of the Plarming Commission:
Shapell is well known architeclthroughout the slate of California for its design standards and as a
builder, they have a solid reputation for constructing quality homes. In combination of those
architectural and construction standards with decades of experience developing communities like
Porter Ranch in Southern California and Gale Ranch in Northern California, and you have a
developer equipped to shape Robertson Ranch.
I am familiar with the Master Plan previously approved by the City Council and the subsequent
refinements currently under review that will be discussed at the Oclober 17, 2012 meeting and urge
you to approve tl1e proposed plan amendment.
Deborah Wrobel
1871 St. Thomas Road
Vista, CA 92081
cc: Christer Westman
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
October 4, 2012
Planning Commission
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
RE: Case Number: GPA 11-07/ MP 02-03C/ CT 11-01/ HOP 11-01/ SUP 11-02/
HMP 11-03, Robertson Ranch West Village Planning Commission Hearing
October 17, 2012
To the members of the Planning Commission:
In reference to the Master Plan Amendment and Master Tentative Map currently under
review by the Planning Commission, I believe that approving this plan would benefit not
only the City of Carlsbad but the community as well. Shape II is a reputable builder with the
experience and financial resources to design and develop a project of this size.
In reviewing the approved Master Plan, I believe that the plan proposed by Shape II should
be approved.
Sincerely,
-~#4---Monica Banks
2060 E. Mission Road
Fallbrook, CA 92028
cc: Christer Westman
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
October 4, 2012
Planning Commission
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
-CITY
RE: Case Number: GPA 11-07/ MP 02-03C/ CT 11-01/ HOP 11-01/ SUP 11 -02/
HMP 11-03, Robertson Ranch West Village
To the members of the Planning Commission:
As an architect, Shape II is known throughout the state of California for its design standards.
As a builder, they have a solid reputation for constructing quality homes. Combine those
architectural and construction standards with decades of experience developing
communities like Gale Ranch in Northern California and Porter Ranch in Southern
California, and you have a developer equipped to shape Robertson Ranch.
I am familiar with the Master Plan previously approved by the City Council and the
subsequent refinements currently under review that will be discussed at the upcoming
October 17, 2012 meeting and urge you to approve the proposed plan amendment.
Sincerely,
941 T em pie Street
San Diego, CA 92106
cc: Christer Westman
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
October 4, 2012
Planning Commission
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
RE: Case Number: GPA 11-07/ MP 02-03C/ CT 11-01/ HOP 11-01/ SUP 11-02/
HMP 11-03, Robertson Ranch West Village Planning Commission Hearing
October 17, 2012
To the members of the Planning Commission:
In reference to the Master Plan Amendment and Master Tentative Map currently under
review by the Planning Commission, I believe that by approving this plan, it would not only
benefit the City of Carlsbad, but the community as well. Shapell is a reputable builder with
the experience and financial resources to design and develop a project of this size.
Upon reviewing the approved Master Plan, I believe that the plan proposed by Shapell
should be approved.
Sincerely,
David Skelly
304 7 Via De Caballo
Encinitas, CA 92024
cc: Christer Westman
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
October 4, 2012
Planning Conunission
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
RE: Case Number: GPA 11-07/ MP 02-03C/ CT 11-01/ HDP 11-01/ SUP 11-02/ HMP 11-03,
Robertson Ranch West Village
To the members of the Planning Conunission:
Shapell is well known architect throughout the state of California for its design standards and as a
builder, they have a solid reputation for constructing quality homes. In combination of those
architectural and construction standards with decades of experience developing communities like Gale
Ranch in N orthem California and Porter Ranch in Southern California, and you have a developer
equipped to shape Robertson Ranch.
I am fa~niliar with the Master Plan previously approved by the City Council and the subsequent
refinements currently under review l11at will be discussed at the October 17, 2012 meeting and urge
you to approve tl1e proposed plan a~nendment.
Sincerely,
N~/
Richard Spiller
30205 Skipjack Dr.
Canyon Lake, CA 92587
cc: Christer W cstman
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
-~-·-~·--~----------------------------------------
October 9, 2012
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
Planning Commission
Mayor and City Council Members
Re: JJI~i.;gluny_:__Robertson Ranch-Shapell Homes
As Co-Chairperson of the Colony's Rohcrt.•;on Ranch Committee (RRC), rd like to convey three
points in regards to the Robertson Ranch Master Plan Amendment proposed by Shape!! f lornes_
Further details f(>IJow.
1) I support Shapelrs Master Plan Amendment proposaL specitically gated connt·etions to
the Colony:
2) (' ommunication to every Colony resident has been made available sinct: lkc 201 0: and
3) T\Vo additional stop~signs is a very achievable solution to a very dangerous intcrsertwrL
SHAPELL & PLANNIN(; DI!:PARTMENT STAFF
A buzz term I hear often in the circles of City Hall is, "In the spirit of'communication und
cooperation " The representatives of both Shapell and the City's Planning Department have
demonstrated a commitment to this term as it pertains to The Colony. The synergy that has
occurred in finding solutions to various challenges has been a pleasant experience. Mr.
Westman and Mr. Riddle have been great with explaining processes that wouldn't he widely
known or understood to residents. Lastly, I don't have a lot of experience w/ developers (in
total three) but the experience w/ Shapcll has been nothing like the previous two. Shapdl sets a
high standard for themselves; they live up to it and it's not just talk.
THE COLONY RESII)ENTS
Almost seven years ago. my husband and I organized a small Robertson Ranch Committee
(RRC), Upon learning ofShapell's purcha<>e ofthe land and project in late~2010. the
Committee was expanded to include the FIOA President, two separate Glasgow Dr.
homcmvners. and a retired Carlsbad Fire Battalion Chief. These additions were madt· fbr
greater representation of our community as a whole.
Communication to residents has occurred in many ways:
a. AnnouncemenL'> and postings on the Colony's website Dec 2010-Mar 20 J 2. ('oplt::-
of these p<)Stings are attached (website is no longer accessible),
h. Homeowners were notified of updates to the \vebsite via e-mail hlasts,
e. Robertson Ranch was added to agenda as an on-going item for Colony fH >A meetings.
RRC Co-Chairpersons reported monthly to Board and homeowners in attendance.
-----~----~---···-------------.. -----------
d. In March 2012. a meeting was held at the Harding Community Center. All
homeowners were notified by U.S. Mail and encouraged to attend. The purpose of the
meeting \Vas to provide a brief history of the RR project and a presentation from
Shapell oftheir development plan, but specifically the connections to the Colony.
Three Shapell representatives were in attendance to address a range of qw:stions. if
necessary. ·rhe meeting was well attended and homeov .. ncrs asked many questions
during the presentation. After the presentation. homeowners interacted with the
Shapell representatives asking more questions and discussing the visual aids availahk
at the meeting.
c. The RRC reached out many times to two homeowners in particular. Ont~ is a member
of the HOA and the other is not. Efforts were made hoping to facilitate discussion so
the City and Shapell didn't have to go down the path of condemnation with these
homeonwers. One owner initially responded to us then the communication stopped.
The other owner didn't return any phone calls or respond to notes left at the house. It
wasn't a requirement but we tried to help hy getting these folks at least "to the t.uhle"'
so any type of communication could occur.
INTERSECTION OJ< EDINBURGH & GLASGOW
This intersection is at the bottom of the hill from Calavera Hills Park and where the two primary
streets in the Colony come together to form an apex. Currently. the colony neighborhood
considers the tranic situation a higher-than-normal risk or an "unusual circumstance."
Included in this letter are personal testimonials from residents who've been in accidents <)r live
on the corners of the intersection. We ·re thankful f()r the change to gatcd-communiti~s as they
greatly reduce the increased traffic than what was previously approved; however, the
approximate 30% increase remaining will aggravate the current situation. There is a 'ery easy
solution though! Shapell has voluntarily offered traffic calming (all-way stop) for th1s
intersection. With direction from the City to allow it, a win-win solution is achievahk at no C>Jst
to the City. The City has alJowed all-way stops for other unusuaJ circumstances including: ( l)
Longfellow Rd & Jadspar Dr off El Camino Real; and (2) Camino del las Ondes & L~mon Leaf
Dr. off A viara Pwky. For the sake of safety, we respectfully ask that you allow Shapell to
install two more stop-signs.
Sincerely.
/Jell
Jill Agosti, Co-Chairperson
Robertson Ranch Committee -Colony at Calavcra Hills
Fnelosurcs:
J . Resident Testimonials on Intersection
2. Colony Website Communication Postings
Resident Testimonials on Edinburgh & C;lasgow Intersection
Robin & Don Wofford
.t757 Edinburgh Dr.
l JnhHiunately we were victims of an accid<:nt at the corner of Edinburgh and Cil<.lS)!(l\\ In 2006.
m: car wast-honed and totaled by a dnver that mn th.:: stop sign on (Jlasgtw. as I \Us pas-.ing
thru the intcrse~:thm on Edinburgh. Thanktully, my 10 year old son was on tht: pas:,~..~nt.!...:r sidc
and \\as not injured. l sulkn:d a torn rot.atorcuffand had to gel a new car. \\~~ha-ve lived 111
Thc c~)lony since l 989 and have ~)hsen ed numerous near misses at this intersection a" we! L ll
dearly nct!ds safer standards so that drivers from all directions will slow down. I do no! knO\\
what the solution is hut hope the City comes up with one bef(m! Robe.-rtson Ranch traflic makes
it rnon: dangerous .
.Jan d' Assalenaux
4754 Aberdeen Ct
In 1996. I \Vas hit by a <.:ar that rolled through the stop at Glasgow and Edinburgh. Ncl!hi:r nrw of
us was going above the speed limit and yet it did $16.000 worth of damage to my car 1$23.000
inflation adjusted for 20 I I) and resulted in a badly broken \Vrist f()r me. A few years later. atkr
another ncar-miss. I contacted the city. They put in a sign on Glasgow warning of a stop ahead
and put in a larger stop sign. Apparently those measures have not solved the pronlern. '\orndhing
else must he done lx~fore we have more traftk on Edinburgh.
Richard and .Jennie Vance
4718 Edinburgh Dr.
W~.-· support requesting a tratlic survey of the intersection from the Transportation Division of the
City of Carl shad. We have concerns about the expected increase in the amount of traflic at the
intersection of Edinburgh and Glasgow Drives. Speeding vehicles in both direction:, on
Fdinhurgh Drive is a current problem. V chicles coming from Tamarack A vt: onto ! Jinhurgb
Drive to make a lett tum onto Glasgow Drivc have hcen a continuing concern. also. \'chick
drivers often begin their tums early. cutting across the intersection. and also initiat..: '~·hick
accelerations early to continue driving up the hill toward Calavera Park ami adjw.:c111
neighborhoods. In r~vi~wing dm:umcnts for the Carlsbad Residential Traffic Management
Program. we lind that the Trame Circle option may provide the best solution. We ha\o: corKcm-;
about increased noise caused by some of the traffic calming options (e.g. textured wadways or
raised intersections). We do not think that additional stop signs or a trartic signal would provide
an adequate solution to managing increased vehicle trips through the intersection.
Kathryn and Louis Piper
4 714 Edinburgh [)rive
Thanks for beginning a real discussion about the traffic at our intcrsectinn. It has aclll<tllv
ht:comc a sport In sit on our hcm:h hy the ti"ont door and \Vatch the number nf
Resident Testimonials on Edinburgh & {;Jasgow Intersection
peopk~ v. ho ~it.hcr run the stop sign. or just slO\v down bdorc continuing on their way. Of course.
a \ ery bizarre sport 1
We fe~.:l the best and easiest solution would be to install speed bumps on Glasgo\\. lhn;c humps
could lx· installed in the general area of the HOA park. They would f()rce the cars to slow down,
thus eliminating much of the reckless driving currently going on.
Thanks again.
Lynn Tucker
4717 Edinburgh l>r.
I don't !-.now what options the neighborhood has as far as making this intersection sakr. and I'm
not a traffic expert. but this is my opinion. I'd like to sec them make the existing sh)r ~igns rlh.ll\'
oh\JOUS (lights. nigger signs?) AND put big speed humps on the sides that don't ha\1.~ :,tops. The
spt•ed humps .,.,ould !()rce drivers to slo\v and take caution ofthe cars that don't heed lht: stop
sign. AND be mindful of others at the intt..~rsection. Drivers in a hurry have almost mo,vcd people
dov. n. cutting the comer to tum north onto Glasgow. I've seen bike riders. street cmsscrs and
those drivers waiting at the stop on Glasgow almost killed in this situation. Hope this helps. l.ynn
Melanie Scherff
4713 Edinburgh Dr.
I think the easiest solution(s) would be to either:
A ~ Make the intersection a 4-way stop. Or.
B-Install speed bumps.
!here had been ~orne discussion about turning Edinburgh at Tamarack into a dead-end ... Thts is
rny favorite solution as it would make the intersection essentially a 3-way stop.
t ommunih
"'tf~t'rl11}~ ( iH1lffttttt>t'
'12/21/2(1'10 J\NNOlJl\U:B~II:l\rl'
ANNOUNCEMENT
ROBERTSON RANCH WEST VILLAGE
PROPERTY SOLD
New owner, Shapell Homee, wishes to
start developtng in about 12 months.
The community group that speamNdod th9 efforts to protect the
community haa ~ In nopU af working with the new
O.valoper in making changes that will maintain community Hfaty and quality of Ute.
Thia fi'OVP--IN HOA 10 .....,.._'"'-pert ol' tltilo eliot\.
Your-hlto ~. ----toyou?
You will be
! lotlpl-llm>ll!lll-.--.-llyero. -to_,.,.. 'fO'If .,.,..,_In -lly clheiOpn"'nt -· -to 8INIIat 1111110! feg.WOrk ,__,to-" ~ -olljloelk>N, -to -GIIy~to --nlly ually-.11......-y.
5) -.......... pulllle~.l<l .. nitloMI-~ -.In ~ol'ourgoellt.
'I/21/2Ull Ulll)j\TI:
ir1~ay Jarauary 28 2011
Th,, RohcrtMm Ranch Ct•mmittce of the Colony at Calave•a Hill' flnrnc<>wncr; A~,m-iilllmt
wanted to pmvtde a otatus update lor the Robertson Ram:h West Village devdnpmcnL
As you >hould know, Shapcll Home·; purchased tht• property and wants In 'tarT
h11ilding within 12 mnoths_
St.apelllfomc<-rc;whcd out to pur conumtte.: and pres.:nh:d us with :1 proposal
n:,>~ardmg how lht:y would like to modify the approved Ma,lcr Plan lor tht· ..,..\:,\
Village uf .!iXh,_ In parttculac they have exprc;,;;ed an •mere;,t in protect111,>1 u\Jr
,·ommunil' mamtannng our duidn::n \ ,ale tv and r>Ur tf\lilhly of ilk wink <kvdnpmr
;t lh'"-c:ornmlHHf] th.lt wllilitlpmw Carl,hml
l'n that c\tenL they are '.:eking approval from the cl!v plannmg department to mdud.:
tw" ~.li<•d oml'TlUntllt:~ one ahuning &linhurgh and and the other ahu!ting Glasgow,
Tit" would redu;;e the pmje..:tcd traffic flow on Edinburgh by 74% and Glasgow hy
ni'i(~ We abo discussed with the Sliapcll repre~ematives our concem with the
imerse<:tnm ol Glasgow and &lmoorglt In future meeting.,, they will pmvide u'
alt\Crnativc> lr•r traffic calming at thi> intc:rl>Cctinn
Wt• are cautiously optimistic that we may s.:cure the protection the Colony deserves
thi;, is a very preliminary stage and we hope the r.csults wtll protect !he future of our
t'On<!l!Uill!),
We wtli cr>ntmrK hl stay 111\'nlv.~d Wt!h hoth Shapr:ll and tlw Clly and haw the
Colony·' \oH v hf'-Jrt1
c
:u:mWiliiii'IMfl:
''" 1 >'l'N>t'lltt't -'<t l\w • ·, i<tii:H lfl ~k<Y,...f',t ~h\!, H,•11'W>Who•t-. ·'\~>«>:;,<iilh<>fl
~ <.<l.xm• <lpd..ll<" J,,l fh\': R,.t.crt-"Jfl RM'l\"'rt >A., ,t \-,It•~ ,(r.,.dt'f'Flr'lli
lhf .Jh<'~( i'l.<!{> h I•M'I \<t !tl£" ~ntti:'1l
~~.'h:: .,;, .~f',Lh•u,lh;1.JPP~"''""I
·:~ ,1H~·' rh·, ''i1•nhFI!X '.w!J(•t~'-i,'>' •'ft)(HrlhHl-~J!'II '>l'rtih tht' •,uhmiJ~Mnrl I! Jt,,. nlt"'t 1·.~··t, '4'h,d ti11~ ,'<rlllrtruf\lt)' >tl\ik'd ill um \"'lti'tn'i ~11 ~~)On
1.1<1" ~lll••mn.,-.1
l"'rl~~d f't<>t)..~'*' I hi"
,lt,·i(;l<tr,·,, "''' nw-r w~;r,· ,.:n
ill,J!":J \ l ()o;_• •W'•I'> W(' I' l\{ti'1;' ..... '<J
,,(
\ w,"<'it 111 -..; ••J!'' ih(l' ;~~lU!Ufh-.: rt'l;cnt:d. f!Htn .'l!ftl.t'lo:"li.,; 111)) <'{ "\r''tl<'l lht'~
'""-<:."1\e\l 1P•m ;tie ('it) fht ICH!;"I ,...~.,. ~ft) ~~'>;It~~·· •ihllll! :J.~t ft<»tNJ '-"'mrmt~mw~> 111:rt
·~~,u\J d!\'\ I tr4.~fl.· Ill (f,)i \ \!ll\fl1l.kl:llf_! ft~bt'f", uuthtna hill !t:foht" 11~1\' IH"'('
"h:Jftr'll t~h f>• m,..~~ tlCrlltl:' 'll~oil <tpft'\l\ .;! f-IJHJ 4fllltn\;,l '' '<.111l w.ty
lhl;l~\ ,.m,-k"'iJlll»,r •tJ>Jtf't-
"'~" <,\~.~ h;; .. r "''l!' rh<' irtrc ~q,,, 1!v· <.lt' !rll ~h.:;,~ <th1''ittth ~,.1>1\illg
!I l~tt l'•'~j '· H!l,llko:nllt"" ,,,, ¥~'cprr,t
\\.,: .L'<4t.tl'f' ",111 'r'·flt."l I ~ '1/<<" tHf'l ~t."'l·<tH "' • i!M~.:_,~ ,.nd t .~>1\hhfv,h I 1\ ltl" ,;tk\ .,.~.
,J, o.(i(j~' ,'<h>'>l~l1h~· j ~~·~ ',~ll~l!l'< •• ; tl+)";
c~,;;: tlw-,H/;tll>llf\11\--tl"i 1' '' >'1ltlfif!1!, J>'tl:,!e
h•><h, l•> ··I>.Of><."J! '' <·· < ,~1wTl>t•J Hw JH• W< •i<4n
.• < .tw P"'l~,., .. l '4.~r" .>H' ,-.. :lr'*w .• l!r: hwl<.l,~•J <)nh !r)<."'li ,·,m W\" ·k·~1dr ll
~<tlln•• '"'·'l ,•,•!·,, .. ~!1t.1n~ ni'l'·<<.<ffct'< .·~~· ru"<:"k""t
( )!,,; >~ l~».A ~•·tnp!.!t<l' ;Htfti f{,,J<.,.,, .{>U j{ .lild'l !> fn!!ll ,tn;,! IAillf}~ ~ >l~! •>Ill \\'c dJ!l
.... ,n'
'fl1<'Yl<>A,,
•' .. il<} .._;,...~ '~>Jo:! ~"~Hinf'' ~nw.
hl kc<;>p ';<'ll ~,. ,k',,.h:>j:"f1if">th fllVfll''·' ft J'>~IJ b,l,<'
>:Jbn,.; lhnl> h <>t>t r m.vl .4iJ,,kn.~
c
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Accord1ng to the Shapell rcpre~entauw~. alliS well. thus far, With their proposal to the cify
(set~ pn:vious pnst)
'D1e wrnrnittce is waiting where fwrn Shapell with their re.:ommendations for tr.tftlc
<:aiming mt·asnres at the imer~ec!ion of Glasgow and Edmhurgh. As ~xmas the ;::mnmltte~ is
,upphed with tins mformatwn. we will :>hare them with you for your inpm on what ynu thmk
'' hest l(lr this intersc\·!lnn.
c
7/i.6/20ll UPIH\TI:
A?. d r~';&uli of Shape» s Mfl:sler Plan Amendtnont \he .1\vntaQ(! Dwty T ratfK. t& !'t.lflnlf~<.-,.YUiy
rt-du<:cd 011 tX)It< Edioburgt~ an\1 GliJ$90W l' h1s r:s Vf'Wy posrt~ txrt 1\0W tr<'}ffK: cab'ning witt<.tn T h(l'
IS no lDft{jHf ,a City requN'anmnl. Ht~et. Utet« 1$ good tM.tWS Shapali ha~ ~X>mmitted to
IJS W1th trafftc &.lknmg !Tif:\<lStJfM al Hlfl lfltfffSOCUOfl on Gt&QO'~ C)fl(l E dktburgh d 1hfl ()ty
.'Ji1\ 10tc 1t The coJfl)mlttl.lt~ recently ~mtat1ad the own&f"B of thti 4 h<)(llflS at that !nt9r:>OCtH)f(
d:-l WfJil ftS dht!f N:.lflW.,_•wnm~ fOf thai( HlfJVt and tlWbrnof'liab.; !hit IOhmrtatW.»' Witlli j)fHSfffltOd to
:n~ C:ttv (1( C art't>bad requestnq the Grty Si.tf'l«y U11~ tnlnr~ttun tu dtdftntW1f1 If •! qu&ldtes -a~ iln
dHH%t.&.rti r·:.r' ·ums.taro:fi \!t.ltside of techOI{,.a-1 &t;jn<Ja<ds So li\f. !l'lt1 Cit'; .~t mspons1~ tl~<'t twwn vt:wt
posdiv~ Thn Crnnmttteo 1M C.ttv ana Shape!! t"!flva t)(>:f;.tfl v~ effec:t.i\<e '" nlfMnq towdn.l "'*
~)IU1t!7:u1 tnat W(J. ar~~ <.:.Pubou!)ly optinus,ttc W1ll 00 OOJH:,tinal kl <.KJr •-ommul'llty
f\s y01.1 .'tr~ aware, th&fe wil! t"1EI two road (',OnfltJ(:tions ootwoOf'l tho C~ony .:W'Kl Hobert&Ofl R;mch
We&t V11i~ devwQPrrmm St~l has contacred and 15 wcrlJr~ wrth the owners ltl.i:il Will bfl
atteaed by tM~;e r~m<. tf\cludlng too HOA. wrucn IOilllx' affac!lld at too conOO<Jtoo on
F:ctmrn.rgn A portU.m of Ol..tt Common Property lot 140, beklW the homas nn the nor't'hem SJdfl of
Fdtnb<JtlJh, WPI OOf<ler !he (;conoctiol1 road Shap&litna<le 2 P'Ofl<'S"I$ for u·•s pmp<Yty. Ooo
;:~tof)(.J1S;;» i'S to pfa(:l! a retafmm; wall along Edlillli~tgh to hold back the hill Thts w~J wtl! run
rti•WI\hil~ !~-}inrnng at ifhi':l\lt 1 n <lithe top to 19ft c1..-rM'l to the KOA property lnw Soo du~gr;qm
f)t,ti~
I ! !
Then ~lnt1 ~)t<)JJ(.~Saf rs iCJ ~rark~ tf~ hill and ~..t<~ tal'\d:i;{";iij.m'iQ: upon it fht'V wouid a!~; tlbve
11~+~ new HOA {Robertson s Ranch d:evetf}J)fnetlf ·' maint.anl I hat p«)perty t)ltt otJr A~soctahofl wtl~~d
Slit! own U'IB P'"Opet't'l Sea tilagram t}f;l!ow, Ohte ~ha..'ting to rlQN, (blatt --.hading oo teft 1S pa1t of a
P'l'.o'f1te pr~1;.x~Yi tn the owners o1 tot 43l
..
'
i '
l
r
t:ad1 propo:!k'l· has Qisadvantaqes so the oomrrurtee ~ust<KJ ttm p<)s._«uolhty of th<! i HV\. sub-
dtWfW'9 lot 140 tnto an aetttogc {that wOt.t!d 00 largt~ enough for thoir ;;radtng propoeal) and sell
that !XJfbOf"l tt. St!apell Shape!\ was. rec.evtw~:~ to suctt sale bul ffs S<)ffmthJnq that fW'W:xis to ho
lth'estfgale<l turtht.~ a& to rt'i. f.casibihty wflh n·:spru:t tu ()Of H()A:~ {fJYflff)tn{_l {$('"o<.l.ll1lRHIS {BylflWS)
An ~>lt!\t~Mfli w.,.fol ~'•Ri) rlHV";It~,~ ~,an i<Ulfln"Mftv1'1
\Yt· •\ !it \.l,~lf\OU(' ttl kt.~CJ~ \< '~! lldOPI\.-.;,d 4'o Je\.-doptn("f'b pni,iH"t'"'' 11 \"Otl h.!'-l"
~t>i~~'-l:•IH' f'b:,io .. t ,nbmH ihnn tl) ~~H !!l>1ti tJ.jn·c,.. "!• r\:!,111!.'' \' n•
9/26/20TIIJI,I)i\TI:
The Robertson Ranch Committef.1 continues to work with Shape!! and the City of
Carlsbad tn the beS! tnterest of our communJ!y,
You may have noltced that double solid yellow lines have been pamted on Edinburgh
and G!a1;gow_ They are a result of the Committees discusston with the City, Our members
at H1e corners of thts lfltersection indicate that trafftc IS not cuttmg comers as much as
before
The city will also hn conducting a traffic study to see tf additional Stop Stgns are
warranted at !hts tnlersect!On,
c
'UI/29/20'1'11JI,Ili\'l'l:
Saturday October 29, 7011
The Robertson Ranch Committee continues to work with Shape II and the City of Carlsbad in the btst
interest of our community.
Shapetl has asked to meet with the Board to dtscuss the dtspositton of the small sltce of property !rom
Lot 140 needed for the connection at Edinburgh.
l r
,,,,'(''
I'I/29/2UlllJPilJliT
'\ i ~ \ \ \ ~"
Ji<'l'''
c
clat:ur<:lay, March J, 2iH2
ATTENTION COLONY HOMEOWNERS
Communications with ShapelJ Homes
Mlllk Y out CJkodar for thi~ pn:scntaliun on
March 7, 2012
7:30PM
Hardmg Communily Center
3096 Harding Street
Carlsbad. CA 42008
u,, t!Hb cvcnmg. representative trom Shapell Homes will he prc~entmg
to Colony hmncowncrs the plan li>r the dcvdopmcnt of Robertson
Killh:h and tts connection to th•· Colony
They will part:culill'IY be presenung the opuuns tbr the stro:;ct
cnn:.rruction altemauves at edinburgh Dnvc, (Sc.: w.::bstk for Rob.::rtson
Ranch lflformatton and these options,)
Wd:JSth: address.
I l Lll-' ~:£{Lm;· '
The Board, W1th .:ornmumty mput, will need to select nne of these
HpiHlfb
r!'" l'olnny at ( 'aJavera IIIII~ Board of Dm:ctors
., ;: ,, ( ,.
. -~-~-·-----~~-~------------------------
c
Hw pn.~~wl..:.ttkm ht'KWP niHt -1 ""ehmfU" lnHM tht-t'fffffl('tU ~·f ltft \\lt.l;«•b.fwll, i'nttt\1. \ (~V'~" t·r·iUI~
luHJ'>riun-t11h'( thrrt ittdl"ldntd'i-H'f'nwulinc !'.lHI.f~rll. t t>rtu ,..,U.,$. J,Jim tiufkr llnri '\t.a:n
Mt \tt~»ti ft<¥11 tht-n iMrodtt<nl tn p-n~·tlt • hf'Wf tn~t«tf) 4f 'h(" -'h·:«:W'hfth'"' ifnoht-ttH'11t \oi-Hh rh,,
dll"\t·I<JfHu .. nt <)f «,Abtvt-stUI fbfl't-'h frttf.l! JOiNt flU '\tn,~mhf'l pf lOll
\.ftt-t fhb hhitm ~. '\1~U *'IUHt'fl ~•• iu\ntdu\"t lit> prrwutl"d a h1wf tklt1;·dpttHn ttf1h~.: Sit .up~: II
'11l1:.1Hlt/ilht.n 1utd fbt'l'l tidl<.n1 .ltftt•Ul '\IJ'jj;v-rlf'" \ H•iun t11¥ tb{" Rnhnh-1111 Ri!:ni'h dndf}JHlU1H.
'o,b-a:pt'.fl **'~1#-~ftf bqtfl fht-bmd \IIBd t111:.' ("Urrt•ntl~ .liPtJfff"~j '\1oott.'t f"ht; \'tbtC'b o:dh r(H t:hntifOII~
«HJHttf, •»kh "'1u 'lf~'HA't"d ifl l&fK.. \\bt'fl ::'Ht•vrP h1uio•..:J ~o~t tht' :\bi'iilf:1 f'hm IPt' dro.d1nur.
n•utint \1\:lf<oll"t w.iMlbittll' ~ftt') "'tort· tbrti&NI wHh. ttm"' Ut~" ~l'fW tv -owntJ tht· M<trt.IH l-l11.il.
tn duing 1u,otH.' vf ttw m...;\>I I~Hh ofSh.apcll btu htlf1•ct. a\ !Jli!Jimatt~ at; JW>iMbk. th" (JUalit,_. olf
~h· w tb(' t. ·,~nl', In thU. ~:Pd. the~ 'rf fJrvpmtoe tuU, ~ated er.mmtud~ filf' fb~ ronltf'ctHtali hllbc-
f nhnn, 1 at f~l••eu~ aad lbt-Nh#-r •I htinbnrgh. ~~ MU~pi oo vn~,·wu'lt>t~U11:1i ofthlt. ~t"dan t•f
tb~ wrl'r<'filt'~) Shltpell h•• t'h-fl..-«J PkfU!\iiN-\RY .,pn.tullrum ttw cit)'" piJuutiUIJd*'fl•rtawa1
f;.\t l(lllh'(t ~·mnm~tniti1-~ .. \ddttiup•lt~. ntt>ndttrt of the ltubcrtwn ihl.•rh ( 'uta1ftith:c ba'\"t'
~nhtrma~ m~t ~H-h d~\-eovtu:d nn"ftrifeu,. a.od d\~ rfPT~t'ntaUV<<t h1r du:lr bu;-t• oflh<" chant::•''·
J ~ r:ommfttw-~u«i r't'1Jrt'UJJtath<-• of~h•pril ha'<t~ ftll'1tht'd p41iiht f«:tt badi tru111 th~· cit)
(}ffi("tih.
'\hit tht>n w~t un tu lbt:-JH'O: •b('H' th-t ( 'ulvtlt ,·.m:amunlt) a«dtt t.t\ mAl<«' A dtd'livn. fht
1totmrt•u1 k•nrt rr~1}«1 n<!'ttk h• uu ~ow nfttw UOA (t.>ml1tfln pnJJWtH-lt1 ('OUlpktt' th\' ro•d
e~un~'1'i:mt llf fodtnb(lrult. !~i' pn•,inu .. t'ltllit\ ~fthb tC\'fWn uf ltH-..,m!litr fot mt~ft' 1tt'1aikd
\!lpl.~tnatitHl-1
hwr •)J)dnrt'll ,.t"te pt't"U'IUrd ttl Uw t'OftlNUnft). I be t~tn"IQIUtnii)· nrMb 11• dt-'t:id>t wbidl QPihnt ~m '* l:h'lt1 fi)J 'h-fo-l'l'MtinUJH.ih UtHt and ~~ lft,t fuhJr\' Hw ~lfun.• ;\If( 1itiftiW:»rll«\ ifllbv t•hM hrtoi~w
1 ht> hiH nilnmn lnd«"•ltd thf' r.u"b r\dl::aJ~:ftr ShaprU ,, offnffl~ 1~f' ( 9hm~ '\'li'llll<fhllim) lor th,-
<hot•*' 11 tu.lflu,..,, ""<HI ll"'tb,,nH Wl:·rt~ Wtfnr:d h:-tftt' >\'1.\-H\'l•twn fnt Hr. d"mkt> an• lnabh ~~
s.tn'"'' ~o·-...
t)f$-h4fl 1 aud 1 fl.<; no~ nt>t-d dtf'Rmttfllf\ t;npul, lb~ Ko•HI c.n ll.(t AA4 ~~-"Rit.huulltl:J»ll.
t"i•h~sl> l -r•••p.m""' lli ."1"<. >illtt~tmil~ lh't't':p1adft' brfm.-11 fSI!I tw '<ffktlii'PQU h\ lht f\;,.u~nl
• itHUJ11 4. ~·ouid t.ak..-pb-u if ih,--\:i">W<lu:rkoo d~ ~ot apprn·H IIIII\ nf Ut~· •h11~t'
\ hityt 'fiit}l)f'lt\ nf th(~ prVk"ftl ln.•pf't4'nriau 43 huthutpal bmnt'l'} fHtft'rrt"d oprloa I lbh
~~um hlllulft~n thilt m'cf ll:fptttp('fh cv Shap.-U »nd tfK( ;)4\hl\ \.\~~:~lhm .. m r«:•-r.~~.OUO
d1Hbn1 ..lAd "UJ OcVl i':lt'\t' Aft~ f'~o,ttfiUt~ In otahH.w.UI tiwu ·~)JWX •nd bil'>f Ott !htbllft' f'ttHh"ltU.
ll'w'IU\lh Option t otfrrs :S '"J,.,.-\08. thr ( ~inn' \JU~4ld•tkm ._iH hnt t11 llillli-nt\Hn the"~" and hlr¥t'
tiabUtf~ fflftl:l.'fl*\. fQh qp:tiu-n hu·t\"¥~ tb~ UO\ ·~ lam:huptn,:: ami l'~tl'l ro-'b.
t 'JtUt>n ! dft-·n S6.~ f ht ('oitttty \.-.nchldtul w-UI•rttt o-~1\ tht pJ(JJ)tl'1~ t>u1 th.-'h~tvcU
\ntKialiv» wUJ m..-httlli"n tbt' Jlf'GJ'1'lt). f bt' ( 'oJu.v~ '\i'WC:Jatlon •itt qfU hrl¥f li•biht) ('OAC\:nh, II
~m •b·n k•''f' thll' futur<-C~lotl\ ·\:t!HKhthuu wfl:b lh.-: pm;dbitif~ nf bu"int tu «tt•h1ii~ihl1btm? .. t~;pt:\
H ltH' ShafW'U '\~i»lhlfl dN,~ nut t-n enintt\td lhtm ut Rt"\ldi-n( w t't.p~~>itd fu-A-t:h tu tdo(" tbt·
"-l1•Jtflt ·\SMX."illhUil l~l t'J:~Uft fn 11rdt:f H> {ort'r ttJ"Mt 1·0 OiliUPhllil Uu dt~$k~·
(YptJull 4 h tl'idh OM llf~ ttp!lon "'\' wkil t~• jHH"~Il(, fhU HHitd <lfiJ!el flk nH: .iUd jNif'*r'dlJe ••u.r
'#'( utlll~ flu· g.ab'li {'OIUtlll.UtHh.•s ~tud ttcth impit\'t fHH QlHlUI"· ~~ UJt'.
In tht: HU! fuh•fl' ~uu lffill! lV\'ri"l.' * b·dl01f W 11vtbtn1:1'~ thf" IW¥in1 t11 ttliiPI!Irr lbil.illlht>r ufhult1 to
'">tjH>t\. } ht' ~l.#.ld Ut:t-di ~f'"-,.. •H 1(1} llflhtP:¥'fhf' f"\'t.UrliYd baUvt~ h~ jUU~Ut' tbh, optioa. lt j,>.
lrttporttlh! i!\.>H '\(IIJ l1~tt~ ·\lUl )!\'I ~miT Qflff,flh'UJ. (O ~oh: *-\ Wt"ll,
ff ~·Hl f<.oi:'H' "IH 1fll~''>H0ff) pJnll11't.' ~"t'fl.~~tU f-f*lll< \ lllpt: h•,tpt' r. \'\•<H·hnl. n'!
c
WI '\,;!ED \tll'R Sl!r'f'OR I ro !Oli.OW II IIW
;•·
'Jl\l\
•·lr
h.~·
In ottkr 1or tht' tl11MJ to tr •. n~"fft-\" thi10: property, \Yt' nt-t~d your .• ml.hnriJc.tOmL l\\' net'd
41 it'd"tl ."'19 oi thl" hon\Nlk-'fi~'~ tt~ ,·otr to ,l:I.JthHr\7-t~ th1" tr.m>\tt>r. Vr-ry t.o:hnrtly, yt~u wiH
bt rt•o•n. m)4 m ~hf' m..ti!, J. bJ:ilnt tor thh. :\ulh~mtatH,lfl Plt:il!,f return it wHh y~~~H
Jtlirrn.ti!V(' \'ole bur 1hi.• lL~h' l't>"qm~--;.h·d.
ll 'flhl h.l'H' ,m\ qut•.,.tinn\o ph·~,t' t*-rnall mt" l r,ml<. \ 11lpe .:ll tvult>t'jf!t-,n·thlini... nt't m
j,n,.tn; t' ,H~~l<V'' ol l \Po ku""t('n:V)ind-..n H1~l t ,IH<
1iltal An::a for Property Trans!C1
-1 ,-121' 'i.Jlldrt' kt~t
Christer Westman
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
c
Jean Walker <JeanWalker1 @roadrunner. com>
Tuesday, October 09, 2012 8:55AM
Christer Westman
Robertson Ranch master plan changes
Hello. My name is Jean Walker. I reside in the Colony at Calavera Hills HOA, which abuts up to the proposed Robertson
Ranch project being developed by Shapell Homes. I wanted to voice my support for the changes included in this project,
particularly the proposed gates at Glasgow Drive and Edinburgh Drive.
I have two sons ages 5 and 7. They regularly use the cul-de-sac on Banff Court for riding bike, scooting, skateboarding,
rocket launching (stomp rockets, of course), and other playtime activities. They are allowed to walk to neighboring
homes to invite other kids out to play. Several of their friends live across the street or down several blocks away and the
boys regularly trek over to these homes. I feel that the community is very safe for these activities. With the new
development of the Robertson Ranch community, increased traffic on our Glasgow Drive would create an unsafe
situation for my children to conduct these normal childhood activities. The proposed gates go a long way toward
assuaging my concerns.
I appreciate that Shapell Homes has worked with our community in a straightforward, truthful manner and gone beyond
what they are required to do in order to be good neighbors on this project.
Thank you for your time and consideration . I am very much in support of the proposed changes to the Robertson Ranch
master plan, particularly the proposed gates at Glasgow and Edinburgh Drives.
Jean Walker
2753 Glasgow Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92010
(760) 434-8563
1
Christer Westman
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Dear Mr. Westman,
c
Wofford Robin A <rwofford@wilsonturnerkosmo.com>
Tuesday, October 09, 2012 9:17PM
Christer Westman
jillagosti@sbcglobal. net
RE: Robertson Ranch Hearing Oct 17 2012
My husband and I have been homeowners in the Colony at Calavera Hills since 1989. Our community is filled with
families, children and elderly people that really look out for each other and hope to keep our community safe. I am
writing to urge you to approve the plan to build gated communities at the end of Edinburgh Drive and Glasgow Drive as
part of the Robertson Ranch development.
Having lived here for over 23 years I see the amount of traffic generated not only from our neighborhood but from the
numerous events at the park. The streets today can become very dangerous especially at the corner of Edniburgh and
Glasgow at the entrance to our community. If those street are open to through traffic from the Robertson Ranch
development I can only imagine how much more dangerous it will become. Indeed, in 2004 as I was turning right on
Edinburgh from Tamarack, a young driver from the park ran the stop sign at Glasgow and totaled my car. Thank God my
8 year old son was on the passenger side or he would have been severly injured. I suffered a torn rotator cuff.
I also experince the traficc coming down Tamarack every morning on my way to work. The back up to turn left can add
an extra 5 minutes to any commute. Surely, if Edinburgh and Glasgow are open it will result in a number of frustrated
drives cutting through our community at high speeds, creating great danger for the kids riding their skateboards and
bikes, and further danger for some of our elderly neighbors that move a little slower.
My husband and I believe the gates are the best answer for everyone and we hope you will approve them. We fully
support Shapell and hope the City will approve the plan. If you have any questions you can reach me or my hsuband Don
at the address below, or via email. Thank you for your service to our City and for your consideration of our position.
Very Truly Yours,
Robin & Don Wofford
4757 Edinburgh Dr.
Carlsbad, CA. 92010
1
Christer Westman
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Christer Westman
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
Dear Mr. Westman,
c
Jennifer Donohue <impactventures2@att. net>
Sunday, October 07, 2012 1:05 PM
Christer Westman
jillagosti@sbcglobal. net
Robertson Ranch
I've been a homeowner in the Colony at Calavera Hills for 11 years, and I understand that there will
be a decision coming soon on Shapell Homes' effort to include gated connections at the end of
Glasgow Drive and Edinburgh Drive as part of their plans for the Robertson Ranch West Village.
There could not be a better, safer, and more amicable solution. It benefits our young children who
have been able to ride bikes in our neighborhood, the developers who are already in favor of this
project, and provides direct access for emergency vehicles to those homes.
I cannot imagine a better result. Please help us preserve our already awesome community. I know
that if this were your neighborhood, you would want the same result.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Donohue
4729 Gateshead Road
Carlsbad, CA 92010
1
October 6, 2012
City of Carlsbad
Planning Commission
Dear Commissioners:
I've been a homeowner in the Colony at Calavera Hills for many years, and I understand that there will
be a decision coming soon on Shapell Homes' effort to include gated connections at the end of Glasgow
Drive and Edinburgh Drive as part of their plans for the Robertson Ranch West Village.
The Robertson Ranch development will have a huge impact on The Colony. 1/We are very much in favor
of this terrific solution as it helps preserve and protect our neighborhood. Additionally, my
understanding is that the plan improves emergency vehicle access since it will be direct versus the
unusual circuitous routing previously approved.
Sincerely,
Lou & Kitty Piper
Louis W Piper, Jr
Kathryn W. Piper
4714 Edinburgh Dr, Carlsbad
760-434-4721
Christer Westman
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
4 October 2012
City of Carlsbad
Planning Commission
Dear Commissioners:
c
dan/rhoda <drvantassel@earthlink. net>
Friday, October 05, 2012 8:03AM
Christer Westman
jillagosti@sbcglobal. net
Support of Plan for Gating
My wife and I, who have lived in our home in the Colony at Calavera Hills for over a decade, are pleased to learn that
Shape II Homes plans to incorporate gated entries for the development of the Robertson Ranch West Village at the
points of Edinburg and Glascow Drives. The quality and safety of our lives and our neighborhood will be perpetuated by
this method of egress and entry. We believe that this arrangement will reduce the amount and organize the direction of
traffic and keep it from becoming problematic.
We would greatly appreciate your approval of the proposed plan.
Respectfully,
Dan & Rhoda Van Tassel
4750 Gateshead Road
Carlsbad, CA 92010
760-729-8236
1
Christer Westman
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Christer Westman
Planning Department
City of Carlsbad
Dear Mr. Westman:
Jeff Zimmerman <jeffzim@gmail.com>
Friday, October 05, 2012 10:50 AM
Christer Westman
Save our neighborhood
I grew up in The Colony at Calavera Hills neighborhood, and I and my friends played ball and learned
to bicycle on its quiet, safe streets.
I'm now of voting age and I'd like to see the new crop of kids here in our 170-plus homes have the
same safe upbringing.
That's why I want the Planning Commission and, ultimately, the City Council to vote in favor of
establishing gated communities at the end of Glasgow Drive and Edinburgh Drive, as proposed by
the developer of the Robertson Ranch West Village project.
This plan preserves the close-knit, safe Colony neighborhood yet lets the developer proceed with the
West Village build-out, which is good for the entire city.
Please vote "yes" on the plan's approval.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey Zimmerman
27 40 Glasgow Drive
Carlsbad, CA 9201 0
1
c
Christer Westman
From:
Sent:
To:
Jen Merchat <jmerchat44@yahoo.com>
Friday, October 05, 2012 11:40 AM
Christer Westman
Subject: Coastline Church/please correct
It was brought toy attention that I left out a word in the second
paragraph. The word is plant.
Please see below.
I made the correction.
Thanks!
Jennifer
Jennifer Merchat
cell: 760-845-1221
-----Forwarded Message-----
From: Jen Merchat <jmerchat44@yahoo.com>
To: "christer.westman@carlsbadca.gov" <christer.westman@carlsbadca.gov>
Cc: Bianca Kaplanek <kaplanek@pacbell.net>; Frank Merchat <frank@nightoak.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 3, 2012 3:09PM
Subject: Coastline Church
Hello Christer,
I am a resident of La Costa Valley. I understand that the church is asking for
an extension on the modular units through October 3, 2014.
I would like to suggest that the church plant several trees along the side of the
modular classroom. The side of the building that I am referring to is located
on Paseo Aliso.
The trees in the front of the units seem to be growing nicely & adequately
covering the front of the modular building.
My hope is that the city will require that the church plant several large trees
that will mask the trailer on Paseo Aliso.
Coastline Church contributes in a positive way to our community & I hope we
can work together on this issue.
Thank you for your time & consideration.
1
Jennifer Merchat
7980 Grado El Tupelo
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Jennifer Merchat
cell: 760-845-1221
2
Christer Westman
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
10-4-2012
Christer Westman
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
Dear Mr. Westman,
c
Kevin Anderson <cbadandersons@gmail.com>
Thursday, October 04, 2012 8:44PM
Christer Westman
Robertson Ranch Development
I am writing to you as a long-time homeowner in Carlsbad residing in The Colony at Calavera Hills
Homeowners Association. I have lived in this amazing neighborhood for 25 years. I have raised my family
among the many tine friends and neighbors in our little community. All of us take care of each other and look
out for each other. I understand there is going to be a Robertson Ranch development that will connect at the
end of Glasgow Drive and also at the end ofEdinburgh Drive. The proposal includes gated communities for the
homes built at the ends of these streets.
I am writing to urge you to approve the plan to build gated communities at the end of Edinburgh Drive and
Glasgow Drive as part of the Robertson Ranch development. By limiting the traf1ic that would come through
our neighborhood by drivers trying to use our side streets as a short cut, it will allow our children and
grandchildren to continue to live and grow in the safe community we have known for the past 25 years. I can't
stress enough the importance ofthis plan. We ask for your support of this proposal.
Respectfully,
Kevin J. Anderson
4782 Gateshead Rd
Carlsbad, Ca. 920 I 0
760-716-9355
1
October 4, 2012
City of Carlsbad
Planning Commission
c
Re: Approval of gated communities for Shapell
Dear Commissioners:
We have been homeowners in The Colony at Calavera Hills for the past 10 years. As you are probably
aware the Colony is one of the few unique communities that is isolated with only one direction in and
out. This seclusion has given us a wonderful community to raise kids. One of the things that attracted us
to this community was the number of kids that are out front playing in the yard and riding their bikes up
and down the street.
With the development of the Robertson Ranch land adjacent to our community we are in jeopardy of
losing our isolation and significantly changing how we live in our community. While new development is
important to our community I believe is should not be at the expense of the residents that already call it
home.
For the past 6 years we have been working with the city and the developers in an effort to minimize the
impact of the connecting development on our community. In the first version of the master plan we
were able to convince the city to use circuitous routing on the connecting streets to minimize cut
through traffic. Unfortunately within the past few years some changes have been made to the master
plan that have cut down significantly on the circuitous routing leaving us vulnerable to cut through
traffic and changing the way we live in our community.
Recently the new builder, Shapell Homes, has proposed building gated entrances on the streets that
connect to our community. This solution will help maintain our way of life and provide access for the
new homeowners as well. I truly believe it is a win/win solution.
We would like to urge you to approve the gated community for Shapell to help us maintain our
community lifestyle and still provide growth and development of new homes.
Sincerely
Steven & Teresa Brandt
4757 Gateshead Rd.
Carlsbad, CA 92010
760-730-1838
Christer Westman
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
October 4, 2012
City of Carlsbad
Planning Commission
-------------~----~--------
c
Judy Miller <miller65@roadrunner.com>
Thursday, October 04, 2012 4:49PM
Christer Westman
Robertson Ranch-Colony Resident
Dear Planning Commissioners:
We are original homeowners in The Colony at Calavera Hills (1983) and enjoy our peaceful and safe
community neighborhood. We are familiar with the Robertson Ranch development and realize it will have a
huge impact on The Colony.
As homeowners on Gateshead Road, we drive down either Edinburgh Drive or Glasgow Drive to get to our
home. We support Shappel Homes' proposed amendment for gated connections at the end of Glasgow and
Edinburgh. The gated connections
will keep our neighborhood safe, meet the needs of the City, and allows the Developer to proceed with their
project. We urge you to approve the proposed gated connections to the Colony.
Respectfully,
Ken and Judy Miller
4 7 53 Gateshead Road
Carlsbad, CA 92010
(760) 434-4753
1
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
1635 Faraday Ave.
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Attention: Christer Westman
4775 Brookwood Court
Carlsbad, CA 92010-6577
October 1, 2012
Dear Planning Department Planners and Associates:
I've been a homeowner in the Colony at Calavera Hills for over 25 years. I am writing to
urge you to approve the Shapell Homes' plan to include gated connections at the end of
Edinburgh Drive as well as the end of Glasgow Drive as part of their plan for the
Robertson Ranch West Village.
Shapell Homes' plan for the Robertson Ranch development will have a positive impact
on The Colony at Calavera Hills. My husband and I are 1 00% in favor of the Shapell
plan. For instance, the gating of Edinburgh Drive and Glasgow Drive will help preserve
and protect our entire neighborhood. Additionally, my understanding is that the plan
improves emergency vehicle access since it will be direct (and not circuitous).
The Shapell Home's plan also meets the needs of the City. It is vital that this plan be
approved.
Thank you .
Sandra Meyer
4775 Brookwood Court
Carlsbad, CA 92010
760-525-6769
e-mail: mtnest2009@yahoo.com
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
1635 Faraday Ave.
Carlsbad,CA 92008
Attention: Christer Westman
4 726 Edinburgh Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92010
October 1 , 2012
Dear Planning Department Planners and Associates:
I've been a homeowner in the Colony at Calavera Hills for over 26 years. I am writing to
urge you to approve the Shapell Homes' plan to include gated connections at the end of
Edinburgh Drive as well as the end of Glasgow Drive as part of their plan for the
Robertson Ranch West Village.
Shapell Homes' plan for the Robertson Ranch development will have a positive impact
on The Colony at Calavera Hills. My husband and I are 100% in favor of the Shapell
plan. For instance, the gating of Edinburgh Drive and Glasgow Drive will help preserve
and protect our entire neighborhood. Additionally, my understanding is that the plan
improves emergency vehicle access since it will be direct (and not circuitous).
The Shapell Home's plan also meets the needs of the City. It is vital that this plan be
approved.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
rnOAJtcm~
Mary Mazyck
4726 Edinburgh Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92010
760-637-5590
e-mail: marymazyck@yahoo.com
c
From: Michael and Shannon Danforth
4737 Edinburgh Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92010
To: City of Carlsbad
Planning Department and Planning Commissioners
To Whom It May Concern:
03 OCT 2012
As a homeowner in the Colony at Calavera Hills, I support
the plan by Shapell Homes for a gated community at the end of
Edinburgh Drive and emergency gated at the end of Glasgow Drive
for the Robertson Ranch West Village development.
The Colony community is a major stakeholder of the
Robertson Ranch development, and I am enthusiastically in
support of the amendment proposed by Shapell Homes as it's a
win-win-win for Shapell, the City and the Colony. This plan
preserves the integrity and quality of life in our community.
It will keep our neighborhood intact and give our children a
safe environment in which to not only play but to grow and
thrive. It ensures our children the quality of life they
deserve and at the same time meets the City's needs. I strongly
urge you to approve the proposed connections to the Colony.
Sincerely,
Michael & Shannon
-
October 3, 2012
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department and planning commissioners,
I am an original 30 year owner at the Colony of Calavera Hills, I live two
houses in from the proposed connection and gate to the Robertson Ranch
West Village.
This is a huge impact for the safety of our community and we fully support
the proposed gated connection into the quiet streets of our community. This
is the best solution for everyone's safety.
Thank you,
Gerardo & Abby Gomez
4 7 65 Gateshead Rd
760-729-2675
c
10/1/2012
Dear Planning Commission:
I am writing this letter in support of the Robertson Ranch Master Plan Amendment
submitted to you by the Shapell Organization, especially in their proposal to connect to
our Association streets and with the recommendation to help alleviate traffic by creating
gated communities.
For the past 2 years, I, as President of the Colony at Calavera Homeowners
Association, have worked closely with representatives from Shapell to negotiate
concerns that would impact the homeowners of our Association.
These folks listened to our concerns and helped remedy these concerns. The Shapell
Organization has been both professional and accommodating in their dealing with the
Association. They graciously agreed to present their proposal for the connection of
roads with our development at a Association Board meeting and at an evening meeting
for our homeowners at the Harding Center.
Thank you for your consideration.
Frank J Volpe Jr.
Past President
Colony at Calavera Hills Homeowners Association
October 1, 2012
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department and Planning Commissioners
To Whom It May Concern:
My wife and I originally started a neighborhood committee in our HOA, The Colony at Calavera, back in
2006 when McMillan Homes initially presented their Master Plan for the development of the Robertson
Ranch. We named it the Robertson Ranch Committee and past commissioners and City Council people
may recall that this committee we made several presentations back in 2006 challenging the street
connections on Edinburgh and Glasgow Streets. Back then, we alerted our neighbors of the potential for
having street connections that would allow cut-through traffic through our neighborhood. The traffic
studies revealed that the volume of traffic projected on the McMillan Master Plan was going to be close
to the failure rate established by the city but after several delays in the Planning Commission approval
process due to this and other factors, it passed both the Planning Commission and the City Council
members' vote.
We have diligently followed the developments over the last 6 years and when we found out that Shape II
Homes had purchased the property, we immediately made contact to develop a relationship with them.
It has been a very rewarding experience as the Shapell representatives and their designers came to the
same conclusions that we had 6 years prior and that was to have a gated community at the ends of
Edinburgh and Glasgow Drives for the Robertson Ranch West Village development.
The Colony community is a major stakeholder of the Robertson Ranch development, and I am in support
of their Master Plan as it currently exists. It clearly is an advantage when an existing community and a
new development work together to weave their design for their development and still not adversely
disturb the existing neighborhood design. This plan preserves the integrity and quality of life in our
community. It will keep our neighborhood intact and give our children a safe environment in which to
not only play but to grow and thrive. It ensures our children the quality of life we enjoyed and they
deserve while it also meets the requirements the City has setup.
I strongly urge you to approve the proposed connections to the Colony. If you have any questions, do
not hesitate to contact me at the number or address below.
Sincerely,
Greg Agosti
4771 Brookwood Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92010
760-729-4928
September 26, 2012
Planning Commission
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
CITY
G Dt H' IJIENT
RE: Case Number: GPA 11-07/ MP 02-03C/ CT 11-01/ HDP 11-01/ SUP 11-02/ HMP 11-03
Robertson Ranch West Village
To the Members of the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission:
As a Carlsbad resident for over ten years, I would like to express my support for the design of the
Robertson Ranch West Village Master Plan. I appreciate the mixed-uses at this location and
would look forward to seeing this project come to fruition. Please approve the proposed plan
amendment.
I am familiar with the developer, Shapell Homes, and respect their reputation and the quality of
their construction products as well. I am confident the project will be in good hands.
Sincerely,
~(y~
Andrew "Jack" Gallagher, AlA, LEED AP
6926 Pear Tree Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92011
September 20, 2012
Planning Commission
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
Dear Planning Commission:
CITY
The Carlsbad Cha..'11ber of Ccmmerc~ suppc rts Shapell and their effort~ to develop the P obertson
Ranch West Village. Shapell has garnered the reputation as a quality builder with expertise in Master
Planned Communities. They are a good fit for this project and a good fit for the community of
Carlsbad.
Shapell is requesting an amendment to an already approved master plan. The master plan includes a
village center which features commercial, retail , and community facility components. These in turn
provide jobs and shopping opporttmities for the community residents. In addition, the Master Plan has
672 dwelling units with a mix of for-rent and for-sale units. A 2010 study by the Center for Housing
on the affects of construction in California found that every median-priced housing unit built produced
$375,000 in economic activity and created 2.1 jobs. This same study found that San Diego County
was higher than the state average and produced $418,000 in economic activity and 2.4 jobs.
Furthermore, new construction generates a variety of fiscal benefits for the city, count y, and state.
While these figures represent estimates and actual benefits are difficult to quantify, the findings
support my belief that the development of a well-plmmed community provides economic benefits to
the community and residents alike.
As explained to us, the changes to the Master Plan in the amendment are relatively minor yet the plan
is more economically viable and will hopefully bring the project and its accompanying benefits to the
city of Carlsbad in the near future. We again express our support for Shapell and the Robertson Ranch
\Vest Vilbge. The Chambe;: m ges your st:pport and appro·v·al ofthe amendment to the Robertson
Ranch Master Plm1.
Ted Owen
Chief Executive Officer
Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce
cc: Christer Westman, City of Carlsbad Platming Department
5934 Priestly Drive • Carlsbad, California 92008
Phone: (760) 931-8400 • Fax: (760) 931-9153 • E-mail: chamber@carlsbad.or • Web: www.carlsbad.or
Jennifer Austin
7236 Mimosa Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92011
September 25, 2012
City of Carlsbad Planning Commission
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
RE: Rancho Costera (C.T. 11-01)
Dear Members of the Planning Commission,
I CITY OF c Rl SBAD ~~~N,NG l!~I'AH I MENT
I'm in support of this project. In particular, I am pleased with the widening improvements
on El Camino Real and the commercial site development in this area.
Sincerely,
cc: Mr. Christer Westman, Planning Dept.
September 25, 2012
Planning Commission
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
Re: Rancho Costera CT 11-01
Dear Planning Commission:
My back yard overlooks Robertson Ranch and I would be excited for a new
neighborhood shopping center to open up there. A grocery store or restaurants within
walking distance from my house would be very welcome additions and would serve to
revitalize this portion of Carlsbad ..
I also think that the proposed improvements along El Camino Real will be a great benefit
as it will improve traffic flow and will make the area more attractive, which is something
I value as a daily user of this stretch of road.
Sincerely,
{!!:~:f:cl-~'
4941 Avila Ave
Carlsbad, California 92008
Cc: Christer Westman
Patricia Short
2778 Carlsbad Blvd., Unit 303
Carlsbad , CA 92008
September 25, 2012
City of Carlsbad Planning Commission
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
RE: Rancho Costera (C.T. 11-01)
Dear Members of the Planning Commission,
I'm in support of the Tentative Map for Rancho Costera. More particularly, I believe
there would be great benefit to see widening improvements along El Camino Real, as
well as more commercial development.
Sincerely,
'~
Patricia Short
cc: Mr. Christer Westman, Planning Dept.
September 21 , 2012
Planning Commission
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
RE: Case Number: GPA 11-07/ MP 02-03C/ CT 11-01/ HOP 11-01/ SUP 11-02/ HMP 11-03
Robertson Ranch West Village
To the members of the Planning Commission:
Shapell is known throughout the state of California as a reputable builder with the
experience and financial resources to design and develop quality projects and homes.
I am familiar with the Master Plan previously approved by the City Council and the
subsequent refinements currently under review that will be discussed at the October 17,
2012 meeting and urge you to approve the proposed plan amendment. I believe that
approving this plan would benefit not only the City of Carlsbad but the community as
well.
Sincerely,
Nancy K. Keenan , A!A, LEED AP
2132 Placido Court
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Carlsbad Planning Commission
1200 Carlsbad Village Dr
Carlsbad, Ca. 92008
Dear Commissioners,
21 years ago my wife and I chose to buy a home and raise our family in the Colony of
Calaveras Hills. As a young Fire Captain, paramount in that decision was the safety of
our children and feeling of community that the Colony provided. Now as a retired Fire
Battalion Chief with 3 3 years of Fire Service, that feeling of safety and community are
still as important as ever.
As commissioners, you will soon have the opportunity to support the amendment
proposed by Shappel Homes to include gated connections at the end of Glasgow Drive
and Edinburgh Drive as part of their plans for the Robertson Ranch West Development.
The proposed gated design will provide direct emergency access in both directions, while
eliminating the time consuming circuitous routing which would delay response times into
both the West Village and Colony, while still exposing the Colony to cut through traffic
and excessive average daily trips through our neighborhood.
Your decision to support the proposed amendment will effectively give the three major
stakeholders what they are asking for. How often does that happen? The developer will
get an attractive, economically viable residential and commercial project. The city will
receive the added tax base, while providing need housing, livable streets and shopping
opportunities and the Colony will maintain the beauty of our neighborhood while
preserving the safety of our families today and for generations to come.
I strongly encourage you to support the proposed amendment by Shappel Homes to
maintain the sense of community of these two developments and the city as a whole.
Sincerely
James Torretto
2725 Greenock Court
Carlsbad, Ca. 92010
760-484-4407
(fllr I LhD q J :).5 j I;)...
_J~.A_ CITY OF
VcARLSBAD LJ FILE
Planning Division
September 25, 2012
www.carlsbadca.gov
Planning Systems, Inc.
Attn: Paul Klukas
1530 Faraday Avenue, Suite 100
Carlsbad, CA 92008
SUBJECT: GPA 11-07/MP 02-03(C)/CT 11-01/HDP 11-01/SUP 11-02/HMP 11-03-ROBERTSON
RANCH WEST VILLAGE
The preliminary staff report for the above referenced project will be sent to you via email on
Wednesday, October 3, 2012, after 8:00 a.m. This preliminary report will be discussed by staff at the
Development Coordinating Committee (DCC) meeting which will be held on Tuesday, October 9,
2012. A twenty (20) minute appointment has been set aside for you at 9:00 AM. If you have any
questions concerning your project you should attend the DCC meeting.
It is necessary that you bring the following required information with you to this meeting or
provide it to your planner prior to the meeting in order for your project to go forward to the
Planning Commission:
1. Unmounted colored exhibit(s) of your site plan and elevations; and
2. A PDF of your colored site plan and elevations.
The colored exhibits must be submitted at this time to ensure review by the Planning
Commission at their briefings. If the colored exhibits are not available for their review, your
project could be rescheduled to a later time. The PDF of your colored site plan and elevations
will be used in the presentation to the Planning Commission and the public at the Planning
Commission Hearing. If you do not plan to attend this meeting, please make arrangements to
have your colored exhibit(s) and the PDF here by the scheduled time above.
Should you wish to use visual materials in your presentation to the Planning Commission, they should
be submitted to the Planning Division no later than 12:00 p.m. on the day of a Regular Planning
Commission Meeting. Digital materials will be placed on a computer in Council Chambers for public
presentations. Please label all materials with the agenda item number you are representing. Items
submitted for viewing, including presentations/digital materials, will be included in the time limit
maximum for speakers. All materials exhibited to the Planning Commission during the meeting (slides,
maps, photos, etc.) are part of the public record and must be kept by the Planning Division for at least
60 days after final action on the matter. Your materials will be returned upon written request.
If you need additional information concerning this matter, please contact your Planner, Christer
Westman at (760) 602-4614.
[~
DON NEU, AICP
City Planner
DN:CW:sm
c: File Copy
Jeremy Riddle, Project Engineer
1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 T 760-602-4600 F 760-602-8559 ®
c
September 21,2012
TO:
FROM:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING DIVISION ~
0
RE: ROBERTSON RANCH WEST VILLAGE MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT
The Robertson Ranch West Village Master Plan amendment and associated permits review is
scheduled for the October 17 Planning Commission hearing. You are getting the master plan
early so that you have some more time to look it over. The other exhibits, such as the vesting
tentative map for the planning areas, will come with your Staff Report packages on or about
October 10. The master plan document is delivered as an underline/strikeout version so it should
be relatively clear to determine what the proposed changes are within the master plan.
If you have questions my email is christer.westman@carlsbadca.gov or phone number is 760-
602-4614.
A summary of the significant changes follow:
• Circuitous Routing: The Master Plan was approved with a requirement to design Planning
Areas 5, 9, and 10 with circuitous routing with the intention of discouraging possible traffic
into or through the Colony neighborhood to the north. Since the master plan is proposed to
be amended to allow Planning Areas 5, 9, and 10 to be gated subdivisions, the circuitous
routing requirement is unnecessary and is being eliminated.
• Planning Area 1 was designated as a multi-family residential neighborhood with the potential
of developing with 27 homes. Planning Area 1 is now designated as Open Space and the 27
units have been dispersed into the remainder of the West Village.
• A floating Recreational Vehicle (RV) storage area was designated within Planning Area 1 as
Planning Area 2. The required RV storage for the West Village will be located in Planning
Area 22. Planning Area 2 is now defined as a 2.0 acre neighborhood for Community
Facilities.
• Additional Community Facilities uses are listed for Planning Area 2 and Planning Are~ 11.
They include: amphitheater, community garden, urban farm, farmers' market, and dog park.
• Planning Area 13 was designated as a future elementary school site. The Carlsbad Unified
School District chose not to acquire the site and it has therefore been re-designated for single
family home development. References to the future school have also been modified or
deleted from the master plan.
• A two acre City of Carlsbad Fire Station has been incorporated into Planning Area 12.
• The master plan made several references to allowed interim uses prior to development
approvals for the various West Village Planning Areas. Since the final uses for the West
Village are being established by this project, those references have been deleted from the
master plan.
c
• The required Inclusionary Housing units will be located in PAs 7 and/or 8 only. The general
statement for alternate locations throughout the Master Plan "or within any other portion of
the Master Plan as approved by the City of Carlsbad" has been deleted.
• Planning Area· 3 is designated for single family residential development with a minimum lot
size of 4,000 square feet. This is a reduction from the 6,000 square foot minimum standard
in the Master Plan. The minimum lot size allowed by the Planned Development Ordinance
ranges from 3,500 to 5,000 square feet.
• Planning Area 5 is designated for single family residential development with a minimum lot
size of 8,500 square feet. This is a reduction from the 10,000 square foot minimum standard
in the Master Plan. Standard single family subdivisions have a minimum lot size of7,500.
• Planning Area 6 is designated for single family residential development with a minimum lot
size of 5,000 square feet. This is a reduction from the 6,000 square foot minimum standard
in the Master Plan. The minimum lot size allowed by the Planned Development Ordinance
ranges from 3,500 to 5,000 square feet.
• Planning Area 9 is designated for single family residential development with a minimum lot
size of 6,000 square feet. This is a reduction from the 7,500 square foot minimum standard
in the Master Plan. The minimum lot size required by the Planned Development Ordinance
ranges from 3,500 to 5,000 square feet.
• Planning Area 1 0 is designated for single family residential development with a minimum lot
size of 6,000 square feet. This is an increase from the 5,000 square foot minimum standard
in the Master Plan. The minimum lot size required by the Planned Development Ordinance
ranges from 3,500 to 5,000 square feet.
RINCON BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS
Culture Committee
Post Office Box 68 · Valley Center, CA 92082 ·
(760) 297-2635 or (760) 297-2622 & Fax:(760) 297-2639
CITY OF CARl SBAD
September 11, 2012
Christer Westman
Senior Planner
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
PLANNING DE PAR I MENT
Re: Senate Bill 18 Consultation Re: GP A 11-07 IMP 02-03(C), City of Carlsbad, California
Dear Christer Westman:
This letter is written on behalf of the Rincon Band of Luiseiio Indians, and is in response to your letter
of August 9, 2012 regarding the above named project. This is our notice to you indicating our interest in
participating in the SB18 process for the proposed Robertson Ranch West Village project. We thank you
for your invitation to consult, and to take part in the process. We gladly accept your invite, and we look
forward to a productive consultation.
The indicated project location is within the Luiseno Aboriginal Territory, and is what we consider to be
our Traditional Use Area, where our ancestors lived for thousands of years. We are concerned for the
protection ofLuiseno cultural resources, and we agree that in working together, traditional tribal cultural
places and sacred sites can be preserved.
Once again, we offer our sincerest thanks and acceptance of your invitation to participate as a consulting
party with the planning process.
You may contact (760) 297-2635 ifyou have any questions or concerns.
Sincere! 'J /)
. 1JUJ
e uro
·neon Culture Committee Chair
Bo Mazzetti
Tribal Chairman
Stephanie Spencer
Vice Chairwoman
Charlie Kolb
Council Member
Steve Stallings
Council Member
Laurie E. Gonzalez
Council Member
'08/09/2012 16:57 FAX 916 657 5390 . . ~ NAHC
'-'
NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION
G1S CAPITOL MALL, ROOM 3M
SA~. CA81511•
(916)1fi3.42S1
I'U (t'lfl 157-5390
Web Sfta m!Y"-!\IIhc.ca.AO'!
HMI; de_nancOpiCbell.rwt
August10,2012
Mr. Christer Westman, Senior Planner
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faradday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Sent by FAX to:
No. of Pages:
760..002-8559
3
0
Re: Sacred Lands File Search and Native American Contacts list for the proposed
"General Plan Amendment for the Robertson Ranch West Village Robertson
Banch Master Plan Project);'' located in the City of Carlsbad; San Diego Countv.
California
Dear Mr. Westman:
Government Code §65352.3 requires local governments to consult with
California Native American tribes Identified by the Native American Heritage
Commission (NAHC) for the purpose of protecting, and/or mitigating impacts to
cultural places. The Native American Heritage Commission is the state "trustee
agency' designated for the protection of Native American Cultural Resource
pursuant to CA Public Resources Code §21070. In the 1985 Appellate Court
decision (170 Cal App 3rd 604), the court held that the NAHC has jurisdiction and
special expertise, as a state agency, over affected Native American resources,
impacted by proposed projects including archaeological, places of religious
significance to Native Americans and burial sites
Ia! 001
Attached is a consultation list of tribal governments with traditional lands or cultural
places located within the Project Area of Potential Effect (APE). The tribal entities on
the list are for your guidance for govemment-to-govemment consultation purposes.
Pursuant to CA Public Resources Code §5097 .95, please provide pertinent project
information to the tribal consulting parties, including archaeological studies ..
The NAHC did not perform a Sacred Lands File search of the 'area of potential
effect' (APE) due to the lack of USGS infonnation. Quality consulting with Native
American tribes is the appropriate protocol. Tribal Govemments have 90 days to
comment from the receipt of the County's letter inviting consultation.
The Native American Heritage Commission works with Native American tribal
governments regarding its identification of 'Areas of Traditional Use,' The Commission
'08/09/2012 16:57 FAX 916 657 5390
r'''""'
NAHC ~002
"-~·/
may adjust the submitted data defining the 'Area. of Traditional Use' in accordance with
documentation provided by consulting tribes, generally accepted ethnographic,
anthropological, archeological research and oral history.
If you have any questi ns, please contact me at (916) 653-6251.
Dave Singleton
Program Analyst
Attachment Native American Tribal Government Consultation list
"08/09/2012 16:57 FAX 916 657 5390 NARC
CallfoQ NatiVe American Tribal Con&ultatO List
san Diego County
Barone Group of the Capitan Grande
Edwin Romero, Chairperson
1 095 Barona Aoad Diegueno
Lakeside • CA 92040
sue@barona-nsn.gov
(619) 443·6612
August 10, 2012
Mesa Grande Band of Mission Indians
Mark Romero, Chairperson
P .0 Box 270 Diegueno
Santa Ysabel , CA 92070
mesagrancleband@msn.com
(760) 782-3818
Pala Band of Mission Indians
ijj 003
San Pasqua! Band of Mission Indians
Allen E. Lawson, Chairperson Tribal Historic Preservation OfficeJShasta Gaughen
PO Box 385 Oiegueno
Valley Center • CA 92082
atlenl@sanpasqualband.com
(760) 7 49-3200
35008 PalaTemecula Road, PM13 Lulseno
50-Cupeno
Palal CA 92059
(760) 891-3515
sgaughen@palatribe.com
Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation Pauma & Yuima Reservation
Danny Tucker, Chairperson Randall Majel, Chairperson
5459 Sycuan Road Diegueno/Kumeyaay P .0. Box 369 Luiseno
El C&jon 1 CA 92019 Pauma Valley , CA 92061
ssllva@sycuan-nsn.gov paumareservation@aol.com
619 445-2613 (760) 742-1289
Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians
Anthony R. Pico, Chairperson
Peehanga Band of Mission Indians
Paul Macarrol Cultural Resources Manager
PO Box908
Alpine I CA 91903
OieguenoJKumeyaay P.O. Box 1477 Lulseno
jrothauff@viejas-nsn.gov
(619) 445-3810
Jamul Indian Village
Chairperson
P.O. Box612
Jamul , CA 91935
jamulrez®sctdv .net
(619) 669-4785
Temecula , CA 92593
(951) 770.8100
pmacarro@pechanga-nsn.gov
Kwaaymii Laguna Band of Mission Indians
Carmen Lucas
Dlegueno/Kumeyaay P .0. Box 775 Diegueno -Kwaaymii
Pine Valley , CA 91962
(619) 709-4207
Thl& ll&t Is current only a Of the date of thll document.
Dtetflbutlon of thhl lilt dOe& nat nllleM any penun of etatutory ~Niblllty • defii"MMMIn $ocdon 70!.10.5 of thl Health arw.1
Safety Code, Section 50f7.N of the Pui)IIC) Rauun:es eocte and Sadlon 5097.98 of the Publtc Aeeaurces Coda.
""'* llct I& applicable only for GO'*""*'" with NltfVe Amertean triDeS under Government Code Seotton 66352.3. tncl11362.4. ... _
•08/09/2012 16:57 FAX 916 657 5390 NARC
CalifoQ Native American Tribal ConsultaQ List
San Diego County
August10,2012
lpai Nation of Santa Ysabel
Ill 004
Inaja Band of Mission Indians
Rebecca Osuna, Spokesperson Clint Linton, Director of Cultural Resources
2005 s. Esoondido Blvd. Diegueno
Escondido , CA 92025
(760) 737-7628
Rincon Band of Mission Indians
Bo Mazzetti, Chairperson
P .0. Box 68 Luiseno
Valley Center , CA 92082
bomazzetti@aol.com
(760) 7 49·1 051
San Pasqual Band of Indians
Kristie Orosco, Environmental Coordinator
P.O. Box 365 Lulseno
Valley Center • CA 92082 Diegueno
(780) 749-3200
councll@sanpasqualtrlbe.org
San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians
Tribal Council
1889 Sunset Dnve Luiseno
VIsta , CA 92081
760-724-8505
La Jolla Band of Mission Indians
James Trujillo, Vice Chair
22000 Highway 76 LuiSeno
Pauma Valley • CA 92061
rob.roy@lajolla-nsn.gov
(760) 7 42~796
Thla ll.tl& GUrrent only M of tt. dnt ol thiS document.
P .0. Box 507 Diegueno/Kumeyaay
Santa Ysabel , CA 92070
cjlinton73@aol.com
(760) 803-5694
DISittbc.ldon of thJs llet dCMI8 not NlteVe any f*110n Of st111UtD1J ~billy u defined In CeoaoJt7050.1 of a. Helllth •nd
Sllfaty Gode, ScGUv11 5QB7.M of the Pul:lllc Reeo"'"' Code .ad a.ctlon 5017..18 of the Public ReaOuroel Code.
Thlllu.t 18 appiiD:atlle only fOr COMUitllllolt wllh Native Ameftcln tribeS under Gowrnment Code Secllon 65352.3.. and 653&2.4 • ... _
\: . . ~
AI~~ CITY OF ~FCARLSBAD
0 0 Cfv\C}A-Ud 0 ( q 1''-
LJ FILE
Planning Division www.carlsbadca.gov
August 9, 2012
SUBJECT: SENATE BILL 18 CONSULTATION RE: GPA 11..07/MP 02-03(C), CITY OF CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA
To Whom It May Concern:
In accordance with the provisions of Senate Bill 18, the purpose of this letter is to initiate consultation
with the Native American tribes, as identified by the Native American Heritage Commission, regarding
the proposed ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN project located in the City of Carlsbad, California.
Project Description
The proposed Robertson Ranch West Village project is located north of El Camino Real, south of
Tamarack Avenue and northwest of Cannon Road. The request is for a General Plan Amendment and
Master Plan Amendment to modify the configurations of Planning Areas, modify land uses, and modify
future development standards within the previously approved Robertson Ranch Master Plan for the
West Village and approval of a Tentative Tract Map, Hillside Development Permit, Special Use Permit,
and Habitat Management Plan Permit to subdivide the property into planning areas as defined by the
Master Plan as well as associated master plan mass grading and improvements including backbone
streets and El Camino Real along the project frontage on 201.37 acres of land located north of El Camino
Real south of Tamarack Avenue and west of Cannon Road in local Facilities Management Zone 14.
Cultural Resources Survey
A cultural resources survey was conducted and was used for the Cultural Resources analysis and
certification of the Robertson Ranch Master Plan EIR in 2006. The results of the survey indicated that
there are 17 prehistoric resources identified on the Robertson Ranch site, 11 are evaluated as not
significant. Data recovery mitigation measures are required by the Robertson Ranch Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program for the six remaining sites in the EIR Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program (See Enclosed). The proposed amendments to the Robertson Ranch Master Plan do
not increase impacts beyond what was previously identified and therefore do not require a change to
the existing mitigation.
Notice of Completion
The City of Carlsbad is currently in the process of reviewing the proposed ROBERTSON RANCH WEST
VILLAGE project. When the environment review for the project is complete, the City will issue a Notice
of Completion in accordance with CEQA Guidelines.
1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 T 760-602-4600 F 760-602-8559 ®
. .
GPA 11-07/MP 02-03(C)-ROBQ.SON RANCH WEST VILLAGE
August 9, 2012
PAGE 2
Requested Deadline
Pursuant to Government Code §65352.3(a)(2), please respond within 90 days of receipt of this notice in
the event your tribe wishes to consult with the City regarding this matter. Please contact:
Christer Westman
Senior Planner
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
If you have any questions regarding this letter please contact me at (760} 602-4614.
Sincerely,
~~-
CHRISTER WESTMAN, AICP
Senior Planner
CW:bd
enc: location map
c
SITE MAP
• N
NOT TO SCALE
Robertson Ranch West Village
GPA 11-07/MP 02-03(C)/CT 11-01
HOP 11-01/SUP 11-02/HMP 11-03
!" r-------------------------~~------------------------------~~------------------------~
PLANNING I
SYSTEMS •
July 9, 2012
LAND USE/COASTAL PLANNING
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE • LA3900
POLICY AND PROCESSING
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION
Mr. Christer Westman
CITY OF CARLSBAD
Planning Department
1635 Faraday Ave.
Carlsbad, CA 92008
CITY OF CAR BAD
PLANNING DIVIS N RECEIVED
RE: FIFTH (5m) RESUBMITTAL JUl 1 1 2012
GPA 11-07/MP 02-03(C)/CT 11-01/HDP I 1-01/SUP 11-02/HMP ll-03CI
ROBERTSON RANCH WEST VILLAGE TY OF CARLSBAD
Dear Mr. Westman: PLANNING DIVISION
Per your letter dated June 19, 2011, identifYing Staff items and issues with the submittal package of the
above-referenced application package and plans, Shapell Homes has commissioned modifications to the
documents and plans as requested. To this end, attached with this cover letter please fmd the following:
• Five (5) copies of the revised Master Plan (Strike-out version)
• Five (5) copies of the revised Master Vesting Tentative Map
• Five (5) copies of the revised Landscape Plan
• Redlined plans (return)
Below are responses and methods that we are addressing the City comments, in the order of comments
listed in the June 19 letter.
LIST OF ITEMS NEEDED TO COMPLETE THE APPLICATION
Planning:
1. Approval of legislative actions.
Response: This is acknowledged by the applicant.
Engineering:
1. Approval of this project is contingent on demonstrating compliance with the improvement
conditions for El Camino Real per PC Resolution 6106. Concurrent applications (CDP 11-10,
etc.) are being processed for El Camino Real improvements. This item will be resolved once these
applications for El Camino Real are either scheduled for public hearing simultaneously with this
CT application or taken forward for public hearing and approved in advance of this project.
Response: The applicant anticipates that the entitlement permits for El Camino Real widening will
be brought forward for hearing and approval at the same time as the subject West Village project.
ISSUES OF CONCERN
Planning:
1. See the enclosed redlined copy of the Master Plan for requested revisions, deletions, and
additions.
1530 FARADAY AVENUE • SUITE 100 • CARLSBAD, CA 92008 • (760) 931-0780 • FAX (760) 931-5744 • info@planningsystems.net
Response: Changes have been made to the Master Plan to address the revisions, deletions and
additions indicated in the redlined Master Plan. The redlined Master Plan is also enclosed with this
package. All items addressed have been highlighted in blue highlighter. The new strike-out version of the
Master Plan shows ALL changes that have been made from the approved 2006 document.
2. The Habitat Management Plan Permit (HMP 11-03) review is being coordinated with the
appropriate resource agencies. There are no issues comments available at this time.
Response: This item is acknowledged by the applicant.
3. There are no Planning Division issues or comments on the Special Use Permit.
Response: This is acknowledged by the applicant.
4. A retaining wall shown on Sheet 9 reaches 14 feet at its tallest point. The extreme height is
caused by a jog in the pedestrian path. Elimination of the jog in the pedestrian path will result in
eliminating the need for the extreme retaining wall height.
Response: The design has been modified in this area along the edge of Planning Area 5 and the
retaining wall removed.
5. Each of the retaining walls facing Tamarack must be appropriately screened. Screen methods
may include wall material, landscape, and/or texture.
Response: The retaining walls have been removed in this area facing Tamarack A venue.
6. Offsite RV storage (outside of the boundaries of the Master Pan) is not supported by staff
Response: The option of offsite RV storage has been removed from the Master Plan, as requested.
7. Commercial rental of required RV storage spaces is not supported by staff
Response:
requested.
The option of rental of RV storage spaces has been removed from the Master Plan, as
Engineering:
I. Trail linkages have been added to several sheets though out various Planning Area's (PA 's).
Revise the MTM so that the trail is shown as 'future'. Having the trail built now seems premature
in advance of trail easements, precise grading, and future construction. It makes sense they would
be constructed concurrently with the future 'b' maps. Refer to the redlines.
Response: The trails have been revised on the MTM to be shown as "Future".
2. On sheet 1 of the MTM, revise the legend description to clarifY that bioretention basins shall be
BOA-maintained but included within an JOD to the city for public drainage purposes. A footnote
may be more useful to describe this or other conditions.
Response: The legend has been revised to clarify that bioretention basins shall be HOA-maintained
but also the subject of an IOD to the City.
3. The Tamarack Avenue connection is described as Street 'J' in the MTM, but is referred to as
Street 'Y' in the Master Plan. Please address this discrepancy.
Response: The Tamarack Connection has been revised on the MTM to Street 'Y', consistent with
the Robertson Ranch Master Plan. I PLANNING I SYSTEMS
4. It is our understanding lot 2 will be designated as an open space lot. Revise the MTM to ensure
that constructing the Tamarack connection over lot 2 will not be a conflict in the future, when it is
needed To address this, expand Lot 3 to include the future right-of-way of Street 'J' to Tamarack
Ave. Or revise the MTM to show a proposed IOD for public road and public utility purposes over
Street 'J' that can be accepted once Street 'J' is improved
Response: A proposed IOD for public road and public utility purposes has been added for the
Tamarack Connection on the MTM.
5. The acreages for several PA 's on the MTM do not match the acreages in the Master Plan. Refer
to redlines and address these discrepancies.
Response: As discussed in our meeting on June 20, planning area boundaries in the Master Plan are
seldom fully consistent with the lot boundaries on the MTM. For example, main roadways have not
routinely been included within adjacent planning areas on the MP, but on the MTM the lots are shown to
centerline of these same streets. Also, in open space-adjacent areas, nature trails and fire suppression areas
are shown as open space land uses in the MP, but are shown within the master residential lots on the MTM.
So the acreages are different.
Nonetheless, we have modified the MTM lots to more closely resemble the planning areas shown in the
MP.
6. Add slope percentage throughout the rough grading areas per the redline comments (typical).
Response: Slope percentages have been added throughout the rough grading areas on the MTM.
7. On sheet 4, call out the storm drain that collects private slope runoff as private BOA-maintained
Call out the drainage easement as private. Refer to redlines.
Response: The slopes have been revised to eliminate the terrace drains and storm drain on Sheet 4.
8. On .sheets 4 and 5, add the lot dimensions for the proposed lots that were on the previous
submittal.
Response: The lot dimensions on Sheets 4 and 5 have been restored, as requested.
9. On sheets 4 and 5, call out the proposed dedication for Glasgow Drive and Edinburgh Drive per
the redlines.
Response: The proposed dedication for Glasgow Drive and Edinburgh Drive are called out on the
referenced sheets of the revised MTM.
10. On sheets 4 and 5, add the correct reference to sheet 14 for the detail on bioretention areas. Refer
to redlines.
Response: The sheet number reference for the detail on bioretention areas has been corrected.
11. On sheet 6, call out pedestrian railing where the future trail is adjacent to high retaining walls
(see 14-ft high wall for example). Refer to the Master Plan for trail fence details. Show in a detail
or cross-section.
Response: The retaining walls adjacent to the future trail have been eliminated on Sheet 6.
12. On sheets 8, 1 I and 14, call out the storm drain that collects private slope runoff as a private
BOA-maintained storm drain. Refer to redlines. I PLANNING I SYSTEMS
0 -
Response: The storm drain collecting the private slope runoff has been called out as private HOA-
maintained on the revised MTM sheets.
13. On sheets 8-10 and 13, add a note that explains how storm drains within future streets will be
constructed to city standards, but privately maintained until such time that the streets are
constructed and accepted by the city in the future.
Response: A storm drain note has been added as requested.
14. On sheets 9, 11, 13 and 14, add top-of-wall and bottom-of-wall elevations to the new/revised
retaining walls. Refer to redlines.
Response: Top-of-wall and bottom-of-wall elevations have been added to the retaining walls on the
referenced sheets on the MTM.
15. On sheets 4, 6, 9, and 11, clarifY if over-excavation will also be required along the revised
retaining walls/slopes near perimeter boundaries. Refer to redlines.
Response: Overexcavation grading limits have been identified on the MTM.
16. On sheet 9, add D-75 swales to collect slope drainage where the slope grading daylights with
natural slopes. Refer to redlines.
Response: D-75 swales have been added for slope drainage on Sheet 9, as requested.
17. On sheet 9, show and call out the proposed public drainage easements over the storm drains
carrying runoff under the future Tamarack connection.
Response: Proposed public drainage easements have been called out for the storm drains under the
future Tamarack Connection, on Sheet 9.
18. On sheet 9, revise the lot 3 boundary or provide IOD information to address the future
construction of the Tamarack connection as previously mentioned
Response: A Proposed IOD for public road and public utility purposes has been added for the
Tamarack Connection on Sheet 9, as requested.
19. On sheet 13, show the proposed storm drain that conveys slope runoff and discharges near the
SDG&E easement. VerifY SDG&E does not object to this drainage outfall near its existing tower.
Refer to redlines.
Response: The slope design has been revised to eliminate the drainage ditch on Sheet 13.
20. On sheets 13-15, clarifY how the pedestrians will use a trail that also serves a slope drain. How
high is the proposed retaining wall? Will a pedestrian railing be required? Add a detail or cross-
section to clarifY.
Response: A detail has been added for the pedestrian trail adjacent to the slopes on Sheet 2.
21. On sheets 15-16 and 18, call out the proposed lot dimensions that were on the previous MTM
Refer to redlines.
Response: The lot dimension have been restored on the reference sheets.
22. On sheet 17, clarifY if the acreage for lot 12 excludes the area of additio'if~~~~~jiiiiif.=Sl '11 PLANNING I •• , SYSTEMS
for El Camino Real. If not, list the net acreage for open space on the MTM and in the Master
Plan.
Response: The acreage for Lot 12 excludes the area of additional dedication required for El Camino
Real.
23. On sheet 17, callout the proposed lot dimensions for lot 12. Refer to redlines.
Response: The lot dimensions have been restored on Sheet 17.
24. On sheet 20, revise the phasing exhibits to address the city comments sent via a memo to Shapell,
dated May 2, 2012.
Response: The ECR phasing exhibits have been revised per the memo from the City. Also, the
Master Plan includes a new exhibit showing this information on p. V -8.
25. For additional comments, refer to the redlines.
Response: Revisions have been made per the redline comments.
MasterPlan
26. On page 1-20, the Tamarack connection is described as Street 'Y', which is also called Street 'J'
on the MTM Please address the discrepancy between these documents.
Response:
documents.
The Tamarack Connection roadway is now described as Street 'Y' in all plans and
27. On page II-20, we have listed the acreage for each PA as compared to the MTM Please address
the discrepancies in acreages for each P A.
Response: Please see the response to comment #5.
28. On pages III-2 and III-3, clarifY whether the acreage/use for this PA includes/excludes the
Tamarack connection or will PA 3 be modified to include the future right-ofway of the Tamarack
connection. Revise the narrative to address which P A will allow for the fUture road/utility
improvements for this road segment.
Response: The Tamarack Connection is a community public roadway which is in the "Major Roads"
land use classification and is not within a planning area in the MP. Neither the acreage of adjacent
Planning Area I nor the acreage of adjacent Planning Area 23A include the Tamarack Connection
roadway.
29. On page III-8, the acreage for P A 2 is listed as 2. 0, but is listed as 2. 4 in the MTM Address
discrepancy.
Response: Planning Area 2 is now listed in the MP as 2.3 gross acres.
30. On pages III-10 and III-17, the acreage for PA 3 is listed as 16.0, but is listed as 18.22 in the
MTM On page III-10, clarifY if the Tamarack connection should be Street 'Y' or Street 'J'.
Address discrepancy.
Response: Please see above response to comment #5.
31. On pages lli-22 and III-26, the acreage for PA 5 is listed as 11.0, but is listed as 13.5 in the MTM
Address these discrepancies.
1 . Ps~~~~; I ••I
Response: Please see the response to comment #5.
32. On pages JII-27 and III-32, the acreage for PA 6 is listed as 18.3, but is listed as 21.2 in the MTM
On page III-27, clarifY that the secondary access for PA 5 will be provided by the Tamarack
connection versus the right-in, right-out along El Camino Real. Address these discrepancies.
Response: Please see the response to comment #5.
33. On pages III-33 and III-40, the acreage for PA 7 is listed as 715, but is listed as 7. 7 in the MTM
Address discrepancy.
Response: Please see the response to comment #5.
34. On pages 111-41 and III-47, the acreagefor PA 8 is listed as 14.5, but is listed as 15.76 in the
MTM Address discrepancy.
Response: Please see the response to comment #5.
35. On pages Ill-49 and III-55, the acreage for PA 9110 is listed as 20.5, but is listed as 27.5 in the
MTM Address discrepancy.
Response: Please see the response to comment #5.
36. On pages Ill-56 and Ill-62, the acreage for PA 11 is listed as 14. 7, but is listed as 16.22 in the
MTM Address discrepancy.
Response: Please see the response to comment #5.
37. On page lll-108, it appears PA 1 and PA 23A are represented by Lot 2 of the MTM However,
when compared, the acreages are 34.1 and 30.25, respectively. Please address why the open
space acreages between the Master Plan and the MTM do not match and how the Tamarack
connection affects these areas.
Response: Please see the response to comment #5.
38. On page II/-108, the areafor PA 23B is listed as 13.3 acres on the Master Plan, but as 7.23 acres
in the MTM Address the discrepancy.
Response: Please see the response to comment #5.
39. On page V-3, Shape/1 has recently proposed phasing the West Village as it relates to El Camino
Real improvements. Revise this phasing exhibit to include the preliminary boundaries of the
additional phasing (i.e.: phases /!fa and II!b).
Response: A newEl Camino Real Phasing exhibit (Figure V-2) on p. V-8 has been added to the MP
to address this issue.
40. On page V-7, delete or re-phrase the newly added language that states "the developer shall be
entitled to C!P funds .... ". The potential for reimbursements were previously identified in
conditions of approval for MP 02-03 and the availability/allocation of certain funds are governed
by the City's CIP program and not by language added to the Master Plan amendment. Refer to
redlines.
Response: This wording has been revised in the MP on p. V-7 to address the above comment.
lr~~p~~~~N~T~~~~NS~G=j,.-.. ,=;;.~~~
Attached are redlined check prints and technical studies of the project submittal. Please return this
check print with the submittal of revised prints and studies to facilitate continued staff review.
Landscaping:
Master Plan Amendment
Repeat Comments
1. Completed.
2. (Page III 145, l"'igul'e III 38) SH-eet tFee species tl1'e su~fect te change. See cemment #1
abe-ve. 2"" Rel·iew: The applicant has 1'espe19ded: "Please l-et us knew when the tFee pelicy
changes. " Please revise verbiage to indicate that the street tree species selection for El
Camino Real shall be as approved by the Planning Department. 3rd Review: Page III 144,
FiguFe III 38 and Page /Il-145, Figure Il/-39 -Please revised Figures, deleting Platanus
acerifo/ia in 4 locations and adding "Street trees as approved by the Planing Department".
4'h Review: Page l/1-143, Figure l/1-37 -Please revise the Figure deleting Platanus
acerifolia and adding "Street trees as approved by the Planning Department".
Response: Platanus acerifolia has been removed and the note has been added on Figure III-37 on p.
III-140 of the MP. Please bear in mind that the subject of this exhibit, Cannon Road, has already been built
and landscaped.
3. Deleted.
4-9 Completed
1 A. Page ll.J-.J.45 III-143, Figure .JJl-3.9 Il/-3 7 -Liquidambar styraciflua has been diagnosed with
a bacterial pathogen that has damaged the trees in this area. Please pi'Bvide a substitute fo1'
the LifJquidamhtl1' st}'l'aciflua in 2 Jecatiens e1' indicate "Street trees as approved by the
Planning Department". 41h Review: Page Il/-143, Figure /l/-37 and Page 1/l-146, Cannon
Road-Please revise Liquidambar styraciflua to "Street trees as approved by the Planning
Department". ·
Response: Please see Response #2 above. The note has been added to Figure III-37 even though
this roadway has already been constructed and landscaped.
2A. Page Il/-188, Figure 111-59-The trail fence has been deleted to the west of PA 13A. Please
explain. 4'h Review" Page /l/-186, Figure III-57-The trail fence has been deleted to the
west of P A 13A. Please explain.
Response: The trail fence to the west of Planning Area 23a has been removed because the trail has
been removed. The Army Corps of Engineers expressed concern to the developer and the City (Planning
Division) that this trail would cross a riparian streambed and they would prefer it be removed, particularly
in light of the parallel sidewalk along Tamarack A venue and El Camino Real. Thus, the applicant is
requesting that this trail (and the trail fence) be removed from the plan.
New Comments
lB. Please replace all figure references throughout the landscape guidelines section (i.e. Add
"Figure ll/-28" to paragraph 1 on page 111-129, etc. Check all pages and review all figure
references insuring that they are coordinated.
Response: Page references for figures have been double-checked this time.
2B. Please revise the figure reference to "III-36" on page Il/-145 for El Camino Real.
lrl ~ps:;:I:f~s~~E~~~;~Iiiiiiiiiiillr.•~111
Response: This revision has been made to reference the appropriate figure and page.
3B. Please revise the figure reference to "III-3 7" on page III-146 for Cannon Road
Response: This revision has been made to reference the appropriate figure and page.
4B. Please revise the figure reference to "III-38" on page III-148 for College Boulevard
Response: This revision has been made to reference the appropriate figure and page.
5B. Page III-147-Cannon Road Theme Tree-Please delete Pinus canariensis and Lephostemon
and replace with "Street trees as approved by the Planning Department".
Response: This change has been made at the top ofp. III-144.
Master Tentative Map
Repeat Comments
It is understood that the plans prepared are for Tentative Map review only and very conceptual in
nature. More detailed conceptual plans will be required with each Planning Area submittal. These
more detailed concept plans will be required to address all Robertson Ranch Master Plan, Landscape
Manual and City of Carlsbad Water Ordinance requirements. The Tentative Map application has not
been reviewed for all of the above requirements as the plans are too conceptual for these reviews.
1-11
12.
IA-2A
1B-2B
Completed
RETURN RED LINES and provide 2 copies of all plans for the next review.
Completed
Completed
New Comments
1C. (Sheet L-2.2) Please delete "(temporary)" from the irrigation portion of the Fire Fuel
Modification Zone B-2. Permanent irrigation is required
Response: The text on Sheet L-2.2 has been revised as requested.
Please let us know if you wish to meet to discuss any of the items in this resubmittal package.
SO~;~
Paul J. Klukas
Director of Planning
cc: Teresa Sousa
Enclosures
·~ c ~CARLSBAD
Planning Division
July 6, 2011
www.carlsbadca.gov
Paul Klukas
Planning Systems
1530 Faraday Avenue #1 00 ·
Carlsbad CA 92008
SUBJECT: 1st REVIEW FOR COP 11-10/HDP 11-02/SUP 11-03/HMP 11-04 -ECR
SOUTHBOUND WIDENING
Thank you for applying for Land Use Permits in the City of Carlsbad. The Planning Division has
reviewed your southbound El Camino Real improvements, applications no. CDP 11-1 0/HDP 11-
02/SUP 11-03/HMP 11-04, as to its completeness for processing.
The application is incomplete, as submitted. Attached are two lists. The first list is information which
must be submitted to complete your application. The second list is project issues of concern to staff.
In order to expedite the processing of your application, the "incomplete" items and your response to
the project issues of concern to Staff must be submitted directly to your staff planner; therefore,
please contact your staff planner directly to schedule a re-submittal appointment. As part of your re-
submittal package, please prepare and include with your re-submittal: (1) a copy of these lists, (2) a
detailed letter summarizing how all identified incomplete items and/or project issues have been
addressed; and (3) five (5) sets of revised plans. No processing of your application can occur until
the application is determined to be complete.
When all required materials are submitted, the City has 30 days to make a determination of
completeness. If the application is determined to be complete, processing for a decision on the
application will be initiated. In addition, please note that you have six months from the date the
application was initially filed, May 20, 2011, to either resubmit the application or submit the required
information. Failure to resubmit the application or to submit the materials necessary to determine
your application complete shall be deemed to constitute withdrawal of the application. If an
application is withdrawn or deemed withdrawn, a new application must be submitted.
At this time, the City asks that you provide 4 complete sets of the development plans so that the
project can continue to be reviewed.
In order to expedite the processing of your application, you are strongly encouraged to contact your
Staff Planner, Christer Westman, at (760) 602-4614, to discuss or to schedule a meeting to discuss
your application and to completely understand this letter. You may also contact each commenting
department individually as follows:
• Land Development Engineering Division: Jeremy Riddle, Associate Engineer, at (760) 602-
2737.
• Fire Department: Greg Ryan, Fire Inspections, at (760) 602-4661.
SQJ:w
CHRIS DeCERBO
Principal Planner
CD:CW:bd
c: Rancho Costera LLC c/o Erik Pfahler 8383 Wilshire Blvd. # 700 Beverly Hills CA 90211
Don Neu, Planning Director
Jeremy Riddle, Project Engineer
Chris DeCerbo, Principal Planner
File Copy
Data Ent
T 760-602-4600 F 760-602-8559 ®
,.,..., ""'"""'
CDP 11-10/HDP 11-02/SUP...,..,.,-03/HMP 11-04-ECR SOUTHBOUND"'mDENING
July 5, 2011
Pa e 2
LIST OF ITEMS NEEDED
TO COMPLETE THE APPLICATION
Planning:
None
Engineering:
1. Revise the exhibit to include grading quantities (cut, fill, export, import, remedial)
associated with this project. Provide this information to sheet 1.
2. Revise the exhibit to show and callout existing and proposed right-of-way for El Camino
Real. Callout by separate note the dedication of right-of-way or temporary construction
easements is required.
3. Revise the exhibits to show the preliminary locations of proposed storm drains, inlets
and discharges that will serve this project in accordance with engineering standards.
Verify the capacity of existing culverts. Show and callout the construction of the drainage
facility BFA per the Drainage Master Plan. Address the collection of drainage near
intersections. Refer to redlines.
4. Provide a drainage study that addresses sizing of storm drain infrastructure required to
collect/convey/discharge storm runoff for this project. The drainage study should include
calculations to address capacity at build-out considering upstream development (e.g.:
Robertson Ranch West Village).
5. Submit a completed Storm Water Standards Questionnaire that identifies the storm
water standards that apply to this project.
6. Prepare and submit a Storm Water Management Plan that identifies the permanent
storm water quality features required to satisfy the city's SUSMP. Demonstrate how this
project satisfies both treatment control and hydromodification (flow reduction)
requirements. Revise the exhibits to match the recommendation of the SWMP and
show/callout the permanent water quality measures that will be selected to satisfy
SUSMP requirements.
7. Revise the exhibits to show the construction of the sewer that will serve the Robertson
Ranch West Village project (CT 11-01 ). Coordinate the utility design with the sewer
study, which is currently under city review.
8. Revise the exhibits to show and callout the proposed potable water improvements
necessary to serve the Robertson Ranch West Village project {CT 11-01). Coordinate
the utility design with the potable water study, which is currently under city review.
COP 11-10/HDP 11-02/SU"'-03/HMP 11-04-ECR SOUTHBOUNQDENING
July 5, 2011
Pa e 3
ISSUES OF CONCERN
Planning:
1. A variable height retaining wall up to 20 feet is proposed south of Lisa Street. The wall's
surface will need to have a decorative treatment. A faux stone design has been used
elsewhere on El Camino Real and may be appropriate to continue using for consistency.
Please propose a design and provide details.
Engineering:
1. In the upper right hand corner of the site plan, revise the exhibits to list the application
numbers for this project. Refer to red lines.
2. We understand that El Camino Real might be constructed prior to (or independent of)
development of CT 11-01. Please confirm. Revise the site plan to clarify if the
dedication of El Camino Real (northbound) will be dedicated by separate instrument or
by final map (CT 11-01 ). If by final map, it is unclear how El Camino Real could be fully-
widened if the final map for CT 11-01 is not yet recorded. Please coordinate the timing
of these roadway improvements relative to CT 11-01.
3. Revise the design to accommodate the ultimate build out improvements for El Camino
Real. Per the city's Capital Improvement Program (CIP), revise the exhibits to include
dual left hand turn lanes on northbound El Camino Real at the intersection of Tamarack
Ave. There appears to be $286,000 allocated for this CIP project (see attached excerpt
from the 2010-11 CIP.
4. This project impacts existing adjacent properties. Please initiate contact with adjacent
property owners regarding this project widening. Work with each property owner to
identify/understand construction scope and limits. Prior to scheduling this project for
hearing, submit acknowledgements from each property owner stating they have
reviewed the grading/improvements shown on this exhibit and whether they object to
executing temporary construction easements (or right-of-way in some cases) as part of
this project. If acknowledgements cannot be secured, conditions will be added regarding
offsite acquisition and the possibility of eminent domain proceedings.
5. Provide title reports on the adjacent affected properties where construction would impact
them. Revise the exhibits to depict and callout any existing easements within the area of
work. Resolve any conflicts prior to resubmittal.
6. Provide written correspondence from SDG&E stating they have reviewed the site plan
and do not object to this project. Coordinate with them regarding
undergrounding/relocating existing overhead lines and clarify how their service roads will
be removed and/or relocated with the proposed project. Refer to redlines.
7. Provide written correspondence from the utility owner of the existing fuel lines in El
Camino Real (Kinder Morgan) stating they have reviewed the site plan and do not object
to this project. Address any conflicts prior to resubmittal.
8. Provide written correspondence from NCTD that they have reviewed this project
regarding mass transit facilities and have no objection. Revise the site plans to call out
each proposed NCTD bus stop. Clarify why southbound El Camino Real does not
include any bus stops. Is NCTD not requiring this for southbound movements?
~ ............,
COP 11-10/HDP 11-02/SUP'-rf-03/HMP 11-04-ECR SOUTHBOUND~DENING
July 5, 2011
Pa e4
9. Revise the exhibit to callout the Assessor's Parcel Numbers for all lots adjacent to El
Camino Real. Add notes to obtain property owners approval where work is proposed
outside existing right-of-way (typical).
10. Revise the exhibits to call-out any existing overhead utilities along El Camino Real. Any
existing overhead along northbound El Camino Real shall be underground to satisfy
subdivision obligations per CT 11-01. Depending on conflicts, any existing overhead
along southbound El Camino Real shall either be protected, relocated or underground as
required by SDG&E.
11. Revise the exhibit to show the El Camino Real widening improvements (CIP project
3957) just north of Tamarack Ave (DWG 460-6). Show future improvements as dashed
symbols. Ensure improvements (lane movements through intersection) proposed by this
application match with the proposed improvements to the north. Please coordinate with
John Maashoff at 760-602-2796.
12. Revise the site plan to clarify if this project will construct the free right hand turn lane on
northbound El Camino Real approaching the intersection with Cannon Rd. This
improvement work is a project in the city's Capital Improvement Program and subject to
reimbursement by the City, based on available funding.
13. Revise the exhibits to provide a 12-inch recycled waterline in El Camino Real (Cannon to
Z Street) and provide a distribution connection for Robertson Ranch West Village (CT
11-01). From Z Street to Tamarack Ave, the 12-inch can be reduced to an 8-inch
recycled waterline. Coordinate with our utilities department on master plan/design
details and potential reimbursement for over-sizing the recycled waterline.
14. Clarify the proposed grading (fill) adjacent to the proposed northbound right turn lane on
El Camino Real near station 456+00. This grading appears to encroach into the existing
conservation easement and is not shown on the Robertson Ranch West Village Master
Tentative Map. Resolve discrepancy. Revise the exhibit to callout the limits of existing
easement and record information per the Robertson Ranch West Village preliminary title
report. Will the easement need to be adjusted as part of this project? Coordinate with
planning on HMP consistency issues. ·
15. The El Camino Real southbound widening between station 470+00 and 478+00 appears
to impact driveways and parking lot improvements of the adjacent properties. Revise
the exhibit to depict the existing parking layout (stalls, drive aisles) to clarify these
impacts. Staff will need to evaluate these impacts on the next submittal.
16. Revise the site plan to show the existing and new street lights along El Camino Real.
Show the location of proposed fire hydrants. Coordinate with Fire Prevention. Refer to
redlines and revise all sheets as necessary.
17. Revise the site plan and legend to include an item for proposed ac pavement. Refer to
redlines.
18. Revise the site plan to clarify sight distance requirements at signalized intersections.
Revise the site plan to address sight distance for protected left turns. Refer to red lines.
19. Revise the site plan to callout the size and pressure zone of all existing/proposed
potable waterlines in El Camino Real.
COP 11-10/HDP 11-02/SU,Q-03/HMP 11-04-ECR SOUTHBOUNMDENING
July 5, 2011
Pa e 5
20. Revise the site plan to depict the construction of non-contiguous sidewalk along
northbound El Camino Real. The sidewalk should meander where there are
opportunities. On southbound El Camino Real, due to the constraints and to match
existing, the sidewalk should be continuous.
21. Revise the site plan to depict the proposed preliminary locations of landscape planters
as shown on the concept landscape plan. Identify potential conflicts with underground
utilities and address any discrepancies. Coordinate with each utility agency regarding
landscape over their facilities. If trees will not be accepted, revise the concept landscape
plan show low shrubs/groundcover.
22. Demonstrate that the intersection turn pocket lengths shown on this plan match the
ultimate build out projections (SANDAG 2030).
23. Revise the site plan to distinguish symbols for existing and proposed utilities. Proposed
utilities should be bold while existing utilities should be light or screened back.
24. Revise the site plan to add cross-sections at locations where there are significant grade
changes, especially next to existing adjacent development. Refer to redlines.
25. Revise the exhibits and typical cross sections to include/callout the dedication of public
pedestrian access easements where sidewalks will cross outside street right-of-way
(northbound only). ·
26. On sheet 2, clarify the paved width on northbound El Camino Real. The plan view states
41-ft, while the typical section states 44-ft. Please address this discrepancy.
27. On sheet 2, coordinate with NCTD whether the bus stop near station 445+00 must
require full offset improvements. If these improvements (grading, dedications, etc) will
trigger modifications to previous wildlife agency approvals and conservation easements,
could NCTD accept reduced bus stop improvements?
28. On sheet 2, provide storm drain infrastructure to address northerly roadway drainage on
El Camino Real leading to the Cannon Road intersection. It appears that inlets are
needed to capture storm runoff. Address sizing/capacity in the hydrology report.
29. On sheet 3, revise the plans to show/callout the existing box culvert near station 450+00
to be cleaned out (silt removed). Clarify if rip-rap is required at the headwall entrance of
the extended box culvert.
30. On sheet 3, callout the dimension of northbound El Camino Real where the road widens
for the deceleration Jane (typical where this happens).
31. On sheet 4, explain the purpose of the graded area along the south side of El Camino
Real, near station 457+00. This area appears to be graded to receive storm runoff that
leads to a minor depression. Add detail if this will serve as a water quality treatment
measure or clarify if this area can be available for future street vacation.
32. On sheet 4, clarify the vertical clearance between the proposed retaining wall footing
and the top of existing fuel line. Callout the size of the existing fuel line. Verify no
conflicts with utility owner and resolve prior to resubmittal. Revise the exhibit to clarify
the grading/improvements proposed behind the wall (drainage swale, fences, etc.).
Coordinate with property owners.
,-.. .,..-...,.
COP 11-10/HDP 11-02/SUP'-rr-03/HMP 11-04-ECR SOUTHBOUND~DENING
July.5, 2011
Pa e 6
33. On sheet 4 or 5, provide a cross-section through the proposed retaining wall supporting
adjacent properties. The cross-section should demonstrate changes in grade necessary
to widen El Camino Real.
34. On sheet 4 and 5, considering the existing constraints and adjacent structures, revise
the exhibit to clarify if a type of retaining wall has been selected along southbound El
Camino Real. Per the geotechnical report additional soil test are required to obtain
certain design parameters, depending on the retaining wall. If they are minor, this can be
deferred with submittal of construction documents.
35. On sheet 4 and 5, consider the worst case scenario for temporary cut-back slopes
necessary to construct the retaining wall and clarify if the limit of work can accommodate
this construction approach. Coordinate with the geotechnical report and address with
next submittal.
36. On sheet 4 and 5, dash the future driveway improvements to be constructed by CT 11-
01. Refer to redlines.
37. On sheet 5, the location of the proposed storm drain appears to be located directly over
a fuel line. Verify this alignment presents the least conflicts and revise exhibit to resolve
any discrepancies. Refer to redlines.
38. On sheet 5, the intersection of El Camino Real and Lisa Street will be a signalized.
Therefore, the location of the retaining wall need not be adjusted for sight distance for
protected left turns. The sight distance for right turns (looking north on El Camino Real)
still applies. Refer to redlines.
39. On sheet 6, revise the storm drain design that discharges additional runoff to the area
behind the country stores (no available excess capacity). Per our previous meeting, this
area is to be improved by installing facility BFA per the Drainage Master Plan. Staff will
evaluate the storm drain design on the next submittal. Provide a hydrology report that
supports the preliminary storm drain layout.
40. On sheet 6, near the country stores provide additional details and/or a cross-section of
the re-adjusted driveways to clearly show the extent of parking/circulation impacts to the
adjacent development. Call-out whether parking stalls will be removed/relocated as part
of the street widening project. Consider installing alley-type driveways to ease traffic
flow into the adjacent property from El Camino Real. Refer to redlines.
41. On sheet 6, clarify the discharge location of the existing culverts in El Camino Real that
appear to collect water from Robertson Ranch West Village area. Clarify if this storm
drain might connect into Drainage Master Plan facility BFA. Refer to redlines.
42. On sheet 6, depict the slope drains per CT 11-01 and clarify what storm drain they will
drain to.
43. On sheet 6 and 7, revise the exhibit to show and callout the existing overhead utilities
along southbound El Camino Real. Refer to redlines. Revise the exhibits to clarify
whether they will be protected in place, relocated, or placed underground. Coordinate
with SDG&E.
CDP 11-10/HDP 11-02/SU~-03/HMP 11-04-ECR SOUTHBOUNDQDENING
July 5, 2011
Pa e 7
44. On sheet 6 and 7, it is our understanding the Utilities Department will require the existing
drop-manhole on the sewer in El Camino Real to be removed. These comments will be
forwarded as part of CT 11-01 review. With reconstruction, this allows for an opportunity
to relocate the replaced sewer outside the median. This will allow for median trees for El
Camino Real. Coordinate with the sewer master plan comments per CT 11-01. Refer to
redlines.
45. On sheet 7, it is our understanding the southern right-of-way line for El Camino Real is
not parallel to the centerline. Revise the exhibit to show and callout the existing right-of-
way for El Camino Real and add references to record maps that created the right-of-
way.
46. On sheet 8, callout that the signal at Kelly Dr and El Camino Real will be modified as
part of this project to accommodate the full width improvements.
47. On sheet 8, revise the exhibit to clarify the culvert extension near station 483+00.
Although these are existing dual storm drains, the extension shows a single culvert. The
drainage study should demonstrate the capacity of this existing facility. The study
should also clarify the rip-rap sizing of the discharge. Depict the limits of 1 00-year
inundation entering and exiting this facility.
48. On sheet 10, callout that the signal at Tamarack Ave and El Camino Real will be
modified as part of this project to accommodate the full width improvements.
49. On sheet 10, callout that the existing 10-inch sewer shall be protected at the corner of
Tamarack Ave and El Camino Real.
Landscape:
1. See attachment from Mike Elliott, Contract Landscape Architect, for comments on the
landscape plans. The attachment includes a set of redline plans.
_df~A_ C I T Y 0 F
VcARLSBAD
Planning Division
July 5, 2012
Paul Klukas
Planning Systems
1530 Faraday Avenue #100
Carlsbad CA 92008
~ l\S\12/
FILE COPY
www.carlsbadca.gov
SUBJECT: GPA 11-07 /MP 02-03(C)/CT 11-01/HDP 11-01/SUP 11-02/HMP 11-03 -ROBERTSON
RANCH WEST VILLAGE -CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
APPLICABILITY /PROCESS DETERMINATION
This is to advise you that after reviewing the application for the project referenced above, the City has
determined that the following environmental review process (pursuant to CEQA) will be required for the
project:
[gl The project is subject to the provisions of CEQA. Based on the City's analysis of the proposed
project, the following CEQA documentation/process is required for the project (fees effective
January 1, 2012):
(gl A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION {MND) will be prepared for the project pursuant
to the provisions of CEQA. Please submit the Environmental Impact Assessment Fee of
$2151.50 {$892 single family lot) for the continued processing of the CEQA
documentation.
A Notice of Determination will be filed after approval of the project with the San Diego
County Clerk's Office which involves a filing fee. Please submit a check to the project
planner in the amount of $50.00 made out to the San Diego County Clerk. The check
should be submitted approximately one week prior to the Planning Commission
hearing date.
For additional information related to this CEQA applicability/process determination, please contact the
project planner, Christer Westman, at (760) 602-4614 or christer.westman@carlsbadca.gov.
[I~
DON NEU, AICP
City Planner
DN: CW:bd
c: Rancho Costera LLC c/o Teresa Sousa 8383 Wilshire Boulevard #700 Beverly Hills CA 90211
Chris DeCerbo
Jeremy Riddle, Project Engineer
File Copy
Data Entry
1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 T 760-602-4600 F 760-602-8559
~~ 4~ CITY OF
VcARLSBAD
c
Planning Division
June 19, 2012
www.carlsbadca.gov
Paul Klukas
Planning Systems
1530 Faraday Avenue #100
Carlsbad CA 92008
SUBJECT: 4th REVIEW FOR GPA 11-07/MP 02-03(C)/CT 11-01/HDP 11-01/SUP 11-02/HMP 11-03 -
ROBERTSON RANCH WEST VILLAGE
Thank you for applying for Land Use Permits in the City of Carlsbad. The Planning Division has reviewed your
Master Plan Amendment and other land use development permit applications no. GPA 11-07 /MP 02-03(C)/CT
11-01/HDP 11-01/SUP 11-02/HMP 11-03, as to its completeness for processing.
All of the items requested of you earlier have not been received and therefore your application is still deemed
incomplete. Please note that the proposed legislative actions (General Plan Amendment and Master Plan
Amendment) are not subject to the California Permit Streamlining Act (Title 7, Division 1, Chapter 4.5 of the
California Government Code). Likewise, the other quasi-judicial actions that are being processed concurrently
with these legislative actions must remain incomplete until the legislative actions are approved by the City
Council. Staff will continue to concurrently process and take the development applications to the decision
making bodies together and in an order by which the applications can be decided upon. The City may, in the
course of processing the application, request that you clarify, amplify, correct, or otherwise supplement the
basic information required for the application. In addition, you should also be aware that various design issues
may exist. These issues must be addressed before this application can be scheduled for a hearing.
Listed below are the additional item(s) still needed in order to process the application. In order to expedite the
processing of your application, the "incomplete" items and your response to the project issues of concern to
Staff must be submitted directly to your staff planner; therefore, please contact your staff planner directly to
schedule a re-submittal appointment. Please prepare and include with your re-submittal: (1) a copy of this list;
(2) a detailed letter summarizing how all identified incomplete items have been addressed; and (3) five (5) sets
of revised plans. In order to expedite the processing of your application, you are strongly encouraged to contact
your Staff Planner, Christer Westman, at (760) 602-4614, to discuss or to schedule a meeting to discuss your
application and to completely understand this letter. You may also contact each commenting department
individually as follows:
• Land Development Engineering Division: Jeremy Riddle, Associate Engineer, at (760) 602-2737.
• Fire Department: Gregory Ryan, Fire Inspections, at (760) 602-4661.
Sincerely,
~feceJo
CHRIS DeCERBO
Principal Planner
CD:CW:bd
c: Rancho Costera LLC c/o Teresa Sousa 8383 Wilshire Blvd.# 700 Beverly Hills CA 90211
Don Neu, Planning Director
Jeremy Riddle, Project Engineer
Chris DeCerbo, Principal Planner
File Copy
Data Entry
enclosure
1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 T 760-602-4600 F 760-602-8559 ®
~' ~
"" ....,) MP 02.:03{C)/CT 11-01/HDP 11-01/SUP 11-02/HMP 11-03-ROBERTSON RANCH WEST VILLAGE , I , June .. 1~, 2Q;t2.
Pa e 2
LIST OF ITEMS NEEDED
TO COMPLETE THE APPLICATION
Planning:
1. Approval of legislative actions.
Engineering:
1. Approval of this project is contingent on demonstrating compliance with the improvement
conditions for El Camino Real per PC Resolution 6106. Concurrent applications (COP 11-10, etc)
are being processed for El Camino Real improvements. This item will be resolved once these
applications for El Camino Real are either scheduled for public hearing simultaneously with this CT
application or taken forward for public hearing and approved in advance of this project.
ISSUES OF CONCERN
Planning:
1. See the enclosed redlined copy of the Master Plan for requested revisions, deletions, and
additions
2. The Habitat Management Plan Permit (HMP 11-03) review is being coordinated with the
appropriate resource agencies. There are no issues comments available at this time.
3. There are no Planning Division issues or comments on the Special Use Permit.
4. A retaining wall shown on Sheet 9 reaches 14 feet at its tallest point. The extreme height is
caused by a jog in the pedestrian path. Elimination of the jog in the pedestrian path will result in
eliminating the need for the extreme retaining wall height.
5. Each of the retaining walls facing Tamarack must be appropriately screened. Screen methods may
include wall material, landscape, and/or texture.
6. Offsite RV storage (outside of the boundaries ofthe Master Pan) is not supported by staff.
7. Commercial rental of required RV storage spaces is not supported by staff.
Engineering:
1. Trail linkages have been added to several sheets though out various Planning Area's (PA's). Revise
the MTM so that the trail is shown as 'future'. Having the trail built now seems premature in
advance of trail easements, precise grading, and future construction. It makes sense they would
be constructed concurrently with the future 'b' maps. Refer to the red lines.
2. On sheet 1 of the MTM, revise the legend description to clarify that bioretention basins shall be
HOA-maintained but included within an IOD to the city for public drainage purposes. A footnote
may be more useful to describe this or other conditions.
3. The Tamarack Avenue connection is described as Street 'J' in the MTM, but is referred to as Street
'Y' in the Master Plan. Please address this discrepancy.
c 0
MP 02-03(C)/CT 11-01/HDP 11-01/SUP 11-02/HMP 11-03-ROBERTSON RANCH WEST VILLAGE
June 19, 2012
Pa e 3
4. It is our understanding lot 2 will be designated as an open space lot. Revise the MTM to ensure
that constructing the Tamarack connection over lot 2 will not be a conflict in the future, when it is
. needed. To address this, expand Lot 3 to include the future right-of-way of Street 'J' to Tamarack
Ave. Or revise the MTM to show a proposed IOD for public road and public utility purposes over
Street 'J' that can be accepted once Street 'J' is improved.
5. The acreages for several PA's on the MTM do not match the acreages in the Master Plan. Refer to
redlines and address these discrepancies.
6. Add slope percentage throughout the rough grading areas per the red line comments (typical).
7. On sheet 4, call out the storm drain that collects private slope runoff as private HOA-maintained.
Call out the drainage easement as private. Refer to redlines.
8. On sheets 4 and 5, add the lot dimensions for the proposed lots that were on the previous
submittal.
9. On sheets 4 and 5, call out the proposed dedication for Glasgow Drive and Edinburgh Drive per the
red lines.
10. On sheets 4 and 5, add the correct reference to sheet 14 for the detail on bioretention areas.
Refer to red lines.
11. On sheet 6, call out pedestrian railing where the future trail is adjacent to high retaining walls (see
14-ft high wall for example). Refer to the Master Plan for trail fence details. Show in a detail or
cross-section.
12. On sheets 8, 11 and 14, call out the storm drain that collects private slope runoff as a private HOA-
maintained storm drain. Refer to red lines.
13. On sheets 8-10 and 13, add a note that explains how storm drains within future streets will be
constructed to city standards, but privately maintained until such time that the streets are
constructed and accepted by the city in the future.
14. On sheets 9, 11, 13 and 14, add top-of-wall and bottom-of-wall elevations to the new/revised
retaining walls. Refer to red lines.
15. On sheets 4, 6, 9, and 11, clarify if over-excavation will also be required along the revised retaining
walls/slopes near perimeter boundaries. Refer to red lines.
16. On sheet 9, add D-75 swales to collect slope drainage where the slope grading daylights with
natural slopes. Refer to red lines.
17. On sheet 9, show and call out the proposed public drainage easements over the storm drains
carrying runoff under the future Tamarack connection.
18. On sheet 9, revise the lot 3 boundary or provide IOD information to address the future
construction of the Tamarack connection as previously mentioned.
19. On sheet 13, show the proposed storm drain that conveys slope runoff and discharges near the
SDG&E easement. Verify SDG&E does not object to this drainage outfall near its existing to\Ner.
Refer to red lines.
20. On sheets 13~15, clarify how the pedestrians will use a trail that also serves a slope drain. How
high is the proposed retaining wall? Will a pedestrian railing be required? Add a detail or cross-
section to clarify.
~ ..,......,,
MP 02-03(C)/CT 11-01/HDP 11-01/SUP 11-02/HMP 11-03-ROBERTSON RANCH WEST VILLAGE
June 19, 2012
Pa e 4
21. On sheets 15-16 and 18, call out the proposed lot dimensions that were on the previous MTM.
Refer to red lines.
22. On sheet 17, clarify ifthe acreage for lot 12 excludes the area of additional dedication required for
El Camino Real. If not, list the net acreage for open space on the MTM and in the Master Plan.
23. On sheet 17, callout the proposed lot dimensions for lot 12. Refer to red lines.
24. On sheet 20, revise the phasing exhibits to address the city comments sent via a memo to Shapell,
dated May 2, 2012.
25. For additional comments, refer to the red lines.
Master Plan
26. On page 1-20, the Tamarack connection is described as Street 'Y', which is also called Street 'J' on
the MTM. Please address the discrepancy between these documents.
27. On page 11-20, we have listed the acreage for each PA as compared to the MTM. Please address
the discrepancies in acreages for each PA.
28. On pages 111-2 and 111-3, clarify whether the acreage/use for this PA includes/excludes the
Tamarack connection or will PA 3 be modified to include the future right-of-way of the Tamarack
connection. Revise the narrative to address which PA will allow for the future road/utility
improvements for this road segment.
29. On page 111-8, the acreage for PA 2 is listed as 2.0, but is listed as 2.4 in the MTM. Address
discrepancy.
30. On pages 111-10 and 111-17, the acreage for PA 3 is listed as 16.0, but is listed as 18.22 in the MTM.
On page 111-10, clarify if the Tamarack connection should be Street 'Y' or Street 'J'. Address
discrepancy.
31. On pages 111-22 and 111-26, the acreage for PA 5 is listed as 11.0, but is listed as 13.5 in the MTM.
Address these discrepancies.
32. On pages 111-27 and 111-32, the acreage for PA 6 is listed as 18.3, but is listed as 21.2 in the MTM.
On page 111-27, clarify that the secondary access for PA 5 will be provided by the Tamarack
connection versus the right-in, right-out along El Camino Real. Address these discrepancies.
33. On pages 111-33 and 111-40, the acreage for PA 7 is listed as 715, but is listed as 7.7 in the MTM.
Address discrepancy.
34. On pages 111-41 and 111-47, the acreage for PA 8 is listed as 14.5, but is listed as 15.76 in the MTM.
Address discrepancy.
35. On pages 111-49 and Ill-55, the acreage for PA 9/10 is listed as 20.5, but is listed as 27.5 in the
MTM. Address discrepancy.
36. On pages 111-56 and 111-62, the acreage for PA 11 is listed as 14.7, but is listed as 16.22 in the MTM.
Address discrepancy.
37. On page 111-108, it appears PA 1 and PA 23A are represented by Lot 2 of the MTM. However, when
compared, the acreages are 34.1 and 30.25, respectively. Please address why the open space
acreages between the Master Plan and the MTM do not match and how the Tamarack connection
affects these areas.
38. On page 111-108, the area for PA 23B is listed as 13.3 acres on the Master Plan, but as 7.23 acres in
the MTM. Address the discrepancy.
c ~
MP 02-03(C)/CT 11-01/HDP 11-01/SUP 11-02/HMP 11-03-ROBERTSON RANCH WEST VILLAGE
June 19, 2012
Pa e 5
39.
40.
On page V-3, Shapell has recently proposed phasing the West Village as it relates to El Camino
Real improvements. Revise this phasing exhibit to include the preliminary boundaries of the
additional phasing (i.e.: phases lila and lllb).
"I On page V-7, delete or re-phrase the newly added language that states "the developer shall be
entitled to CIP funds .... ". The potential for reimbursements were previously identified in
conditions of approval for MP 02-03 and the availability/allocation of certain funds are governed
by the City's CIP program and not by language added to the Master Plan amendment. Refer to
red lines.
Attached are redlined check prints and technical studies of the project submittal. Please return this
check print with the submittal of revised prints and studies to facilitate continued staff review.
Landscape:
Please refer to the enclosed memorandum dated June 4, 2012 from Michael Elliott.
.4f~A,. C I T Y 0 F
0 0 M lv..0d u (12-\I 1'1-
VcARLSBAD FILE COPY
Planning Division www.carlsbadca.gov
June 19, 2012
Janet Stuckrath
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
6010 Hidden Valley Road, Suite 101
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Stephanie Rihl
California Department of Fish and Game
3883 Ruffin Road
San Diego, CA 92123
SUBJECT: ROBERTSON RANCH WEST VILLAGE-NOTICE OF EQUIVALENCY FINDING
Dear Ms. Stuckrath and Ms. Rihl:
This letter is a notification to the Wildlife Agencies of an Equivalency Finding for the Hard line Preserve at
Robertson Ranch West Village. Attached is a report detailing the preserve boundary revisions and
analyzing their consistency with the City's Habitat Management Plan (HMP). In summary, the preserve
boundary revisions will result in the conservation of more acreage of coastal and valley freshwater
marsh, southern willow scrub, and coastal sage scrub habitats not currently within the Robertson Ranch
portion of the HMP hardline preserve system. The revised design will also preserve a small riparian
feature previously designated for development. All linkages contained within the previous preserve
design will remain.
Pursuant to Section E.3 of the HMP, this notification begins a 30 day review period and, unless the
Wildlife Agencies object to the revised preserve design, the changes will be considered approved.
Please contact the project planner, Christer Westman, at 760-602-4614 or
christer.westman@carlsbadca.gov or the HMP Coordinator, Mike Grim, at 760-602-4623 or
mike.gim@carlsbadca.gov if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
DON NEU, AICP
City Planner
enc
c: Jeremy Riddle, Associate Engineer
Mike Grim, HMP Coordinator
Christer Westman, Senior Planner
Rosanne Humphrey, ESA
Paul Klukas, Planning Systems
1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 T 760-602-4600 F 760-602-8559 ®
c 0
~ountp of ~an 1!\iego
JACKMLLER
DIRECTOR
April26,2012
Mr. John Buller
Shapell Homes
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
LAND AND WATER QUAUTY DIVISION
P.O. BOX 129261, SAN DIEGO, CA 12112-9261
858-505-6700/1-800-253-99 33
www.sdcdeh.org
8383 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 700
Beverly Hills, California 90211
Dear Mr. Buller:
PROPERTY MITIGATION PLAN ADDENDUM RESPONSE LETIER
VOLUNTARY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM CASE #H39768-001
RANCHO COSTERA (FORMERLY ROBERTSON WEST RANCH)
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92010
City of Carlsbad
APR 3 0 2012
Community & Economic
Development Department
ELIZABETH POZZEBON
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
Staff of the County of San Diego, Department of Environmental Health (DEH), Site Assessment
and Mitigation Program (SAM) reviewed the Response to DEH Review and Addendum to
Property Mitigation Plan (PMP) for the above-referenced site. The submittal was prepared by
GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI), and uploaded to GeoTracker on March 9, 2012.
The PMP addendum addresses specific review comments that were provided on Page 3 of
DEH's letter dated November 23, 2011, regarding 1) the method used to select soil verification
sampling locations and the number of samples to be collected; 2) documentation of
correspondence related to the City of Carlsbad permitting process; 3) analytical data for soil
samples previously collected in Planning Area (PA)-13, 4) storm water pollution prevention plan
requirements, and 5) updating the appended Community Health and Safety Plan.
However, the addendum does not address the PMP comments provided on Page 2 of DEH's
letter. Specifically, details regarding operation of temporary weather stations and air particulate
sampling during remedial activities and the installation of marker material over toxaphene-
contaminated soil are not provided. DEH requires that an additional letter addendum be
submitted to address these items.
Also, the Community Health and Safety Plan requires additional revision:
1. The discussion of contaminant characteristics (page 2) primarily describes the properties
and potential health effects of toxaphene as a manufactured pesticide product. DEH
acknowledges that little information is available on the characteristics of toxaphene when
adhered to soil particles. The discussion should clearly make the distinction. Also, it
should be stated that no air standards have been promulgated for toxaphene as a
pesticide product or when it is present in dust. However, the California Human Health
Screening Levels for soil do provide guidance as to the threshold concentrations to be
considered when evaluating the potential effects of a contaminant from multiple
exposure routes (i.e., dermal contact, inhalation, ingestion).
"Environmental and public health through leadership, partnership and science"
c 0
Mr. John Buller -2-April26,2012
2. The •Monitoring• discussion shall be updated to state that air particulate samples will be
collected at the site perimeter and periodically tested for pesticides. [Please note that air
particulate sampling alone will not satisfy requirements associated with County Air
Pollution Control District (ACPD) Rule 55. Adequate watering of the site for dust
suppression purposes, per the Community Health and Safety Plan, should address
APCD requirements}.
3. The ·eest Management Practices• discussion shall be accompanied by a site map that
shows the types of BMPs that would be employed at specific locations in the event of a
runoff-producing precipitation event during remedial excavation and grading operations.
Please submit the additional letter addendum and revised Community Health and Safety Plan to
DEH by June 1, 2012.
If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned at (858) 505-6896.
Sincerely,
CAROL A. FENNER, PG #7223
Environmental Health Specialist II
Site Assessment and Mitigation Program
cc: John Franklin, GeoSoils, Inc. J Christer Westman, City of Carlsbad
H3976~11VAP0412
Planning Division
December 6, 2011
Paul Klukas
Planning Systems
1530 Faraday Avenue #100
Carlsbad CA 92008
www.carlsbadca.gov
SUBJECT: 3rd REVIEW FOR GPA 11-07/MP 02-03(C)/CT 11-01/HDP 11-01/SUP 11-02/HMP 11-03 -
ROBERTSON RANCH WEST VILLAGE
Thank you for applying for Land Use Permits in the City of Carlsbad. The Planning Division has reviewed your
Master Plan Amendment and other land use development permit applications no. GPA 11-07/MP 02-
03(C)/CT 11-01/HDP 11-01/SUP 11-02/HMP 11-03, as to its completeness for processing.
All of the items requested of you earlier have not been received and therefore your application is still
deemed incomplete. Please note that the proposed legislative actions (General Plan Amendment and Master
Plan Amendment) are not subject to the California Permit Streamlining Act (Title 7, Division 1, Chapter 4.5 of
the California Government Code). Likewise, the other quasi-judicial actions that are being processed
concurrently with these legislative actions must remain incomplete until the legislative actions are approved
by the City Council. Staff will continue to concurrently process and take the development applications to the
decision making bodies together and in an order by which the applications can be decided upon. The City
may, in the course of processing the application, request that you clarify, amplify, correct, or otherwise
supplement the basic information required for the application. In addition, you should also be aware that
various design issues may exist. These issues must be addressed before this application can be scheduled for
a hearing.
Listed below are the additional item(s) still needed in order to process the application. In order to expedite
the processing of your application, the "incomplete" items and your response to the project issues of concern
to Staff must be submitted directly to your staff planner; therefore, please contact your staff planner directly
to schedule a re-submittal appointment. Please prepare and include with your re-submittal: (1) a copy of
this list; (2) a detailed letter summarizing how all identified incomplete items have been addressed; and (3)
five (5) sets of revised plans. In order to expedite the processing of your application, you are strongly
encouraged to contact your Staff Planner, Christer Westman, at (760) 602-4614, to discuss or to schedule a
meeting to discuss your application and to completely understand this letter. You may also contact each
commenting department individually as follows:
• Land Development Engineering Division: Jeremy Riddle, Associate Engineer, at (760) 602-2737.
• Fire Department: Gregory Ryan, Fire Inspections, at (760) 602-4661.
s~(}2G~
CHRIS DeCERBO
Principal Planner
CD:CW:bd
c: Rancho Costera LLC c/o Erik Pfahler 8383 Wilshire Blvd.# 700 Beverly Hills CA 90211
Don Neu, Planning Director
Jeremy Riddle, Project Engineer
Chris DeCerbo, Principal Planner
File Copy
Data Entry
enclosure
1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 T 760-602-4600 F 760-602-8559
!""'\ ~-MP 02-03(C)/CT 11-01/HDP U . .......fSUP 11-02/HMP 11-03-ROBERTSON RAI\.._....-WEST VILLAGE
December 6, 2011
Pa e 2
LIST OF ITEMS NEEDED
TO COMPLETE THE APPLICATION
Planning:
1. Approval of legislative actions.
Engineering:
1. Approval of this project is contingent on demonstrating compliance with the improvement
conditions for El Camino Real per PC Resolution 6106. It is our understanding that a separate
concurrent application (COP 11-10, etc) will address how these other conditions will be satisfied.
Please continue to process these applications concurrently as they are inter-related to this
project.
ISSUES OF CONCERN
Planning:
1. See the enclosed redlined copy of the Master Plan for requested revisions, deletions, and
additions
2. The Habitat Management Plan Permit (HMP 11-03) review is being coordinated with the
appropriate resource agencies. There are no issues comments available at this time.
3. There are no Planning Division issues or comments on the Tentative Tract Map, Hillside
Development Permit, or Special Use Permit.
Engineering:
1. The potable water system layout has changed since the last review. From our review, the 349
pressure zone will be energized from the pressure reducing station in PA 9/10 and the Tamarack
Ave connection. With the MTM improvements, neither of these connections is proposed,
rendering no availability of water to the 349 zone. If this happens, Planning Areas 7, 8 and 11
will not have access to potable water until the service connections are made with future
development. Please clarify if the Developer understands this constraint or revise the potable
water study/MTM to address this issue.
2. Revise the MTM to delete the all-weather access roads that were added over the 16" waterline
and sewer (PA 11) traversing the project.
3. On sheet 4, revise the MTM to clarify the offsite grading on lot 30 of Map no. 9935 as necessary
to extend Glasgow Dr. The current MTM appears to show unnecessary grading into lot 30 that
would not be needed to construct the road. Refer to red lines.
4. On sheet 4, revise the MTM to callout the alternate grading to be coordinated with the property
owner for lot 1 of Map no. 9935. The alternative grading appears to expand into the existing
open space easement per Parcel Map No. 12907. Clarify whether planning supports this grading
and revise the MTM as necessary.
MP 02-03(C)/CT 11-01/HDP 1QSUP 11-02/HMP 11-03-ROBERTSON RArOwEST VILLAGE
December 6, 2011
Pa e 3
5. On sheet 4 revise the MTM to show the setback from the top of slope per city standards.
6. On sheet 8 (repeat comment), clarify the limits of grading necessary to construct the retaining
walls and new fill slopes that are contacting native soils. Consider the over-excavation (remedial
grading) required for the retaining wall footing and whether the limits of grading will expand
into lot 10 (preserve open space lot). Coordinate with the soils report and revise the MTM to
address.
7. On sheet 10, callout the hydromodification basin as "future' that will treat Street M, once it is
constructed. Revise the MTM to show the installation of a desiltation basin at the low end of
Street M near Tamarack to address sedimentation from runoff as part of rough grading.
8. On sheet 13, revise the MTM to show the proposed 100-year flood line on PA 1 near the entry
to El Camino Real opposite of Kelly Dr. It appears the inundation line will shift after the fill
grading for the entry drive. Refer to red lines.
9. On sheet 17, the sewer depth on lot 11 has changed. Revise the MTM to provide a 30-ft wide
sewer easement over the deep sewer on lot 11. Refer to redlines.
10. On sheet 19, the storm drain alignment serving lot 13 has changed. Constructing a temporary
storm drain to drain through the future park site is not supported. Revise the MTM to so the
storm drain is constructed within the preliminary future street towards Wind Trail Way. Add
notes that the alignment shall be coordinated with the Fire Station # 3 project and determined
in final design.
11. For additional comments, refer to the redlines.
Preliminary Hydrology Study
12. This study is acceptable for discretionary purposes. However, staff has identified issues to be
addressed at final design. With regard to the 100-year flood lines near confluences, staff will ask
further clarification with regard to slope adjustments on initial sub areas, using improved
channel calculations for natural overland flow, n-value assumptions for open space areas and
natural channels, and comparisons of pre-development and post-development basin flows to
assure downstream channels can handle the 100-year storm event flows.
Preliminary Storm Water Management Plan
13. Revise the preliminary SWMP exhibits and calculations to address the bioretention sizing
required to treat the new impervious surface for Z Street. Refer to red lines.
14. Please address the other redline comments on the study and resubmit three (3) new copies for
staff review.
Preliminary Water Analysis
15. Please address the redline comments on the study and resubmit three (3) new copies for staff
review.
,..,... -""""'
MP 02-03(C)/CT 11-01/HDP l:k....i/SUP 11-02/HMP 11-03-ROBERTSON RA~EST VILLAGE
December 6, 2011
Pa e 4
Preliminary Sewer Study
16. Please address the redline comments on the study and resubmit three (3) new copies for staff
review.
Attached are redlined check prints and technical studies of the project submittal. Please return this
check print with the submittal of revised prints and studies to facilitate continued staff review. If you
have any questions, please call me at 602-2737.
(~4)-CITY OF ~.~CARLSBAD
c
Planning Division
November 30, 2011
Janet Stuckrath
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
6010 Hidden Valley Road, Suite 101
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Libby Lucas
California Department of Fish and Game
3883 Ruffin Road
San Diego, CA 92123
0
SUBJECT: ROBERTSON RANCH WEST VILLAGE-NOTICE OF EQUIVALENCY FINDING
Dear Ms. Stuckrath and Ms. Lucas:
M~ H\?o )t\
FILE COPY
www.carlsbadca.gov
This letter is a notification to the Wildlife Agencies of an Equivalency Finding for the Hardline Preserve at
Robertson Ranch West Village. Attached is a report detailing the preserve boundary revisions and
analyzing their consistency with the City's Habitat Management Plan (HMP). In summary, the preserve
boundary revisions will result in the conservation of more acreage of coastal and valley freshwater marsh,
southern willow scrub, and coastal sage scrub habitats not currently within the Robertson Ranch portion
of the HMP hardline preserve system. The revised design will also preserve a small riparian feature
previously designated for development. All linkages contained within the previous preserve design will
remain.
Pursuant to Section E.3 of the HMP, this notification begins a 30 day review period and, unless the Wildlife
Agencies object to the revised preserve design, the changes will be considered approved. Please contact
the project planner, Christer Westman, at 760-602-4614 or christer.westman@carlsbadca.gov or the HMP
Administrator, Mike Grim, at 760-602-4623 or mike.grim@carlsbadca.gov if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Q>t
DON NEU, AICP
Planning Director
Attachment
c: Jeremy Riddle, Associate Engineer
Mike Grim, HMP Administrator
Christer Westman, Senior Planner
Rosanne Humphrey, ESA
Paul Klukas, Planning Systems
~·~~--------------------------------------------------------------,, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 T 760-602-4600 F 760-602-8559 ®
JACK MILLER
DIRECTOR
Mr. John Buller
Shapell Homes
c
Qtountp of ~an J!liego
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
LAND AND WATER QUALITY DIVISION
P.O. BOX 129261, SAN DIEGO, CA 92112-9261
8 58-505-6 700/1-800-253-99 3 3
www.sdcdeh.org
8383 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 700
Beverly Hills, California 90211
Dear Mr. Buller:
PROPERTY MITIGATION PLAN RESPONSE LETTER
VOLUNTARY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM CASE #H39768-001
RANCHO COSTERA (FORMERLY ROBERTSON WEST RANCH)
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92010
ELIZABETH POZZEBON
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
Staff of the County of San Diego, Department of Environmental Health (DEH), Site Assessment
and Mitigation Program (SAM) reviewed the Property Mitigation Plan (PMP) for the above-
referenced site, which was prepared by GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI), and uploaded to GeoTracker on
October 11, 2011. The purpose of this letter is to notify the Responsible Party of the conditional
approval of the PMP.
The former 201-acre Robertson Ranch is slated for development with single-and-multi-family
residences, as well as commercial, recreational, and open space areas, and their associated
roadways and infrastructure. The property was subdivided into various planning areas (PAs) in
accordance with proposed land uses: single-family residences in PA-1, PA-3, PA-5, PA-6, PA-
9, and PA-10; multi-family residences in PA-7 and PA-8; non-residential RV storage in PA-2; a
park in PA-4; a commercial area in PA-11; and open space in PA-23A/23B.
Toxaphene-impacted soils are present in portions of the former ranch property as a result of
prior agricultural use. Site assessment and mitigation activities associated with the commercial
area (PA-11), located in the southeastern portion of the property (Plate 1 of the PMP), were
performed under DEH VAP case #H39717-001. Assessment of PA-12 and PA-13 (also shown
on Plate 1) was apparently performed under #H39700-001. [It should be noted that PA-12 (the
site of a former nursery as well as agricultural use) and PA-13 (portions of which were formerly
used for agricultural purposes) were originally designated as community-use sites for
construction of a park and a school, respectively. However, according to the PMP, the
proposed use of PA-13 has changed and is now slated for "future residential development." It is
DEH's understanding that construction of a school is no longer planned for Rancho Costera].
The areal and vertical extent of toxaphene-impacted soils in the planning areas slated for
proposed single-or multi-family residential areas (PA-1, PA-3, and PA-5 through PA-10) were
assessed by GSI based on analytical results for soil samples collected in 2007, 2010, and 2011.
[It should be noted that the PMP does not provide or discuss analytical data for PA-13]. During
these sampling events, a total of 90 soil samples were collected from 30 locations at depths
ranging from 0.5 to 4.0 feet below ground surface (bgs). Toxaphene, an organochlorine
pesticide, was detected in 22 of the soil sampies at concentrations that equaled or exceeded its
California Human Health Screening Level (CHHSL) of 0.46 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg).
"Environmental and public health through leadership, partnership and science"
c 0
Mr. John Buller -2-November 23, 2011
The organochlorine pesticides DOD, ODE, DDT, and heptaclor were also detected in some of
the samples, but at concentrations less than their respective CHHSLs.
The PMP describes the proposed remedial measures for the proposed residential planning
areas, the monitoring program to be implemented during remedial activities, best management
practices, verification sampling, and a community health and safety plan.
As described in the PMP, the proposed mitigation is comp1·ised of the following tasks:
1. Remove site structures.
2. Irrigate the proposed remedial grading areas to minimize dust generation.
3. Excavate the toxaphene-impacted soils and stockpile them onsite, adding water as
needed during grading to minimize dust generation and to obtain the proper moisture
content for compaction.
4. Collect verification samples at "random representative locations" at a frequency of "one
or two per impacted area;" if a sample result equal or exceeds the toxaphene CHHSL,
additional excavation and sampling would be performed.
5. Collect additional verification samples at 15 randomly-selected locations at various
depths to a maximum depth of 3 feet below grade.
6. Place the toxaphene-impacted soils in excavated areas near the proposed "landbridge"
at the property and along proposed streets in thEl south-central portion of the property;
the top of the impacted soil would be 12 feet or more below design finished grade and a
minimum of two feet below any proposed utility line or drainage structure; the base of the
impacted soil would be at least 5 feet above the gmundwater table, which is estimated to
be at an elevation of 45 feet above MSL and
7. Cap the impacted soils with a minimum of 12 feet of clean soil.
DEH comments on the PMP are provided below:
• Temporary weather stations shall be placed at three locations along the property
perimeter during remedial grading operations. One of the stations shall be equipped
with the equipment necessary to monitor and record temperature, wind speed and
direction, and precipitation volumes seven days a week. The two remaining stations
shall be equipped to monitor wind speed and direction. The recorded data shall be
appended to the final remediation summary report.
• A high-volume air sampler shall be installed at each of the weather stations and
operated during the daytime seven days a week. The particulate filters for the samplers
shall be periodically tested for organochlorine pe8ticides.
• A marker material shall be placed at the top of the toxaphene-impacted soil in each
burial area.
c
Mr. John Buller -3-November 23, 2011
In addition, submittal of a PMP addendum is required to acldress the following items:
• Please describe how the random sampling locations for verification samples will be
selected; also, provide the rationale for the number of sampling locations proposed.
• Please describe the working relationship that has been established with the City of
Carlsbad (City). Please append copies of any pas,t correspondence where the City has
given direction to the developer since the project's 11nception.
• Provide the sampling location and analytical data for soil samples previously collected in
proposed residential area PA-13.
• A description of proposed storm water pollution prevention measures is required
regardless of when remedial grading is scheduled at the site. At a minimum, the type
and proposed locations of the best management practices (BMPs) to be used at the site
shall be described.
• Some of the information in the community health and safety plan requires updating: for
example, the opening sentence states that the site is "currently developed as a nursery,"
and the phone number provided for DEH is not cunrent.
The PMP is conditionally approved providing that the above comments are satisfactorily
addressed in the above-referenced addendum. Pleas~~ submit the addendum to DEH by
February 29, 2012.
If you have any questions regarding this work plan approval, please contact the undersigned at
(858) 505-6896.
Sincerely,
CAROL A. FENNER, PG #7223
Environmental Health Specialist II
Site Assessment and Mitigation Program
cc: Christer Westman, City of Carlsbad
Bryan Voss, GeoSoils, Inc.
H39768-001NAP1111
PLANNING I
SYSTEMS •
November I, 2011
Mr. Christer Westman
CITY OF CARLSBAD
Planning Department
1635 Faraday Ave.
Carlsbad, CA 92008
LAND USE/COASTAL PLANNING
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE • LA3900
POLICY AND PROCESSING
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION
RECEIVED
NCV 0 2 2011
C\TY OF CARLSBAD
PLANNlNG DIVISION
SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO 2nd REVIEW
GPA 11-07/MP 02-03/CT 11-01/SUP 11-02/HMP 11-03
ROBERTSON RANCH WEST VILLAGE
Dear Mr. Westman:
Per your letter dated October 19, 2011, identifying Staff items and issues with the submittal package of the
above-referenced application package and plans, Shapell Homes has commissioned modifications to the
documents and plans as requested. To this end, attached with thh: cover letter please find the following:
• Five (5) copies of the revised Master Plan (Strike-out version)
• Five (5) sets of the revised Vesting Master Tentative Map
• Two (2) copies of the revised Preliminary Hydrology Study
• Two (2) copies of the revised Preliminary SWMP
• Three (3) copies of the Sewer Study
• Three (3) copies of the Water Study
• Easement documents
• Redlined Plans (return)
Below are responses and methods that we are addressing the City comments, in the order of comments
listed in the November 1 letter.
ITEMS NEEDED TO COMPLETE THE APPLICATION
Planning:
I. Approval of legislative actions.
Response: No response needed. Legislative actions are be:ing processed concurrently.
Engineering:
1. Approval of this project is contingent with demonstrating compliance with the improvement
conditions for El Camino Real per PC Resolution 6106. It is our understanding that a separate
concurrent application (CDP 11-10, etc) will address how these other conditions will be satisfied.
Please continue to process these other applications concurrently as they are inter-related to this
project.
Response: We are awaiting City comments on CDP 11-10.
2. Provide written documentation from SDG&E stating they have reviewed the tentative map and do
not object to this subdivision, ClarifY how their service roads will be removed and/or relocated
with the proposed project.
1
1530 FARADAY AVENUE • SUITE 100 • CARLSBAD, CA 92008 • (760) 931-0780 • FAX (760) 931-5744 • info@planningsystems.net
streambeds is always difficult since the Army Corps of Engineers prefers the outfall (and any mechanical
energy dissipaters) to stay out of the channel, but the farther out from the channel, the greater the potential
for erosion. So the proposed design has been placed as close to the bottom of the channel as feasible,
without actually going into the ephemeral streambed.
8. On sheet 4 and 5, revise the tentative map to show typical slope/grading to extend Glasgow Dr.
and Edinburgh Dr. (see redlines) Instead of using retaining walls. We understand property
owners are being contacted about potential walls. However, for street construction staff prefers to
acquire rights to grade a slope versus a retaining wall, unless there Is a need to protect habitat or
other special circumstances.
Response:
as requested.
The grading has been revised at Glasgow and Edinburgh to eliminate the retaining walls,
9. On sheet 5, revise the design to provide a I O-ft standard parkway for Edinburgh Dr. The
retaining wall design appears to provide a non-standard parkway width. Refer to redlines and
address this discrepancy.
Response: The design has been modified on Sheet 5 so as to ensure a 10-foot wide parkway for
Edinburgh.
10. On sheet 5, revise the design to provide a maintenance access road to the outlet of the off-street
storm drain extended from Edinburgh Dr. Refer to redlines.
Response: We have investigated the potential for provision of a vehicular access down to the storm
drain outfall however we have concluded that provision of such an access road on such steep terrain would
necessitate significant impacts on existing, mature coastal sage Hcrub habitat. As a result, it is our general
conclusion that the benefit of providing this access is not worth the negative impacts to the biology of the
area.
11. On sheet 8, consider the over-excavation (remedial grading) required for the retaining wall
footing and whether the limits of grading will expand into lot 10 (preserve open space lot).
Coordinate with the soils report and revise the tentative map to address.
Response: Remedial grading and geogrid material is h!ing constructed behind the wall per the
direction provided on p. 47 of the Soils Report dated 10/11/10, and also in the Geosoils letter dated 4/28/11
and the Schematic Grading Exhibit included in Soils Report dated 6/6/11.
12. On sheet 8, there is an existing dirt road that will remain, but does not have a trail easement over
it. ClarifY how what portion of the existing dirt road will remain (refer to redlines) and if certain
roads remain as unofficial trails or access roads. It may help to refer to the concept landscape
plans if they cover more information on this issue.
Response: The dirt road shown on Sheet 8 has been calkd out as an access road for SDG&E. This
road will also be used as a community trail, and is shown as such on the Pedestrian Circulation Plan on p.
III-180 ofthe Master Plan.
13. On sheet 9, revise the tentative map so the proposed driveway along Tamarack Ave aligns with
La Porta/ada Dr. Add dimensions for Tamarack Ave and add street names. Refer to redlines.
Response: The private driveway to P A 1 has been moved to align directly with La Portalada Drive,
as requested. Dimensions for Tamarack Ave. and street names b ave been added to the MTM plans.
14. On sheet 9, revise the tentative map to show and ca!J-out the limits of 100-yr inundation within
the natural channel traversing lot I.
l PLANNING I SYSTEMS
Response: The 100-year inundation line has been added on Sheets 9 and 13.
15. On sheet 9, it is our understanding that the resource agencies have requested that the existing
natural channel bisecting P A I should be preserved in lieu of constructing a storm drain as
currently shown. Please confirm the limits of the natural channel, revise the tentative map to
show limits and revise the hydrology report to address capacity of the channel to carry the I DO-
year event. Call-out the size of existing storm drains pa the redline comments.
Response: The proposed PA 1 grading shown on the MTM has been revised to preserve the existing
natural channel. The limits of the 100-year storm in this channel are depicted on Sheet 9.
16. On sheet 9, please revise the tentative map to clarify, ajter rough grading, how access is provided
to the existing natural channel traversing lot 1. If there is no immediate access, provide an
access road.
Response:
as requested.
A 16-foot wide access road has been provided to the riparian drainage at PA 1 on Sheet 9,
17, On sheet 9, revise the tentative map to show and call-out the I 0-inch sewer recently constructed
in Tamarack Ave per drawing no. 462-9.
Response: Sheet 9 of the MTM has been revised to show the existing sewer in Tamarack Ave.
18. On sheet 9, please clarify how sewer service will be provided for PA I. Coordinate the service
location with the comments on the preliminary sewer study.
Response: Sheet 9 has been revised to show a sewer stub connecting to the existing sewer at the
western comer (Tamarack side) of PA 1.
19. On sheet 9, call-out a private HOA easement over the private storm drain for PA I that is located
in the habitat preserve area.
Response: We have added a public storm drain easement call-out on Sheet 9 for a storm drain
conveying public water. A note has also been added to the legend indicating that basins treating public
water shall be contained within a public storm drain easement.
20. On sheet I 0, consider the grading necessary to allow a hydromodification basin that will treat
Street M, once it is constructed The area may impaci the rough grading foot-print. A desilting
basin may be installed at the low end of Street M near Tamarack as part of rough grading and the
basin may be converted to a hydromodijication basin once paving is complete.
Response: The revised design includes bioretention basin~; at Street M.
21. On sheet II, add call-outs for the sight distance corridors as shown on the tentative map
(typical).
Response: Sight distance corridors have been added on Sheet 11, as requested.
22. On sheet II, revise the pedestrian ramp locations near the traffic circle that will consider
pedestrian movements across the intersection. Refer to redlines.
Response:
redlines.
The pedestrian ramp locations near the traffic circle have been revised as indicated in the
23. On sheet II, add invert elevations for the proposed sewer, where they are missing.
l PLANNING I SYSTEMS
--
Response:
requested.
Sewer invert elevations for the proposed sewer have been added on Sheet 11, as
24. On sheet 12, if the slope benches are omitted, this may address the slope discharges over slopes
per the redlines. Please verifY and address with the nex1 submittal.
Response: The slope benches on Sheet 12 have not been omitted per the direction from Geosoils.
We have extended the storm drain to the bottom of the channel to minimize the potential for slope erosion.
25. On sheet 12, revise the tentative map to identifY any inundation limits upstream from the 12-ft x
12-ft culvert crossing per the redlines.
Response: The limits of 100-year inundation have been added to the drainage at Sheet 12.
26. On sheet 13, clarifY whether street dedication for El Camino Real is required along lot 1 and call-
out the sizes of existing storm drains per the redlines.
Response: Information has been added to the plan Sheet 13 so as to clarifY existing and proposed
right-of-way for El Camino Real. We have also added sizes of existing storm drains, as requested.
27. On sheet 13-18, call-out or add a symbol to distinguish the bioretention basins that will treat El
Camino Real widening (CDP 11-10). The current symbol appears to look like temporary
desiltation basins, while bioretention basins are permanent.
Response: A unique symbol has been created for the pennanent bioretention basins and this symbol
has been indicated on the legend sheet.
28. On sheet 16, call-out the proposed bioretention basins that will treat this project.
Response: A unique symbol has been created for the pernanent bioretention basins and this symbol
has been indicated on the legend. The basin adjacent to El Camino Real on Sheet 16 treats both Street Z
and El Camino Real.
29. On sheet 17, clarifY if the SDG&E access can be provided via the future private drive that will
serve the commercial lot. Refer to redlines. This would avoid an unnecessary driveway along the
deceleration lane of El Camino Real. 1f the driveway cannot be integrated into the commercial
driveway, then show a rolled curb driveway along El Camino Real.
Response: A rolled curb is proposed at the SDG&E access road from El Camino Real. Plans
showing this access have been submitted to SDG&E for their approval. We have suggested to SDG&E
representatives that they may wish to consider access from the commercial retail site and they indicate that
they are considering this possibility in their review.
30, On sheet 18, show rip-rap for the drainage outlets into the habitat preserve. ClarifY if the existing
box culvert under El Camino real is clear of silt. 1f so, to address capacity, call-out that the silt
will be removed from the existing culvert as part of the project. Refer to redlines,
Response: The riprap for the drainage outlets on Sheet 18 has been shown on the revised plans. A
note to remove accumulated silt from the culvert has been added on this sheet.
31. On sheet 19, coordinate with the Fire Station #3 design team on the alignment and design for the
street that will serve P A 13, the fire station and future city park. Revise the tentative map to show
the most recent footprint of the street location. The P'"Oposed storm drain cleanout seems to be
located mid-slope. ClarifY whether how the storm drain is located so that will serve the street and
PA 13.
I PLANNING I ••I SYSTEMS
Response: We have provided a proposed design for the roadway serving the fire station, the park
and PA 13 to the fire station architect. We are awaiting a response. The storm drain has been revised to
avoid the slope for now. It is assumed that it will be realigned pending the actual street design, once that
design is determined.
32. For additional comments, refer to the redlines.
Response: No response needed.
Preliminary Hydrology Study
33. It is our understanding that the 48-inch RCP may not be installed on PA 1 due to resource agency
comments. If a natural channel will be designed, revise the preliminary hydrology study to
address the size/capacity of a natural channel to carry the 100-year flows for this reach.
Considering the density of existing vegetation, verifY adequate roughness coefficient and
freeboard for the channel.
Response: The Hydrology Study has been revised to remove the 48" RCP from the plans and
preserve the natural channel. The revised Study provides the roughness coefficient, freeboard and other
calculations necessary for the 1 00-year flow in the channel.
34. Revise the study to address the inundation limits of the existing natural channel flowing across PA
1 along the eastern edge of the development. Show the limits of inundation on the tentative map.
Response: The inundation limits have been added to the MTM as requested, and also these limits
have been addressed in the revised Hydrology Study.
35. Please address the comments on the study and resubmit three (3) new copies for staff review.
Response: Three new copies of the revised Hydrology Study have been provided with this
resubmittal package.
Preliminary Storm Water Management Plan
36. Revise the preliminary SWMP exhibits and calculations to address the bioretention sizing
required to treat the new impervious surface for Z Street. Refer to redlines.
Response: The SWMP exhibits and calculations have been revised to treat the impervious surface
associated with Street Z.
37. Please address the other redline comments on the study and resubmit three (3) new copies for
staff review.
Response: The redline comments have been noted and the SWMP modified as requested.
Preliminary Water Analysis
38. Revise the proposed water system in the preliminary water analysis to provide an alternative
water system layout where pressures to proposed lots do not exceed 125 psi. Previous decisions to
support pressures above I 25 psi are resulting in system retrofits. At this point, the District
Engineer is not willing to support this request, unless there are significant design thresholds that
cannot be overcome.
Response: Static pressure has been reduced to a maximum of 125 psi in the revised Water Analysis.
39. CMWD "aff ;, cumntly updating the made/ (master plan) far the patab/1 ['t:.~ I *l•ll
are pipe size recommendations that differ from this study, staff will forward this to the Developer
as early as possible. This may lead to refinement of this water analysis.
Response: This comment is acknowledged.
40. The existing 14-inch waterline must be relocated, high-lined and replaced as part of the rough
grading for this project. Although the 14-inch waterline is currently at a 490 presswe zone, a
majority of Robertson Ranch West will be primarily served off the 443 pressure from the lines in
Edinburgh and Glasgow. A 16-inch waterline shall be installed in Z Street which will-/ink the 443
zone to the 490 zone with a normally closed valve at El Camino Real. Revise the analysis to
address the proposed water system changes per the redline comments.
Response: This comment is acknowledged.
41. Revise the water study to determine the 'backbone' pipe size necessary to serve this project
considering the project will be primarily served by the existing lines in Glasgow and Edinburgh,
revise the study to. The new pipeline may be located within the proposed street system as shown
on Figure 3; however the section crossing down to the existing creek towards Kelly Drive shall be
abandoned The alignment of the new waterline should be kept within the proposed street system
and be reconnected to the waterline in El Camino Real. Refer to redline comments on the tentative
map and the water study.
Response: This comment is acknowledged'.
42. Regarding the recycled water system, the updated master plan calls for a 12-inch recycled
waterline in El Camino Real from Cannon Rd to Kelly Dr. and an 8-inch line Kelly Dr. to
Tamarack Ave. A condition will be added for the developer to enter into a reimbursement
agreement with the developer to pay for the 'over sizing' of the 12-inch recycled waterline.
CMWD requires the payment of prevailing wages as part of this reimbursement.
Response: We will need more information from the City regarding this proposed condition.
43. The onsite recycled waterlines are satisfactory, except to note that recycled water is required to
irrigate landscaping of the proposed homes between Kelly Dr. and Tamarack Ave (see comments
on Fig 4). Revise the analysis to address this discrepancy.
Response: The 12-inch recycled line has been added to Figure 4 in the Water Analysis.
44. Please address the other minor redline comments on the study and resubmit three (3) new copies
for staff review.
Response: These redline comments have resulted in a revised Water Analysis, which is included
with this resubmittal package.
Preliminary Sewer Study
45. Revise the preliminary sewer study to describe the 10-inch sewer. recently constructed in
Tamarack Avenue. Refer to drawing no. 462-9.
Response: The new 10" sewer line in Tamarack has been added to the Sewer Analysis. This is
shown on Figure 3.
46. Revise the sewer study to show/call-out the abandoned sewer lift station at the corner of
Tamarack Ave and El Camino Real. ClarifY in the study that the developer shall remove the
existing lift station and protect the existing 10-inch sewer.
I PLANNING I SYSTEMS
Response: The abandoned lift station at the Comer of Tamarack and El Camino Real has been added
to the Sewer Analysis and is shown to be removed. This is shown on Figure 3.
47. Developer has requested to direct all planned sewage for Robertson Ranch West Village to flow
to the North Agua Hedionda Interceptor (NAHI). The existing sewer benefit areas anticipated
one-half of the sewage from Robertson Ranch would flow to the NAHI while the other half would
flow to the South Agua Hedionda Interceptor (SAHI). This request to drain all west village flows
to the NAHI will be supported provided the developer eliminates the existing sewer drop manhole
in El Camino Real and reconstructs approximately 320-ft of new 8-1nch sewer between manholes
1 and 2 per drawing no. 222-4. Revise the sewer study and tentative map exhibits to address this.
Response: The Sewer Analysis has been revised to address the comments described.
48. Clarify that PA-l shall connect to the existing manhole at the intersection ofEl Camino Real and
Kelly Dr. The manhole is identified as station 485+97.87 per drawing no. 283-2.
Response: The Sewer Analysis has been revised in accordance with this comment.
49. Revise the study to address formatting comments to address clarity on some of the figures per the
redline comments.
Response: Formatting comments as indicated in the redlines have been addressed in the revised
Sewer Analysis.
50. Please address the other minor redline comments on the study and resubmit three (3) new copies
for staff review.
Response: The redline comments have been addressed.
Landscape Architecture
MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT
REPEAT COMMENTS
l. Page l/1-133, paragraph 1) -The current master plan indicates that "El Camino Real will
continue the existing tree patterns established by the City of Carlsbad ... "The current Landscape
manual indicates the theme tree for El Camino Real to be Plat anus acerifolia. T his tree has
severe problems with anthracnose in the Carlsbad area and is no longer recommended. The
Parks Department is currently reviewing substitutes for this species. The Master Plan will need to
be updated with the approved substitute once a final decision is made. 2°" Review: The applicant
has responded: "This statement is acknowledged by the applicant." Please revise verbiage to
indicate that the street tree species selection for El Camino Real shall he as approved by the
Planning Department.
Response: This modification has been made on p. III-132 ofthe revised Master Plan.
2. (Page l/1-145, Figure 111-38)-Street tree species are subject to change. See comment #1 above.
2nd Review: The applicant has responded: "Please let us know when the tree policy changes'~
Please revise verbiage to indicate that the street tree species selection for El Camino Real shall he
as approved by the Planning Department.
Response: This modification has been made on p. III-147 of the revised Master Plan.
3. Deleted.
11•.:;1
4. (Page JJ/-148) -Street trees for El Camino Real are subject to change. See comment #1 above.
2nd Review: The applicant has responded: "Please let us know when the tree policy changes."
Please revise verbiage to indicate that the street tree species selection for El Camino Real shall he
as approved by the Planning Department.
Response: This modification has been made on p. III-148 ofthe revised Master Plan.
5-8 Completed.
Response:
9. (Page JJ/-166)-Fuel Modification Plan Figure Ill-47 indicates that condition B does not occur on
site; however the Master Tentative Map plans show a condition Bon sheet L-1.2 to the south and
east of the Glasgow Drive cul-de-sac and to the east of the intersection of El Camino Real and
Tamarack. Please revise as appropriate. 2nd Review: The applicant has responded: "Condition
does occur in the northern portion of PA 5 and PA 6 and along the northwest side of PA 9/10. We
have revised this figure to relied this information. The exhibit still indicates that condition B does
not occur however it does occur in several locations. Please coordinate tentative map with master
plan. Cheek all areas.
Response: The Fuel Modification Plan on p. III-165 has been modified. All areas have been
checked and it should be correct at this time.
Master Tentative Map
Repeat Comments
It is understood that the plans prepared are for Tentative Map review only and very conceptual in nature.
More detailed conceptual plans will be required with each Planning Area submittal. These more detailed
concept plans will he required to address all Robertson Ranch Master Plan, Landscape Manual and City of
Carlsbad Water Ordinance requirements. The Tentative Map application has not been reviewed for all of
the above requirements as the plans are too conceptual for these reviews.
1. The Master Plan shows this fire surpression area as a zone A. Please cpordinate the Master Plan
and the Master Tentative Map. 2n Review: The applicant has responded: "These plans have been
coordinated" Tentative map plans are still not coordinated with the master plan. Please
coordinate. Check all areas.
Response:
2-5. Completed
Response:
6, Please note that plant species proposed for the DCSS Re-vegetation Area will need to be reviewed
and approved by a biologist and the ultimate maintaining entity prior to approval. 2nd Review: The
applicant has responded: "The P A 2 3 (H abita! Corridor revegetation area has already been
approved and the developer is obligated to install this revegetation at this time. It is
acknowledged by the applicant that revegetation of properties within PA 23A and 23B will require
review and approval by a biologist and the USFWS and the City, prior to installation.
Response: No response needed.
7-9. Completed
IO. Section 3 does not match Figure III-43 (Page III-155) in the Robertson Ranch Master Plan.
Please explain. 2nd Review: The applicant has responded: "Section 3 has been revised to be
consistent with the Master Plan." The section is not coordinated. Please coordinate.
Response: The sidewalk around the traffic circle should match the one at collector Street E, which is
5'6" in width. The Master Plan and the Landscape Concept Plan for the MTM have been coordinated.
11. Please coordinate Section IB with the Robertson Ranch Master Plan (show parking berm and
optional wall and indicate structure setback dimension). 2nd Review: The applicant has
responded: "Section I B has been revised to include the requested information.. " The section still
does not match. Please coordinate. See Fig. III-38.
Response: The Master Plan has been modifi,ed to be consistent with the Landscape section.
12. RETURN REDLINES and provide 2 copies of all plans for the next review.
Response: Redlines are being returned and five copies of the plans are being submitteed.
New Comments
1A. Please provide landscaping for all slope areas. Check all areas on all sheets.
Response: The Landscape Concept Plan has been revised to show the landscaping on all slopes.
2A. Please indicate that the street tree species selection for El Camino Real shall he as approved by
the Planning Department. Provide notes wherever plans reference street tree selections for El
Camino Real. Check 9ll sheets.
Response: The note referenced above has been added on the Planting Legend Sheet, the Landscape
Concept sheets and cross sections ofEl Camino Real on a Landscape Sections sheet.
Please let us know if you wish to meet to discuss any of the items in this resubmittal package.
sfirely,
PIJ/~!1~: l~
Director of Planning
cc: Erik Pfahler (w/enclosures)
John Buller (w/enclosures)
Teresa Sousa (w/oenclosures)
Enclosures
Response: The SDG&E access roads are called out on the MTM plan. All other existing dirt roads
will be removed or (in the case of habitat corridors) revegetated. SDG&E representatives have been
involved in the design process and we have provided them with plans for their review. Upon completion of
their review, we fully anticipate receiving a letter indicating support of the project design.
ISSUES OF CONCERN
Planning:
1. See enclosed redlined copy of the Master Plan for requested revisions, deletions, and additions.
Response: The Master Plan has been modified in accordance with the redlined Master Plan provided
from the City. Blue highlighter indicates that the identified change was made to the Master Plan. Five sets
of the new revised Master Plan is included with this resubmittal package.
2. A renewed Zone I4 LFMP analysis indicates that an additional I6 dwelling units must be
allocated from the excess dwelling unit bank. Pursuant to City Council Policy 43 dwellings that
are restricted to lower income and/or senior households qualifY for an allocation of excess
dwelling units. Accordingly, staff can recommend support of the proposed unit allocation from the
excess dwelling unit bank for the provision of both senior and lower income restricted dwelling
units within Planning Areas 7 and/or 8 of the Master Plan.
Response: The Master Plan has been revised to reduce the maximum unit count for the West Village
by 16 units, in order to avoid additional allocation of units from the EDUB. The revised Master Plan now
reflects the exact same number of units that were allowed in the approved Master Plan (per the Alternative
Use scenario).
3. Staff is not willing to support a blanket reduction in the Master Plan's required Community
Facilities obligation. A discussion of alternatives which may include but not be limited to I) an
expanded list in the Master Plan of uses that qualifY as Community Facilities, and/or 2) a
designated time frame to attempt in good faith to acquire a community facility to occupy the site,
and/or 3) the addition of a second floor limited to a community facility user with shared parking
needs to take place.
Response: The Master Plan has been revised to eliminate the request for reduction in the
Community Facilities obligation. A new planning area (Planning Area 2) has been added which will
accommodate 2.0 acres of Community Facilities, and the remaining 3.0 acres (for a 5.0 acre total) will be
provided in Planning Area 11. We have expanded the uses that quality as Community Facilities to include
farmer's market and similar community-oriented uses. This information· is provided on p. III-57 of the
_Master Plan.
4. If a 50 foot building setback for commercial development on PA II is to be supported, then a
much more comprehensive approach to managing the visual quality of the setback area and
buildings must be included in the Master Plan. Staff strongly suggests the addition of standards
that may include but are not limited to I) a prohibition of loading facilities and or service doors
facing El Camino Real, 2) enhanced landscape minimums within the 50 foot setback, 3) the
provision of a landscape berm at the top of slope along El Camino Real, and, 4) superior building
detailing facing El Camino Real.
Response: The Master Plan has been revised to indicate that loading areas shall be screened from
view from El Camino Real (MP p. III-60), and that a landscape berm or plantings of sufficient height to
shield headlights shining into El Camino Real (MP p. III-59), as suggested. Also special architectural
treatment is required for commercial buildings facing El Camino Real (p. III-60).
5. The Habitat Management Plan Permit (HMP II-03) review is beinglf~~~~li'jifliiiiQir:::=ll
I PLANNING I •• ~~ SYSTEMS II
appropriate resource agencies. There are no issues comments available at this time.
Response: No response necessary.
6. There are no Planning Division issues or comments on the Tentative Tract Map, Hillside
Development Permit, or Special Use Permit.
Response: No response necessary.
Engineering:
Master Tentative Map
I. The 8-ft wide slope bench could be omitted on certain slopes between 40 to SO-ft in height (see
redlines). Omitting the bench In select areas may help by allowing extra room for future
bioretention swales, lowering the height of retaining walls or allowing more development area. If
you wish to omit certain benches, please provide a letter from the soils engineer stating that, for
these slopes, a slope bench is not needed from an erosion, maintenance or slope stability
standpoint.
Response: A note reflecting the above has been added on the detail (Sheet 2), however our geologist
has indicated preliminarily that slope benches may be reduced in size, but not wholly omitted.
2. Revise the tentative map to address provide water system Improvements as necessary to address
the revised preliminary potable water study.
Response: The water system shown on the MTM has been revised per the direction provided in the
Water Study. A copy of this Water Study is provided with this resubmittal package.
3. Consider adding a unique symbol or calling out each permanent bioretention basin so that they
are distinguished from the temporary desiltation basins per the legend
Response: A unique symbol has been created for permanent bioretention basins, as suggested, and
this symbol is indicated on the legend.
4. On sheet 1, on the lot area table, address the lot area discrepancies with the information on sheet
3.
Response: The lot area discrepancies have been resolved, as requested.
5. On sheet 3, clarifY why some lot areas on this sheet do not match the information on sheet 1.
Response: The lot area discrepancies have been resolved, as requested.
6. On sheet 3, provide a copy of the drainage and slope easement designated as Item no.5 from the
preliminary title report for staff review.
Response:
package.
A copy of the drainage and slope easement document is provided with this resubmittal
7. On sheet 4, revise the proposed off-street outlets of storm drains so they discharge near the
bottom of the channel Instead of on a slope (refer to red/ines). Discharging concentrated water
over a slopes leads to accelerated erosion of natural channels and unstable channel beds.
Response:
the bottom
The storm drain pipe on Sheet 4 has been modified so that the outlet now discharges at
of tho naturnl channel. The exact location of stonn drnin outfali1'"~G l'Q!J . I I SYSTEMS •I
• ~CARLSBAD 0
Planning Division
October 19, 2011
www.carlsbadca.gov
Planning Systems
c/o Paul Klukas
1530 Faraday Avenue, Suite 100
Carlsbad CA 92008
SUBJECT: 2nd REVIEW FOR GPA 11-07/MP 02-03(C)/CT 11-01/HDP 11-01/SUP 11-02/HMP 11-03 -
ROBERTSON RANCH WEST VILLAGE
Thank you for applying for land Use Permits in the City of Carlsbad. The Planning Division has reviewed your
Master Plan Amendment and other land use development permit applications no. GPA 11-07 /MP 02-
03(C)/CT 11-01/HDP 11-01/SUP 11-02/HMP 11-03, as to its completeness for processing.
All of the items requested of you earlier have not been received and therefore your application is still
deemed incomplete. Please note that the proposed legislative actions (General Plan Amendment and Master
Plan Amendment) are not subject to the California Permit Streamlining Act (Title 7, Division 1, Chapter 4.5 of
the California Government Code). likewise, the other quasi-judicial actions that are being processed
concurrently with these legislative actions must remain incomplete until the legislative actions are approved
by the City Council. Staff will continue to concurrently process and take the development applications to the
decision making bodies together and in an order by which the applications can be decided upon. The City
may, in the course of processing the application, request that you clarify, amplify, correct, or otherwise
supplement the basic information required for the application. In addition, you should also be aware that
various design issues may exist. These issues must be addressed before this application can be scheduled for
a hearing.
listed below are the additional item(s) still needed in order to process the application. In order to expedite
the processing of your application, the "incomplete" items and your response to the project issues of concern
to Staff must be submitted directly to your staff planner; therefore, please contact your staff planner directly
to schedule a re-submittal appointment. Please prepare and include with your re-submittal: (1) a copy of
· this list; (2) a detailed letter summarizing how all identified incomplete items have been addressed; and (3)
five (5) sets of revised plans. In order to expedite the processing of your application, you are strongly
encouraged to contact your Staff Planner, Christer Westman, at (760) 602-4614, to discuss or to schedule a
meeting to discuss your application and to completely understand this letter. You may also contact each
commenting department individually as follows:
• Land Development Engineering Division: Jeremy Riddle, Associate Engineer, at (760) 602-2737.
• Fire Department: Gregory Ryan, Fire Inspections, at (760) 602-4661.
Sincerely, C~ER{faln
Principal Planner
CD:CW:bd
c: Rancho Costera LLC c/o Erik Pfahler 8383 Wilshire Blvd.# 700 Beverly Hills CA 90211
Don Neu, Planning Director
Jeretny Riddle, Project Engineer
Chris DeCerbo, Principal Planner
File Copy
Data Entry
1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 T 760-602-4600 F 760-602-8559 ®
,_., ~
MP 02-03(C)/CT 11-01/HDP 11~/SUP 11-02/HMP 11-03-ROBERTSON RA~EST VILLAGE
October 19, 2011
Pa e 2
LIST OF ITEMS NEEDED
TO COMPLETE THE APPLICATION
Planning:
1. Approval of legislative actions.
Engineering:
1. Approval of this project is contingent with demonstrating compliance with the improvement
conditions for El Camino Real per PC Resolution 6106. It is our understanding that a separate
concurrent application (COP 11-10, etc) will address how these other conditions will be satisfied.
Please continue to process these other applications concurrently as they are inter-related to this
project.
2. Provide written documentation from SDG&E stating they have reviewed the tentative map and
do not object to this subdivision. Clarify how their service roads will be removed and/or
relocated with the proposed project.
ISSUES OF CONCERN
Planning:
1. See enclosed red lined copy of the Master Plan for requested revisions, deletions, and additions.
2. A renewed Zone 14 LFMP analysis indicates that an additional 16 dwelling units must be
allocated from the excess dwelling unit bank. Pursuant to City Council Policy 43 dwellings that
are restricted to lower income and/or senior households qualify for an allocation of excess
dwelling units. Accordingly, staff can recommend support of the proposed unit allocation from
the excess dwelling unit bank for the provision of both senior and lower income restricted
dwelling units within Planning Areas 7 and/or 8 of the Master Plan.
3. Staff is not willing to support a blanket reduction in the Master Plan's required Community
Facilities obligation. A discussion of alternatives which may include but not be limited to 1) an
expanded list in the Master Plan of uses that qualify as Community Facilities, and/or 2) a
designated time frame to attempt in good faith to acquire a community facility to occupy the
site, and/or 3) the addition of a second floor limited to a community facility user with shared
parking needs to take place.
4. If a SO foot building setback for commercial development on PA 11 is to be supported, then a
much more comprehensive approach to managing the visual quality of the setback area and
buildings must be included in the Master Plan. Staff strongly suggests the addition of standards
that may include but are not limited to 1) a prohibition of loading facilities and or service doors
facing El Camino Real, 2) enhanced landscape minimums within the SO foot setback, 3) the
provision of a landscape berm at the top of slope along El Camino Real, and, 4) superior building
detailing facing El Camino Real.
S. The Habitat Management Plan Permit {HMP 11-03) review is being coordinated with the
appropriate resource agencies. There are no issues comments available at this time.
..
MP 02-03(C}/CT 11-01/HDP lQ/SUP 11-02/HMP 11-03-ROBERTSON RANQWEST VILLAGE
October 19, 2011
Pa e 3
6. There are no Planning Division issues or comments on the Tentative Tract Map, Hillside
Development Permit, or Special Use Permit.
Engineering:
Master Tentative Map
1. The 8-ft wide slope bench could be omitted on certain slopes between 40 to 50-ft in height (see
redlines). Omitting the bench in select areas may help by allowing extra room for future
bioretention swales, lowering the height of retaining walls or allowing more development area.
If you wish to omit certain benches, please provide a letter from the soils engineer stating that,
for these slopes, a slope bench is not needed from an erosion, maintenance or slope stability
standpoint.
2. Revise the tentative map to address provide water system improvements as necessary to
address the revised preliminary potable water study.
3. Consider adding a unique symbol or calling out each permanent bioretention basin so that they
are distinguished from the temporary desiltation basins per the legend.
4. On sheet 1, on the lot area table, address the lot area discrepancies with the information on
sheet 3.
5. On sheet 3, clarify why some lot areas on this sheet do not match the information on sheet 1.
6. On sheet 3, provide a copy of the drainage and slope easement designated as item no. 5 from
the preliminary title report for staff review.
7. On sheet 4, revise the proposed off-street outlets of storm drains so they discharge near the
bottom of the channel instead of on a slope (refer to red lines). Discharging concentrated water
over a slopes leads to accelerated erosion of natural channels and unstable channel beds.
8. On sheet 4 and 5, revise the tentative map to show typical slope/grading to extend Glasgow Dr.
and Edinburgh Dr. (see redlines) instead of using retaining walls. We understand property
owners are being contacted about potential walls. However, for street construction staff
prefers to acquire rights to grade a slope versus a retaining wall, unless there is a need to
protect habitat or other special circumstances.
9. On sheet 5, revise the design to provide a 10-ft standard parkway for Edinburgh Dr. The
retaining wall design appears to provide a non-standard parkway width. Refer to redlines and
address this discrepancy.
10. On sheet 5, revise the design to provide a maintenance access road to the outlet of the off-
street storm drain extended from Edinburgh Dr. Refer to redlines.
11. On sheet 8, consider the over-excavation (remedial grading) required for the retaining wall
footing and whether the limits of grading will expand into lot 10 (preserve open space lot).
Coordinate with the soils report and revise the tentative map to address.
,.. . ....., ·""""·
MP 02-03(C)/CT 11-01/HDP 11'Jeo!/SUP 11-02/HMP 11-03-ROBERTSON RA~EST VILLAGE
October 19, 2011
Pa e4
12. On sheet 8, there is an existing dirt road that will remain, but does not have a trail easement
over it. Clarify how what portion of the existing dirt road will remain (refer to redlines) and if
certain roads remain as unofficial trails or access roads. It may help to refer to the concept
landscape plans if they cover more information on this issue.
13. On sheet 9, revise the tentative map so the proposed driveway along Tamarack Ave aligns with
La Portalada Dr. Add dimensions for Tamarack Ave and add street names. Refer to red lines.
14. On sheet 9, revise the tentative map to show and call-out the limits of 100-yr inundation within
the natural channel traversing lot 1.
15. On sheet 9, it is our understanding that the resource agencies have requested that the existing
natural channel bisecting PA 1 should be preserved in lieu of constructing a storm drain as
currently shown. Please confirm the limits of the natural channel, revise the tentative map to
show limits and revise the hydrology report to address capacity of the channel to carry the 100-
year event. Call-out the size of existing storm drains per the redline comments.
16. On sheet 9, please revise the tentative map to clarify, after rough grading, how access is
provided to the existing natural channel traversing lot 1. If there is no immediate access,
provide an access road.
17. On sheet 9, revise the tentative map to show and call-out the 10-inch sewer recently
constructed in Tamarack Ave per drawing no. 462-9.
18. On sheet 9, please clarify how sewer service will be provided for PAl. Coordinate the service
location with the comments on the preliminary sewer study.
19. On sheet 9, call-out a private HOA easement over the private storm drain for PA 1 that is located
in the habitat preserve area.
20. On sheet 10, consider the grading necessary to allow a hydromodification basin that will treat
Street M, once it is constructed. The area may impact the rough grading foot-print. A desilting
basin may be installed at the low end of Street M near Tamarack as part of rough grading and
the basin may be converted to a hydromodification basin once paving is complete.
21. On sheet 11, add call-outs for the sight distance corridors as shown on the tentative map
(typical).
22. On sheet 11, revise the pedestrian ramp locations near the traffic circle that will consider
pedestrian movements across the intersection. Refer to red lines.
23. On sheet 11, add invert elevations for the proposed sewer, where they are missing.
24. On sheet 12, if the slope benches are omitted, this may address the slope discharges over slopes
per the red lines. Please verify and address with the next submittal.
25. On sheet 12, revise the tentative map to identify any inundation limits upstream from the 12-ft x
12-ft culvert crossing per the redlines.
.,
MP 02-03(C}/CT 11-01/HDP 1Q/SUP 11-02/HMP 11-03-ROBERTSON RAN9WEST VILLAGE
October 19, 2011
Pa e 5
26. On sheet 13, clarify whether street dedication for El Camino Real is required along lot 1 and call-
out the sizes of existing storm drains per the red lines.
27. On sheet 13-18, call-out or add a symbol to distinguish the bioretention basins that will treat El
Camino Real widening (CDP 11-10). The current symbol appears to look like temporary
desiltation basins, while bioretention basins are permanent.
28. On sheet 16, call-out the proposed bioretention basins that will treat this project.
29. On sheet 17, clarify if the SDG&E access can be provided via the future private drive that will
serve the commercial lot. Refer to redlines. This would avoid an unnecessary driveway along
the deceleration lane of El Camino Real. If the driveway cannot be integrated into the
commercial driveway, then show a rolled curb driveway along El Camino Real.
30. On sheet 18, show rip-rap for the drainage outlets into the habitat preserve. Clarify if the
existing box culvert under El Camino real is clear of silt. If so, to address capacity, call-out that
the silt will be removed from the existing culvert as part of the project. Refer to red lines.
31. On sheet 19, coordinate with the Fire Station #3 design team on the alignment and design for
the street that will serve PA 13, the fire station and future city park. Revise the tentative map to
show the most recent footprint of the street location. The proposed storm drain cleanout
seems to be located mid-slope. Clarify whether how the storm drain is located so that will serve
the street and PA 13.
32. For additional comments, refer to the redlines.
Preliminary Hydrology Study
33. It is our understanding that the 48-inch RCP may not be installed on PA 1 due to resource
agency comments. If a natural channel will be designed, revise the preliminary hydrology study
to address the size/capacity of a natural channel to carry the 100-year flows for this reach.
Considering the density of existing vegetation, verify adequate roughness coefficient and
freeboard for the channel.
34. Revise the study to address the inundation limits of the existing natural channel flowing across
PA 1 along the eastern edge of the development. Show the limits of inundation on the tentative
map.
35. Please address the comments on the study and resubmit three (3) new copies for staff review.
Preliminary Storm Water Management Plan
36. Revise the preliminary SWMP exhibits and calculations to address the bioretention sizing
required to treat the new impervious surface for Z Street. Refer to re.dlines.
37. Please address the other red line comments on the study and resubmit three (3) new copies for
staff review.
~ ~
MP 02-03{C)/CT 11-01/HDP 11~SUP 11-02/HMP 11-03-ROBERTSON RA~EST VILLAGE
October 19, 2011
Pa e 6
Preliminary Water Analysis
38. Revise the proposed water system in the preliminary water analysis to provide an alternative
water system layout where pressures to proposed lots do not exceed 125 psi. Previous decisions
to support pressures above 125 psi are resulting in system retrofits. Tat this point, the District
Engineer is not willing to support this request, unless there are significant design thresholds that
cannot be overcome.
39. CMWD staff is currently updating the model (master plan) for the potable water system. If
there are pipe size recommendations that differ from this study, staff will forward this to the
Developer as early as possible. This may lead to refinement of this water analysis.
40. The existing 14-inch waterline must be relocated, high-lined and replaced as part of the rough
grading for this project. Although the 14-inch waterline is currently at a 490 pressure zone, a
majority of Robertson Ranch West will be primarily served off the 443 pressure from the lines in
Edinburgh and Glasgow. A 16-inch waterline shall be installed in Z Street which will link the 443
zone to the 490 zone with a normally closed valve at El Camino Real. Revise the analysis to
address the proposed water system changes per the red line comments.
41. Revise the water study to determine the 'backbone' pipe size necessary to serve this project
considering the project will be primarily served by the existing lines in Glasgow and Edinburgh,
revise the study to. The new pipeline may be located within the proposed street system as
shown on Figure 3, however the section crossing down to the existing creek towards Kelly Drive
shall be abandoned. The alignment of the new waterline should be kept within the proposed
street system and be reconnected to the waterline in El Camino Real. Refer to red line comments
on the tentative map and the water study.
42. Regarding the recycled water system, the updated master plan calls for a 12-inch recycled
waterline in El Camino Real from Cannon Rd to Kelly Dr. and an 8-inch line Kelly Dr. to Tamarack
Ave. A condition will be added for the developer to enter into a reimbursement agreement with
the developer to pay for the 'oversizing' of the 12-inch recycled waterline. CMWD requires the
payment of prevailing wages as part of this reimbursement.
43. The onsite recycled waterlines are satisfactory, except to note that recycled water is required to
irrigate landscaping of the proposed homes between Kelly Dr. and Tamarack Ave (see comments
on Fig 4). Revise the analysis to address this discrepancy.
44. Please address the other minor redline comments on the study and resubmit three (3) new
copies for staff review.
Preliminary Sewer Study
45. Revise the preliminary sewer study to describe the 10-inch sewer recently constructed in
Tamarack Avenue. Refer to drawing no. 462-9.
46. Revise the sewer study to show/call-out the abandoned sewer lift station at the corner of
Tamarack Ave and El Camino Real. Clarify in the study that the developer shall remove the
existing lift station and protect the existing 10-inch sewer.
MP 02-03(C)/CT 11-01/HDP 1~SUP 11-02/HMP 11-03-ROBERTSON RAN~WEST VILLAGE
October 19, 2011
Pa e 7
47. Developer has requested to direct all planned sewage for Robertson Ranch West Village to flow
to the North Agua Hedionda Interceptor (NAHI). The existing sewer benefit areas anticipated
one-half of the sewage from Robertson Ranch would flow to the NAHI while the other half
would flow to the South Agua Hedionda Interceptor (SAHI). This request to drain all west village
flows to the NAHI will be supported provided the developer eliminates the existing sewer drop
manhole in El Camino Real and reconstructs approximately 320-ft of new 8-inch sewer between
manholes 1 and 2 per drawing no. 222-4. Revise the sewer study and tentative map exhibits to
address this.
48. Clarify that PAl shall connect to the existing manhole at the intersection of El Camino Real and
Kelly Dr. The manhole is identified as station 485+97.87 per drawing no. 283-2.
49. Revise the study to address formatting comments to address clarity on some of the figures per
the redline comments.
50. Please address the other minor redline comments on the study and resubmit three (3) new
copies for staff review.
Attached are red lined check prints and technical studies of the project submittal. Please return this
check print with the submittal of revised prints and studies to facilitate continued staff review. If you
have any questions, please call me at 602-2737.
PLANNING I
SYSTEMS -
August 31, 2011
LAND USE/COASTAL PLANNING
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE • LA3900
POLICY AND PROCESSING
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION
RECEIVED
S!='P 0 1 ...,1'\~1 .. _, ' l.:iJ!
Mr. Christer Westman
CITY OF CARLSBAD
Planning Department
1635 Faraday Ave.
Carlsbad, CA 92008 CITY OF CARLSBAD
PLANNING DEPT
SUBJECT: Response to I st Review
MP 02-03(C)/CT 11-01/HDP 11-01/SUP 11-02/HMP 11-03
ROBERTSON RANCH WEST VILLAGE
Dear Mr. Westman:
Per your letter dated June 23,2011, identifying Staff items and issues with the submittal package of the
above-referenced project, the Shapell Homes has commissioned modifications to the Draft Master Plan
amendment and associated West Village development plans. To this end, attached with this cover letter
please find the following:
• Six copies of the revised Master Plan amendment
• General Plan Amendment application and fee check
• Six copies of revised Master Tentative Map and Landscape Plans
• HMP Hardline Adjustment (Minor Amendment) Exhibit
• Letter from GeoSoils, Inc. dated August 17, 20 II,
• Two copies of the updated Drainage Study
• Two copies of the updated Preliminary Storm Water Management Plan
• Redlined plans -Return to City
Below are responses and methods that we are addressing the City comments, in the order of comments
listed in the June 23 letter.
ITEMS NEEDED TO COMPLETE THE APPLICATION
Planning:
1. Changing the General Plan designations (such as in Planning Area 13 from E to RM) and/or
configurations (such as Planning Areas 4, 5, 7 and 8) require approval of a General Plan Amendment. The
General Plan Amendment application will be processed concurrently with the, Master Plan Amendment.
Response: A general plan amendment application is included with this resubmittal.
Engineering:
1. Per the preliminary review letter (PRE 1 1-01), city staff does not support deleting the road
connection to Tamarack Ave. However, this application still shows deleting this road connection. Revise
the application documents to comply with the approved Master Plan (MP 02-03). Revise the Master Plan
(text and exhibits), Master Tentative Map (MTM), hardline consistency map, drainage study, storm water
management plan (SWMP), geotechnical study, and other related technical reports to include the
construction of the Tamarack connection. The project includes the necessary environmental (CEQA)
approvals to construct this road connection. Now that the project includes gating the road connections
with Glasgow and Edinburgh, this leaves the remainder of Robertson Ranch West community (524 dwelling
units plus the 13 AC commercial lot) to use El Camino Real on a day-to-day basis as they will not have
access to Edinburgh Dr and Glasgow Dr. Per PRE 11-01, deleting the Tamarack connection raises not
only emergency evacuation concerns but also directs significant traffic (side-friction) to the intersection of
1
1530 FARADAY AVENUE • SUITE 100 • CARLSBAD, CA 92008 • (760) 931-0780 • FAX (760) 931-5744 • info@planningsystems.net
El Camino Real and Lisa Street. Deleting the Tamarack connection will extend signal timing at Street Z
resulting in longer left turn delays and affecting El Camino Real corridor. Although the right-in-right-out
connection provided along El Camino real will provide beneficial access to the commercial site, it will not
satisfy the secondary connection requirement that the Tamarack connection provides. See engineering
issues below for more on this major issue. Although a traffic report was provided on deleting the
Tamarack connection, this report does not help satisfy the single entry development requirements for this
project. The report also does not satisfy the effort from our transportation division to alleviate the future
traffic this project would offer to the El Camino Real transportation corridor.
Response: The project has been redesigned to include the Tamarack connection, as requested.
2. Per condition 21 of PC Resolution 6106, revise the MTM to dedicate a public road easement
along Tamarack to provide for a future dual/eft turn lane on west-bound Tamarack Ave.
Response: More than sufficient right-of-way exists on Tamarack Avenue for a future dual left tum
onto westbound Tamarack. As a result of this excess right-of-way, it is the applicant's desire to request a
partial street vacation with the "B" set of tentative maps.
3. Approval of this project is contingent with demonstrating compliance with the improvement
conditions for El Camino Real per PC Resolution 6106. The improvements for El Camino are not
thoroughly shown on the MTM; however, it is our understanding that a separate concurrent application
(CDP 11-1 0) will address how these other conditions will be satisfied
Response: The El Camino Real improvements have been added at 40-scale on the MTM. There will
still be a separate and concurrent application CDP I I-10.
4. Please revise the MTM boundary to not include lot 12 (city park site). City staff will process an
acceptance of the park 10D to avoid confusion with this MTM Refer to red/ines.
Response: The revised MTM has removed the City park site from the applicant's ownership.
5. The current drainage study addresses sizing for the interim (rough graded) condition. Since this
MTM proposes to construct the backbone storm drains, revise the drainage study to include calculations
necessary to size. There are several storm drains located throughout the project that appear to be located
within future public streets, but are only sized to handle the rough graded condition. Please clarify if these
storm drains are meant to be size for ultimate and will be sized for ultimate build-out The drainage study
should also include calculations to address the build-out capacity of the storm drains proposed in Street E,
Street M, Street Z, Edinburgh Dr and Glasgow Dr.
Response: The Preliminary Drainage Study has been revised to size the storm drains based upon the
preliminary I 00-scal site plans. This Drainage Study should clarify the storm drain questions indicated
above.
6. Revise the drainage study to provide a comprehensive hydrologic/hydraulic analysis to address
the capacity of existing/proposed storm drains within this project including El Camino Real.
Response: The Preliminary Drainage Study has been revised to address the capacity of the existing
and proposed storm drains within the project, including those within El Camino Real.
7. Revise the MTM to show/callout proposed easements to encompass proposed off-street public
facilities (e.g.: potable water, sewer, storm drains, meandering sidewalks, etc.) Refer to redlines.
Response:
requested.
The MTM has been revised to add the proposed water and storm drain easements, as
8. Revise the MTM to provide details (larger scale) on some critical areas ~~~~~~l'ii-f:=::ll
'
PLANNING I •• , SYSTEMS
• . . .
-~--~-------~~----------------------
several issues (i.e.: corner of PA 1, Edinburgh Dr, Glasgow Dr, Street Z, Street M, etc.).
Response: The revised MTM is now provided at a larger (40-feet/inch) scale.
9. Per the MP conditions, this project is required to build facilities that will allow for the
decommissioning of the existing (gateshead) sewer lift station. We understand this will occur with future
development of the planning areas. Demonstrate or note that the sewer facilities in Street E, Street Z and
El Camino Real will be sized to handle this project and the future intercepted sewer flow from the northerly
adjacent project. Revise the MTM to clarifY the sewer improvements required in Edinburgh Dr that will
allow for the lift station to be taken off-line.
Response: The MTM has been revised to identify a sewer main in Edinburgh Drive, with also a note
identifying that the existing sewer lift station can be removed after the downstream sewers are constructed
within the West Village subdivision.
10. Provide written documentation from SDG&E stating they have reviewed the MTM and do not
object to this subdivision. ClarifY how their service roads will be removed and/or relocated with the
proposed project.
Response: The project civil engineer is in contact and is meeting regularly with SDG&E
representatives regarding the plans. SDG&E has been provided with the preliminary set of plans and the
dry utility consultants are working with them for their input and concurrence.
fl. Provide written documentation from NCTD that they have reviewed this project regarding mass
transit facilities and have no objection.
Response: The project civil engineer is in contact with NCTD representatives. NCTD has been
provided with a preliminary set of plans and we are awaiting their comments on the bus stop locations.
12. The sewer and potable water study were submitted to the city after formal submittal of this
application and staff has not completed a review. We will forward comments when they are available.
Response: We await your comments on the sewer and potable water study.
ISSUES OF CONCERN
Planning:
In addition to the specific comments that follow, a marked copy of the Master Plan is being transmitted to
you for review and comment/correction. Please review the marked copy of the plan and return it with the
next submittal.
1. A thorough review of the entire document must be made to ensure that all of the proposed and
adjusted gross and net acreages are consistent. An example includes differences in the gross acreage
identified on the tentative map for each planning area and what is listed in the master plan text tables and
Planning Area chapters.
Response: It is acknowledged that Planning Area gross acreages should be consistent throughout the
MP document. However, the MTM lot lines are seldom exactly the same as the Planning Area boundaries.
For example, Planning Areas in the MP do not include the adjacent planned streets. The proposed MTM
lots do not show many of the ultimately planned streets, and therefore the MTM lots include the street
acreage. So MP Planning Area and MTM Lot areas are frequently not exactly the same.
The Planning Area boundaries reflect the logical area to be encompassed for a particular land use, and it is
our opinion that it should not need to be consistent with the MTM lot lines, except in a very general
manner. For the same reason, and by way of example, the East Village MTM master lots did not contain
the exact same acreage as the MP Planning Areas. l PLANNING I
SYSTEMS
2. In general, some of the requested text changes, either deletions or additions, don't have a clearly
apparent benefit for the document. An example is the deletion of the existing if-then statements regarding
P A 13 and the school. The existing if-then statement can be implemented to develop P A 13 as residential.
(See page III-72). The merits/benefits of the statements should be discussed
Response: To the degree necessary, we have deleted the reference to the school and other aspects of
the Master Plan that have become obsolete since the approval of the original Master Plan. We think that
this update will allow for greater accuracy of land use information to the public as they purchase, move into
and become residents of the community.
3. The addition of 19 dwelling units to the overall number of dwelling units allowed in the Master
Plan will be subject to an allocation from the City's Excess Dwelling Unit Bank pursuant to City Council
Policy 43 (attached).
Response: (a) The approved Master Plan called out a maximum of 671 units on the West Village,
but if you added each of the West Village planning areas up individually, it totaled 688 units. (b) Also, the
approved Master Plan showed an elementary school on PA 13/14. It also indicated that if CUSD did not
want the school, then PA 13/14 would be 52 units of residential. These 52 units would come from; (1) 32
units from the PA 13114 growth control point, and (2) 17 units would be transferred from the West Village
and 3 units would be transferred from the East Village PA 21. PA 21 has been approved and the transfer of
the 3 units never occurred. (c) The Certified Robertson Ranch EIR indicated that the West Village would
have a maximum total of 691 residential units (p. 3-12) so full environmental review has been conducted
for a unit count higher than the 688 presently proposed.
4. Table 11-4 (See page II-3I) should be expanded to better explain how PA 4 will include the
transferred. 64 acres of recreation facilities not found in the other PAs.
Response: A new footnote (#8) has been added to the table to clarify that in the event that the
Common On-Site Recreation Area in any particular West Village Planning Area is less than that required
of the Planning Area, then Planning Area 4 facilities shall be increased in size by a corresponding amount.
The referenced 0.64 acre deficit has been eliminated.
5. In addition to restricting 15% of the total West Village residential units (15 X 688 = 103.2) as
affordable to lower income households,. 56 dwelling units are to be restricted for moderate income
households and 100 dwelling units are to be restricted as senior housing. It is possible that the required
100 senior housing units may overlap the required I60 moderate and lower income dwelling units.
Response: This statement is acknowledged by the applicant.
6. ModifY the statements regarding shared access and parking in PA 11 (See page III-61) to reflect
the Title 21 Joint Use Section (21.44.080) or Common Parking Facilities Section (21.44.090) requirements
of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
Response: The reference to common and joint-use parking on PA 11 has been eliminated due to the
difficulties associated with that arrangement between the uses.
7. The Master Plan text proposes designation of an amphitheater as a Community Facility. Please
provide details of how an amphitheater can/will provide "community" benefit for staff to consider.
Response: The Master Plan (p. III-60) has been revised to include the requirement that the
amphitheater use can be considered an allowed community facilities use only upon the City making the
necessary fmdings of community benefit. This would occur at the time that the CUP is considered for the
ultimately proposed community facilities use(s).
8. It is not c/eqr why and if Planning Area 2 will be designated and develff~~;t:~~[iiiijr:;::;ll
,-I PLANNING I I•J I L SYSTEMS
vehicle storage area for the West Village. A clear and consistent reference should be used In addition, the
discretionary review(s) identified in the Master Plan for the development of Planning Area 2 (PA2) as an
exclusive West Village use recreational vehicle storage yard are a Special Use Permit (SUP) and Planned
Development Permit (PUD) (See page 111-10). If PA2 is not adjacent to El Camino Real, the need for an
SUP is eliminated Typically RV storage areas are reviewed as a component of a PUD for residential
development and not as a stand-a/one Planned Development Permit. Regardless of its ultimate use, it may
be more appropriate to assign the Site Development Plan (SDP) process for the review and development of
PA2 as either an RV storage area for the West Village or as a recreational park.
Response: As a result of the fact that the wetlands/riparian habitat adjacent to PA 1 has expanded
over the last few years, area is no longer available for PA 2 RV storage use. Thus, the present MP draft has
eliminated all reference to PA 2. Seep. III-11.
9. Development within Planning Area 1 is designated to be either multifamily or Cluster Single
Family (See page ///-2). Since "Cluster Single Family" is not a typical/common product type, the Master
Plan should have a definition and possibly even an example illustration of each of the product types
proposed within the Master Plan.
Response: The MP text has been revised at PA 1 and PA 13 to identify a permissible use as "Single
Family Courtyard Condominium Homes". Also, an example illustration of the proposed product type is
included as Figure III-2, as recommended.
10. All references to the potential of creating gated neighborhoods should include the statement that
they are subject to the approval of a Planned Development Permit.
Response: Wording has been added to the discussion in PA 1, PA 5 and PA 9110 indicating that
gated communities are subject to the approval of a Planned Development Permit.
11. The proposal to relocate the required 100 senior housing units from Planning Area 7 to Planning
Area 8 is not an issue.
Response: This statement is acknowledged by the applicant. This revised draft allows the senior
housing units to be provided within either PA 7 or PA 8.
12. The approved Master Plan text states under the heading of "Affordable Housing" in each of the
residential planning area sections, that the inclusionary housing requirement shall be provided in Planning
Areas 7, 8, and/or 11, "or in any other Planning Area". If that is the case then why designate any
particular Planning Area at all?
Response: This wording has been modified in all cases to reference only "in Planning Area 7 or
Planning Area 8 concurrent with the schedule established by an Affordable Housing Agreement for the
West Village".
13. Although density may be increased for both senior and "affordable" developments, the declaration
in the master plan (See page ///-44) that density may be increased up to 32 dulac in Planning Area 8 is
made without the details necessary to make the necessary findings required to increase density. At this
stage it is more appropriate to reference the potential of a density increase request for the purpose of
developing senior/affordable housing units in Planning Area 8. The authority to grant the increase is
subject to making the appropriate findings consistent with Section 21.53.120 ofthe Carlsbad Municipal
Code and Residential Policy C.2 of the Carlsbad General Plan Land Use Element.
Response: A change has been made on Master Plan p. III-44 to reference the authority to grant
density bonus increase as indicated in the comment above. It is anticipated that the project may utilize the
affordable housing density bonus provisions to achieve densities of up to 32 dulac on PA 7 or PA 8. And
notwithstanding that internal portions of the RH-designated planning areas, PA 7 or PA 8 may calculate
individually over (up to 32 dulac) or under 20 dulac, the overall net density · ·
PLANNING I
SYSTEMS
Planning Areas 7 and 8 together shall be constructed at a minimum of 20 dulac. This provision is placed in
the Master Plan to ensure that the City achieves their credit from the State HCD for the 20 dulac density
affordability. This draft of the Master Plan also states that if the density is increased to a maximum of 32
dulac for affordable housing products (and/or senior housing with affordable component), that this will be
conducted only subject to the fmdings required and provisions provided pursuant to Carlsbad Municipal
Code Chapter 21.86. Compliance with Density Bonus criteria will be evaluated at the site plan review
stage of the development process. Also, as a result of such density bonus that may be approved, a
corresponding decrease in unit count (density transfer) in another location on the West Village will be
required, so as to not exceed the overall total maximum unit allocation for the West Village. The Master
Plan also stipulates that an applicant for development of Senior and/or Inclusionary Housing may apply for
standards modifications pursuant to the allowances identified in Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 21.86.
Requirements and modifications for senior/affordable projects will be articulated and approved through
implementation of the required Affordable Housing Agreement.
I4. The Master Plan text includes the establishment of a reduced parking standard for senior housing
beyond the reductions allowed by Chapter 2I.84 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code from I70 required
parking spaces to I25 parking spaces. Justification for the requested reduction to the senior housing
parking standard must be provided and then evaluated by City staff (See page l//-46.)
Response: A change has been made on p. III-46 to reference the fact that the applicant for a senior
housing project rimy apply for standards modifications to Chapter 21.84, including parking reductions.
This would occur with any proposed application for senior housing project entitlement. Reference to the
establishment or overall approval of parking reduction is not proposed in the Master Plan document.
I5. The Master Plan text includes the establishment of a 35 height limit for multi-family attached ·
dwelling units in Planning Area I3 (See page /l/-73) which is a departure from Chapter 2I.45 which
allows a 35 foot height for projects located within the high density and use designations of Residential
Medium-High (RMH) and High (RH). This Planning Area is designated as a Residential Medium density
(RM). Justification for the requested additional five feet in height must be provided and then evaluated by
City staff
Response: The maximum building height on PA 1 and PA 13 (both RM land use) have been reduced
to 30-feet on p. III-4 and p. III-71.
I6. Since the City's opinion is that the project and the surrounding residential area will benefit from a
Tamarack Avenue connection, the connection should either be included on the plans or the connection will
be a condition of approval.
Response: The Tamarack Connection roadway has been added to the Master Plan and the MTM, as
requested by Staff.
I7. Acijusting the HMP hardline boundaries will require a minor HMP amendment which is analyzed
through the CEQA review process. For this purpose, the HMP hardline consistency analysis should include
quantities of various species affected and a summary of same with the inclusion of the Tamarack Avenue
connection.
Response: An HMP Hardline Adjustment (minor amendment) Comparative Analysis is included
with this resubmittal package. This analysis includes habitat "take" and "give-back" acreages, and
locations of various species affected. The Tamarack Connection is included with this analysis. The
Hardline Comparative Analysis concludes that an increase in 2.59 acres of open space, including 0.28 acres
of additional DCSS and 0.13 acres of additional SWS will result from the updated project design.
I8. The following comments are carryovers from Preliminary Review P R 11-0 I
a. Single-family residential (SFR) is an allowed alternative use in Planning Area I with a minimum
lot size of 5, 000 square feet. The proposal to allow SFR lots with a minimtft~ffSE~~jiiiij==:;:::=il
I PLAN'NING I ••J SYSTEMS
feet is below what is allowed by the Planned Development Ordinance (21.45.070 D3) which is
5,000 square feet and 3,500 square foot lots under unique circumstances. Based on the
information provided there does not seem to be unique circumstances that would warrant support
of SFR lots smaller than the typical minimum of 5,000 square feet allowed by the current zone
code.
Response: The proposed PA I detached product has been re-defined in the Master Plan as a
condominium project, and thus will not contain small single family lots. This re-definition has also
occurred on P A 13.
b. Single-family residential is an allowed use in Planning Area 3 with a minimum lot size of 6,000
square feet. The proposal to allow SFR lots with a minimum size of 4,000 square feet is below
what is allowed by the Planned Development Ordinance (21.45.070 D3) which is 5,000 square
feet and 3,500 square foot lots under unique circumstances. Based on the information provided
there does not seem to be unique circumstances that would warrant support of SFR lots smaller
than the typical minimum of 5, 000 square feet allowed by the current zone code.
Response: Justification for minimum 4,000 square foot lots is provided on Master Plan p. III-15, and
includes; (a) Planning Area 3 is located contiguous to a prime arterial roadway (El Camino Real), and
includes convenient pedestrian access to a bus stop along this arterial, (b) Planning Area 3 is located only
650-feet walking distance from the Village Center commercial area and community center, and (c) since
the 4,000 foot lot area is the only 4,000 square foot residential neighborhood in Robertson Ranch, this
small lot size will allow for symmetry ofland use, and greater variety of residential product and price.
c. Section 21.44. 080 the Zoning Ordinance does allow for the joint use of commercial parking lots
when specific findings can be made. A full description of uses within Planning Area 11 is
necessary prior to being able to comment on the support of a joint use parking arrangement.
Response: The wording regarding shared parking has been eliminated.
d. Planning Area 11 is required to include a minimum of 5 acres dedicated to Community Facilities
uses as listed in Subsection 21.25.040 of the CMC (including a day care center as a required
component). Exhibits are not clear regarding how this is being satisfied, or if the MP A will
request to change that requirement. Further discussion of the potential development of an
outdoor community theatre within Planning Area 1 J is warranted given that it is not listed as a
use in Subsection 21.25.040 ofthe CMC. Of course for any use, a review ofthe adjacent open
space to the east and potential edge effects of the uses must be considered.
Response: As an alternative to shared parking, the project applicant is now requesting a reduction in
the Community Facilities requirement. The justification for this request is that a number of Community
Facility-designated properties exist in the vicinity of the project which have been not been developed and
have sat idle for a number of years. These include the daycare site and church site in Calavera Hills,
located less than one-half mile northerly of Robertson Ranch. The primary Community Facilities use area
for Robertson Ranch is identified as in the Village Center (Planning Area 11 ), which accommodates the
neighborhood commercial use for the area. This neighborhood commercial aspect of the Village Center is
identified in this Master Plan as requiring a minimum of 8 net acres in size. This requirement was adopted
in the original Master Plan. Thus, in recognition of the circumstances that no measurable demand exists for
additional community facilities, and also that a minimum of 8.0 acres is necessary for a viable
neighborhood commercial Village Center, a reduced community facilities obligation is requested so as to
not eliminate from the commercial use requirement, which is, in our opinion, a higher-priority use, based
on demand, etc. Thus, this Master Plan indicates a minimum of 3.0 acres of Community Facilities be
required within Master Plan rather than the originally-required 5.0 acres. Additionally, wording has been
revised on p. III-60 which indicates that an amphitheater is an additional allowed community facilities use
only subject to the City making the necessary findings of benefit to the community, upon submittal of a
development plan for PA 11.
PLANNING I
SYSTEMS -
Engineering:
Hardline Consistency Analysis Exhibit
1. Revise the exhibit to clarify why the area of the new deceleration lane is not considered a "take
area".
Response: The Hardline Consistency Analysis Exhibit has been revised to include the new
deceleration lane impacts.
2. This exhibit assumes removing the Tamarack connection. The Tamarack connection is a.road
connection that is required as part of the approved Master Plan and removing it is not supported by staff.
Revise the HMP consistency exhibit to include it as being constructed Assuming this element is removed in
the technical documents will cause review challenges and potential delays.
Response: The Tamarack Connection has been added back into the Master Plan and the MTM plans,
as requested by Staff.
3. Revise the exhibit to show the private storm drain that will serve lot I that traverses into PA 23A.
Refer to redlines and MTM
Response: The Hardline Consistency Analysis Exhibit has been revised to add the impacts
associated with the storm drain within PA 23A. These impacts are difficult to see on an 11 x 17 graphic,
but the computer has included their impacts in the acreage numerical totals.
4. Clarify whether the construction of new storm drains crossing into PA 23B are "take areas" or
negligible for this analysis.
Response: The temporary and permit impacts resulting from the storm drain outfalls within the open
space lots are now calculated and shown (although difficult to see) on the Exhibit as a "take".
Geotechnical Investigation
5. Revise the report to address the potential for the proposed 2:1 slopes along ECR, near STA
480+00), that may result in rills, slope erosion and soil deposition onto the ECR parkway. This has been
historically an erosive slope along ECR. Identify any measures that can be employed with this project to
avoid/address this long term maintenance issue.
Response: A response to this comment is provided in the attached letter from GeoSoils, Inc. dated
August 17, 2011, included with this resubmittal.
Master Tentative Map
6. In the upper right hand corner of the MTM, revise the exhibits to list the application numbers for
this project. Refer to redlines.
Response:
requested.
The application numbers have been added to the upper right hand comer of the MTM, as
7. Revise the MTM sheets to add references for acijacent sheets to allow for navigation of the MTM
(typical). Refer to redlines.
Response:
requested.
References to sheets showing the adjacent areas have been added to the MTM, as
I PLANNING I
. SYSTEMS •
8. Revise the MTM to show the new street lights on all proposed public streets. Refer to redlines and
revise all sheets as necessary. Add symbols to clarify that street lights along Street M will be private.
Response: Street lights have been added to the streets and to the typical sections.
9. Revise the MTM to show/callout comer sight distance corridors per the city landscape manual.
Response: Comer sight distances per the landscape manual have been called out on the MTM plans.
10. Revise the MTM exhibits to include dimensions for existing/proposed right-of-way (typical).
Response: Right-of-way dimensions have been added to the streets and also on the street typical
sections, as requested.
11. Revise the MTM to callout the size and pressure zone of all existing potable waterlines in El
Camino Real, Glasgow Dr and Edinburgh Dr. ·
Response: The HGL has been added to all of the existing and proposed water mains.
12. Revise the MTM to callout and construct temporary turnarounds at the terminus of all public
roads per city standard (GS-5). Refer to redlines.
Response: Temporary turnarounds at the terminus of all public roads has been called out on the
MTM sheets, as necessary.
13. Revise the MTM to indicate how trail improvements/connections will be provided to streets within
the project. Refer to the trail plan in the MP. Clarify what will happen to the existing service roads within
the open space lots. Will some be used for trails while others are revegetated? Refer to redlines.
Response: Pedestrian trail symbols and alignment have been shown, consistent with the approved
Master Plan. Trails or dirt [service] roads to remain have been indicated as such. All others will be
revegetated with native vegetation consistent with the adjacent area.
14. Revise the MTM to callout the proposed NCTD bus stops along El Camino Real.
Response:
frontage.
The proposed NCTD bus stops have been added and called out along the El Camino Real
15. Private streets generally must be built to public standards. Based on paved width/
dimensions/sidewalk/parking, Street M does not meet the characteristics of a street. Revise the MTM to
call this as Driveway M (private), versus a street. Revise the MTM to clarify who will own and maintain
(private) Driveway M Will the commercia/lot own the underlying property of Driveway M or share it with
lot 1 0? Will the HOA be the responsible entity for this private driveway? Should the private driveway be
its own lot? Please clarify.
Response: The private street entry to P A 11 has been removed and replaced with a proposed right-
in, right-out private driveway. This driveway will be maintained by the owner ofthe commercial lot (Lot
11 ). This driveway is not intended to be a separate lot. ·
16. Revise the MTM to show/callout conceptual driveway access for each planning areas that fronts
proposed or existing streets. Revise the MTM to show/callout the limits of proposed relinquishment of
abutter access rights. Add symbols to the legend and refer to redlines for clarification.
Response: The MTM has been revised to callout the relinquishment of access rights.
17. Revise the MTM to add cross-sections at locations where there are signft;L~~~~;djiill~.=::=:ll
rl PLANNING l ••I SYSTEMS
especially along major roadways and next to existing adjacent development. Refer to redlines for
additional clarification.
Response: The MTM has been revised to 40-scale. Cross sections have been added on Sheet 2.
18. On sheet 1, on the lot area table, clarifY whether lot 10 will be open space. Also clarifY whether
lot 13 is mislabeled as open space as it appears to be residential.
Response: The lot table on Sheet 1 has been revised and corrected.
19. On sheet 1, in the index map, correct the two unique lots both called out as lot 5. Address this
discrepancy.
Response: The index map on Sheet I has been revised and corrected.
20. On sheet 1, provide a north arrow on the index map.
Response: The north arrow has been added to the right-hand side of the index map.
21 . On sheet 1, revise the legend to address the symbols used throughout the MTM exhibits. Provide a
legend symbols for any permanent water quality measures to be employed with this project (e.g.:
bioretention swales) as proposed by the SWMP. Refer to redlines.
Response: The bioretention areas have been added to the MTM and shown as bioretention swales in
the legend on Sheet 1.
22. On sheet 2, revise the typical cross sections to include/callout the dedication of public pedestrian
access easements where sidewalks will cross outside street right-of way.
Response: Public pedestrian access easements have been called-out on the applicable cross-sections
in locations where the sidewalks are outside the street ROW, on Sheet 2, as requested.
23. On sheet 2, add details for the bioretention swale (see SWMP) or any other permanent water
quality measure that will be used to treat/filter/reduce storm runoff for this project.
Response: The detail for the bioretention swale has been added to the typical details in the bottom-
right comer of Sheet 2.
24. On sheet 2, revise the typical section for Driveway M to include sidewalk for pedestrian access
from El Camino Real to the commercial center.
Response: The private street to P A 11 has been deleted from the plan and is replaced by a private
parking lot driveway.
25. On sheet 3, revise the exhibit to provide for the disposition of the existing easements that
encumber this project. ClarifY if they will remain, be replaced, quitclaimed or otherwise vacated
Response: The exhibit on Sheet 3 has been revised and the Easement Table revised to provide for
the disposition of the existing easements on the property.
26. On sheet 3, revise the exhibit to callout the major street names. Refer to red/ines.
Response: The major street names have been added on the Sheet 3 exhibit, as requested.
27. On sheet 4, revise the exhibit to show intersection line-ofsight at existing, proposed and future
intersections impacted by this project. VerifY no conflicts with grading or futu .
II PLANNING I ••J SYSTEMS
monument signs, etc). Refer to redlines.
Response: Intersection line-of-sight lines have been added to intersections throughout the MTM.
28. On sheet 4, revise the proposed grading on lot 1 to avoid potential siltation onto El Camino Real.
The runoff seems to run towards the street and not the proposed de-siltation basin. Refer to redlines.
Response: Swales have been added to the grading for PA 1 to direct drainage away from El Camino
Real.
29. On sheet 4, clarifY if the proposed desiltation basin for lot 1 is located over the future access. If
there is a conflict, please consider relocating the basin and address this discrepancy.
Response:
1.
The temporary desiltation basin has been moved to avoid conflict with the access to Lot
30. On sheet 4, clarifY the proposed offiite grading near the northwest corner of Lot 1. Callout the
ownership of this property. Add call outs to remove the existing abandoned lift station and to protect the
existing sewer trunk main recently built at that corner. If necessary, provide a detail to clarifY this
condition.
Response: A note has been added to call out the removal of the existing abandoned sewer lift station
and to protect the sewer trunk main. The property is owned by the City of Carlsbad.
31. On sheet 4, provide a cross-section along Tamarack Ave showing the proposed grading on Lot I.
Show existing and proposed grade changes. Refer to redlines.
Response: The mounding along Tamarack Avenue adjacent to PA 1 has been removed. The grading
is now shown at 40-scale, which should provide the necessary level of detail.
32. On sheet 4, show the grading (and improvements?) for the Tamarack connection as shown on the
originally-approved Master Plan.
Response: The Tamarack Connection grading has been added to Sheet 10.
33. On sheet 4, callout the proposed storm drain serving lot I into the natural habitat as 'private'.
ClarifY if an HOA easement is needed to allow private maintenance in the habitat preserve area.
Response: The proposed storm drain serving Lot 1 has been labeled "private" (SD PVT), as
requested, on Sheet 14.
34. On sheet 4, provide slope benches for proposed slopes over 30 feet in height per city standards.
See the major slope proposed along El Camino Real. Refer to redlines.
Response: Terrace ditches have been added to slopes over 30 feet in height, as requested.
35. On sheet 4, revise the exhibit to reference CDP 11-10 for the proposed utilities
(water/sewer/storm drain) proposed in El Camino Real.
Response:
and 16.
A reference to CDP 11-10 for ECR improvements has been added to Sheets 13, 14, 15
36. On sheet 4 and 5, revise the MTM to show the permanent water quality treatment features that
will address the water quality aspects of this project. The MTM should match the water quality treatment
features listed in the SWMP. Consider features that will satisfY the city SUSMP (treatment and
hydromodification), comp/ementthi' project and consider long-term ownmhip/mai~5r I ll•ll
Response: Storm water quality treatment has been designed into the MTM and the preliminary
SWMP, as requested.
37. On sheet 4, clarify that the storm drains that will serve the desiltation basins will be private. Are
these storm drains temporary or will these storm drains be located in future public streets and be assumed
by the city at some point? We need to consider (condition) whether they are built to public standards or
not.
Response: Callouts have been added that indicate that the storm drains are private coming out of the
temporary desiltation basins, however the storm drains located in the ultimate locations in the streets will
become public with the "B" set of maps.
38. On sheet 4, clarify why the potable waterline in Street E extends into Lot 7. Revise the waterline
so it remains in the proposed street or provide public waterline easements. Refer to redlines.
Response: The portion of the referenced water main that shows outside of the street has been
removed on the revised plan.
39. On sheet 4, clarify what the flat area adjacent to El Camino Real (west of lot 7) will be used for.
Will this be a landscaped area and/or can it be used to meander the sidewalk?
Response: This area shows better at the new 40-scale, and is used for bioretention.
40. On sheet 4, revise the exhibit to show the proposed sidewalk along El Camino Real running up the
proposed slope. This sidewalk is shown on the concept landscape plans, but not the MTM Address this
inconsistency.
Response: The meandering sidewalk and pedestrian trail is shown on Sheet 15.
41. On sheet 4 and 5, add notes to protect/hi-line/relocate the existing 14-inch potable water crossing
the project. After discussion with CMWD staff, this line is critical to the water network and must be kept in
service during and after rough grading. Revise the MTM to realign this old waterline, after rough grading,
along the future public streets (similar to the storm drain alignments). Show/callout the dedication of a
proposed waterline easement that will encompass the new 14~inch alignment. The details/alignment of hi-
lining can be worked out at final design.
Response: The existing proposed realigned (within the future streets) 14-inch water main and
easement is shown on Sheets 4, 6, 11 and 14, across the project.
42. On sheet 4-6, revise the exhibits to show the proposed sidewalks and street lights along the
proposed streets (typical).
Response: Proposed street lights and sidewalks are shown on the typical street sections and on the
plan view of the streets on the MTM, as requested.
43. On sheet 5, revise the MTM to clarify the proposed improvements on Glasgow and Edinburgh
Existing improvements and paving should be screened back, while proposed improvements are bold so to
clarify what is new versus proposed Clarify the proposed utilities with each road extension. The larger
scaled exhibits should help clarify these road connections and improvements with the adjacent community.
Response: This information is clarified on the existing MTM, which is drawn at 40-scale.
44. On sheet 5, the retaining walls along Glasgow and Edinburgh are very high. Please contact the
existing adjacent property owners near Glasgow Dr and Edinburgh Dr to explore whether offsite grading
can be obtained to reduce/eliminate the need for retaining walls along these 'Fr~S~ '~''"-"'~-~iilli~:;::::ll
I PLANNING I ••I SYSTEMS
.; '
accomplished, revise the MTM to show/callout the offsite grading and that a letter of permission will be
obtained prior to construction. For discretionary action, staff needs a letter of support from the adjacent
property owner saying that they have reviewed the offsite shown on the MTM and do not object to it.
Response: Shapell representatives have been in contact with the adjacent property owners, some of
which have indicated cooperation to lay-back the slopes (avoid walls), and others of which, at this time,
have not responded to Shapell's requests to discuss. We will continue the effort to achieve letters of
support as indicated above.
45. On sheet 5, add the lot callout for lot 10 and callout as open space.
Response: This lot has been called out as open space, as requested.
46. On sheet 5, callout the reconstruction of the 14-inch waterline in Glasgow Dr.
Response: The 14-inch water line in Glasgow Drive has been added on Sheet 4.
47. On sheet 5, coordinate with the Fire Department whether proposed fire hydrants are required at
the extensions of Glasgow Dr and Edinburgh Dr at the cui-de-sacs.
Response: We will coordinate with the Fire Department for fire hydrant locations.
48. On sheet 5, show and callout D-41 energy dissipaters at the discharges of public storm drains
(off-street) into existing habitat per city standards or provide access roads. Provide public storm drain
easements as necessary on these off-street public facilities.
Response: D-41 energy dissipaters and easements have been added and called-out as necessary per
City standards.
49. On sheet 5, revise the MTM to reduce or eliminate the high retaining wall at the end of the future
cul-de-sac. The 20-ft vertical drop at the end of a street raises safety concerns.
Response: The MTM has been revised to delete the retaining walls at the end of the future cui-de-
sacs in the location identified.
50. On sheet 5, callout the slopes(%) of the proposed road extensions for Glasgow Dr and Edinburgh
Dr. VerifY they meet city standards and revise the MTM as necessary. Show and callout the removal of the
existing barricades at the existing terminus of Edinburgh Dr. and Glasgow Dr. Revise the MTM to show
what water quality treatmentlhydromodification features will be utilized to treat the new pavement for
Glasgow Dr and Edinburgh Dr before discharge to the natural water course. Revise the MTM to
distinguish and clearly callout what facilities are existing versus proposed.
Response: Notes have been added to the MTM to remove the existing barricades at Edinburgh Drive
and Glasgow Drive. Also, the MTM now indicates the percentage of street grades, and also shows
bioretention swales to treat the runoff before draining into the open space.
51. On sheet 5, callout the size of the proposed storm drain/wildlife crossing. ClarifY that an HOA
drainage easement will be provided to allow for access into the open space.
Response: The size of the wildlife crossing (12' x 12') has been added as a call-out pm Sheet 12. A
20-foot HOA private storm drain easement is also called-out at this location, as requested.
52. On sheet 5, revise the MTM to provide an access road to the upstream end of the proposed storm
drain/wildlife crossing for HOA maintenance. This area needs access in the event the headwall/inlet is
clogged with debris to avoid an unnecessary overflow.
l PLANNING I
SYSTEMS
Response: A note for access to the animal crossing and storm drain for HOA access has been
provided on Sheet 12.
53. On sheet 5, clarifY whether the proposed detention basin should straddle lot 4 and 8. Does this
raise any future ownership issues with the development of different planning areas?
Response: The referenced temporary desiltation basin has been moved to a location wholly within
Lot4.
54. On sheet 5, provide a detail on the traffic circle that demonstrates adequate circulation of a fire
truck/moving vehicle through this obstacle. Provide inside and outside turning radii using Caltrans
templates.
Response: The detail showing the truck turning radii on the reference traffic circle is shown on
Sheet 19.
55. On sheet 5 and 6, revise the pressure reducing station so that is located in the parkway and not in
the traveled way.
Response: The pressure reducing station has been relocated so that it is within the parkway.
56. On sheet 6, clarifY whether Street Z will have a different name than Lisa Street.
Response: This present MTM set still identifies the street as Street Z. However, Shapell has
indicated they wish to ultimately have a name different than Lisa Street.
57. On sheet 6, clarifY that the intersection of Lisa Street will be a signalized.
Response: A note has been added that the intersection of Lisa Street, Street Z, and El Camino Real
will be signalized on Sheet 15.
58. On sheet 6, clarifY where the proposed storm drain in Street Z will connect to. Show the proposed
storm drain that will be constructed as part of El Camino Real Widening (CDP 11-1 0).
Response: The subject storm drain will connect to the storm drain in El Camino Real. This is shown
better on the 40-scale MTM (Sheet 15).
59. On sheet 6, revise the MTM to show any grading that is required associated with constructing the
proposed deceleration lane for the right-in/right-out driveway. It appears this widening encroaches into
the existing drainage water course. Refer to redlines.
Response: The widening of El Camino Real for the proposed deceleration lane for the commercial
driveway is shown on the revised MTM at 40-scale. This widening does not encroach into a drainage water
course. However, this section does encroach into the HMP Hardline, and will necessitate a minor Hardline
modification, which we will process through the Planning Department.
60. On sheet 6, clarifY how the existing drainage next to the right-in/right-out makes its way under El
Camino Real. There appears to be an existing storm drain that may need extended to capture and convey
this runoff.
Response: The El Camino Real widening design plans have been added to the MTM for clarity. The
referenced drainage issue is addressed on the MTM.
61. On sheet 6, clarifY what happens to the existing SDG&E access driveway along El Camino Real.
Is it removed or relocated?
I PLANNING I 1•1
. SYSTEMS • I
Response: SDG&E driveway access onto the referenced access service road will be provided. No
change to this access route is proposed.
62. On sheet 6, remove lot 12 from this MTM as the city will process an acceptance of the lOD for the
future park site.
Response: The City Park site has been removed from ownership by the applicant.
63. On sheet 6, use a different symbol for inundation limits on lot 15. It appears the symbol for lot
lines was used here. Refer to redlines.
Response: The LOMR line symbol has been changed to be consistent in the referenced location.
64. On sheet 6, coordinate with the Property Management Division regarding the development of Fire
Station 3, specifically to address the future extension of the common street that will serve the park, fire
station and lot 13.
Response: We have been in contact and are coordinating with the City's Property Management
Division and discussed the access and development of Fire Station 3.
65. For additional comments, refer to the redlines. Concept Landscape Plans
Response: No comment needed.
Concept Landscape Plans
66. Revise the exhibits to clarifY why parkway landscaping is not proposed along the projects frontage
with Tamarack Ave. Is the landscaping already established and meet the landscape guidelines for parkway
improvements.
Response: The landscape along Tamarack Ave. is already established.
67. On sheet L-0.1 and L-2.4, revise the exhibit to show/include the re-vegetation along the new storm
drains that extend into the existing habitat. Refer to redlines.
Response: These exhibits have been revised as requested.
68. On sheet L-0.1, revise the exhibit to show how the slope on lot 13 will be landscaped as part of
this project. Refer to redlines.
Response: The referenced slope in Lot 13 is temporary and the fmal grading and slopes in this
planning area will be shown on the subsequent "B" map. Thus, only erosion control planting will be placed
on this slope.
69. On sheet L-2.4, revise the exhibit to provide parkway landscaping along the road extensions for
Glasgow Dr and Edinburgh Dr. Correct the street names that are misspelled. Refer to redlines.
Response: The exhibit has been revised as requested.
70. On sheet L-2.4, address whether the existing service roads in the preserve areas will be re-
vegetated or will remain open for trail purposes. Coordinate with the trail plan for this project.
Response: All service roads in the preserve areas have been or will be revegetated except for the
trails shown in the Master Plan Figures II-12 and III-181.
71. On sheet L-2.5, revise the exhibit to show and callout the locations of sight[1t~~~~~~iiii=::=:ll
PLANNING I •• ,
SYSTEMS
..
the city landscape manual. Revise the exhibits to address any landscape obstructions that may conflict with
these corridors. (typical all landscape sheets). Refer to redlinesfor example conflicts.
Response: Sight distance corridors have been added on Sheet L-2.5. No landscape obstructions are
proposed within the sight distance corridors.
72. On sheet L-2.5 and 2.6, revise the exhibits to show and callout line-ofsight comer sight distance
per Caltrans and city requirements. Coordinate with the MTM on these locations and show them on the
concept landscape plans and revise the exhibits as necessary to avoid conflicts with vehicular line-ofsight.
The identity walls at each intersection or future driveway seem to conflict with this safety standard. Please
address this discrepancy.
Response: Line-of-sight comer sight distances have been added in the exhibits. No landscape
obstructions are proposed within the areas.
73. On sheet L-2.5, add a note referring to the El Camino Real Widening project (CDP 11-10) for
median hardscape and landscaping.
Response: The referenced note has been added as requested.
74. On sheet L-2.5, revise the exhibit to show/callout the existing sewer at the westerly comer of lot 1
where the identity wall is proposed. This facility must be protected in place and the identifY wall should be
placed to allow for continued access and maintenance to the access holes in that location. The identity
wall also seems to conflict with the sight distance corridor and line of sight per Caltrans. Refer to redlines
and address discrepancy.
Response: The existing sewer line has been added as requested. No landscape obstruction is
proposed on the sewer line, the access holes, and the access to the access holes.
75. On sheet L-2.5, revise the exhibit to address conflicts with installing trees over the existing 14-
inch waterline. Coordinate with the MTM for the new location of the 14-inch waterline and address any
conflicts with proposed/existing trees.
Response: Landscape obstructions are avoided over the existing and proposed 14-inch water lines.
76. On sheet L-2.5, revise the exhibit to show parkway landscaping along El Camino Real to match
non-contiguous sidewalk construction. Coordinate with the MTM
Response: Sheet L-2.5 has been revised in accordance with this comment.
Landscape Architect Memo regarding Master PJan Amendment dated 5/12/11:
1. (Page 111-136, paragraph 1) -The current master plan indicates that "El Camino Real will
continue the existing tree patterns established by the City of Carlsbad. ... " The current Landscape manual
indicates the theme tree for El Camino Real to be Platanus acerifolia. This tree has severe problems with
anthracnose in the Carlsbad area and is no longer recommended. The Parks Department is currently
reviewing substitutes for this species. The Master Plan will need to be updated with the approved
substitute once a final decision is made.
Response: This statement is acknowledged by the applicant.
2. (Page III-148, Figure III-36)-Street tree species are subject to change. See comments #1 above.
Response: Please let us know when the tree policy changes.
3. (Page 11!-151) -Please explain why the El Camino Real commercial setbac ' J.
I PLANNING I ,. .,
_ SYSTEMS • I
..
~~~-~---~~~-~ -~~~~-~------------------
Response: The El Camino Real commercial setbacks have been reduced because the original setback
requirement was excessive ( 4 x the standard suburban commercial center in Carlsbad), and to allow for
greater visibility [and thus success] of the ultimate commercial and community facilities use. A hidden
commercial center is more likely to be unsuccessful, and also would create pressure to install larger
monument signage along the ECR frontage in order to identify the commercial businesses. A 50-foot
structural setback is, in our opinion, a very generous setback, which will allow for significant landscape
treatment, for a neighborhood commercial development.
4. (Page III-I5I)-Street trees for El Camino Real are subject to change. See comment #I above.
Response: Please let us know when the tree policy changes.
5. (Page III-I60) -Street 'Z' Theme Trees-Liquidambar styraciflua has been diagnosed with a
bacterial pathogen that has damaged the trees in this area. Liqyuidambar should be provided with a
substitute. Schinus molle is listed as an invasive species in the California Invasive Plant Inventory. Please
provide a substitute.
Response: Liquidambar styraciflua has been eliminated throughout the Master Plan. Eucalyptus
sideroxylon rosea is proposed as a substitute. Schinus molle has been removed from the list. Eucalyptus
ficifolia is proposed as a substitute.
6. (Page III-I65) -Project Interior Streets capes -Liquidambar styraciflua has been diagnosed with
a bacterial pathogen that has damaged the trees in this area. This tree should be provided with a
substitute.
Response: Liquidambar styraciflua has been removed from the list. Eyucalyptus sideroxylon rosea
is proposed as a substitute.
7. (Page III-I66) -Passive/Active Open Space Trees -Schinus terebinthefolius is listed as an
invasive species in the California Invasive Plant Inventory. Please provide a substitute.
Response:
time.
Schinus terebinthefolius has been removed from the list. No substitute is proposed at this
8. (Page III-I67)-Slope Trees-Platanus acerifolia has severe problems with anthracnose in the
Carlsbad area and is no longer recommended. Schinus mol/e is listed as an invasive species in the
California Invasive Plant Inventory. Please provide a substitute.
Response: Platanus acerifolia has been removed from the list. Lophostemon (Tristania) confertus is
proposed as a substitute.
9. (Page III-I69)-Fuel Modification Plan-Figure III-45 indicates that condition B does not occur
on site; however the Master Tentative Map plans show a condition Bon sheet L-I.2 to the south and east of
the Glasgow Drive cul-de-sac and to the east of the intersection of El Camino Real and Tamarack. Please
revise as appropriate.
Response: Condition does occur in the northern portion of P A 5 and P A 6 and along the northwest
side ofPA 9/10. We have revised this figure to reflect this information.
Landscape Architect Memo regarding Master Plan Tentative Map:
I. The Master Plan shows this fire suppression area as zone A. Please coordinate the Master Plan
and the Master Tentative Map.
These plans have been coordinated. Response:
l PLANNING I ,., ~ SYSTEMS • I
2. The Master Plan includes this area as fire suppression zone A. Please coordinate.
Response: A substitute has been provided, as indic~ted above.
3. Platanus acerifolia is having severe problems with anthracnose in the Carlsbad area. A substitute
will need to be provided. See comment #1 under Master Plan Amendment above.
Response: A substitute has been provided, as indicated above.
4. Schinus molle is listed as an invasive species in the California Invasive Plant Inventory. Please
provide substitutes for all invasive plants. Check all proposed plants.
Response: A substitute has been provided, as indicated above.
5. Liquidambar styraciflua has been diasgnosed with a bacterial pathogen that has damaged the
trees in this area. This tree should be provided with a substitute.
Response: A substitute has been provided, as indicated above.
6. Please note that plant species proposed for the DCSS Re-vegetation Area will need to be reviewed
and approved by a biologist and the ultimate maintaining entity prior to approval.
Response: The PA 23C Habitat Corridor revegetation area has already been approved and the
developer is obligated to install this revegetation at this time. It is acknowledged by the applicant that
revegetation of properties within PA 23A and 23B will require review and approval by a biologist and the
USFWS and the City, prior to installation.
7. Please add a note to the planting legend sheet indicating that plantings proposed within fire
suppression areas will be required to be low fuel species as approved by the City.
Response: This note has been added on p. L-2.2, as requested.
8. Please correct the match line numbers.
Response: The match line numbers have been corrected.
9. Some areas do not appear to match up to the grading plans. Please review all areas and insure
coordination.
Response: The grading plans were used as the base for the landscape plans.
10. Section 3 does not match Figure 111-41 (Page 111-1 58) in the Robertson Ranch Master Plan.
Please explain.
Response: Section 3 has been revised to be consistent with the Master Plan.
11. Please coordinate Section 1B with the Robertson Ranch Master Plan (show parking berm and
optional wall and indicate structure setback dimension).
Response: Section l B has been revised to include the requested information.
12. RETURN RED LINES and provide 2 copies of all plans for the next review.
Response: The redlines are being returned with this resubmittal package.
PLANNING I
SYSTEMS
• ..
Police:
See attachment from Jodeene Sasway, Crime Prevention Specialist, for a list of crime prevention
recommendations.
Response: Thank you for this information from the Police Department.
Landscape:
See attachment from Mike Elliott, Contract Landscape Architect, for comments on the landscape plans.
The attachment includes a set of redline plans.
We are hopeful that the Master Plan amendment and development plans are now acceptable to fmalize for
final CEQA review and hearings. Please let us know if you wish to meet to discuss any of the items in this
resubmittal package.
Paul J. Klukas
Director of Planning
cc: Erik Pfahler
Teresa Sousa
George O'Day
Attachments
I PLANNING I ••I SYSTEMS
August 5, 2011
Mr. Graham J. Espie
4717 Gateshead Road
Carlsbad, California 92010
SHAPELL
HOMES
of Southern California
RE: 4717 Gateshead Drive, Lot 30 ofTract 76-12
Right-of-way and roadway construction
Dear Mr. Espie:
We have tried to contact you by phone and in person over the past two months to discuss the planned
Robertson Ranch project. We have been working with individual residents and the Colony Homeowners
Association for many months and understand that some of your neighbors have even contacted you on our
behalf.
As you may be aware, Shape II Homes purchased the West Village of Robertson Ranch from the Robertson
Family last year with the intent of developing the property per the approved Master Plan. As a component of
that plan, Glasgow Drive is intended to extend and connect to the rest of the planned project.
We are interested in speaking with you regarding the details of this road connection including the 1' strip of
property located along the southern terminus of Glasgow Drive. There are a number of options for the
construction of this road that could prove advantageous, not only to Shapell, but to you, your neighbors and
the Colony community.
The Robertson Ranch Tentative Map is currently being processed through the City of Carlsbad and Shapell is
working diligently towards a Tentative Map approval within the next several months. It would be appropriate
to reflect a mutually acceptable roadway connection on this map.
Although your time may be limited, we would appreciate you contacting us so that we can discuss and
understand your position and develop a satisfactory resolution to this matter.
Please contact me at (323) 988-7527 or tsousa@shapell.com at your earliest convenience. Thank you in
advance for your time and understanding.
Sincerely, Gpt;tb;t~ ~
Teresa Sousa
Director
Forward Planning
8383 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 700 · Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Telephone 323.655.7330 · Shapell.com
Christer Westman
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Christer Westman
Monday, July 25, 2011 3:28 PM
'Paul Klukas'
RE: Robertson West Village
Assuming that my bosses are OK with this, seems like they should be given the growth management analysis etc., I
would say that there still needs to be disclosure to the PC and CC that the 688 is more than the originally approved 671
the master plan assumed with PA13 going residential.
Apropos PA 13, the MP as approved states that MP 13 may be developed with single family detached if not as a
school. Asking for a change to multi-attached may cause a stir with the east village neighborhoods under construction.
From: Paul Klukas [mailto:pklukas@planningsystems.net]
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2011 2:53 PM
To: Christer Westman
Subject: RE: Robertson West Village
Christer: This is logical and is within the parameters of the constraints analysis in the approved Z14 LFMP Growth
Management and the project description in the certified EIR. I'll go with 688 which is less than the max 690.
Thanks for your time on this.
Paul
From: Christer Westman [mailto:Christer.Westman@carlsbadca.gov]
Sent: Monday, July 25, 20111:58 PM
To: Paul Klukas
Subject: RE: Robertson West Village
Hi Paul,
1 am not able to find the Master Land Use Plan that adds up to 688. I am able to get 688 if I add up all of the West
Village Planning Areas at the max units plus the 35 alternative units for PA 13, without subtracting any units from PAs 5,
6, and 10. The 35 units for PA13 come from the combination of the 17 transfer units from Pas 5,6, and 10 and 18 "extra"
units that appear to be available based on the net acreage/control point calculations for the West Village.
So now 1 am thinking that the net acreage/control point calculations for the West Village allow up to 690.2 dwelling
units. As long as the final count does not exceed 690 we should be good with Growth Management and there should
not be a need to extract anything from the excess dwelling unit bank.
Thoughts on that?
Christer
From: Paul Klukas [mailto:pklukas@planningsystems.net]
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2011 9:37 AM
To: Christer Westman
Subject: Robertson West Village
Christer: As we have previously discussed, I need to figure out whether the West Village MP will need to request
19 units from the Excess DU Bank. Here is the situation:
1
1. ~he approved Master Plan caCut a maximum of 671 units on the West ~ge (1,154 RR total), but if you add
each of the West Village planning areas up individually on the approved Master Land Use Plan, it totals 688 units
(1,173 RR total).
2. Also, th·e approved Master Plan shows an elementary school on PA 13/14. It also indicates that if CUSD did not
want the school, then PA 13/14 would be 52 units of RM residential. But the original RLM (previous underlying
land use) constraints analysis of PA 13/14 individually yielded only 33 units. So the remaining 19 units were
apparently to be "shifted" from other EVand WV planning areas. (See text MP p. 11-17 at bottom.) It is unclear
as to whether this "shifting" of units was for unit bookkeeping purposes (to show overall compliance with
21.53.230-Residential Density Calculations) or whether it meant actual"transfer" of units.
3. In any event, no actual transfer of units occurred on the EV (PA 21), and the PA 21 project was approved at the
max count shown on the Master Land Use Plan even though the school had declined the PA 13/14 site.
4. So with all of the above in mind, it is my opinion that the max units proposed in the present WV application (688
du) is consistent with the max allowed in the existing MP and therefore no request for units from the Bank
should be necessary.
5. Note also that the Certified Robertson Ranch EIR described the project West Village as having a max total of 691
residential units (Final EIR p. 3-12) so full environmental review has been conducted for a project with a unit
count higher than the 688 presently proposed. So no CEQA issue here.
6. If it is determined that a request from the Bank is necessary, we believe that the findings could be made for a
transfer of the 19 units. Such findings would be "provision of affordable housing, provision of senior housing,
and development near transit (ECR), commercial (PA 11) and employment (1 mile from Carlsbad Research Ctr.).
7. But we would rather not withdraw from the Bank if not necessary. The City could use each of those available
units for affordable housing to meet RHNA goals, etc.
I need to figure out which way to go on this matter on the 2"d draft of the MP amendment. Your thoughts on this?
Paul J. Klukas
PLANNING SYSTEMS
1530 Faraday Ave. #100
Carlsbad, CA 92008
(760) 931-0780 ph
pklukas@planningsystems.net
2
Christer Westman
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Don Neu
Monday, July 18, 2011 3:07PM
Christer Westman
Chris DeCerbo
Subject: FW: ROBERTSON RANCH WEST -CC&Rs
Christer,
Attached is a request from Mark Steyaert regarding disclosing the future Robertson Ranch Park to potential purchasers
of homes in the West Village. It sounds like a good idea.
Don
'~ \'1,.( ¥ CITY OF
CARLSBAD
Don Neu, AICP
City Planner
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
www.carlsbadca.gov
P: 760-602-4601
Don.Neu@carlsbadca.gov
From: Mark Steyaert
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2011 2:38 PM
To: Don Neu
Subject: ROBERTSON RANCH WEST -CC&Rs
Don,
While I am thinking about it, will you make sure that the CC&Rs for the Shapell Homes (or whomever is developing
around future Robertson Ranch Park) disclose our intent to have active lighted sports fields at that park. I know Planning
routinely does that, but since the homes are so dense and close, I just want to be sure.
Thanks, Mark
1
PLANNING I
SYSTEMS -
June 29, 2011
Mr. John Buller
Shapell Homes
c
8383 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 700
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
0
LAND USE/COASTAL PLANNING
LANDSCAPEARCHITECTURE•LA3~
POLICY AND PROCESSING
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION
Re: Focused Brodiaeafilifolia Survey
Robertson Ranch West Village, Carlsbad, CA
Mr. Buller,
I CITY OF CARLSBAD
I JUL 01 2011 I p~:~ANNING IJtPARTMENT
This letter report describes the results of a focused thread-leaved brodiaea (Brodiaeafilifolia S. Watson)
survey conducted by Planning Systems on May 25 and 26, 2011. Thread-leaved brodiaea is a plant
species listed by the U.S. federal government as "Threatened" and listed by the State of California as
"Endangered". This survey was undertaken to comply with the following Robertson Ranch Master Plan
Final EIR condition (April2006, page 2-31):
MM B-21: West Village. If sufficient precipitation (greater than 10 inches) occurs prior to grading
of the West Village, surveys shall be conducted to provide an opportunity to identify Brodiaea
filifolia under peak emergence conditions. Surveys for the West Village shall not necessarily be
conducted immediately prior to ground disturbance. The survey timing shall be dictated by optimal
emergence conditions. If precipitation of greater than 10 inches does not occur prior to grading for
the West Village, then the results of the 2003 surveys shall be utilized to assess impacts to the
species.
The Robertson Ranch West Village (RRWV), is processing development plans with the City of Carlsbad,
and may initiate grading prior to spring 2012. The rainfall total for the 2010-2011 season as measured at
the Oceanside, CA airport was approximately 24 inches. Therefore it was determined that a thread-
leaved brodiaea survey should be conducted in the spring of 2011.
Status of Brodiaea filifera Flowering
On May 25, 2011 Planning Systems visited a known Brodiaea filifolia colony located north of College
Blvd. and west ofEl Camino Real to determine flowering status (see figure 1). The colony occurs on
sloping Altamont clay soils supporting predominately non-native grassland species but which also
include purple needlegrass (Nasella pulchra), and blue-eyed grass (Sisyrinchium bellum). This site
occurs one mile from RRWV. At least 200 Brodiaea filifolia plants were in flower on May 25 (Photos 1
and 2). lt'was observed that some flowers were expired and some flowers were still in bud. Brodiaea
filifolia were also in flower at Camp Pendleton on May 25, 2011 (personal communication with Fred
Sproul, biologist). These investigations indicated that optimal conditions for performing Brodiaea
filifolia presence-absence surveys existed.
Methodology
The brodiaea survey field work and reporting was performed by Greg Evans, restoration ecologist. All
Robertson Ranch West Village (RR WV) survey work occurred on May 26, 2011. The survey was
1530 FARADAY AVENUE • SUITE 100 • CARLSBAD, CA 92008 • {760) 931-0780 • FAX {760) 931-5744 • info@planningsystems.net
0 0
conducted on foot in all areas where non-native grasslands, perennial grasslands, waste areas supporting
ruderal species, and clay soils occur. Areas dominated by habitats such as closed canopy coastal sage
scrub, riparian or wetland areas, and active agricultural lands were not surveyed. Six on-site locations
had habitat that potentially could support Brodiaea filifolia. These areas were intensively surveyed for
Brodiaea filifolia.
Results
No Brodiaea filifolia were found on the Robertson Ranch West Village. Clay lenses and areas
supporting native grasses, blue-eyed grass, fennel, yellow-star thistle and other non-native grassland
associates yielded no positive results. These finding duplicate the results of the negative 2003 survey,
the most recent Brodiaea filifolia survey on record.
;9;.&--
Greg Evans, Restoration Ecologist
PLANNING SYSTEMS
CC: Mr. Christer Westman, City of Carlsbad
Mr. Mike Grimm, City of Carlsbad
Ms. Janet Stuckrath, USFWS
Mr. Paul Klukas, Planning Systems
SOURCE: The Thomas Guide, San Diego County, 2005
Figure 1
Location Map
Robertson Ranch West Village Brodiaea Survey
Carlsbad, California
NORTH
PLANNING SYSTEMS
June 29, 2011
1500 3000 6000 FT
SCALE: 1" = 3000'
I '•1\
1530 FARADAY AVENUE. SUITE 100, CARLSBAD. CA 92006 (760) 931-0780 FAX (760) 931-5744
, " . .
PHOTOGRAPHS
Date: May 25, 2011
Subject: Brodiaea filifolia colony southwest ofEl Camino Real and College Blvd.
Photo2
Planning Division
June 23, 2011
Paul Klukas
Planning Systems
1530 Faraday Ave #100
Carlsbad CA 92008
FILE COPY
www.carlsbadca.gov
SUBJECT: 1st REVIEW FOR MP 02-03(C)/CT 11-01/HDP 11-01/SUP 11-02/HMP 11-03 -
ROBERTSON RANCH WEST VILLAGE
Thank you for applying for Land Use Permits in the City of Carlsbad. The Planning Division has
reviewed your Master Plan Amendment and other land use development permit applications no. MP
02-03(C)/CT 11-01/HDP 11-01/SUP 11-02/HMP 11-03, as to its completeness for processing.
The application is incomplete, as submitted. Attached are two lists. The first list is information which
must be submitted to complete your application. The second list is project issues of concern to staff.
In order to expedite the processing of your application, the "incomplete" items and your response to
the project issues of concern to Staff must be submitted directly to your staff planner; therefore,
please contact your staff planner directly to schedule a re-submittal appointment. As part of your re-
submittal package, please prepare and include with your re-submittal: (1) a copy of these lists, (2) a
detailed letter summarizing how all identified incomplete items and/or project issues have been
addressed; and (3) five (5) sets of revised plans. No processing of your application can occur until
the application is determined to be complete.
When all required materials are submitted, the City has 30 days to make a determination of
completeness. If the application is determined to be complete, processing for a decision on the
application will be initiated. In addition, please note that you have six months from the date the
application was initially filed, May 9, 2011, to either resubmit the application or submit the required
information. Failure to resubmit the application or to submit the materials necessary to determine
your application complete shall be deemed to constitute withdrawal of the application. If an
application is withdrawn or deemed withdrawn, a new application must be submitted.
In order to expedite the processing of your application, you are strongly encouraged to contact your
Staff Planner, Christer Westman, at (760) 602-4614, to discuss or to schedule a meeting to discuss
your application and to completely understand this letter. You may also contact each commenting
department individually as follows:
• Land Development Engineering Division: Jeremy Riddle, Associate Engineer, at (760) 602-
2737.
• Fire Department: Gregory Ryan, Fire Inspections, at (760) 602-4661.
Sincerely,
~aCveo
CHRIS DeCERBO
Principal Planner
CD:CW:bd
c: Rancho Costera LLC c/o Erik Pfahler 8383 Wilshire Blvd. # 700 Beverly Hills CA 90211
Don Neu, Planning Director
Jeremy Riddle, Project Engineer
Chris DeCerbo. Principal Planner
File Copy
Data Entry
T 760-602-4600 F 760-602-8559
MP 02-0_3(C)f~T 11-01/HD-r-11-01/SUP 11-02/HMP 11-03 -R~RTSON RANCH WEST
'Vfl~~E'*"' :· . 'J4n~ 2~. 2~11
Pa e2
LIST OF ITEMS NEEDED
TO COMPLETE THE APPLICATION
Planning:
1. Changing the General Plan designations (such as in Planning Area 13 from E to RM) and/or
configurations (such as Planning Areas 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8) require approval of a General Plan
Amendment. The General Plan Amendment application will be processed concurrently with
the Master Plan Amendment.
Engineering:
1. Per the preliminary review letter (PRE 11-01 ), city staff does not support deleting the road
connection to Tamarack Ave. However, this application still shows deleting this road
connection. Revise the application documents to comply with the approved Master Plan (MP
02-03). Revise the Master Plan (text and exhibits), Master Tentative Map (MTM), hardline
consistency map, drainage study, storm water management plan (SWMP), geotechnical
study, and other related technical reports to include the construction of the Tamarack
connection. The project includes the necessary environmental (CEQA) approvals to
construct this road connection. Now that the project includes gating the road connections
with Glasgow and Edinburgh, this leaves the remainder of Robertson Ranch West
community (524 dwelling units plus the 13 AC commercial lot) to use El Camino Real on a
day-to-day basis as they will not have access to Edinburgh Dr and Glasgow Dr. Per PRE
11-01, deleting the Tamarack connection raises not only emergency evacuation concerns
but also directs significant traffic (side-friction) to the intersection of El Camino Real and Lisa
Street. Deleting the Tamarack connection will extend signal timing at Street Z resulting in
longer left turn delays and affecting El Camino Real corridor. Although the right-in-right-out
connection provided along El Camino real will provide beneficial access to the commercial
site, it will not satisfy the secondary connection requirement that the Tamarack connection
provides. See engineering issues below for more on this major issue. Although a traffic
report was provided on deleting the Tamarack connection, this report does not help satisfy
the single entry development requirements for this project. The report also does not satisfy
the effort from our transportation division to alleviate the future traffic this project would offer
to the El Camino Real transportation corridor.
2. Per condition 21 of PC Resolution 6106, revise the MTM to dedicate a public road easement
along Tamarack to provide for a future dual left turn lane on west-bound Tamarack Ave.
3. Approval of this project is contingent with demonstrating compliance with the improvement
conditions for El Camino Real per PC Resolution 6106. The improvements for El Camino are
not thoroughly shown on the MTM, however, it is our understanding that a separate
concurrent application (CDP 11-1 0) will address how these other conditions will be satisfied.
4. Please revise the MTM boundary to not include lot 12 (city park site). City staff will process
an acceptance of the park IOD to avoid confusion with this MTM. Refer to redlines.
5. The current drainage study addresses sizing for the interim (rough graded) condition. Since
this MTM proposes to construct the backbone storm drains, revise the drainage study to
include calculations necessary to size. There are several storm drains located throughout
the project that appear to be located within future public streets, but are only sized to handle
the rough graded condition. Please clarify if these storm drains are meant to be size for
ultimate and will be sized for ultimate build-out. The drainage study should also include
calculations to address the build-out capacity of the storm drains proposed in Street E, Street
M, Street Z, Edinburgh Dr and Glasgow Dr.
MP 02-03(C)/CT
VILLAGE
June 23, 2011
Pa e 3
11-01/HQ 11-01/SUP 11-02/HMP 11-03 -R~RTSON RANCH WEST
6. Revise the drainage study to provide a comprehensive hydrologic/hydraulic analysis to
address the capacity of existing/proposed storm drains within this project including El
Camino Real.
7. Revise the MTM to show/callout proposed easements to encompass proposed off-street
public facilities (e.g.: potable water, sewer, storm drains, meandering sidewalks, etc.) Refer
to redlines.
8. Revise the MTM to provide details (larger scale) on some critical areas where staff has
raised several issues (i.e.: corner of PA 1, Edinburgh Dr, Glasgow Dr, Street Z, Street M,
etc.).
9. Per the MP conditions, this project is required to build facilities that will allow for the
decommissioning of the existing (gateshead) sewer lift station. We understand this will occur
with future development of the planning areas. Demonstrate or note that the sewer facilities
in Street E, Street Z and El Camino Real will be sized to handle this project and the future
intercepted sewer flow from the northerly adjacent project. Revise the MTM to clarify the
sewer improvements required in Edinburgh Dr that will allow for the lift station to be taken off-
line.
10. Provide written documentation from SDG&E stating they have reviewed the MTM and do not
object to this subdivision. Clarify how their service roads will be removed and/or relocated
with the proposed project.
11. Provide written documentation from NCTD that they have reviewed this project regarding
mass transit facilities and have no objection.
12. The sewer and potable water study were submitted to the city after formal submittal of this
application and staff has not completed a review. We will forward comments when they are
available.
ISSUES OF CONCERN
Planning:
In addition to the specific comments that follow, a marked copy of the Master Plan is being
transmitted to you for review and comment/correction. Please review the marked copy of the plan
and return it with the next submittal.
1. A thorough review of the entire document must be made to ensure that all of the proposed
and adjusted gross and net acreages are consistent. An example includes differences in the
gross acreage identified on the tentative map for each planning area and what is listed in the
master plan text tables and Planning Area chapters.
2. In general, some of the requested text changes, either deletions or additions, don't have a
clearly apparent benefit for the document. An example is the deletion of the existing if-then
statements regarding PA 13 and the school. The existing if-then statement can be
implemented to develop PA 13 as residential. (See page 111-72) The merits/benefits of the
statements should be discussed.
3. The addition of 19 dwelling units to the overall number of dwelling units allowed in the Master
Plan will be subject to an allocation from the City's Excess Dwelling Unit Bank pursuant to
City Council Policy 43 (attached).
~ ,...,
MP 02-03(C)/CT 11-01/H~ 11-01/SUP 11-02/HMP 11-03 -R~RTSON RANCH WEST
VILLAGE
June 23, 2011
Pa e4
4. Table 11-4 (See page 11-31) should be expanded to better explain how PA4 will include the
transferred .64 acres of recreation facilities not found in the other PAs.
5. In addition to restricting 15% of the total West Village residential units (.15 X 688 = 1 03.2) as
affordable to lower income households, 56 dwelling units are to be restricted for moderate
income households and 100 dwelling units are to be restricted as senior housing. It is
possible that the required 1 00 senior housing units may overlap the required 160 moderate
and lower income dwelling units.
6. Modify the statements regarding shared access and parking in PA 11 (See page 111-61) to
reflect the Title 21 Joint Use Section (21.44.080) or Common Parking Facilities Section
(21.44.090) requir~ments of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
7. The Master Plan text proposes designation of an amphitheater as a Community Facility.
Please provide details of how an amphitheater can/will provide "community" benefit for staff
to consider.
8. It is not clear why and if Planning Area 2 will be designated and developed as a recreational
vehicle storage area for the West Village. A clear and consistent reference should be used.
In addition, the discretionary review(s) identified in the Master Plan for the development of
Planning Area 2 (PA2) as an exclusive West Village use recreational vehicle storage yard
are a Special Use Permit (SUP) and Planned Development Permit (PUD) (See page 111-10).
If PA2 is not adjacent to El Camino Real, the need for an SUP is eliminated. Typically RV
storage areas are reviewed as a component of a PUD for residential development and not as
a stand-alone Planned Development Permit. Regardless of its ultimate use, it may be more
appropriate to assign the Site Development Plan (SOP) process for the review and
development of PA2 as either an RV storage area for the West Village or as a recreational
park.
9. Development within Planning Area 1 is designated to be either multifamily or Cluster" Single
Family (See page 111-2). Since "Cluster Single Family" is not a typical/common product type,
the Master Plan should have a definition and possibly even an example illustration of each of
the product types proposed within the Master Plan.
1 0. All references to the potential of creating gated neighborhoods should include the statement
that they are subject to the approval of a Planned Development Permit.
11. The proposal to relocate the required 100 senior housing units from Planning Area 7 to
Planning Area 8 is not an issue.
12. The approved Master Plan text states under the heading of "Affordable Housing" in each of
the residential planning area sections, that the inclusionary housing requirement shall be
provided in Planning Areas 7, 8, and/or 11, "or in any other Planning Area". If that is the
case then why designate any particular Planning Area at all?
13. Although density may be increased for both senior and "affordable" developments, the
declaration in the master plan (See page 111-44) that density may be increased up to 32 dulac
in Planning Area 8 is made without the details necessary to make the necessary findings
required to increase density. At this stage it is more appropriate to reference the potential of
a density increase request for the purpose of developing senior/affordable housing units in
Planning Area 8. The authority to grant the increase is subject to making the appropriate
findings consistent with Section 21.53.120 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code and Residential
Policy C.2 of the Carlsbad General Plan Land Use Element.
MP 02-03(C)/CT
VILLAGE
11-01/H,o11-01/SUP 11-02/HMP 11-03 -RQRTSON RANCH WEST
June 23, 2011
Pa e5
14. The Master Plan text includes the establishment of a reduced parking standard for senior
housing beyond the reductions allowed by Chapter 21.84 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code
from 170 required parking spaces to 125 parking spaces. Justification for the requested
reduction to the senior housing parking standard must be provided and then evaluated by
City staff. (See page 111-46).
15. The Master Plan text includes the establishment of a 35 height limit for multi-family attached
dwelling units in Planning Area 13 (See page 111-73) which is a departure from Chapter 21.45
which allows a 35 foot height for projects located within the high density land use
designations of Residential Medium-High (RMH) and High (RH). This Planning Area is
designated as a Residential Medium density (RM). Justification for the requested additional
five feet in height must be provided and then evaluated by City staff.
16. Since the City's opinion is that the project and the surrounding residential area will benefit
from a Tamarack Avenue connection, the connection should either be included on the plans
or the connection will be a condition of approval.
17. Adjusting the HMP hardline boundaries will require a minor HMP amendment which is
analyzed through the CEQA review process. For this purpose, the HMP hardline
consistency analysis should include quantities of various species affected and a summary of
same with the inclusion of the Tamarack Avenue connection.
18. The following comments are carryovers from Preliminary ~eview PR 11-01.
a. Single-family residential (SFR) is an allowed alternative use in Planning Area 1 with a
minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet. The proposal to allow SFR lots with a
minimum size of 3,300 square feet is below what is allowed by the Planned
Development Ordinance (21.45.070 D3) which is 5,000 square feet and 3,500 square
foot lots under unique circumstances. Based on the information provided there does
not seem to be unique circumstances that would warrant support of SFR lots smaller
than the typical minimum of 5,000 square feet allowed by the current zone code.
b. Single-family residential is an allowed use in Planning Area 3 with a minimum lot size
of 6,000 square feet. The proposal to allow SFR lots with a minimum size of 4,000
square feet is below what is allowed by the Planned Development Ordinance
(21.45.070 D3) which is 5,000 square feet and 3,500 square foot lots under unique
circumstances. Based on the information provided there does not seem to be unique
circumstances that would warrant support of SFR lots smaller than the typical
minimum of 5,000 square feet allowed by the current zone code.
c. Section 21.44.080 the Zoning Ordinance. does allow for the joint use of commercial
parking lots when specific findings can be made. A full description of uses within
Planning Area 11 is necessary prior to being able to comment on the support of a
joint use parking arrangement.
d. Planning Area 11 is required to include a minimum of 5 acres dedicated to
Community Facilities uses as listed in Subsection 21.25.040 of the CMC (including a
day care center as a required component). Exhibits are not clear regarding how this
is being satisfied, or if the MPA will request to change that requirement. Further
discussion of the potential development of an outdoor community theatre within
Planning Area 11 is warranted given that it is not listed as a use in Subsection
21.25.040 of the CMC. Of course for any use, a review of the adjacent open space
to the east and potential edge effects of the uses must be considered.
,.........., ""'"""\
MP 02-03(C)/CT 11-01/H0, ... /11-01/SUP 11-02/HMP 11-03 -R~RTSON RANCH WEST
VILLAGE
June 23, 2011
Pa e6
Engineering:
Hardline Consistency Analysis Exhibit
1. Revise the exhibit to clarify why the area of the new deceleration lane is not considered a
"take area".
2. This exhibit assumes removing the Tamarack connection. The Tamarack connection is a
road connection that is required as part of the approved Master Plan and removing it is not
supported by staff. Revise the HMP consistency exhibit to include it as being constructed.
Assuming this element is removed in the technical documents will cause review challenges
and potential delays.
3. Revise the exhibit to show the private storm drain that will serve lot 1 that traverses into PA
23A. Refer to red lines and MTM.
4. Clarify whether the construction of new storm drains crossing into PA 238 are "take areas" or
negligible for this analysis.
Geotechnical Investigation
5. Revise the report to address the potential for the proposed 2:1 slopes along ECR, near STA
480+00), that may result in rills, slope erosion and soil deposition onto the ECR parkway.
This has been historically an erosive slope along ECR. Identify any measures that can be
employed with this project to avoid/address this long term maintenance issue.
Master Tentative Map
6. In the upper right hand corner of the MTM, revise the exhibits to list the application numbers
for this project. Refer to redlines.
7. Revise the MTM sheets to add references for adjacent sheets to allow for navigation of the
MTM (typical). Refer to redlines.
8. Revise the MTM to show the new street lights on all proposed public streets. Refer to
red lines and revise all sheets as necessary. Add symbols to clarify that street lights along
Street M will be private.
9. Revise the MTM to show/callout corner sight distance corridors per the city landscape
manual.
10. Revise the MTM exhibits to include dimensions for existing/proposed right-of-way (typical).
11. Revise the MTM to callout the size and pressure zone of all existing potable waterlines in El
Camino Real, Glasgow Dr and Edinburgh Dr.
12. Revise the MTM to callout and construct temporary turnarounds at the terminus of all public
roads per city standard (GS-5). Refer to redlines.
13. Revise the MTM to indicate how trail improvements/connections will be provided to streets
within the project. Refer to the trail plan in the MP. Clarify what will happen to the existing
service roads within the open space lots. Will some be used for trails while others are re-
vegetated? Refer to redlines.
MP 02-03(C)/CT
VILLAGE
June 23, 2011
Pa e 7
11-01/HQ 11-01/SUP 11-02/HMP 11-03 -R~RTSON RANCH WEST
14. Revise the MTM to callout the proposed NCTD bus stops along El Camino Real.
15. Private streets generally must be built to public standards. Based on paved width/
dimensions/sidewalk/parking, Street M does not meet the characteristics of a street. Revise
the MTM to call this as Driveway M (private), versus a street. Revise the MTM to clarify who
will own and maintain (private) Driveway M. Will the commercial lot own the underlying
property of Driveway M or share it with lot 1 0? Will the HOA be the responsible entity for this
private driveway? Should the private driveway be its own lot? Please clarify.
16. Revise the MTM to show/callout conceptual driveway access for each planning areas that
fronts proposed or existing streets. Revise the MTM to show/callout the limits of proposed
relinquishment of abutter access rights. Add symbols to the legend and refer to redlines for
clarification.
17. Revise the MTM to add cross-sections at locations where there are significant grade
changes, especially along major roadways and next to existing adjacent development. Refer
to redlines for additional clarification.
18. On sheet 1, on the lot area table, clarify whether lot 10 will be open space. Also clarify
whether lot 13 is mislabeled as open space as it appears to be residential.
19. On sheet 1, in the index map, correct the two unique lots both called out as lot 5. Address
this discrepancy.
20. On sheet 1, provide a north arrow on the index map. . '
21. On sheet 1, revise the legend to address the symbols used throughout the MTM exhibits.
Provide a legend symbols for any permanent water quality measures to be employed with
this project (e.g.: bioretention swales) as proposed by the SWMP. Refer to redlines.
22. On sheet 2, revise the typical cross sections to include/callout the dedication of public
pedestrian access easements where sidewalks will cross outside street right-of-way.
23. On sheet 2, add details for the bioretention swale (see SWMP) or any other permanent water
quality measure that will be used to treat/filter/reduce storm runoff for this project.
24. On sheet 2, revise the typical section for Driveway M to include sidewalk for pedestrian
access from El Camino Real to the commercial center.
25. On sheet 3, revise the exhibit to provide for the disposition of the existing easements that
encumber this project. Clarify if they will remain, be replaced, quitclaimed or otherwise
vacated.
26. On sheet 3, revise the exhibit to callout the major street names. Refer to redlines.
27. On sheet 4, revise the exhibit to show intersection line-of-sight at existing, proposed and
future intersections impacted by this project. Verify no conflicts with grading or future
obstructions (walls, monument signs, etc). Refer to redlines.
28. On sheet 4, revise the proposed grading on lot 1 to avoid potential siltation onto El Camino
Real. The runoff seems to run towards the street and not the proposed de-siltation basin.
Refer to redlines.
·""'" ~
MP 02-03(C)/CT 11-01/H~ 11-01/SUP 11-02/HMP 11-03 -R~RTSON RANCH WEST
VILLAGE
June 23, 2011
Pa e8
29. On sheet 4, clarify if the proposed desiltation basin for lot 1 is located over the future access.
If there is a conflict, please consider relocating the basin and address this discrepancy.
30. On sheet 4, clarify the proposed offsite grading near the northwest corner of Lot 1. Callout
the ownership of this property. Add callouts to· remove the existing abandoned lift station
and to protect the existing sewer trunk main recently built at that corner. If necessary,
provide a detail to clarify this condition.
31. On sheet 4, provide a cross-section along Tamarack Ave showing the proposed grading on
Lot 1. Show existing and proposed grade changes. Refer to red lines.
32. On sheet 4, show the grading (and improvements?) for the Tamarack connection as shown
on the originally-approved Master Plan.
33. On sheet 4, callout the proposed storm drain serving lot 1 into the natural habitat as 'private'.
Clarify if an HOA easement is needed to allow private maintenance in the habitat preserve
area.
34. On sheet 4, provide slope benches for proposed slopes over 30-feet in height per city
standards. See the major slope proposed along El Camino Real. Refer to redlines.
35. On sheet 4, revise the exhibit to reference COP 11-10 for the proposed utilities
(water/sewer/storm drain) proposed in El Camino Real.
36. On sheet 4 and 5, revise the MTM to show the permanent water quality treatment features
that will address the water quality aspects of this project. The MTM should match the water
quality treatment features listed in the SWMP. Consider features that will satisfy the city
SUSMP (treatment and hydromodification), complement this project and consider long-term
ownership/maintenance issues.
37. On sheet 4, clarify that the storm drains that will. serve the desiltation basins will be private.
Are these storm drains temporary or will these storm drains be located in future public streets
and be assumed by the city at some point? We need to consider (condition) whether they are
built to public standards or not.
38. On sheet 4, clarify why the potable waterline in Street E extends into Lot 7. Revise the
waterline so it remains in the proposed street or provide public waterline easements. Refer to
red lines.
39. On sheet 4, clarify what the flat area adjacent to El Camino Real (west of lot 7) will be used
for. Will this be a landscaped area and/or can it be used to meander the sidewalk?
40. On sheet 4, revise the exhibit to show the proposed sidewalk along El Camino Real running
up the proposed slope. This sidewalk is shown on the concept landscape plans, but not the
MTM. Address this inconsistency.
41. On sheet 4 and 5, add notes to protect/hi-line/relocate the existing 14-inch potable water
crossing the project. After discussion with CMWD staff, this line is critical to the water
network and must be kept in service during and after rough grading. Revise the MTM to
realign this old waterline, after rough grading, along the future public streets (similar to the
storm drain alignments). Show/callout the dedication of a proposed waterline easement that
will encompass the new 14-inch alignment. The details/alignment of hi-lining can be worked
out at final design.
MP 02-03(C)/CT
VILLAGE
June 23, 2011
Pa e 9
11-01/HQ 11-01/SUP 11-02/HMP 11-03 -R~RTSON RANCH WEST
42. On sheet 4-6, revise the exhibits to show the proposed sidewalks and street lights along the
proposed streets (typical).
43. On sheet 5, revise the MTM to clarify the proposed improvements on Glasgow and
Edinburgh. Existing improvements· and paving should be screened back, while proposed
improvements are bold so to clarify what is new versus proposed. Clarify the proposed
utilities with each road extension. The larger scaled exhibits should help clarify these road
connections and improvements with the adjacent community.
44. On sheet 5, the retaining walls along Glasgow and Edinburgh are very high. Please contact
the existing adjacent property owners near Glasgow Dr and Edinburgh Dr to explore whether
offsite grading can be obtained to reduce/eliminate the need for retaining walls along these
roads. If this can be accomplished, revise the MTM to show/callout the offsite grading and
that a letter of permission will be obtained prior to construction. For discretionary action, staff
needs a letter of support from the adjacent property owner saying that they have reviewed
the offsite shown on the MTM and do not object to it.
45. On sheet 5, add the lot callout for lot 10 and callout as open space.
46. On sheet 5, callout the reconstruction of the 14-inch waterline in Glasgow Dr.
47. On sheet 5, coordinate with the Fire Department whether proposed fire hydrants are required
at the extensions of Glasgow Dr and Edinburgh Dr at the cui-de-sacs.
48. On sheet 5, show and callout D-41 energy dissipaters at the discharges of public storm
drains (off-street) into existing habitat per city standards or provide access roads. Provide
public storm drain easements as necessary on these off-street public facilities.
49. On sheet 5, revise the MTM to reduce or eliminate the high retaining wall at the end of the
future cul-de-sac. The 20-ft vertical drop at the end of a street raises safety concerns.
50. On sheet 5, callout the slopes (%) of the proposed road extensions for Glasgow Dr and
Edinburgh Dr. Verify they meet city standards and revise the MTM as necessary. Show and
callout the removal of the existing barricades at the existing terminus of Edinburgh Dr. and
Glasgow Dr. Revise the MTM to show what water quality treatment/hydromodification
features will be utilized to treat the new pavement for Glasgow Dr and Edinburgh Dr before
discharge to the natural water course. Revise the MTM to distinguish and clearly callout what
facilities are existing versus proposed.
51. On sheet 5, callout the size of the proposed storm drain/wildlife crossing. Clarify that an
HOA drainage easement will be provided to allow for access into the open space.
52. On sheet 5, revise the MTM to provide an access road to the upstream end of the proposed
storm drain/wildlife crossing for HOA maintenance. This area needs access in the event the
headwall/inlet is clogged with debris to avoid an unnecessary overflow.
53. On sheet 5, clarify whether the proposed detention basin should straddle lot 4 and 8. Does
this raise any future ownership issues with the development of different planning areas?
54. On sheet 5, provide a detail on the traffic circle that demonstrates adequate circulation of a
fire truck/moving vehicle through this obstacle. Provide inside and outside turning radii using
Caltrans templates.
!"""" ,..-,
MP 02-03(C}/CT 11-01/H~ 11-01/SUP 11-02/HMP 11-03 -R~RTSON RANCH WEST
VILLAGE
June 23, 2011
Pa e 10
55. On sheet 5 and 6, revise the pressure reducing station so that is located in the parkway and
not in the traveled way.
56. On sheet 6, clarify whether Street Z will have a different name than Lisa Street.
57. On sheet 6, clarify that the intersection of Lisa Street will be a signalized.
58. On sheet 6, clarify where the proposed storm drain in Street Z will connect to. Show the
proposed storm drain that will be constructed as part of El Camino Real Widening (COP 11-
10}.
59. On sheet 6, revise the MTM to show any grading that is required associated with
constructing the proposed deceleration lane for the right-in/right-out driveway. It appears this
widening encroaches into the existing drainage water course. Refer to redlines.
60. On sheet 6, clarify how the existing drainage next to the right-in/right-out makes its way
under El Camino Real. There appears to be an existing storm drain that may need extended
to capture and convey this runoff.
61. On sheet 6, clarify what happens to the existing SDG&E access driveway along El Camino
Real. Is it removed or relocated?
62. On sheet 6, remove lot 12 from this MTM as the city will process an acceptance of the 100
for the future park site.
63. On sheet 6, use a different symbol for inundation limits on lot 15. It appears the symbol for
lot lines was used here. Refer to redlines.
64. On sheet 6, coordinate with the Property Management Division regarding the development of
Fire Station 3, specifically to address the future extension of the common street that will
serve the park, fire station and lot 13.
65. For additional comments, refer to the redlines.
Concept landscape Plans
66. Revise the exhibits to clarify why parkway landscaping is not proposed along the projects
frontage with Tamarack Ave. Is the landscaping already established and meet the
landscape guidelines for parkway improvements.
67. On sheet L-0.1 and L-2.4, revise the exhibit to show/include the re-vegetation along the new
storm drains that extend into the existing habitat. Refer to redlines.
68. On sheet L-0.1, revise the exhibit to show how the slope on lot 13 will be landscaped as part
of this project. Refer to redlines.
69. On sheet L-2.4, revise the exhibit to provide parkway landscaping along the road extensions
for Glasgow Dr and Edinburgh Dr. Correct the street names that are misspelled. Refer to
red lines.
70. On sheet L-2.4, address whether the existing service roads in the preserve areas will be re-
vegetated or will remain open for trail purposes. Coordinate with the trail plan for this project.
MP 02-03(C)/CT
VILLAGE
June 23, 2011
Pa e 11
11-01/Hc 11-01/SUP 11-02/HMP 11-03 -R~RTSON RANCH WEST
71. On sheet L-2.5, revise the exhibit to show and callout the locations of sight distance corridors
per the city landscape manual. Revise the exhibits to address any landscape obstructions
that may conflict with these corridors. (typical all landscape sheets). Refer to redlines for
example conflicts.
72. On sheet L-2.5 and 2.6, revise the exhibits to show and callout line-of-sight corner sight
distance per Caltrans and city requirements. Coordinate with the MTM on these locations
and show them on the concept landscape plans and revise the exhibits as necessary to
avoid conflicts with vehicular line-of-sight. The identity walls at each intersection or future
driveway seem to conflict with this safety standard. Please address this discrepancy.
73. On sheet L-2.5, add a note referring to to the El Camino Real Widening project (COP 11-10)
for median hardscape and landscaping.
74. On sheet L-2.5, revise the exhibit to show/callout the existing sewer at the westerly corner of
lot 1 where the identity wall is proposed. This facility must be protected in place and the
identify wall should be placed to allow for continued access and maintenance to the access
holes in that location. The identity wall also seems to conflict with the sight distance corridor
and line of sight per Caltrans. Refer to redlines and address discrepancy.
75. On sheet L-2.5, revise the exhibit to address conflicts with installing trees over the existing
14-inch waterline. Coordinate with the MTM for the new location of the 14-inch waterline and
address any conflicts with proposed/existing trees.
76. On sheet L-2.5, revise the exhibit to show parkway landscaping along El Camino Real to
match non-contiguous sidewalk construction. Coordinate with the MTM.
For additional comments, refer to the redlines
Police:
See attachment from Jodeene Sasway, Crime Prevention Specialist, for a list of crime prevention
recommendations.
Landscape:
See attachment from Mike Elliott, Contract Landscape Architect, for comments on the landscape
plans. The attachment includes a set of redline plans.
(~~CITY OF
• CARLSBAD
Planning Division
February 28, 2011
Shapell Homes
Attn: Erik Pfahler
0
8383 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 700
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
0
SUBJECT: PRE 11-01-ROBERTSON RANCH WEST VILLAGE
APN: 208-010-36
FILE COPY
www.carlsbadca.gov
Thank you for submitting a preliminary review for an amendment to the Robertson Ranch
Master Plan: West Village. The project site is approximately 142 acres and is currently
undeveloped. The major components of the proposed amendment are to introduce two gated
neighborhoods, remove the "circuitous routing" condition, remove the Tamarack Avenue
connection, eliminate offsite traffic calming measures within the Colony neighborhood, and
modify the lot sizes and acreages established for the west village.
In response to your application, the Planning Division has prepared this comment letter. Please
note that the purpose of a preliminary review is to provide you with direction and comments on
the overall concept of your project. This preliminary review does not represent an in-depth
analysis of your project. It is intended to give you feedback on critical issues based
upon the information provided in your submittal. This review is based upon the plans,
policies, and standards in effect as of the date of this review. Please be aware that at the
time of a formal application submittal, new plans, policies, and standards may be in
effect and additional issues of concern may be raised through a more specific and
detailed review.
Planning:
General
1. The introduction of two fully gated neighborhoods within the Robertson Ranch West
Village can be supported by the Planning Division. Gated neighborhoods must include
private streets and must comply with the criteria established by the Planned
Development Ordinance (21.45). At this stage it is assumed by the Planning Division
that only the private neighborhood streets will be gated from general access and that all
other rol!tes of travel by pedestrian and non-mot9rized vehicles will remain fully
accessible'to the general public. Introduction of the two gated neighborhoods negates
the adopted Master Plan requirement for circuitous routing.
2. At the time the Robertson Ranch Master Plan was adopted by the City Council there
was significant concern regarding traffic flow in a northerly direction from the future
development of the west village into the existing Colony neighborhood. As a reaction to
the concern, a condition was placed on the developers of the west village to provide
traffic calming measures within the existing Colony neighborhood. However, with the
introduction of the two gated neighborhoods traffic distribution from the west village into
1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 T 760-602-4600 F 760-602-8559
""""""'
PRE 11-01 -ROBERTS'tfN RANCH WEST VILLAGE
February 23, 2011
Page 2
the Colony neighborhood will be limited. The reduced ADT contribution does not
warrant the addition of traffic calming measures to the Colony neighborhood.
3. Modifications to various west village Planning Areas:
As necessary, General Plan and zoning designations for the Robertson Ranch Master
Plan must be coordinated with the modifications proposed to the Master Plan. -
A. Planning Area 1
i. Single-family residential is an allowed alternative use in Planning Area 1 with a
minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet. The proposal to allow SFR lots with a
minimum size of 3,300 square feet is below what is allowed by the Planned
Development Ordinance (21.45.070 D3) which is 5,000 square feet and 3,500
square foot lots under unique circumstances. Based on the information provided
there does not seem to be unique circumstances that would warrant support of
SFR lots smaller than the typical minimum of 5,000 square feet allowed by the
current zone code.
B. Planning Area 3
i. Single-family residential is an allowed use in Planning Area 3 with a minimum lot
size of 6,000 square feet. The proposal to allow SFR lots with a minimum size of
4,000 square feet is below what is allowed by the Planned Development
Ordinance (21.45.070 D3) which is 5,000 square feet and 3,500 square foot lots
under unique circumstances. Based on the information provided there does not
seem to be unique circumstances that would warrant support of SFR lots smaller
than the typical minimum of 5,000 square feet allowed by the current zone code.
C. Planning Area 4
i. Generally the relocation of the PA4 Common Recreation facility to a more
centralized and visible location and the proposed increase in size of PA4 from
1.1 to 1.4 acres is acceptable. Ultimately it will be a challenge to design the
space so that it is easily recognized as a common recreation facility for the entire·
west village.
D. Planning Area 5
i. The Master Plan designated this Planning Area as standard single-family
residential with a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet. The proposal to allow
the PA to be developed under a Planned Unit Development design while
retaining the minimum 10,000 square foot lot requirement is acceptable. The PA
neighborhood will need to comply with all of the Planned Development Ordinance
development standards (Chapter 21.45 of the CMC).
E. Plannif!.g Area 6
i. The Master Plan designated this Planning Area as standard single-family
residential with a minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet. The proposal to allow
the PA to be developed with SFR lots with a minimum 5,000 square foot lot
requirement is acceptable.
F. Planning Areas 7&8
i. Both Planning Areas are designated as multi-family. The MPA proposal is for the
PAs to remain as multi-family neighborhoods but reconfigured with approximately
the same acreage and with fewer residential units in each. The reconfiguration
PRE 11-01-ROBERTSONQNCH WEST VILLAGE
February 23, 2011
0
Page 3
of the PAs and the reduction in the number of residential units within each PA is
acceptable.
G. Planning Area 9
i. The Master Plan designated this Planning Area as standard single-family
residential with a minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet. The proposal to allow
the PA to be developed with SFR lots with a minimum 6,000 square foot lot
requirement is acceptable. Reducing the lots to less than 7,500 will require
approval of a Planned Development Permit subject to the development standards
of the Planned Development Ordinance.
H. Planning Area 10
i. The Master Plan designated this Planning Area as single-family residential with a
minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet. The proposal to allow the PA to be
developed with SFR lots with a minimum 6,000 square foot lot requirement is
acceptable.
I. Planning Area 11
i. The Master Plan identifies this PA as the location of a commercial center.
Generally, this use remains as originally approved with the exception that the
acreage is increased from 13 to 13.5 acres. Assumption of a site design without
specific details at this stage is premature. What can be established at this time is
the access to the site. The main access and secondary access points shown in
the Master Plan Amendment are acceptable.
4. Additional comments:
A. Section 21.44.080 the Zoning Ordinance does allow the joint use of commercial
parking lots when specific findings can be made. A full description of uses within
Planning Area 11 is necessary prior to being able to comment on the support of a
joint use parking arrangement.
B. Planning Area 11 is required to include a minimum of 5 acres dedicated to
Community Facilities uses as listed in Subsection 21.25.040 of the CMC (including a
day care center as a re'quired component). Exhibits are not clear regarding how this
is being satisfied, or if the MPA will request to change that requirement. Further
discussion of the potential development of an outdoor community theatre within
Planning Area 11 is warranted given that it is not listed as a use )n Subsection
21.25.040 of the CMC. Of course for any use, a review of the adjacent open space
to the east and potential edge effects of the uses must be considered.
C. A significant entry statement (focal point) should be created to anchor PA4 at the end
of the entrance street.
D. The adopted Master Plan allows for the allocation of 35 units. to PA13 through the
transfer of 17 units from PAs 5, 6, and 10 per the adopted Master Plan. The transfer
is not r~flected in the MPA documents and in effect increases the overall number of
residential units that are currently approved for the Master Plan.
Engineering:
1. PA 5 and PA 9/10 are proposed as gated (private street) communities. The remaining
portions of the West Village would be constructed as public streets. Single-entry
development standards still apply to this project. These standards not only apply to how
PA 5 and PA 9/10 are developed, but how this proposed amendment affects (emergency
and day-to-day) circulation to other communities within and adjacent to this project.
I'"'
PRE 11-01-ROBERTS"lfN RANCH WEST VILLAGE
February 23, 2011
Page 4
2. In general, Land Development Engineering (LDE) staff supports the proposed gated
Master Plan (MP) modification, provided that certain circulation and emergency-
response features are incorporated into the project subject to approval by the Fire
Marshal and City Engineer.
3. Gating reduces potential cut-through traffic through the existing northerly adjacent
community (Colony). If this Master Plan amendment is processed, staff would support
removing the original condition requiring the developer of the West Village to construct
offsite traffic calming within the Colony.
4. Based on the letter submitted as part of this application, these gates will open if a nearby
fire alarm in triggered. Please clarify how fire alarms would interface (e.g.: audible,
wireless or hard-wired) with the gates and consider long-term maintenance of these
additional appurtenances. Coordinate with the Fire Marshal to select . which
appurtenances they will support. Please clarify if emergency gate opening would occur
for fire alarms only within PA 5 and PA 9/10. Also, please clarify whether both gates
would open during this scenario or if just one of the gates would open.
5. Please coordinate with the Fire Marshal and explain to staff on how the gates for PA 5
and PA 9/10 will open if fire alarms are triggered within the un-gated portions of
Robertson Ranch West Village or the Colony.
6. Deleting the Tamarack connection and gating PA 5 and PA 9/10 affects day-to-day
circulation and may impact emergency circulation needs for the remaining un-gated
portions of the Robertson Ranch West Village. From our review of the exhibit, this
leaves a majority of Robertson Ranch West Village to gain access from El Camino Real.
Therefore, based on the proposed MP layout, LDE staff does not support deleting the
Tamarack connection. Unless other circulation measures can address these concerns,
revise the MP concept to maintain the Tamarack connection per the originally-approved
MP 02-03.
7. A right-in right out driveway along El Camino Real, south of Lisa, is now proposed.
This driveway was not originally approved as part of MP 02-03. This new driveway
triggers an Engineering Variance due to intersection spacing requirements along El
Camino Real. This variance can be processed concurrently with an amendment to
MP 02-03.
8. The common driveway/courtyard configurations in PA5 require further detail and staff
review to determine how emergency access, fire apparatus and large moving
vehicles will maneuver in and out of these driveways/courtyards. The raised
planter/tree in the center may impede access. Please provide inside and outside
turning limits for fire trucks using the 40-ft bus design per Figure 404.5F of the
California 1-:fighway Design Manual.
9. With this gated scenario, provide cui-de-sacs near the southerly terminus of Glasgow
Drive and Edinburgh Drive (public streets) prior to the proposed gated entry into PA
5 and PA 9/10. Prior to re-submittal, please consider the grading, habitat, right-of-
way and other constraints to determine the best location for these cui-de-sacs.
10. The north gate vignette shows the private street wider than the public street. It is our
understanding that Glasgow Drive (existing) is 40-ft curb-to-curb with parking on both
sides. We also understand the proposed private street extending off Glasgow Drive
PRE 11-01-ROBERTSONQNCH WEST VILLAGE
February 23, 2011
Page 5
will be built to livable street standards with a 34-ft curb-to-curb with parking on both
sides. Please clarify if the vignettes are clearly representing street widths.
11. The Robertson Ranch East Village incorporated traffic calming measures. Within the
Robertson Ranch West Village, please clarify how/where traffic calming measures
will be employed. The Robertson Ranch Master Plan includes traffic calming
concepts that can be used. There are traffic circles and intersection chokers that
may be used.
Attached are LDE redlined check prints of the project submittal. This check print must be
returned with the revised plans to facilitate continued staff review.
All necessary application forms, submittal requirements, and fee information are available at the
Planning counter located in the Faraday Building at 1635 Faraday Avenue or on line at
www.carlsbadca.gov. You may also access the General Plan Land Use Element and the
Zoning Ordinance online at the website address shown; select Department Listing; select
Planning Home Page. Please review all information carefully before submitting.
If you would like to schedule a meeting to discuss this letter with the commenting departments,
please contact Christer Westman at the number below. You may also contact each department
individually as follows:
• Planning Division: Christer Westman, Senior Planner, at (760) 602-4614.
• Land Development Engineering: Jeremy Riddle, Project Engineer, at (760) 602-2737
• Fire Department: Gregory Ryan, Fire Inspections, at (760) 602-4663
Sincerely,
CHRIS DeCERBO
Principal Planner
CD:CW:sm
c: Planning Systems, Attn: Paul Klukas, 1530 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008
Don Neu, City Planner
Chris DeCerbo, Principal Planner
Jeremy Riddle, Project Engineer
Greg Ryan, Fire Prevention
Bill Plummer
File Copy.'
Data Entry