Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-05-31; Planning Commission; ; EIR 03-03|MP 02-03|GPA 02-04|LFMP 14B|HMP 06-04 - ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN AND CT 02-16|HDP 02-07|SUP 02-05 - ROBERTSON RANCH EAST VILLAGE MASTER TENTATIVE MAPThe City of Carlsbad Planning Department A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION P.C. AGENDA OF: May 31, 2006 ltemNo. 0 Application complete date: NI A Project Planner: Barbara Kennedy Project Engineer: Jeremy Riddle SUBJECT: EIR 03-03/MP 02-03/GPA 02-04/LFMP 14(B)/HMP 06-04 -ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN and CT 02-16/HDP 02-07/SUP 02-05 - ROBERTSON RANCH EAST VILLAGE MASTER TENTATIVE MAP - Request for: 1) a recommendation for certification of an Environmental Impact Report, and recommendation of adoption of the Candidate Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and a request for a recommendation of approval for the Robertson Ranch Master Plan, General Plan Amendment, Zone 14 Local Facilities Management Plan Amendment, and Habitat Management Plan Permit for Incidental Take consistent with the City's Habitat Management Plan for the Robertson Ranch Master Plan; and 2) a request for approval of a Master Tentative Tract Map, Hillside Development Permit, and Floodplain Special Use Permit for the 176 acre East Village of the Robertson Ranch Master Plan. The Robertson Ranch Master Plan encompasses a 398 acre site located north of El Camino Real, east of Tamarack Avenue, and east and west of College Boulevard, and east and west of Cannon Road in Local Facilities Management Zone 14. I. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission: 1) ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 6105 RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION of EIR 03-03 and RECOMMENDING ADOPTION of the Candidate Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 6106, 6107, 6108, and 6109 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of MP 02-03, GPA 02-04, LFMP 14(8) and HMP 06-04 -ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN; and, 2) ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions No. 6110, 6111 and 6112 APPROVING CT 02- 16, HDP 02-07 and SUP 02-05 -ROBERTSON RANCH EAST VILLAGE MASTER TENTATIVE MAP; based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. EIR 03-03/ MP 02-03/GPA 02-04/LFMP 14(B)/HMP 06-04 -ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN and CT 02-16/HDP 02-07/SUP 02-05 -ROBERTSON RANCH EAST VILLAGE MASTER TENTATIVE MAP May 31, 2006 Pa e 2 II. INTRODUCTION The Robertson Ranch project area consists of 398 acres located in the northeast quadrant of the City located within Local Facilities Management Zone 14. The property owners have prepared a Master Plan for the site to provide for the orderly development of a variety of land uses. A Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared which analyzes potential impacts to the environment which may be caused by the development of the site. The Master Plan's proposed land uses include a maximum of 1,383 residential dwelling units of various product types and lot sizes, a 13 acre (net) village commercial center with a community facilities component, an RV storage area, a 13.5 acre (net) public park, over 140 acres of open space preserve, and additional community recreation open space. The proposal includes a number of discretionary actions for approval of the Master Plan and approval of the East Village Master Tentative Map as follows: 1) The Robertson Ranch Master Plan requires adoption of a new master plan for the property entitled the Robertson Ranch Master Plan, together with a General Plan Amendment, a Local Facilities Management Plan Amendment for Zone 14, a Habitat Management Plan Permit, and certification of a Program Environmental Impact Report prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and adoption of the Candidate Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. 2) The developer of the East Village of Robertson Ranch is requesting approval of a Master Tentative Tract Map, a Hillside Development Permit, and a Floodplain Special Use Permit to allow for subdivision of the East Village into Planning Areas and to allow for mass grading and installation of major infrastructure improvements. There is one unresolved Master Plan issue with regard to Planning Area 22 (PA 22) which is currently planned for development of 20 courtyard homes. Staff is recommending that PA 22 be designated as an "Unplanned Area" for reasons outlined in Section IV.A. of the staff report. Other than this item, there are no outstanding staff issues and all necessary findings can be made for the requested approvals. III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND The Robertson Ranch Master Plan project area is generally located on the north side of El Camino Real, east of Tamarack Avenue, east and west of College Boulevard, and west of the Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park. The 398 acre site consists of rolling hills and high terraces with three distinct drainages traversing the site on the west, central and eastern portions of the site. The site is also traversed by two SDG&E utility easements containing high voltage electrical transmission lines, poles and associated access roads. The majority of the project site consists of agricultural lands and the property has been farmed since about 1928. In addition to agricultural lands, the site contains a variety of native vegetation communities including chemise chaparral and Diegan coastal sage scrub communities located on the higher slopes and canyons of the site, with riparian habitat located within the natural drainages. Calavera Creek, a tributary EIR 03-03/ MP 02-03/GPA 02-04/LFMP 14(B)/HMP 06-04 -ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN and CT 02-16/HDP 02-07/SUP 02-05 -ROBERTSON RANCH EAST VILLAGE MASTER TENTATIVE MAP May 31, 2006 Pae 3 to Agua Hedionda Creek, runs north to south along the eastern boundary of the site and through an existing box culvert under College Boulevard and Cannon Road. The site supports a number of sensitive plant and animal species, including California Gnatcatcher and Least Bell's Vireos. Land uses surrounding the site include undeveloped/agricultural land to the south and east, established residential subdivisions located to the north, west and south, and the Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Estates located along the Master Plan's southeastern boundary. The Robertson Ranch property is divided into two ownerships. The East Village, which contains about 178 acres, is owned by a partnership of Mc Millan Companies and Brookfield Homes. The remaining 220 acres in the West Village are owned by the Robertson family. The project site was rezoned in 2003 from L-C (Limited Control) to P-C (Planned Community). The purpose of the previous L-C zone designation was to provide an interim zone for areas where planning for future land uses has not been completed. The intent and purpose of the P-C zone includes, among others, to provide for and encourage the orderly implementation of the City's General Plan by providing a flexible regulatory procedure to encourage creative planning of coordinated communities. The P-C zone requires adoption of a master plan prior to approval of any permits for development on the property. A detailed description of the components of the Robertson Ranch Master Plan is included in the analysis section (IV.A. -Master Plan) of the staff report. A Program EIR has been prepared for the Robertson Ranch Master Plan and includes an analysis of potential environmental impacts associated with the following issue areas: Land Use, Traffic/Circulation, Air Quality, Noise, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology/Soils, Paleontological Resources, Agricultural Resources, Hazardous Materials and Hazards, Grading and Aesthetics, Hydrology/Water Quality, Population/Housing, and Public Services and Utilities. The EIR concludes that the project will result in: (I) significant unavoidable impacts to Transportation/Circulation and Air Quality (Long-term Mobile Emissions); (2) significant impacts to Air Quality (Short-term Construction), Noise, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology/Soils, Paleontological Resources, Hazardous Materials and Hazards, Grading and Aesthetics, Hydrology/Water Quality, and Public Services and Utilities that can be mitigated to a less than significant impact level; and (3) impacts considered in the EIR but found to be less than significant. (See Section V. Environmental Review, of this report for a more detailed discussion of the EIR analysis). The Master Plan and East Village development proposals will require the following discretionary actions: • Certification of a Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR 03-03) The Program EIR constitutes all environmental review required for approval of this Master Plan and all related discretionary actions. EIR 03-03/ MP 02-03/GPA 02-04/LFMP 14(B)/HMP 06-04 -ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN and CT 02-16/HDP 02-07/SUP 02-05 -ROBERTSON RANCH EAST VILLAGE MASTER TENTATIVE MAP May 31, 2006 Pa e 4 • Master Plan (MP 02-03) Master plans are required for properties over I 00 acres in size and which are located in the Planned Community (P-C) zone. • General Plan Amendment (GPA 02-04) A General Plan Amendment is required to amend the General Plan Land Use designations within the project site to be consistent with the land uses proposed by the Master Plan document. • Amended Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 14 (LFMP J4(B)) Pursuant to the City's Growth Management Program (Title 21, Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code (CMC)), a Local Facilities Management Plan (LFMP) amendment has been filed for Zone I 4 concurrently with this Master Plan. The amendment addresses the public facilities, infrastructure requirements, capital improvements and financing mechanisms which will be required to adequately serve the project. • Habitat Management Plan Permit (HMP 06-04) A Habitat Management Plan Permit is required for Incidental Take consistent with the City's Habitat Management Plan. • Master Tentative Map (CT 02-I 6) A Master Tentative Map has been filed concurrently with this Master Plan for the portion of the site identified as the "East Village". • Hillside Development Permit (HDP 02-07) Hillside Development Permits are required for all neighborhoods proposed on land with a slope gradient of 15 percent or greater and a slope height greater than 15 feet in accordance with Chapter 21. 95 of the CMC. • Special Use Permit -Floodplain (SUP 02-05) A Floodplain Special Use Permit shall be applied for at the time the related Master Tentative Tract Map is submitted and shall be obtained before construction or development begins within any area of special flood hazards, area of flood-related erosion hazards, or areas or mudslide hazards established in Section 21.110.070 of the CMC. The proposed project is subject to the following plans, ordinances, standards and policies: • Environmental Protection Procedures (Title 19) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) • General Plan • Habitat Management Plan (HMP) • Planned Community (P-C) Zone, Chapter 21.38 of the CMC • Growth Management, Chapter 21.90 of the CMC • City Council Policy 43 -Proposition E "Excess Dwelling" Unit Bank EIR 03-03/MP 02-03/GP A 02-04/LFMP l 4(B)/HMP 06-04 -ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN and CT 02-16/HDP 02-07/SUP 02-05 -ROBERTSON RANCH EAST VILLAGE MASTER TENTATIVE MAP May 31, 2006 Pae 5 • Planned Development Ordinance, Chapter 21.45 of the CMC • City Council Policy 20 -Street Naming and Addressing Policy • El Camino Real Corridor Development Standards • Subdivision Ordinance, Title 20 of the CMC • Hillside Development Regulations, Chapter 21. 95 of the CMC • Floodplain Management Regulations, Chapter 21.110 of the CMC IV. ANALYSIS The recommendation of approval for this project was developed by analyzing the project's consistency with the applicable policies and regulations listed above. The following analysis section discusses compliance with each of these regulations/policies utilizing both text and tables. The format follows the discretionary actions being requested to permit the development of the Robertson Ranch Master Plan and East Village Master Tentative Map projects. The Environmental Review analysis is discussed in the last section of the staff report. A. Master Plan The intent and purpose of creating a master plan is to encourage the orderly implementation of the General Plan by the comprehensive planning and development of large tracts of land. A master plan provides a flexible regulatory procedure to encourage the creative and imaginative planning of coordinated communities involving a mixture of residential densities and housing types, open space, community facilities, and where appropriate, commercial and industrial areas. All master plans are required to reserve a site (or sites) for community facility uses which benefit the community as a whole by satisfying social/religious/human service needs. The Master Plan will provide a framework to allow for the coordination of planning efforts between the developer and the City to provide for the orderly development of all necessary public facilities to ensure their availability concurrent with need. The Master Plan also provides some assurance to the developer that later development will be acceptable to the City provided that such plans are in accordance with the approved Master Plan. The Robertson Ranch Master Plan is envisioned as a balanced, master planned community integrating residential, commercial, recreational and open space land uses on 398 acres of undeveloped and agricultural lands in the City of Carlsbad. The project design is strongly driven by the City's adopted Habitat Management Plan (HMP), Planned Development Ordinance (PD), City Council Policy 44 -Neighborhood Architectural Design Guidelines, City Council Policy 66 -Livable Neighborhoods Policies, and the "Ahwahnee Principles" for livable communities. The HMP identifies the site as an important component of the city's overall open space preserve system and the project has been designed to preserve approximately 140 acres of open space on site, including riparian habitat and Coastal sage scrub habitat. The Master Plan establishes "Link B," a north-south oriented wildlife movement corridor between "Core Areas" 2, 3 and 4, which traverses the project site. The accommodation of the HMP corridor results in a community consisting of two villages, featuring a range of land uses, housing opportunities, commercial and community facility uses, recreational facilities, and open space. The Master Plan's proposed land uses include a maximum of 1,383 residential dwelling units of various product types and lot sizes, a 13 acre (net) village commercial center with a community facilities component, an RV EIR 03-03/MP 02-03/GP A 02-04/LFMP 14(B)/HMP 06-04 -ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN and CT 02-16/HDP 02-07/SUP 02-05 -ROBERTSON RANCH EAST VILLAGE MASTER TENTATIVE MAP May 31, 2006 Pae 6 storage area, a 13.5 acre (net) public park, over 140 acres of open space preserve, and additional community recreation open space. Pursuant to Chapter 21.38 of the CMC (Planned Community Zone), adoption of the Master Plan will establish the type and intensity of land use and the zoning and development standards for the property. Table I, Robertson Ranch Master Plan Land Use Summary, provides the acreage and land use tabulations for the Master Plan. TABLE 1 -ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN LAND USE SUMMARY LAND USE EAST VILLAGE WEST VILLAGE TOTAL Residential develooment Gross Acreage Gross Acreage Gross Acreage Low-Medium Density RLM (0-4 du/ac) -24.3 acres 24.3 acres Medium Density RM (4-8 du/ac) 69.0 acres 57.6 acres 126.6 acres Medium-High Density RMH (8-15 du/ac) 9.0 acres -9.0 acres High Density RH 05-23 du/ac) 7.1 acres 30.1 acres 37.2 acres Residential Subtotal 85.1 acres 112.0 acres 197.1 acres Non-Residential Gross Acreage Gross Acreage Gross Acreage RV Storage CF (Community Facilities) -3.3 acres 3.3 acres Community Recreation (OS) 1.7 acres I. I acres 2.8 acres Village Center (L/CF) (Local Shopping Center/ -15.1 acres 15.1 acres Community Facilities) Public Park(OS) -13.9 acres 13.9 acres Water Quality Facility (OS) 2.9 acres -2.9 acres Open Space Preserve (OS) 72.4 acres 68.1 acres 140.5 acres Non-Residential Subtotal 77.0 acres 101.5 acres 178.5 acres Ma_jor Roadways 22.4 acres PROJECT TOT AL 162.1 acres* 213.5 acres* 398.0 acres • Not mcludmg major roadways Chapter 21.38, Planned Community Zone, specifies the required contents of all master plans. Requirements include a map of the property boundaries, land use map, open space program, development process, infrastructure improvements, grading scheme, development standards, and an analysis of the project's fiscal impact on the City. The Robertson Ranch Master Plan provides the necessary components within five chapters plus appendices. The following is a general listing of the contents of each chapter and the appendices, including a summary of the Fiscal Impact Analysis prepared for the project. EIR 03-03/MP 02-03/GPA 02-04/LFMP 14(B)/HMP 06-04-ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN and CT 02-16/HDP 02-07/SUP 02-05 -ROBERTSON RANCH EAST VILLAGE MASTER TENTATIVE MAP May 31, 2006 Pae 7 Chapter I -Introduction: The introduction includes the historical context, the purpose and intent of the Master Plan, a description of the project site, an overall description, the entitlements needed to implement the Master Plan and subsequent projects, and the authority granted by the Master Plan. Chapter II -Detailed Plan Description: This chapter discusses the planning context for the Master Plan and how the "Awhanee Principles" techniques for livable communities are integrated into the Master Plan. The relationship of the project to the City's General Plan and Zoning regulations are discussed. This chapter provides a detailed description of the proposed land uses and outlines the general development review process. General provisions are also included to guide future development within the Master Plan. Chapter III -Development and Regulatory Provisions: The Development Standards and Land Use Regulations for each of the 23 Planning Areas are provided in this chapter. Detailed Design Guidelines, which are included in the second half of the chapter, address the project design theme, architectural design and standards, and landscape guidelines for the Master Plan. Chapter IV -Public Facilities and Infrastructure Plan: This chapter discusses the relationship of the project to the amended Zone 14 LFMP, and includes detailed descriptions of the project's circulation plan, sewer plan, water and reclaimed water plan, drainage plan, solid waste disposal, fire protection, and gas and electric services. Chapter V -Master Plan Implementation Measures: This section of the document discusses the relative timing of the improvement and financing programs needed to implement the project, and focuses on the procedures required for the implementation and amendment of the Master Plan. Appendices: The appendices include the following information: Appendix A -Master Plans consistency with the General Plan, Appendix B -Awhanee Principles Appendix C -Hillside Ordinance Compliance Appendix D -Consistency with the El Camino Real Corridor Development Standards Appendix E -Legal description for the Master Plan. Fiscal Impacts Analysis: A fiscal impact study was prepared for the Robertson Ranch Master Plan, entitled Fiscal Impact Analysis of Master Plan, dated October 12, 2005, and is on file with the Planning Department, and copies have been provided to the Planning Commission. In summary, the study shows that the ultimate build-out of the Robertson Ranch Master Plan as proposed will result in City revenues which fall short of City expenditures required to provide City services to the residents within the Robertson Ranch community. The report states that the negative fiscal impacts are due primarily to the predominance of residential land uses in the Master Plan. As reflected in the General Fund operating budget, the City of Carlsbad has chosen to provide high standards of municipal services for its residents, funded in part by large revenues generated by commercial retail and hospitality developments. As a result, the General Fund expenditures for public services provided to the City's residences exceed revenues generated by them. EIR 03-03/MP 02-03/GPA 02-04/LFMP 14(B)/HMP 06-04-ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN and CT 02-16/HDP 02-07/SUP 02-05 -ROBERTSON RANCH EAST VILLAGE MASTER TENTATIVE MAP May 31, 2006 Pa e 8 The following discussion provides a summary of the land use components and features of the Master Plan. Issues resolved through the Master Plan include land use compatibility, residential density, commercial and community facilities uses, circulation, drainage, infrastructure and development standards specific to the Robertson Ranch Master Plan versus those that are otherwise applied to the remainder of the City. Residential The Master Plan proposes a maximum of 1,383 dwelling units in a variety of product types and densities with a net residential density of 4.6 dwelling units per acre. New General Plan Land Use Designations are proposed that will reflect the precise locations of the residential uses, non- residential land uses, and open space preserve. New residential land uses range from Low- Medium Density (RLM) to High Density (RH) to reflect the clustering of the allowed residential development in areas outside of the open space preserve, as required by the City's Habitat Management Plan. The proposed residential development includes a broad range of lot sizes, product types, and densities which will further enhance the diversity of housing opportunities within the community. A summary of the residential development is included in Table 2 below: TABLE 2 -RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY Product Tvoe East Villa2e WestVilla2e Total 5,000 sflots• 304 55 359 6,000 sflots -143 143 7,500 sflots -45 45 I 0,000 sflots -25 25 Courtyard homes 107 -107 Multi-family (Medium Density) -27 27 Multi-family (High Density) 143 534 677 Total Number of Units 554 829 1,383 .. • 4,500 sf lots are allowed adpcent to Cannon Road w1thm PA 18. Affordable Housing The project is required to comply with the City's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, Chapter 21.85 of the CMC. The ordinance requires that fifteen (15%) percent of the total residential units shall be available to "Lower-income" households, defined as, " ... households ... whose gross income does not exceed eighty (80%) percent of the median income for San Diego County as determined annually by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development". As proposed, the Robertson Ranch Master Plan would be obligated to provide a maximum of 207 dwelling units which are affordable to lower-income households, based on the maximum number of allowed units (1,383 dwelling units) within the project. The actual number of required lower- income units will be based on the final number of approved dwelling units. Each Village will be responsible for providing their share of affordable units which is anticipated to be 83 units in the East Village and 124 units in the West Village. The designated sites for affordable housing are Planning Area 15 in the East Village and Planning Areas 7, 8, and/or 13 in the West Village. In addition, the West Village will provide 56 moderate-rate units as a requirement for the allocation EIR 03-03/MP 02-03/GPA 02-04/LFMP 14(8)/HMP 06-04-ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN and CT 02-16/HDP 02-07/SUP 02-05 -ROBERTSON RANCH EAST VILLAGE MASTER TENTATIVE MAP May 31, 2006 Pae 9 of excess dwelling units as discussed in more detail under Section IV .C. of the staff report. Site Development Plans for the affordable units will need to be approved concurrently or in advance of any development proposals for market-rate units. The affordable units will need to be constructed according to the schedule contained in the Affordable Housing Agreements for the East and West Villages. Village Center The City's General Plan identified a "floating" land use designation for a Commercial Shopping Center within the project area. To meet this requirement, Planning Area 11 (PA 11) is designated as a 13.0-acre (net) site for development as a "Village Center" which combines the Master Plan's community facilities requirement with commercial uses. It is intended that PA 11 will provide 5.0 acres of community facilities uses together with a minimum of 8.0 acres of neighborhood commercial uses. It is estimated that a maximum of 175,000 square feet will be developed as community facilities/commercial retail joint use. In addition to these uses, PA 11 may incorporate mixed-use residential units on the second story using units allocated to the West Village or elsewhere on the project site. Community Facilities requirements for the Master Plan are based on Section 21.25.070 of the CMC which specifies that the number of acres of Community Facilities required by master planned developments is calculated as 2.0 acres, plus 1% of the unconstrained acreage of the site. Accordingly, the project site contains a total of299.9 unconstrained acres, including the 5.7-acre Option Parcel. Therefore, the maximum requirement for Community Facilities is I% of 299.9 acres (3.0 acres) plus 2.0 acres, for a total of 5.0 acres of community facilities uses. Development of community facilities must include child daycare, and may include churches, charitable services, social clubs, or other uses allowed by a conditional use permit. The Community Facilities site may also include the relocation of the Robertson Ranch House and creation of a museum. The consolidation of community facilities and neighborhood commercial uses within a single planning area is intended to reflect the Ahwahnee Principles, which encourage the establishment of a "center focus" that combines commercial, civic, and cultural uses. Also, in conformance with the Ahwahnee Principles, the center focus will encourage the attention and presence of people, and will be located within easy walking distance of transit stops and the residences it will serve. To reduce the appearance of commercialization along the El Camino Real Corridor, design guidelines have been built into the Master Plan to insure that there are adequate buffers so the scenic qualities of the corridor are not compromised. Additionally, the site will not have direct access from El Camino Real, in that access into the commercial area will be from Street "Z" and a local collector road within the West Village development area. RV Storage Section 21.45.060 of the CMC (General Requirements for Planned Development) requires that a minimum of 20 square feet of RV Storage Area be provided for each dwelling unit in a planned development. Of the total project dwelling units, a maximum of 554 of the dwelling units located in the East Village and 759 of the units in the West Village of the Master Plan are proposed to be constructed as Planned Developments. This results in a total maximum requirement of approximately 0.6 acres of RV storage for the Master Plan. Planning Area 2 (PA EIR 03-03/MP 02-03/GPA 02-04/LFMP 14(B)/HMP 06-04-ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN and CT 02-16/HDP 02-07/SUP 02-05 -ROBERTSON RANCH EAST VILLAGE MASTER TENTATIVE MAP May 31, 2006 Pa e 10 2) within the West Village measures approximately 3.3 gross acres (2.0 net acres) in size and is provided to meet the RV Storage requirements for the entire Master Plan. RV Storage areas provided in PA 2 that exceed the Master Plan requirements may be made available to the gener'al public for a fee. It is anticipated that the RV Storage site in PA 2 will be constructed in conjunction with the East Village developments. However, in the event that PA 2 is not constructed concurrently with the East Village, a temporary RV Storage Facility may be provided within any single-family neighborhood of the East Village, or in another location acceptable to the City, subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Parks and Community Recreation Facilities The Master Plan provides a variety of active and passive recreational opportunities throughout the development area. The developers of the Master Plan are required to dedicate 9.8 acres of park land, with an option for the City to purchase a minimum of 4.1 additional acres for the purpose of developing a City park with three soccer fields. The park is located within Planning Area 12 (PA 12) near the northwest intersection of Cannon Road and El Camino Real. In addition to the City park, a number of private recreational facilities are proposed throughout the Master Plan. The Master Plan has been designed so that both the East and West Villages provide a centralized recreation facility measuring no less than 1.0 net acre (Planning Areas 4 and 19). These centralized community recreation areas will serve all residential neighborhoods within the respective villages, and will include both active and passive recreation facilities which could include recreational buildings, patio verandas for gatherings, swimming pools, spas, tennis courts, tot lots, basketball courts, shuffle board, horseshoe pits, and parking. The Planned Development (PD) requirements also require the provision of a minimum of 200 square feet of community recreation facilities per unit for planning areas subject to the PD requirements. The Master Plan also includes a special requirement for multi-family planning areas to provide 100 square feet of passive and active recreation areas per unit. At least 25% of the area will be provided in the form of pocket parks or common passive recreation areas, while 75% of the area shall be allocated for active facilities such as tennis courts, horseshoe pits, or tot lots. It is anticipated that the total recreation area provided pursuant to the Master Plan requirements will be (at a minimum) 3.52 net acres in the East Village and 3.98 net acres in the West Village. These community recreation facilities exceed the community recreation requirements of the Planned Development Ordinance. The exact size and location of all of the required recreation areas will be determined at the time of tentative map or site development plan approval for each Planning Area. Trails and Pedestrian Circulation System The Master Plan provides for a variety of Pedestrian Circulation and Trail alternatives that include Circulation Element Trails and Recreational Trails which are both City-wide trails; and Enhanced Parkways and Neighborhood Connections which are community trails. Circulation Element Trails are proposed along one side of the Major Arterial Roadways (Cannon Road and College Boulevard) and will be constructed of stabilized decomposed granite (DG) and will be located within a 30-foot wide landscape buffer. Similarly, Recreation Trails will be constructed with stabilized DG, but will be located along the Master Plan's single-loaded roadways, through EIR 03-03/MP 02-03/GP A 02-04/LFMP l 4(B)/HMP 06-04 -ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN and CT 02-16/HDP 02-07/SUP 02-05 -ROBERTSON RANCH EAST VILLAGE MASTER TENTATIVE MAP May 31, 2006 Pa e 11 the park site (PA 12) and in several key locations within the open space preserve areas. The use of Recreational Trails within or across the HMP open space has been minimized to reduce the potential for impacts to sensitive habitat types. Where feasible, Recreation Trails within the open space will be located congruent to existing trails or utility access roads. In addition to the City-wide trails, the Master Plan provides for two types of community trails. Enhanced Parkways, located along the Master Plan's modified major and secondary arterial roads (Streets "A," "O," and "Z") and along several of the collector and local roads, will include meandering sidewalks located within expanded landscape buffers. These Enhanced Parkways form the backbone of the pedestrian circulation plan and provide pedestrians with connections to the various project amenities, such as community facilities, the village center, and community recreation areas. These Enhanced Parkways are complemented by the other trail types and sidewalks located within the Master Plan community. The second type of community trails consists of Neighborhood Connections. Neighborhood Connections will be reviewed with the tentative subdivision maps or site development plans for the various Planning Areas. These connections will provide informal links between neighborhoods as well as provide neighborhood links to surrounding features such as community recreation areas, bus stops, Recreation Trails, and Circulation Element Trails. The Master Plan states that Neighborhood Connections should achieve the following goals: • Provide pedestrian connections between neighborhood cul-de-sacs; • Provide direct links to bus stops from adjacent neighborhoods; • Provide direct links to Circulation Element Trails; • Provide informal pedestrian connections between neighborhoods; and • Provide informal pedestrian connections to and through community recreation areas and pocket parks. Open Space Preserve The City of Carlsbad HMP identifies this site as an important wildlife movement corridor between two of the core habitat areas. The HMP shows a critical linkage between "Core Area 3" which contains the Calavera Heights and Carlsbad Highlands Mitigation Banks and "Core Area 4" which includes the Agua Hedionda Lagoon and upland habitats to the east. Portions of this link currently contain agricultural lands and the Parkway Nursery operations. Therefore, the developers of the Master Plan will be required to revegetate and restore a large part of the preserve area as a habitat area. In addition to creating this new linkage, the development will also be preserving most of the other significant habitat that exists on the site. The site contains Diegan coastal sage scrub, riparian, and chaparral habitat, including habitat used by the California Gnatcatcher. The project design preserves over 140 acres of open space, including 2.9 acres within a water quality facility, 2.3 acres of eucalyptus groves adjacent to Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park, and approximately 138.2 acres of open space preserve area. The project's compliance with the City's HMP is described in more detail in Section IV.F. of the staff report. Circulation The developer of the East Village is required to construct full width improvements along College Boulevard and Cannon Road including two thru-lanes each way, an I 8-foot raised median, bike EIR 03-03/MP 02-03/GPA 02-04/LFMP 14(B)/HMP 06-04-ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN and CT 02-16/HDP 02-07/SUP 02-05 -ROBERTSON RANCH EAST VILLAGE MASTER TENTATIVE MAP May 31, 2006 Pa e 12 lanes, and parkway. Access to the East Village Planning Areas will be via two new signalized intersections at Streets "A" and "O". The developer of the West Village is required to construct El Camino Real to its ultimate planned prime arterial width, with three thru-lanes in each direction, an 18-foot raised median, turn lanes at Tamarack Avenue, Cannon Road and Street "Z", and bike lanes. A new signalized intersection at Street "Z" (Lisa Street) will provide access to the West Village development areas. The extensions of Edinburg Drive and Glasgow Drive, local streets at the north boundary of the Master Plan, are also proposed. In order to address neighborhood concerns regarding traffic impacts to the neighborhoods, traffic calming features will be incorporated into future developments to slow the speed of traffic and to discourage cut-thru traffic in and out of the existing neighborhoods. Access to PA I will be via an extension of Kelly Drive at the existing signalized intersection and at a secondary access point on Tamarack Avenue. To address the potential of cut-through traffic at this corner, the Master Plan specifies that the 27 homes within PA I may be developed as a gated community. Drainage A number of drainage improvements will be constructed with the Robertson Ranch Master Plan which will address many of the flooding issues raised by the adjacent Rancho Carlsbad Home Owners Association (RCHOA) and residents. Several facilities currently exist, including Facility BJA (36" RCP within College Boulevard Reach B and outlets to the east into existing Detention Basin Facility BJB) and Facility BJB located in the "panhandle" portion of the Master Plan. Facility BJB was built as part of a regional solution to the existing flooding that occurs in the Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park. Detention basin BJB and Calavera Creek drains into an existing I I-foot x 7-foot culvert crossing under Cannon Road. As part of the development of the East Village, a new culvert, designed as an 84" RCP, is proposed to be built along the north side of Cannon Road. The 84" RCP is designed to intercept approximately 500 cubic feet per second of storm run-off from the existing I I-foot x 7-foot culvert. The 84-inch RCP serves to reduce flood waters to the RCHOA by shifting certain flood waters from the north portion of Calavera Creek to the underground 84-inch RCP in Cannon Road. The 84-inch RCP will still allow low storm flows to feed to Calavera Creek to maintain the riparian habitat. The 84-inch RCP would also intercept runoff from the East Village development. The 84-inch RCP will outlet north of Cannon Road near El Camino Real where the flow would continue through a culvert under El Camino Real to the Agua Hedionda Lagoon. Low flows in the 84-inch RCP will be routed into a water quality facility south of Cannon Road (PA 20) and then flow under Cannon Road through existing culverts. These facilities, along with other desiltation basins and storm drain facilities with the West Village development are discussed in more detail in Chapter IV of the Master Plan. Phasing The Robertson Ranch Master Plan is intended to be developed in a logical sequence in five main phases over a period of approximately 7-10 years. The first phase of development will occur within the East Village together with dedication of the open space in PA 23D, 23E, and 23F. Dedication of the park site is also required with the first phase of development. Grading within EIR 03-03/MP 02-03/GPA 02-04/LFMP 14(B)/HMP 06-04-ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN and CT 02-16/HDP 02-07/SUP 02-05 -ROBERTSON RANCH EAST VILLAGE MASTER TENTATIVE MAP May 31, 2006 Pa e 13 the habitat corridor of Phase II (PA 23C) is required soon after expiration of the Parkway Nursery lease pursuant to the HMP concurrence letter on file with the City of Carlsbad. The West Village may be developed in one or more phases. Dedication of the open space in PA 23A & 23B will be required with the first discretionary application for the West Village. Because portions of the West Village may remain as open space and/or under agricultural production for some time in the future, the Master Plan has designated a number of the West Village development areas as having an "Interim Land Use Overlay" (Figure 11-5) until such time that the "Final Land Uses" are implemented. The purpose of the Interim Land Use Overlay is to allow for the immediate development of portions of the Master Plan, while allowing agricultural and open space uses to continue during the interim period. Each phase of the Master Plan can be graded independently, with overlapping timeframes as may be determined by the developer and the City. City standards require that all public facility performance standards identified in the Zone 14 Local Facilities Management Plan must be complied with by each individual phase of development. Construction of the affordable housing units for the East and West Villages will be provided in relation to the timing of the market-rate units, pursuant to the terms of the affordable housing agreements for each Village. A recreational vehicle storage site (PA 2) will serve both the East and West Villages. This RV storage site (or alternative temporary facilities) must be provided prior to the occupancy of residential units within the planned development neighborhoods. Planned Development Consistency Analysis The Master Plan has been designed to comply with the regulations contained within the Planned Development Ordinance and RD-M zone, with the exception of several modifications related to setbacks, parking, and recreational open space. These deviations provide additional flexibility for creative design solutions within the future residential development areas. For example, detached "courtyard homes" are proposed within Planning Areas 21 and 22. The zoning ordinance does not currently include standards that encourage development of this product type. In other instances, the Master Plan requirements provide additional standards for development such as additional landscape buffers or recreation area requirements. A comparison of the proposed modifications contained within the Master Plan is provided as Attachment 13 of the staff report. Architectural Review Process for Detached Single-Family Units To determine compliance with the provisions of the Master Plan a Tentative Map and Site Development Plan (SDP) is required for development of single-family detached dwelling units on lots with a minimum lot area of 7,500 square feet or larger, and a Tentative Map and Planned Development Permit (PUD) is required for small lot projects with minimum lot sizes of 4,500 square feet but less than 7,500 square feet. A Tentative Map can be processed separately, with the SDP or PUD amendment processed at a later date for the architecture and plotting. The Planning Commission shall be the final decision making body (unless appealed) for any SDP or PUD amendment processed after approval of the tentative map, regardless of the number of units in the previously approved tentative map. Consistent with the CMC, Tentative Maps proposing 50 units or less shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission and Tentative Maps proposing 51 units or EIR 03-03/MP 02-03/GP A 02-04/LFMP 14(B)/HMP 06-04 -ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN and CT 02-16/HDP 02-07/SUP 02-05 -ROBERTSON RANCH EAST VILLAGE MASTER TENTATIVE MAP May 31, 2006 Pa e 14 more shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission and forwarded to the City Council for review. Design Theme The two villages of Robertson Ranch are linked through consistent landscaping and architectural themes. Design guidelines and development standards contained within the Master Plan ensure high quality development and a community identity. The Architectural Design Guidelines utilize architectural elements consistent with traditional European and early California design themes. The Landscape Design Guidelines establish the project's character and ensure a high quality development by providing thematic continuity throughout the entire community. Community elements such as entries, streetscapes, walls and fences, as well as land use transition areas, establish the design theme for the community by reinforcing the design hierarchy and visually defining community areas and boundaries. City Council Policy 20 -Street Naming and Addressing Policy The Master Plan is proposing that public and private street names within the East and West Village of the Master Plan may deviate from the provisions of City Council Policy 20 -Street Naming and Addressing Policy. Policy 20 requires streets within "Area 2" to reflect topographical characteristics. Because street names are limited to a total of 16 letters and spaces, and most of the easily recognizable topographic names have already been used, it has become challenging to create new street names. Therefore, in addition to the allowed "topographical characteristics" theme, the Master Plan proposes the following additional themes: 1) the East Village streets will reflect a trail theme, and 2) the West Village streets will reflect an historic theme. Both trail-themed and historically-themed street names shall be subject to approval by the Planning Director. Hillside Development Consistency The conceptual grading plan for the Master Plan has been reviewed for consistency with the Hillside Development Ordinance as shown in Appendix C of the Master Plan. Two areas of concern are development of steep slopes and grading volumes. The conceptual grading plan shows that grading will occur outside of steep slope areas ( 40% slope or greater), with the exception of grading for circulation element roadways. In order to minimize grading and visual impacts along El Camino Real, the Master Plan includes provisions for any retaining walls to be constructed with a natural bluff or rock face so that the wall will blend in with the natural surroundings. Grading volumes for the Master Plan overall are anticipated to be within the "potentially acceptable" range of 8,000 to I 0,000 cubic yards per acre and grading within the development areas will be designed in terraced pads to follow the natural topography of the site, where feasible. When viewed as separate projects, the East Village grading quantities are considered within the "acceptable range" as discussed in the Hillside Regulations section of the staff report (Section IV.G). It is anticipated that the West Village grading will fall within the "potentially acceptable" range, which will require a specific finding of justification of the grading volumes by the Planning Director and City Engineer at the time that discretionary permits for the West Village are reviewed. It is anticipated that this justification can be made due to; (a) increased volumes associated with flat pads required for higher density uses (increased affordability) on EIR 03-03/MP 02-03/GPA 02-04/LFMP 14(B)/HMP 06-04 -ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN and CT 02-16/HDP 02-07/SUP 02-05-ROBERTSON RANCH EAST VILLAGE MASTER TENTATIVE MAP May 31, 2006 Pa e 15 PA 7 and 8, (b) increased volumes associated with flat pads required for commercial and community uses on PA 11, and ( c) thru-street vehicular connectivity required between existing El Camino Real (vertical elevation set) and existing Calavera Hills connecting streets (vertical elevation set). Because the City goals of increased variety of housing types and affordability, commercial and community land uses and internal circulation connectivity would be achieved, the potentially acceptable grading volume could be deemed acceptable. El Camino Real Corridor Scenic Corridor Guidelines Consistency Planning Areas within the Master Plan which are adjacent to El Camino Real are subject to the El Camino Real (ECR) Scenic Corridor Guidelines. The Master Plan development standards related to architecture, setbacks and other design guidelines have been reviewed for consistency with the ECR guidelines, as demonstrated in Appendix D of the Master Plan. Planning Area 22 One of the major areas of controversy during the planning process for the Robertson Ranch Master Plan has been the opposition of the RCHOA and its residents to the development of PA 22 with 20 residential units. In order to address this concern, several optional land uses are included in the Master Plan for this area. The optional uses include: potential relocation site for Fire Station #3, an RV storage facility, Senior Housing, or Manufactured Housing. These land uses were found to be compatible with the proposed Medium Density Residential (RM) General Plan Land Use Designation. The Rancho Carlsbad site also has an RM land use designation. PA 22 is located on the east side of Cannon Road, adjacent to a site known as the "Option Parcel", which was designated as a potential site for the relocation of the Rancho Carlsbad RV storage and garden area. The relocation of the RV storage and garden facilities will be necessary with the future construction of College Boulevard "Reach A" and Basin BJ, both of which are required with the construction of the Cantarini Ranch and Holly Springs projects. However, it was recently brought to the attention of staff that the RCHOA is pursuing an alternative site for relocation of their RV storage and garden area. Therefore, an opportunity exists to take a more comprehensive approach to the planning and development of PA 22 together with the Option Parcel. The Master Plan anticipated that the Option Parcel could be rejected as the RCHOA RV relocation site and included a provision for the annexation of the Option Parcel into the Master Plan. The P-C zone allows areas within a master plan to be reserved for future planning, provided such areas do not exceed 40% of the entire master plan area. Future planning of these areas would require an amendment to the Master Plan. Therefore, staff is recommending designation of PA 22 as an "Unplanned Area". A condition to this effect has been added to Resolution No. 6106 for the Master Plan. B. General Plan Amendment The project site is currently designated by the General Plan for Residential Low-Medium Density (RLM) over the majority of the site. Medium Density (RM) residential development land uses are designated on the western comer of the site adjacent to El Camino Real and Tamarack Avenue and a portion of the slope adjacent to Tamarack Avenue is designated as Open Space (OS). The site also contains "floating" land use designations of Local Shopping Center EIR 03-03/MP 02-03/GPA 02-04/LFMP 14(B)/HMP 06-04-ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN and CT 02-16/HDP 02-07/SUP 02-05 -ROBERTSON RANCH EAST VILLAGE MASTER TENTATIVE MAP May 31, 2006 Pa e 16 (L) and Elementary School (E). The "floating" designations are not considered specific to a particular parcel, but rather indicate the general vicinity where the use could occur within the site. The proposed General Plan Amendment would revise the land use designations within the Master Plan area to RLM, RM, RMH (Medium High Density), RH (High Density), Community Facilities (CF), Local Shopping Center (L), and OS. There are a number of reasons for the changes in the land use designations. The Elementary School land use designation was deleted from the Master Plan after the City received correspondence from the Carlsbad Unified School District (UCSD) declining purchase of the school site. Therefore, the school site designation was replaced with the alternative RH land use designation. A new CF zone will be included to reflect the P-C zone requirement for all new master plans to reserve a site for community facilities. A new designation of OS will be added to the Master Plan area to reflect the location of a new 13. 9 acre public park, two community recreation areas, and approximately 140 acres of open space preserve area. The areas proposed for preservation and restoration were determined in consultation with the Wildlife Agencies ( see HMP discussion in Section IV .F. of the staff report). Because over 35% of the total land area is required to be preserved as open space, the City's policies allow a "clustering" of the project's allowable densities within the areas proposed for development. This clustering of densities results in the need for a General Plan Amendment to reflect the various residential densities, open space preserve areas, and non-residential land uses. The following table compares the existing land use designations with the proposed land use designations. TABLE 3-GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION COMPARISON CHART General Plan Land Use Desi2nation Existin2 Acrea2e ( !!ross) Proposed Acrea2e ( !!ross) RLM (0-4 du/ac) Medium-Low Density Residential 363.5 acres 24.3 acres RM (4-8 du/ac) Medium Density Residential 14.2 acres 126.6 acres RMH (8-15 du/ac Medium-High Density Residential) 0 9.0 acres RH (15-23 du/ac) High Density Residential 0 37.2 acres E -Elementary School 10 acres 0 L -Local Shoooing Center 0* 8.3 acres CF -Community Facilities 0 10.1 acres OS -Open Space /Parks) 0 16.6 acres OS -Open Space (Natural Open 10.3 acres 143.4 acres Space) Major Roadwavs 0 22.4 acres * "floatmg des1gnat10n" -no acreage specified EIR 03-03/MP 02-03/GPA 02-04/LFMP 14(B)/HMP 06-04-ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN and CT 02-16/HDP 02-07/SUP 02-05 -ROBERTSON RANCH EAST VILLAGE MASTER TENTATIVE MAP May 31, 2006 Pa e 17 C. City Council Policy 43 -Proposition E "Excess Dwelling" Unit Bank The Master Plan proposes a maximum of 1,383 dwelling units which will require an allocation of 400 dwelling units (du's) from the City's Excess Dwelling Unit Bank. Originally 1,122 units were anticipated for the project area for Growth Management purposes, based on the original Zone 14 LFMP. However, based on a more precise constraints analysis, it was determined that the allowable residential density was 951 units. When the CUSD rejected the 10 acre school site, an additional 32 units were added (10 acres x 3.2 du/ac) for a total of 983 units. Although the request represents an increase of approximately 42% over the allowed 983 units, it also represents an increase of 19% over the original Growth Management dwelling unit assumption of 1,122 dwelling units. City Council Policy 43 allows for a transfer of Excess Dwelling Units to "qualifying" projects in any quadrant, so long as the number of residential units built in each quadrant does not violate the dwelling unit limitations established by Proposition E (Growth Management Plan). In order to "qualify" for an allocation of excess units, the project must possess one of several characteristics (see Attachment 14 -City Council Policy 43). The proposed Master Plan meets two of these criteria: • Housing made affordable to lower or moderate income households. • Transit-oriented, "smart growth" development projects where increased residential density is being placed in close proximity to major transit facilities, employment opportunities and commercial support services. The number of excess dwelling units to be allocated is at the sole discretion of the City Council, and is based on the importance of the characteristics the project possesses. The location of the project and the compatibility of increased density with existing adjacent residential neighborhoods is also an important consideration. The excess dwelling units would be allocated to the areas proposed for high density housing where the project's 15% lnclusionary Housing requirements (East Village: 83 du's; West Village: 124 du's) are located. City staff also requested an increase in the density of the multi-family development areas above the City's Growth Management Control Point of 19 du/ac up to a minimum of 20 du/ac to help meet the City's Regional Fair Share of Affordable Housing. These units would be a mix of affordable (income-qualified) and market-rate units. Although not all of the units are for "income qualified" households, the units are considered "affordable" by the State Department of Housing and Community Development, as they are proposed at densities of at least 20 du/ac. The reasoning follows that because it is generally necessary to construct smaller units in high-density developments, these units are more "affordable" than a single-family residence. A total of 677 of the Master Plan's 1,383 units (49 %) are proposed at densities of20-23 du/ac. The high-density units within the West Village are strategically located near the commercial core and community facilities site and would also be adjacent to bus transit facilities located on El Camino Real. Similarly, the high density units in the East Village are located close to the public park site and are in close proximity to bus transit facilities on Cannon Road. The Master Plan will provide some employment opportunities within the village commercial center and the high- density units are located within 1.5 miles of the City's industrial core, within 2.5 miles of EIR 03-03/MP 02-03/GP A 02-04/LFMP 14(B)/HMP 06-04 -ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN and CT 02-16/HDP 02-07/SUP 02-05 -ROBERTSON RANCH EAST VILLAGE MASTER TENTATIVE MAP May 31, 2006 Pa e 18 Carlsbad Company Stores/Car Country Carlsbad, and within 3 miles of Plaza Camino Real. All of these areas represent local major employment opportunities which can be easily accessed by bus. None of the proposed high-density multi-family areas are located adjacent to existing single- family neighborhoods. The Master Plan proposes that the development areas surrounding the high-density multi-family sites will transition into medium density development and then into medium-low residential development where it adjoins the existing single-family residences (medium-low density) north of the West Village. Primary access to the multi-family areas will be via signalized intersections on El Camino Real at Street "Z" and Cannon Road at Street "A". Traffic impacts were a primary issue for the Master Plan and the EIR prepared for the project indicates that the surrounding streets are adequate to handle the proposed increased density of 400 dwelling units. With the allocation of 400 Excess Dwelling Units, the Master Plan would exceed the Growth Management Control Point in two ways. First, it would exceed ·the allowable density of 983 units. However, the General Plan Land Use Designations will be changed to reflect the clustering of the project's residential density, to designate the non-residential areas (CF and L) and to re-designate over 35% of the property as open space. Nevertheless, if the overall residential density of the Master Plan was calculated based on net developable land area (299.85 acres), the resulting average density would be about 4.6 dwelling units per acre. Secondly, the proposed high-density multi-family development areas are proposed at densities that exceed the Growth Management Control point of 19 du/ac. However, these areas do not exceed the top end of the RH range of23 du/ac. Chapter 21.90 (Growth Management) allows residential development to exceed the Growth Management Control Point in certain circumstances. The required findings and rational are discussed below: I. The project will provide sufficient additional public facilities for the density in excess of the control point to ensure that the adequacy of the City's public facilities plans will not be adversely impacted. The public facilities requirements for the Robertson Ranch Master Plan have been analyzed and public facilities can and will be provided for the densities in excess of the control point. The City's public facility plans will not be adversely affected by the proposed allocation of 400 dwelling units from the City's Excess Dwelling Unit Bank. 2. There have been sufficient developments approved in the quadrant at densities below the control point to cover the units in the project above the control point so that the approval will not result in exceeding the quadrant limit. A number of residential development projects have been approved in the Northeast Quadrant at densities less than were projected by the Growth Management Quadrant Caps. Among the larger of these projects are the Carlsbad Highlands property (824 units less), the Cantarini EIR 03-03/MP 02-03/GPA 02-04/LFMP 14(B)/HMP 06-04-ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN and CT 02-16/HDP 02-07/SUP 02-05 -ROBERTSON RANCH EAST VILLAGE MASTER TENTATIVE MAP May 31, 2006 Pa e 19 Ranch and Holly Springs projects (374 units less), and the Calavera Nature Preserve (56 units less). These and other unrealized excess dwelling units have been deposited in the City's Excess Dwelling Unit Bank. There are adequate units in the bank (3,146 units as of April 2006) for the requested allocation and the transfer of these units would not exceed the Proposition E dwelling unit cap of 9,042 dwelling units for the Northeast Quadrant. The Zone 14 LFMP estimates current residential build-out for the Northeast Quadrant to be 7,696 dwelling units including the Master Plan proposal of 1,383 units. 3. All necessary public facilities required by this· chapter will be constructed or are guaranteed to be constructed concurrently with the need for them created by this development and in compliance with the adopted City standards. The Zone 14 LFMP amendment prepared for this project analyzed the public facilities that will be needed in order to accommodate development within Zone 14. There are eleven public facility performance standards in the Growth Management Program and the Robertson Ranch Master Plan project will be required to comply with these adopted performance standards as a condition of approval for any development project within the Master Plan. Consistent with Program 3.8 of the City's certified Housing Element, all of the dwelling units, which are not utilized by developers in approved projects, are deposited in the City's Excess Dwelling Unit Bank. These excess dwelling units are available for allocation to other projects, such as the Robertson Ranch Master Plan. Allocation of these units would be consistent with the Housing Element goals and would help to satisfy the City's share of the regional housing need. D. General Plan Consistency The proposed project is consistent with the applicable policies contained within each relevant element of the General Plan. The following table indicates compliance with the General Plan: EIR 03-03/MP 02-03/GPA 02-04/LFMP 14(8)/HMP 06-04-ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN and CT 02-16/HDP 02-07/SUP 02-05 -ROBERTSON RANCH EAST VILLAGE MASTER TENTATIVE MAP May 31, 2006 Pae 20 TABLE 4: GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY GP ELEMENT/GOAL/ OBJECTIVE/POLICY LAND USE Overall Land Use Pattern Goal A.2. -Provide for an orderly balance of both public and private land uses within convenient and compatible locations throughout the community and ensure that all such uses serve to protect and enhance the environment, character and image of the City. Goal A.3. -Provide for land uses which through their arrangement, location and size, support and enhance the economic viability of the community. Policy C.4 -Encourage clustering when it is done in a way that is compatible with existing adjacent development. Policy C.7.5 -Extend existing bicycle and pedestrian trails and greenbelts provided for in various elements of the General Plan. Growth Management and Public Facilities Goal A. I.-Ensure the timely provision of adequate public facilities and services to preserve the quality of life of residents. Residential Goal A/Objectives B.1/B.3 -Provide for a variety of housing types and density ranges and neighborhoods with a sense of community. Provide safe attractive residential housing with a variety of housing types, styles, and price levels. Objective B.5 -Focus new development on residents rather than the automobile. COMPLIANCE The Master Plan provides commercial, residential and recreational land uses which have been sited for compatibility and convenience to the residents of Robertson Ranch and the surrounding community. The Master Plan preserves over 140 acres of natural open space, which helps to protect and enhance the environment, character and image of the City. The commercial and community facility land uses have been located within a convenient walking distance of the residential neighborhoods they will serve, in close proximity to El Camino Real, a prime arterial, and near public transit, which will help ensure the economic viability of future businesses. The GPA provides for the shift of dwelling units out of the conservation areas resulting in a clustering of the development. Higher density neighborhoods are located near the major circulation roadways, transit stops, and the commercial area, while the lower density neighborhoods are located near the existing, lower-density residential development. The project provides a network of multi-use trails along the streets and open space areas and provides a link to the Citywide trail system. The Master Plan will be developed consistent with the Zone 14 LFMP and will provide all necessary public facilities concurrent with need. The project provides a variety of housing types and density ranges to meet the economic and social requirements of residents. The variation in housing types will help to create a diverse neighborhood fabric while compatibility of the various residential land uses will be assured through complementary landscape themes and architectural styles. The development proposal is designed with the focus on residents instead of the automobile by designing pedestrian friendly tree-lined streets, by including criteria for pedestrian connectivity, and including a network of open space multi-use trails that are intem-ated into the overall project design. EIR 03-03/MP 02-03/GPA 02-04/LFMP 14(8)/HMP 06-04-ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN and CT 02-16/HDP 02-07/SUP 02-05 -ROBERTSON RANCH EAST VILLAGE MASTER TENTATIVE MAP May 31, 2006 Pa e 21 Policy C.1-Encourage low and moderate income dwelling units to meet the objectives of the City's Housing Element. Policy C.4 -Limit medium and higher density residential development to those areas where they are compatible with the adjacent land uses. Policy C.l I -Pedestrian and bicycle linkages should connect with major transportation corridors and the Carlsbad Trail System. Policy C.16 -Require new subdivisions to create a umque sense of identity and community. Community Facilities Goal A -Provide land for child daycare facilities, places of worship, and other community services facilities. Environmental Goal A -Protect and conserve natural resources and fragile ecological areas. Policy C. 7 -Require comprehensive environmental review in accordance with CEQA guidelines. CIRCULATION Streets and Traffic Control Goal A.8 -Promote, encourage and accommodate a variety of transportation modes as alternatives to the automobile. Objective B. l -Provide adequate circulation infrastructure concurrent with or prior to the demand for such facilities. The East and West Villages will each be required to meet the City's 15% Inclusionary Housing Requirement. Additionally, 56 moderate income units will be included in the West Village site in consideration for the allocation of excess dwelling units to the Master Plan. The multi-family residential neighborhoods are located in areas where they are compatible with the adjacent land uses, and where adequate and convenient commercial services and public support systems are or will be adequate to serve future residents. The new residential development will provide pedestrian and bicycle linkages which connect with major transportation corridors and the proposed Carlsbad Trail system. The Robertson Ranch Master Plan will create a unique sense of identity and community through quality architecture, street design, trail systems, open space areas and landscaping. A minimum of 5.0 acres of Community Facilities services will be provided within the Village Center to meet the needs of future residents. The project protects and conserves natural resources and fragile ecological areas by providing over 140 acres of open space identified within Link "B" of the HMP. The project's impacts to natural resources have been analyzed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act through the preparation of an EIR. A pedestrian and bicycle circulation plan is proposed that will provide access from all areas with the Master Plan and will connect to existing and proposed public transportation stops along circulation element roadways. The Zone 14 LFMP and Master Plan identify the circulation infrastructure needs, including traffic signals, and phasing requirements for installation of the circulation facilities necessary for development of the Master Plan. Objective B. I/Policies C.16/C. l 8 -The project will dedicate and improve all circulation facilities Provide circulation infrastructure required by the project, including circulation arterial roadways, concurrent with or prior to the demand for concurrent with demand. such facilities. EIR 03-03/MP 02-03/GPA 02-04/LFMP 14(B)/HMP 06-04-ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN and CT 02-16/HDP 02-07/SUP 02-05-ROBERTSON RANCH EAST VILLAGE MASTER TENTATIVE MAP May 31, 2006 Pa e 22 NOISE Land Use Goal A. I/Policy C.5 -Ensure that land uses are not significantly impacted by noise and enforce the City's policies regarding acceptable noise levels for residential development. HOUSING ELEMENT Goal 2 -Develop new housing with a diversity of types, prices, tenures, densities and locations and in sufficient quantity to meet the demand of anticipated City and regional growth. Objective 2.1 -Allow development of sufficient new housing to meet Carlsbad's share of the total regional housing need as identified by SANDAG. OPEN SPACE & CONSERVATION Open Space Planning and Protection Policy C.4 -identify open space for protection, management, and potential enhancement to maintain and increase its value as wildlife habitat. Special Resource Protection Objective B. IO -Develop a plan for maintenance of sensitive environmental resources. Policy C.6 -Designate buffers next to sensitive environmental areas. Trail System Policy C.3 -Obtain an irrevocable offer of dedication (I. 0. D.) for trails proposed as part of the Carlsbad trail System. Fire Risk Management Goal A. I/Objective B.2 -Provide environmentally sensitive mitigation to minimize risks presented by native wildland open space. Residential neighborhoods located along Cannon Road, College Boulevard, and El Camino Real have been identified as being potentially impacted by roadway noise. These neighborhoods will be required to comply with noise mitigation measures to ensure that the City's maximum exterior noise level of 60 dBA CNEL and maximum interior noise level of 45 dBA CNEL is not exceeded. A variety of housing types and densities will be provided including multi-family units, courtyard homes, and single- family residences. For-sale and rental units will be available within the community. 15% of the total number of units will be made available to lower-income households. An additional 56 units ( 4% of the total number of DUs) will be made available in the West Village to moderate-income households. The Master Plan proposes 677 units within five planning areas to be developed at densities of 20 du/ac or greater. The provision of these high density multi-family units together with the 56 moderate-rate units helps to meet the City's share of the regional affordable housing needs as identified by SANDAG. The project will result in the preservation of over 140 acres of open space that will establish and maintain a regionally significant multi-species wildlife corridor consistent with the City's HMP, provide a citywide trail segment, and will rezone the open space areas to the Open Space zone. The project has been conditioned to require the proposed wildlife habitat preserve to be managed and financed in perpetuity consistent with an approved management program. The project provides a minimum 60-foot wide buffer to protect the adjacent open space from the developable portions of the residential lots. I 00-foot wetland buffers are provided adjacent to wetland habitat areas, except in areas where a reduced width is agreed to by the Wildlife Agencies. The project requires an 1.O.D. for all Trail Segments identified in the Citywide Trail System and a permanent easement for public use of all community trails. The fire risk presented by adjacent natural open space is mitigated by requiring 60-foot fire suppression buffers within the boundaries of the development area which do not encroach into the "hardline" open space preserve areas. EIR 03-03/MP 02-03/GPA 02-04/LFMP 14(B)/HMP 06-04-ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN and CT 02-16/HDP 02-07/SUP 02-05 -ROBERTSON RANCH EAST VILLAGE MASTER TENTATIVE MAP May 31, 2006 Pae 23 Water Quality Objective B.2/Policy C.3 -Design storm water conveyance systems which do not adversely impact sensitive environmental resources. Policy C.22 -Protect slopes and channels from erosion and storm water runoff. Cluster development on the least environmentally sensitive portions of the site. PARKS & RECREATION Park Development Policy C.l -Ensure that any and all parkland dedications shall be developable and usable for park purposes. Policy C.8 -Require the individual developers of master planned communities to provide pocket parks and active recreational facilities unique to each development. PUBLIC SAFETY Flood Hazards The project incorporates storm water quality control measures (BMPs) consistent with a conceptual Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan prepared for the project to avoid adversely impacting sensitive water resources. The project has been designed to comply with applicable site design principals including clustering development on the least environmentally sensitive portions of the site; by creating and restoring riparian corridors, wetlands and buffer zones; and by limiting the disturbance of natural drainage systems to the greatest extent possible. The Robertson Ranch Master Plan will be required to dedicate 9.8 acres of usable parkland within PA 12, with an option for the City to purchase a minimum of 4.1 additional acres. Within each Village there will be a minimum 1.0-acre (net) centralized Community Recreation Facility that will provide passive as well as active types of recreational activities, including, but not limited to, a public swimming pool, tennis courts, basketball courts, and/or picnic areas. Additionally, all planned development and multi-family Planning Areas will have pocket parks or common recreation areas to serve as active or passive space where residents can gather. Policies C.3/C.5 -Require all drainage The project is required to install properly sized drainage facilities to comply with the City's facilities to handle the JOO-year flood conditions and to ensure "Standard Design Criteria" and ensure compliance with Titles 18 and 20 pertaining to drainage and compliance with Titles 18 and 20 flood control structures. pertaining to drainage and flood control structures. E. Growth Management-Local Facilities Management Plan LFMP 14(B) An amendment is proposed to the Local Facilities Management Plan (LFMP) for Zone 14 to reflect the proposed changes in land use which result in modifications to the demand for urban public facilities from those originally assumed. The plan has been prepared in accordance with Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. The proposed document would be the first Amendment to the Zone 14 LFMP to be considered since approval of the original Zone 14 LFMP on October 6, 1990. A previous amendment unrelated to the Robertson Ranch project, LFMP 14(A), was withdrawn. The main property owners in Zone 14 are the owners of Robertson Ranch who control approximately 403 gross acres or approximately 49 percent of the land area of Zone 14. Approximately 375 acres within Zone 14 are currently dedicated as open space in the Calavera Nature Preserve and the Lake Calavera mitigation site. The remaining 42 EIR 03-03/MP 02-03/GP A 02-04/LFMP l 4(B)/HMP 06-04 -ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN and CT 02-16/HDP 02-07/SUP 02-05-ROBERTSON RANCH EAST VILLAGE MASTER TENTATIVE MAP May 31, 2006 Pa e24 acres in the zone are owned by the CUSD and is designated on the City's General Plan as a potential High School site. All of the property owners in the zone concurred with the preparation of the proposed amendment. The impacts of build-out in Zone 14 are based on a projection of a maximum of 1,383 dwelling units, 175,000 square feet of commercial and community facility uses, 2.3 acres of RV storage, approximately 16 acres of parks, (which will all occur within the Robertson Ranch Master Plan) and an additional 3 acres of RV storage and 42 acres of High School designated property outside of the Master Plan area. The remaining land within Zone 14 is open space. The proposed zone plan covers the entire zone and analyzes the requirements for the 11 public facilities included within the Growth Management Program. For each of the eleven public facilities, the plan lists the required performance standard, provides a facility planning and adequacy analysis, required mitigation, and financing sources for any required mitigation. Special conditions of the LFMP amendment include payment of sewer connection fees and sewer connection improvements, water facilities, payment of drainage fees, storm drain improvements including an 84" storm drain on the north side of Cannon Road, construction of drainage basins, circulation element improvements (El Camino Real, Cannon Road and College Boulevard), dedication of parkland, and dedication and management of the HMP open space. The zone will be in compliance with the required performance standards by satisfying the general and special conditions listed in the zone plan. The impacts of the build-out of the Robertson Ranch Master Plan are summarized in the following table: TABLE 5· ROBERTSON RANCH LFMP ZONE 14 SUMMARY Standard Imnacts Comnliance Citv Administration 4,808.28 scmare feet Yes Librarv 2,564.41 souare feet Yes Waste Water Treatment l,518EDU Yes Parks 9.8 acre park dedication requirement Yes 13.5 acre park site DrainaE?e AE?ua Hedionda LaE?oon Watershed Yes Circulation 17,596 ADT Yes Fire Station 3 and 5 Yes Onen Snace Increase of 140 acres of HMP ooen space Yes Schools Carlsbad Unified School District Yes K-5: 223.2, Middle: 112.7, HS: 132.6 Sewer Collection Svstem 1,518 EDU Yes Water 333,960 GPD Yes • The Master Plan is 400 dwelling units above the Growth Management Dwelling Unit allowance of 953 dwelling units for the subject property. As discussed in Section IV.C. of the staff report, a transfer of 400 units from the City's Excess Dwelling Unit Bank is required for the Master Plan. F. Habitat Management Plan (HMP 06-04) The project site is partially located within Core Area #3 and Link B as shown on the HMP Focus Planning Areas Map. Link B is an important connection between Core Area #3 (Lake Calavera, EIR 03-03/MP 02-03/GP A 02-04/LFMP 14(B)/HMP 06-04 -ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN and CT 02-16/HDP 02-07/SUP 02-05 -ROBERTSON RANCH EAST VILLAGE MASTER TENTATIVE MAP May 31, 2006 Pae 25 Calavera Heights & Carlsbad Highlands Mitigation Banks) and Core Area #4 (Agua Hedionda Lagoon and surrounding upland habitats). The project has been reviewed for consistency with the Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan (HMP) for Natural Communities and approval of a Habitat Management Plan Permit (HMP 06-04) is required for Incidental Take consistent with the City's Habitat Management Plan. Development of the site will occur primarily in the existing agricultural areas and non-sensitive upland habitats. The majority of the wetland and riparian habitats will be preserved along with conservation of over 67% of the sensitive upland habitats (Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub and Chamise Chaparral). The applicant has negotiated an HMP "hardline" preserve design for the Robertson Ranch Master Plan that has conceptually been deemed acceptable to the Wildlife Agencies. The HMP conservation goals for this area include: 1) Establish, Enhance and Maintain Habitat Linkage, 2) No-Net-Loss of Wetlands Functions and Value, and 3) Coastal Sage Scrub Preservation, Restoration and Enhancement. The project has been determined to meet these HMP standards which include the following: • Conservation of at least 67% of Coastal Sage Scrub • Creation of a linkage which should utilize patches of existing habitat • Avoid removal of natural habitats that are contiguous with open space on adjacent parcels • Maintain and enhance the wildlife movement potential between core areas using sensitive design of any road or utility crossing of Linkage B ( e.g. bridging, undercrossing) • Conserve all riparian habitats on-site • Prohibit fill or development within the existing floodplain, except where required for Circulation Element roads, Drainage Master Plan facilities, or other essential infrastructure • Conserve any narrow endemic plant populations • Set back development 100 feet from existing wetland habitats and encourage habitat restoration or enhancement in the riparian buffer areas. The Master Plan will preserve approximately 140.5 acres of open space, including re-vegetated manufactured slopes, detention basins, Diegan coastal sage scrub habitat, and riparian and wetland habitats. In accordance with the standards contained in the adopted Habitat Management Plan (HMP), the Master Plan permanently preserves and protects more than 67% of the existing 71.6 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub habitat existing on the site and provides for the permanent conservation of "Link B" as a 500 to 600-foot wide Wildlife Corridor. Additionally, the project exceeds the HMP requirements by providing a 400 to 500-foot wide east-west wildlife corridor, utilizing an existing 12 feet wide by 6 feet high arched soft-bottom culvert under-crossing of College Boulevard, which was not envisioned by the adopted HMP. All development will be setback 100 feet from wetland habitat, except in areas where a buffer of lesser width is agreed to by the Wildlife Agencies. The project is required to mitigate for biological impacts as specified in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for EIR 03-03 (Robertson Ranch Master Plan Program EIR). Upon completion of project grading and improvements, ownership of the open space conservation area will be transferred to a qualified natural lands management entity. The developers of the East and West Villages are conditioned to provide a non-wasting endowment EIR 03-03/MP 02-03/GP A 02-04/LFMP l 4(B)/HMP 06-04 -ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN and CT 02-16/HDP 02-07/SUP 02-05-ROBERTSON RANCH EAST VILLAGE MASTER TENTATIVE MAP May 31, 2006 Pae 26 or other financial guarantee acceptable to the City to provide for management and conservation of the open space lands in perpetuity. G. Subdivision Ordinance (CT 02-16) The Subdivision Ordinance, Title 20 of the Municipal Code, requires the filing of a tentative tract map for the division of property into five or more lots. Calavera Hills II, LLC, the owner of the East Village, has filed a Master Tentative Tract Map for division of the property into 10 lots on 176.36 acres. The subdivision will create a number of development areas and open space lots, consistent with those shown on the Master Plan Land Use Map. In general, the lots consist of open space preserve areas (PA 23D, 23E & 23F), community recreation open space (PA 19), open space for a water quality facility (PA 20), lots for the future development of the medium, medium-high and high density planning areas (PA 14 thru 18, PA 21 and PA 22), and a lot (Lot 8) consisting of excess land on the north side of Cannon Road that fronts the future park site in PA 12. In addition to creating lots for the development areas, the subdivision will allow the master developer to retain ownership of the recreation area in PA 19, and will provide separate lots for the open space preserve areas as required by the City's HMP. The remainder of the developable lots will require the approval of separate tentative maps to create the residential lots or air-space condominium maps within the neighborhoods. The Master Tentative Map also includes the major infrastructure improvements and grading. The infrastructure improvements include frontage improvements for both sides of Cannon Road from College Boulevard to El Camino Real (including median improvements) and installation of traffic signals at the intersections of Cannon Road and "A" St. and "O" St; frontage improvements for both sides of College Boulevard (including median improvements); bus stop improvements; sewer, water and drainage improvements including installation of an 84" storm drain line along the north side of(and parallel with) Cannon Road; water quality facility (PA 20); and community trails along the roadways. The Master Tentative Map shows the final map, grading, and improvements occurring in one phase of development consistent with the phasing identified in the Master Plan. The proposed grading is evaluated in the following section of this report covering the Hillside Development Permit (HOP 02-07) for the East Village Master Tentative Map. As designed and conditioned the Master Tentative Map complies with all City requirements, including the Subdivision Ordinance and the State Subdivision Map Act. The project as conditioned would provide all necessary improvements and all findings required by Title 20 can be made and are contained in the Planning Commission Resolution for CT 02-16. H. Hillside Regulations (HDP 02-07) A Hillside Development Permit is required for the East Village Master Tentative Map because the property contains slopes of 15 percent and greater with elevation differentials greater than 15 feet. The purpose of this permit is to review the proposed development for conformance with the Hillside Development Regulations, Chapter 21.95 of the CMC. The development proposal is in conformance with the purpose and intent in addition to the other provisions of the regulations. EIR 03-03/MP 02-03/GPA 02-04/LFMP 14(B)/HMP 06-04-ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN and CT 02-16/HDP 02-07 /SUP 02-05 -ROBERTSON RANCH EAST VILLAGE MASTER TENTATIVE MAP May 31, 2006 Pa e27 Development of Natural Slopes Over Forty Percent Gradient The hillside slope conditions and undevelopable areas have been identified on the project constraints map for the Master Tentative Map. Approximately 8.58 acres are comprised of natural or manufactured slopes having gradients above 40%. In instances where grading will occur, the 40% slopes are exempt from the hillside regulations because they were previously graded, because grading is required for a Circulation Element roadway, or because the slopes have less than 15 feet in elevation difference and an area of less than 10,000 square feet. The remaining grading for the East Village will not result in impacts to steep slopes covered by the Hillside Regulations since the steeper topography is preserved within the open space lots. Volume of Grading The standards require that volumes of grading be minimized. The relative acceptability of hillside grading volume falls into the following three categories: 1) Acceptable: 0 -7,999 cubic yards per acre (cu/ac), 2) Potentially Acceptable 8,000 -10,000 cy/ac, and 3) Unacceptable greater than 10,000 cy/ac. Grading quantities for the East Village, are balanced and result in an acceptable grading volume of 7,787 cy/ac after adjustments are made to exclude grading associated with Circulation Element roadways (College Boulevard and Cannon Road widening), and remedial grading. Slope Height Manufactured slopes may not exceed 40 feet in height unless either an exclusion is provided pursuant to CMC Section 21.95.130 or a modification is granted pursuant to Section 21.95.140. No slopes are proposed to exceed a height of 40 feet. Contour Grading The Hillside Development Regulations require contour grading of all manufactured slopes which are greater than 20 feet in height and two hundred feet in length and which are located adjacent to or are substantially visible from a Circulation Element road, collector street, or useable public open space area. The project complies with this standard in that the graded slopes located along College Boulevard all slope down from the roadway and are not visible. Although slopes located along Cannon Road are all less than 20 feet high, these slopes will be contour graded. Additionally, grading throughout the subdivision has been minimized where possible and has been designed to blend into the existing slopes. Screening Manufactured Slopes All manufactured slopes will be landscaped in accordance with the City's Landscape Manual with the exception of perimeter slopes that will be revegetated with naturalizing species to avoid the introduction of invasive species into adjacent natural areas. Additional Standards The project also complies with or requires that future neighborhood development plans meet the remaining standards of the Hillside Development Regulations including landscaping, hillside and hilltop architecture, slope edge building setbacks, and drainage. These items will be reviewed with subsequent discretionary actions for the individual Planning Areas. EIR 03-03/MP 02-03/GPA 02-04/LFMP 14(B)/HMP 06-04-ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN and CT 02-16/HDP 02-07/SUP 02-05 -ROBERTSON RANCH EAST VILLAGE MASTER TENTATIVE MAP May 31, 2006 Pa e 28 I. Floodplain Regulations (SUP 02-05) The Floodplain Management Regulations are included in Chapter 21.110 of the Municipal Code. The purpose of this chapter is to promote the public health, safety and general welfare, and to minimize public and private losses due to flood conditions in specific areas. Both the East and West Villages of the Master Plan contain areas that are designated as a special flood hazard area inundated by a I 00-year flood. However, the purpose of SUP 02-05 is to review the development associated with the Master Tentative Map for the East Village. A separate SUP will be submitted in conjunction with any West Village development applications that involve grading within the central habitat corridor (PA 23C) and park site (PA 12). Several areas in the East Village that are located adjacent to Calavera Creek are within the special flood hazard area inundated by a 100-year flood. A 100-year flood is defined as a flood which has a one percent annual probability of being equaled or exceeded. A Special Use Permit is required to be obtained in addition to any other required permits or entitlements before construction or development begins within any area of special flood hazard. The development areas partially within the limits of the 100-year flood are PA 20, which is a water quality facility; PA 23E and PA 23F, which are proposed as open space; and PA 22 which is proposed for development of 20 residential units. The proposed grading within the regulatory floodplain triggered a requirement for the applicant to ensure that flood elevations along Calavera Creek were not raised as part of the Robertson Ranch project. Special concern was required to ensure that flood elevations along the adjacent property (Rancho Carlsbad) were not exacerbated as a result of this project. A study entitled: 'Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis for Robertson Ranch', dated February 20, 2006 was prepared by Howard Chang, Ph.D, PE. This study evaluates existing channel and flood conditions traversing the Robertson Ranch property and addresses the proposed grading of PA 12 and PA 22. This study also identifies the design criteria and benefits in constructing the 84- inch RCP. Based on the results of the study, flood elevations are not increased along the Calavera Creek boundary. The Developer is conditioned to process necessary documents with FEMA (e.g.: Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR)) to ensure that properties within this subdivision are removed from the existing regulatory floodplain. Once the grading and drainage improvements are in place, a LOMR will be processed through FEMA to formally designate these limits. Based on the study provided, the necessary findings to approve the Floodplain Special Use Permit for the East Village Master Tentative Map can be made. V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW A Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for the Robertson Ranch Master Plan in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines, and the Environmental Protection Procedures (Title 19) of the CMC. The Program EIR addresses the environmental impacts associated with all discretionary applications for the proposed project, including ultimate build-out of the entire project. City staff prepared an environmental impact assessment for the project to determine the areas of potential impact and issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP) on May 7, 2004. The NOP was distributed to all EIR 03-03/MP 02-03/GPA 02-04/LFMP 14(B)/HMP 06-04 -ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN and CT 02-16/HDP 02-07/SUP 02-05-ROBERTSON RANCH EAST VILLAGE MASTER TENTATIVE MAP May 31, 2006 Pae 29 Responsible and Trustee Agencies, as well as other agencies, and members of the public. Staff scheduled two separate public scoping meeting sessions in order to increase opportunities for public input. Notices of the first scoping meeting were sent to all property owners within a 600- foot radius of the project boundaries as well as being published in the North County Times and posted on large meeting notice signs at two highly visible locations on the project site. The first public scoping session took place on May 18, 2004 at the Faraday Center. The second scoping meeting was held at the request of the Rancho Carlsbad HOA at their recreation center on May 26, 2004 for residents only. At the scoping sessions, the public was invited to comment on the scope and content of the EIR. Written responses were received and these comments were taken into consideration prior to developing a detailed scope of work for the EIR. The Robertson Ranch Program EIR analyzed the following areas of potential environmental impact: Land Use Traffic/Circulation Air Quality Noise Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology/Soils Paleontological Resource Agricultural Resources Hazardous Materials and Hazards Grading and Aesthetics Hydrology/Water Quality Population/Housing Public Services and Utilities Additionally, the Draft Program EIR includes other sections required by CEQA including an Executive Summary, Project Description, Cumulative Effects, Effects Found Not to Be Significant, and Growth Inducing Effects and Alternatives. Six alternatives are considered in the EIR. The alternatives include the "no project" alternative, a "no Specific Plan" alternative, a reduced Biological Impacts Alternative, a Reduced Scale Project, Senior Housing and Fire Station alternatives for PA 22, and a PA 1 Community Facilities Alternative. On October 4, 2005, the Draft Program EIR was published and the City notified interested Responsible and Trustee Agencies, as well as other interested agencies. The "Notice of Completion" commenced an initial 45 day public review and comment period initially expiring on November 16, 2005. At the request of a member of the public, the City extended the public review and comment period an additional two weeks until December I, 2005. The "Notice of Completion" advised that the Draft Program EIR was available for review at four locations: the City of Carlsbad Planning Department; the City Clerk's Office; the Carlsbad Dove Library; and the Georgina Cole Library. Complete copies were also available for purchase, with or without the appendices and on CD, through the Planning Department. The analysis contained in the EIR concluded that all significant impacts would be mitigated to below a level of significance with the exception of significant direct and cumulative impacts to Traffic/Circulation and Air Quality (Long-Term Mobile Emissions). Direct impacts, also referred to as primary effects, are those caused by the project and that occur at the same time and place. In contrast, cumulative impacts refer to two or more individual impacts that, when considered together, are considerable or that compound or increase other environmental impacts. The cumulative impact of several projects is the change in the environment that results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other, closely related past, present, or EIR 03-03/MP 02-03/GPA 02-04/LFMP 14(8)/HMP 06-04-ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN and CT 02-16/HDP 02-07/SUP 02-05 -ROBERTSON RANCH EAST VILLAGE MASTER TENTATIVE MAP May 31, 2006 Pae 30 reasonably foreseeable future projects. The cumulative impacts all arise from the marginal contribution the proposed project will make, when combined with the impacts from existing and other future projects, to pre-existing conditions that fail to meet applicable traffic and air quality standards currently. A total of I 04 comment letters were submitted prior to the close of the public review period. Responses were prepared for each of the letters and mailed to the commenters on May 12, 2006. The response transmittal letter also provided notice of availability of the Final Program EIR. The Final Program EIR includes a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). The MMRP is also attached to the Planning Commission Resolution No. 6105 for the Program EIR. Under CEQA, before a project which is determined to have significant, unmitigated environmental effects can be approved, the public agency must consider and adopt a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15043 and 15093. The primary purpose of CEQA is to fully inform the decision makers and the public of the environmental effects of a proposed project and to include feasible mitigation measures and alternatives to reduce any such adverse effects below a level of significance. However, CEQA recognizes and authorizes the approval of projects where not all adverse impacts can be fully lessened or avoided. The Lead Agency must explain and justify its conclusion to approve such a project through the Statement of Overriding Considerations setting forth the proposed project's general social, economic, policy or other public benefits which support the agency's informed conclusion to approve the project. The CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for impacts to Traffic/Circulation and Air Quality (Long-term Mobile Emissions) are attached to the Planning Commission Resolution for the Program EIR. ATTACHMENTS: I. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. /1/ 9. 10. II. 12. 13. 14: 15. 16. 17. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6105 (EIR 03-03) Planning Commission Resolution No. 6106 (MP 02-03) Planning Commission Resolution No. 6107 (GPA 02-04) Planning Commission Resolution No. 6108 (LFMP 14(8)) Planning Commission Resolution No. 6109 (HMP 06-04) Planning Commission Resolution No. 6110 (CT 02-16) Planning Commission Resolution No. 6111 (HDP 02-07) Planning Commission Resolution No. 6112 (SUP 02-05) Location Map Background Data Sheet Local Facilities Impact Assessment Form Disclosure Statements Comparison of Planned Development Regulations with the Robertson Ranch Master Plan City Council Po1icy 43 -Proposition E "Excess Dwelling" Unit Bank Letters and e-mails from the public Final Program EIR for Robertson Ranch dated April 2006, (previously distributed; copy on file in the Planning Department) Zone 14 Local Facilities Management Plan Amendment, dated May I, 2006, (previously distributed; copy on file in the Planning Department) EIR 03-03/MP 02-03/GPA 02-04/LFMP 14(B)/HMP 06-04-ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN and CT 02-16/HDP 02-07/SUP 02-05 -ROBERTSON RANCH EAST VILLAGE MASTER TENTATIVE MAP May 31, 2006 Pa e 31 18. Robertson Ranch Master Plan, dated May 2006, (previously distributed; copy on file in the Planning Department) 19. Fiscal Impact Analysis of Master Plan, dated October 12, 2005, (previously distributed; copy on file in the Planning Department) 20. Exhibits "A" -"KK" for East Village Master Tentative Map dated May 31, 2006 21. Response to Comments for the Final EIR NOT TO SCALE SITE MAP ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN EIR 03-03/MP 02-03/GPA 02-04/LFMP 14(8)/HMP 06-04 Robertson Ranch East Village Master Tentative Map CT 02-16/ HOP 02-07/ SUP 02-05 BACKGROUND DATA SHEET CASE NO: EIR 03-03/MP 02-03/GPA 02-04/ LFMP 14(B)/HMP 06-04 and CT 02- 16/HDP 02-07/SUP 02-05 CASE NAME: ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN and ROBERTSON RANCH EAST VILLAGE MASTER TENTATIVE MAP APPLICANT: Calavera Hills II LLC REQUEST AND LOCATION: Certification of a Program Environmental Impact Report and approval of a Master Plan, General Plan Amendment, Zone 14 LFMP Amendment, and Habitat Management Plan Permit for the 398 acre Robertson Ranch Master Plan and approval for a Master Tentative Map for the Robertson Ranch East Village located north of El Camino Real, east of Tamarack Avenue, east and west of College Boulevard, and east and west of Cannon Road. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: See "EIR Exhibit A", as attached to Planning Commission Resolution No. 6105, herein incorporated by this reference. APN: 208-010-36, 168-050-47, -54 & -56 Acres: 398 acres Proposed No. of Lots/Units: NIA GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING Existing Land Use Designation: RLM, RM, OS, Floating Designations of"L" and "E" Proposed Land Use Designation: RLM, RM, RMH, RH, OS, L, and CF Density Allowed: ,,0"'-4'-'d,,,u/=ac"----- Existing Zone: ~P::.,-C"-------- Density Proposed: _,_4,,,.6'-'d""u/"'a""c'---------- Proposed Zone: "-P....,-C"------------ Surrounding Zoning, General Plan and Land Use: Zoning Site P-C North P-C South P-C, C-2, RMHP, R-1, and OS East RMHP andL-C West P-C, R-1 and OS General Plan RLM, RM, OS, L and E RLMandOS RLM, RM, L, and OS RM, RLM, H and OS RLM, RM and OS Current Land Use Agriculture/Open Space Residential/Open Space Residential/Commercial /Mobile Homes/OS Rancho Carlsbad MHP, Agriculture/OS Residential/OS Revised O I /06 LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM Coastal Zone: D Yes ~ No Local Coastal Program Segment:N '-'"'/ Ac,_ ______ _ Within Appeal Jurisdiction: D Yes ~ No Coastal Development Permit: D Yes ~ No Local Coastal Program Amendment: D Yes ~ No Existing LCP Land Use Designation:_ Proposed LCP Land Use Designation: ___ _ Existing LCP Zone: ______ _ Proposed LCP Zone: _________ _ PUBLIC FACILITIES School District: Carlsbad Unified Water District: Carlsbad Sewer District: .,,C"'ar.,1-"'sb"'a"'d,.._ ___ _ Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity): -"-1"'5'-'1-"'8-"E"'D,<CU"'------------------- ENVIRONMENTAL IMP ACT ASSESSMENT D Categorical Exemption, ______________________ _ D Negative Declaration, issued, _____________________ _ ~ Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated A'-"'p_,_,ri,_l ,,,_2,c00~6"------------- D Other, ___________________________ _ Revised O I /06 CITY OF CARLSBAD GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM LOCAL FACILITIES IMPACTS ASSESSMENT FORM (To be Submitted with Development Application) PROJECT IDENTITY AND IMP ACT ASSESSMENT: FILE NAME AND NO: EIR 03-03/MP 02-03/GPA 02-04/ LFMP 14(B)/HMP 06-04 and CT 02- 16/HDP 02-07/SUP 02-05 -ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN and EAST VILLAGE MASTER TENTAIVE MAP LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE: 14 GENERAL PLAN: RLM, RM, RMH, RH, L, CF and OS ZONING: ~P~-C~------------------------ DEVELOPER'S NAME: ""'C""al,,,a"'ve.,.r,,,_a="H,.,,il~ls'-'I"'I ---"L""L,..,,C'----------------- ADDRESS: 2750 Womble Road San Diego, CA 92106 PHONE NO.: 619-336-3138 ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.: 208-010-36, I 68-050-47, -54 & -56 QUANTITY OF LAND USE/DEVELOPMENT (AC., SQ. FT., DU): 398 acres -1,383 dwelling units, 13 acre village center, RV storage, 13.5 acre public park, community recreation areas, and 140 acres open space preserve. ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE: _________________ _ A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. K. City Administrative Facilities: Library: Demand in Square Footage= 4,808.28 sq ft Demand in Square Footage = 2,564.41 sq ft Wastewater Treatment Capacity (Calculate with J. Sewer) Park: Drainage: Demand in Acreage = Demand in CFS = Identify Drainage Basin = (Identify master plan facilities on site plan) Circulation: Demand in ADT = (Identify Trip Distribution on site plan) NIA 9.8 acres 590 CFS Agua Hedionda Lagoon 17 596 ADT Fire: Served by Fire Station No.= ~3=an=d~5~---- Open Space: Acreage Provided = ~l 4~0~a=c=re=s ___ _ Schools: K-5: 223.2, Middle: 112.7, HS 132.6 Sewer: Demands in EDU Identify Sub Basin= (Identify trunk line(s) impacted on site plan) Water: Demand in GPO = CUSD 1 518 EDU 14A 14B 333 960 GPO L. The project is 400 units over the Growth Management Dwelling unit allowance. The additional units will need to be allocated from the City's Excess Dwelling Unit Bank. City of Carlsbad I :.IEI ,1,11,1· • •JA ·Elii,,14 ,ii DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Applicant's statement or disclosure of certain ownership interests on all applications which will require discretionary action on the part of the City Council or any appointed Board, Commission or Committee. The following information MUST be disclosed at the time of application submittal. Your project cannot be reviewed until this information is completed. Please print. Note: Person is defined as "Any individual, fmn, co-partnership, joint venture, assoc1atJ.on, social club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, in this and any other county, city and county, city municipality, district or other political subdivision or any other group or combination acting as a unit." Agents may sign this document; however, the legal name and entity of the applicant and property owner must be provided below. 1. APPLICANT (Not the applicant's agent) Provide the COMPLETE. LEGAL names and addresses of ALL persons having a financial interest in the application. If the applicant includes a comoration or partnership. include the names, title, addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares. IF NO INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES, PLEASE INDICATE NON- APPLICABLE (NIA) IN THE SPACE BELOW If a publicly-owned comoration, include the names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached if necessary.) Person, ____________ _ see attached Corp/Part, ___________ _ Title. ____________ _ Title. ______________ _ Address, __________ _ Address. _____________ _ 2. OWNER (Not the owner's agent) Provide the COMPLETE. LEGAL names and addresses of ALL persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. Also, provide the nature of the legal ownership (i.e, partnership, tenants in common, non-profit, corporation, etc.). If the ownership includes a comoration or partnership, include the names, title, addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares. IF NO INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES, PLEASE INDICATE NON-APPLICABLE (NIA) IN THE SPACE BELOW. If a publicly- owned comoration, include the names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached if necessary.) Person, ____________ _ see attached Corp/Part, ____________ _ Title. ____________ _ Title. _____________ _ Address, __________ _ Address, _____________ _ 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 @ 3. NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION OR TRUST If any person identified pursuant to(!) or (2) above is a nonprofit organization or a trust, list the names and addresses of ANY person serving as an officer or director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary of the. Non Profitrfrust. ________ _ Non Profit/Trust -----------Title ____________ _ Title ---------------Address. ___________ _ Address ___________ ~-- 4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees and/or Council within the past twelve (12) months? D Yes /Z] No If yes, please indicate person(s): _____________ _ NOTE: Attach additional sheets if necessary. I certify that all the above information is true and correct to the best of my lmowledge. Signature of o Signature of applica Don Mitchell Don Mitchell Print or type name of owner Print or type name of applicant Signature of owner/applicant's agent if applicable/date Print or type name of owner/applicant's agent H:ADMIN\COUNTER\DISCLOSURE STATEMENT 5/98 Page 2 of 2 I. Applicant 2. Owner Disclosure Statement Calavera Hills II, LLC 2750 Womble Road San Diego, CA 92106 NIA McMillin Companies, LLC 2750 Womble Road San Diego, CA 92106 NIA Brookfield Tamarak, LLC 12865 Pointe Del Mar Del Mar, CA 92014 NIA Calavera Hills II, LLC 2750 Womble Road San Diego, CA 92106 Joint Venture between McMillin Companies, LLC and Brookfield Tamarak, LLC NIA McMillin Companies, LLC 2750 Womble Road San Diego, CA 92106 Joint Venture with Brookfield Tamarak, LLC NIA Brookfield Tamarak, LLC 12865 Pointe Del Mar Del Mar, CA 92014 Joint Venture with McMillin Companies, LLC NIA ,• City of Carlsbad I :.IE I ,I, II,,. I •14 ·EI I I, ,14 ,I I DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Applicant's statement or disclosure of certain ownership interests on all applications which will require discretionary action on the part of the City Council or any appointed Board. Commission or Committee. The following information MUST be disclosed at the time of application submittal. Your project cannot be reviewed until this information is completed. Please print. Note: Person is defined as "Any individual, firm, co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, in this and any other county, city and county, city municipality, district or other political subdivision or any other group or combination acting as a unit." Agents may sign this document; however, the legal name and entity of the applicant and property owner must be provided below. 1. APPLICANT (Not the applicant's agent) Provide the COMPLETE. LEGAL names and addresses of ALL persons having a financial interest in the application. If the applicant includes a corporation or partnership. include the names, title, addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares. IF NO INDIVIDUALS OVIN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES, PLEASE INDICATE NON- APPLICABLE (NIA) IN THE SPACE BELOW If a publicly-owned corporation. include the names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached if necessary.) Person 'f£(AN ~~ Title lt> -::IP:u~ Address 191..-b ~ ~,lO. 2. OWNER (Not the owner's agent) Corp/Part. ___________ _ Title. ______________ _ Address _____________ _ Provide the COMPLETE. LEGAL names and addresses of ALL persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. Also, provide the nature of the legal ownership (i.e, partnership, tenants in common, non-profit, corporation, etc.). If the ownership includes a corporation or partnership. include the names, title, addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares. IF NO INDIVIDUALS OVIN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES, PLEASE INDICATE NON-APPLICABLE (NIA) IN THE SPACE BELOW. If a publicly- owned corporation, include the names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached if necessary.) Person ~M:t l½,~-:,t>N Title U:> -~ Address I Q{pt:. ~ &!"t::N Eo, ~ I \P. ~~~ Corp/Part ___________ _ Title. ______________ _ Address ______________ _ 7635 Faraday Avenue• Carlsbad. CA 92008-7374 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 @ .. 3 . 4. NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION OR TRUST If any person identified pursuant to (I) or (2) above is a nonprofit organization or a trust, list the names and addresses of ANY person serving as an officer or director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary of the. NonProfit/Trusttah\€:-f,I\_ l'@.+,7' ~ NonProfit/Trust1Hf? ~~ $,:!MIC:{ [~ ~11{' Title CO<IJ½hf€.1? Title_U> __ --~.u:.;=P:::::------- Address Z-:Jkr§ PA,S't:> ~S Address '2-!~ ~..,. ~@ y><,,;.,,e:t,,_ ~ 1 CA 'f2,!,1q'L--V~ ~, CA. . ~t,t,~ Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees and/or Council within the past twelve (12) months? D Yes D No If yes, please indicate person(s): _____________ _ NOTE: Attach additional sheets if necessary. above information is true and correct to the bes ,.-"'~----/ 7 -r-o G S · ature of owner/date Si Print or type name of owner Print or type name of applicant Signature of owner/applicant's agent if applicable/date Print or type name of owner/applicant's agent H:ADMIN\COUNTERIDISCLOSURE STATEMENT 5198 Page 2 of 2 City of Carlsbad 1461 ,1,11,l·l•JA ·El Ii ,,14 ,ii DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Applicant's statement or disclosure of certain ownership interests on all applications which will require discretionary action on the part of the City Council or any appointed Board, Commission or Committee. The following information MUST be disclosed at the time of application submittal. Your project cannot be reviewed until this information is completed. Please print. Note: Person is defined as "Any individual, firm, co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, in this and any other county, city and county, city municipality, district or other political subdivision or any other group or combination acting as a unit." Agents may sign this document; however, the legal name and entity of the applicant and property owner must be provided below. 1. APPLICANT (Not the applicant's agent) Provide the COMPLETE. LEGAL names and addresses of ALL persons having a fmancial interest in the application. If the applicant includes a corporation or partnership, include the names, title, addresses of all individuals owning more than I 0% of the shares. IF NO INDIVIDUALS O'WN MORE TRAN 10% OF THE SHARES, PLEASE INDICATE NON- APPLICABLE (NIA) IN THE SPACE BELOW If a publicly-owned corporation. include the names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached if necessary.) Person ~ ~ Corp/Part. ____________ _ TitleC.o-~ Address 2-'f~bf, f/;:?C> e,~ \/~~,C>--1~ 2. OWNER (Not the owner's agent) Title ______________ _ Address. _____________ _ Provide the COMPLETE. LEGAL names and addresses of ALI,. persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. Also, provide the nature of the legal ownership (i.e, partnership, tenants in common, non-profit, corporation, etc.). If the ownership includes a corporation or partnership, include the names, title, addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares. IF NO INDIVIDUALS O'WN MORE TRAN 10% OF THE SHARES, PLEASE INDICATE NON-APPLICABLE (NIA) IN THE SPACE BELOW. If a publicly- owned corporation, include the names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached if necessary.) Person ~ ~?0'::I. Title CD -,WU~ Address Z-"\ Wb <l~ ~ ~ ~,CA:"!~ Corp/Part ____________ _ Title ______________ _ Address _____________ _ 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 @ 3. NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION OR TRUST If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a nonprofit organization or a trust, list the names and addresses of ANY person serving as an officer or director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary of the. Non Profitffrust ~If!:. M l<4ag' ~ Non Profit/frust ~ ~?1:N \?:'lt)ll-1: \ "l'\'5 ~ Title Ct,-j!'-'1¥' Title.....=:C.O,;:;,_~_~u..::::..:...i=:.......------- Address 2---11.oca 0160 ~ Address 'l.--"{i\:t>t'.1 f~ :f,g}UU> VAl.-lei' C4i~t 9--1'z,6B.......,,. 'I~ ~.~ 'lU~ 4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees and/or Council within the past twelve (12) months? D Yes [:YNo If yes, please indicate person(s): _____________ _ NOTE: Attach additional sheets if necessary. Print or type name of owner Print or type name of applicant Signature of owner/applicant's agent if applicable/date Print or type name of owner/applicant's agent H:ADMIN\COUNTERIDISCLDSURE STATEMENT 5/98 Page 2 of 2 Attachment 13 May 31, 2006 COMPARISON OF THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REGULA TIO NS WITH THE ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN Standard Planned Develooment Re1mlations Robertson Ranch Master Plan PRODUCT TYPE: SMALL-LOT PUD Community 200 sf per unit 200 sf per unit' Recreational Space 'The required passive and active' recreation facilities within a Planning Area shall include a minimum I 0,000 sf recreation area. A portion of the recreation requirement may be satisfied through an enlargement of the Community Recreation site (PA 4 and 19) in excess of the base 1.0 acre reouired ner the Master Plan. Storage Space The required storage space may be Required storage space may designed as an enlargement of the include the space within the required parkin2: structure. garage. Minimum Lot Size 5,000 sf 5,000 sf May be reduced to 3,500 sf when the 4,500 sflots allowed adjacent to site is designated RMH and is Cannon Road, a Circulation adjacent to a Circulation Element Element Roadway, due to the Roadway. location of the 84" RCP. Lot width 5,000 sf lot or greater: 50 ft 50 ft Less than 5,000 sf. lots: 40 ft Lot Coverage' Single-story: 60% of net pad area. Single-story or modified single- Two-story on 5,000 sf. lots or story: 60% of the net pad area. greater: 40% of net pad area. Two-story: 45% of the net pad Two-story on less than 5,000 sf. lots: area. 50% of net pad area. Minimum Rear Yard 20% of lot width. 10 ft Setback Minimum Side Yard 10% of lot width. 5 ft Setback Private Rear Yard 18ftxl8ft Single-story or modified single Alley loaded: 15 ft x 15 ft story homes: 15 ft X 15 ft Two story: 18 ft X 18 ft Single Story 15% single-story At least 20% of the homes in Requirement these planning areas shall be (City Council Policy or designed as single-story. 44) A minimum of 10% single-story and Alternatively, a total of25% of 15% reduced single-story the homes in each neighborhood shall be designed as either single-story or modified single- story homes, provided that no fewer than 15% of the homes in the planning area are designed as single-story homes. 'Modified Single-Story homes shall conform to the following criteria: A minimum of60% of the area of the roof shall be single story. A two-story element may be added in the central portion of the front and rear elevation. For modified sinole-storv, the livable soace on the second floor shall not exceed 25% of the first floor lot coveraoe. Standard Planned Development Re!!ulations Attachment 13 May 31, 2006 Robertson Ranch Master Plan PRODUCT TYPE: COURTYARD HOMES OR ATTACHED MULTI-FAMILY Minimum Lot Size NIA No Minimum -Airspace Condominium development. Driveway (Project) Parking/sidewalks may be required Parkways/sidewalks will not be in a project driveway. required in motor courts which provide access to l!arages. Community 200 sf per unit. 200 sf per unit. j Recreation Space 'The required passive and active recreation areas shall have a minimum width and depth of 50 ft. A minimum of I 0,000 sf of community recreation area shall be provided on-site. A portion of the recreation requirement may be satisfied through an enlargement of the Community Recreation site (PA 4 and 19) in excess of the base 1.0 acre required per the Master Plan. Storage Space The required storage space may be Required storage space may designed as an enlargement of the include the space within the reauired parking structure. garage. Building Height Small lot single family and two-Detached Courtyard Homes4 or family dwellings: 30 ft Two-Family Units: 30 ft and two stories with a minimum roof pitch of 3: 12. Multi-family units: 35 ft Multiple Family Attached: 35 ft and three stories with a minimum roofnitch of3:12. 4Single-storv units are not nronosed for the Courtyard Homes. Minimum Building • To front porch: 11 ft • To front porch: 10 ft Setbacks, Private or • To residence: 10 ft • To residence: 10 ft Public Street• • To street side yard: 10 ft • To street side yard: 10 ft • Side entry garage: 10 ft • Side entry garage: 10 ft • Direct entry garage: 20 ft • Direct entry garage: Standard shall not apply (no direct access from street to gara!!e). Minimum Building • Residence: 8 ft fully landscaped. • Residence: 5 ft from Setbacks, Driveway or motorcourt or driveway at Motor court first floor with a zero foot • Garage: 5 ft setback at second floor. • Garage: 3 ft from motorcourt or driveway to garage door. Standard Planned Development Ree;ulations Minimum Building • 20 ft average, with a minimum Separation IO ft between structures. Resident Parking I covered and I uncovered space per unit. Private recreational IO ft x IO ft patio or 6 ft x IO ft Space balcony. Exclusive Use Areas NIA Attachment 13 May 31, 2006 Robertson Ranch Master Plan • Minimum 25 ft between buildings on paseos (porches from each building may encroach up to 6 ft into this separation for a total of 12 ft). • Minimum IO ft between structures. • Garage: 30 ft between onnosing garage doors. Two-car garage per unit (min. 20 ft X 20 ft). Projects of more than 10 dwelling units: 6 ft x IO ft covered porches will be nrovided. At least 100 sf of exclusive use area shall be provided abutting each dwelling unit with a minimum dimension of 10 ft in anv direction. PRODUCT TYPE: HIGH DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY -CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT Standard Planned Development Ree:ulations Robertson Ranch Master Plan Community 200 sf per unit. 150 sf per unit5 Recreation Soace ' I 00 sf per unit shall be provided on-site. A portion of the recreation requirement may be satisfied through an enlargement of the Community Recreation site (PA 4 and 19\ in excess of the base 1.0 acre required per the Master Plan. Storage Space The required storage space may be Required storage space may designed as an enlargement of the include the space within the reauired parking structure. garage. Minimum Building • To front porch: 11 ft • To front porch: 10 ft Setbacks, Private or • To residence: 10 ft • To residence: 10 ft Public Streets* • To street side yard: 10 ft • To street side yard: 10 ft • Side entry garage: IO ft • Side entry garage: 10 ft • Direct entry garage: 20 ft • Direct entry garage: 20 ft Minimum Building • Residence: 8 ft fully landscaped. • Residence: 5 ft at first floor Setbacks, Driveway or with 0-ft setback on the Motor Court • Garage: 5 ft second floor. • Garage: 3 ft from roadway to garage door. Standard Planned Development Re2ulations Minimum Building • 20 ft average, with a minimum Separation 10 ft between structures. Attachment 13 May 31, 2006 Robertson Ranch Master Plan • Minimum 10 ft between buildings. • The front faces of buildings shall be a minimum of20 ft apart.6 • Minimum 30 ft between onnosin!! !!ara!!e doors. 'Entries, stairs, and balconies may encroach up to 6 ft within these setbacks, provided a minimum I 0-ft separation between structures is maintained. Patios may encroach within these setbacks without restriction, provided a I 0-ft seoaration between structures is maintained. Resident Parking 1 covered and 1 uncovered space per Two spaces per unit in any of the unit. following forms: • I-car covered garage at 12 ft x 20 ft (min.) and one designated uncovered space; • Two separate one car garages (min. 12 ft x 20 ft each); • 2-car covered tandem garage at 12 ft x 40 ft (min.); or • 2-car covered side by side !!ara!!e at 20 ft x 20 ft (min.) Private Recreational 10 ft x IO ft patio or 6 ft x IO ft Each unit shall include one of Space balcony. the following: Patio: 100 sf (min. dimension of 8 ft) Balcony: 60 sf (min. dimension of 6 ft) PRODUCT TYPE: HIGH DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY -Apartments Standard Planned Development Re2ulations Robertson Ranch Master Plan Community NIA I 00 sf per unit shall be Recreation Space orovided on site. Apartment units shall be subject to the RD-M zone development standards and are not subject to the Planned Develonment Reauirements. • • • . . CITY OF CARLSBAD COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT Policy No. Date Issued Effective Date Cancellation Date Supersedes No. Page 1 of 2 43 4/26/05 4/26/05 43, 12/17/02 General Subject: Proposition E "Excess Dwelling" Unit Bank Specific Subject: Established Policy for Number And Allocation of Proposition E "Excess" Dwelling Units Copies to: City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, Department Heads and Division Heads, Employee Bulletin Boards, Press, File PURPOSE: To establish the City Council's policy regarding the number and the criteria for allocation of "excess• dwelling units which have become available as a result of residential projects being approved and constructed with less dwelling units than would have been allowed by the density control points of the Growth Management PJai:i approved by voters on November 4, 1986, as Proposition E. EXCESS DWELLING UNITS Dwelling units that become "excess" shall be added to the then-existing citywide balance (excess dwelling unit bank). Excess units may be allocated to projects located in any quadrant so long as the number of residential units built in each quadrant does not violate the dwelling unit limitations established by Proposition E. STATEMENT OF POLICY Although it is not mandatory to use the excess dwelling units, the City Council authorizes consideration of allowing the excess units to be allocated to future "qualifying," residential projects. In order to "qualify" for an allocation of excess units, a project shall possess one or more of the following characteristics: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. , , A project that includes a request for a density bonus made pursuant to and in compliance with state density bonus law. Housing units made affordable to lower or moderate income households. Senior citizen housing. Hou5ing located in the Village Redevelopment Area or the South Carlsbad Coastal Redevelopment Area. Transit-oriented, "smart growth" development projects where increased residential density is being placed in close proximity to major transit facilities, employment opportunities and commercial support services. Projects approved for a land use change from non-residential to residential or projects containing a mix of residential and non-residential. ' The property has a General Plan designation of Residential Low Density (RL) or Residential Low- Medium Density (RLM) and the base zone of the property would permit a slightly higher yield of units than would be allowed by the RL or RLM General Plan designation; provided, the proposed density does not exceed the maximum density of the RL or RLM density range by more than an additional 25 percent. CITY OF CARLSBAD Page 2 of 2 • Policy No. 43 COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT Date Issued 4l26Los Effective Date 4L26L0S Cancellation Date Supersedes No. 9:J I lZllZlQZ General Subject: Proposition E "Excess Dwelling" Unit Bank Specific Subject: Established Policy for Number And Allocation of Proposition E "Excess" Dwelling Units Copies to: City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, Department Heads and Division Heads, Employee Bulletin Boards, Press, File 8. The growth management control point (GMCP) density for the property results In a unit yield that includes a fractional unit of .5 or greater. In this circumstance, a fraction of a unit may be granted in order to a~hieve, but not to exceed, the next whole unit; provided, the maximum density of the applicable General Plan land use designation is not exceeded. s ----The number of excess units allocated to a particular "qualifying" project shall be at the sole discretion of the • City Council, Planning Commission or Planning Director as appropriate and shall be based on the importance of the characteristic possessed by the projects or, where a project possesses multiple characteristics, the number and importance of the characteristics. In approving a request for allocation of excess dwelling units, the City Council shall consider the location of the requesting project and the compatibility of increased density with existing adjacent residential neighborhoods in accordance with the applicable principles of the General Plan. HISTORY: Action Date Summarv Originally February 2, 1990 Established a formal policy for the allocation of ·excess• dwelling units under the Adooted dwellina unit limitations of Prooositlon E. Amended Aorll 22, 1997 Refined the oriorltv list of oroiects mat oualirv for an excess dwelllnn unit allocation. Established the number of available excess dwelling units at a balance of 2800 units lthis was a reduction to the number of units in excess dwelllno unit bank). Amended December 17, 2002 Eliminated the individual city-quadrant dwelling unit bank balances, and Instead established a cltvwide excess dwellina unit bank. Revised the list of projects that qualify for an excess dwelling unit allocation, including the elimination of the ·orlorltv" S""tem. Modified list of projects that qualify for an excess dwelling unit allocation, including Amended the addition of a provision to allow, projects to round up above the growth manaoement control point bv a fraction of a unit. ~ • May 3 I, 2006 Mr. Marty Montgomery Chairman Carlsbad Planning Commission 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 RE: Robertson Ranch Project Dear Chairman Montgomery: The Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce, we would like to express its suppoi1 of the Robertson Ranch project proposed by The Corky McMillin Companies. As a 1,700 member business organization, we are well aware of the key components in attracting and retaining quality businesses in Carlsbad; two key components are: I) availability of a variety of housing, and 2) a balanced community offering business opportunities, quality education, services and recreation. The Corky McMillin Companies, through current and prior projects in Carlsbad, has demonstrated their understanding of helping the City of Carlsbad thoughtfully grow. They have the desire to contribute sustainable communities within the City of Carlsbad for current and future generations. McMillin projects like Calavera Hills are communities Carlsbad can take pride in now and for years to come. The Corky McMillin Companies have demonstrated a commitment to the quality of life and the business community in each community in which they have projects, including Carlsbad. The Carlsbad Chamber is excited about The Corky McMillin Companies' Robertson Ranch project and its commitment to further enhance the City of Carlsbad. With the preservation of open space and addition of parks and trails. Robe,tson Ranch will offer limitless opportunities to all of the citizens of Carlsbad. We urge your approval of the staff recommendation and applaud the City of Carlsbad for taking an important step towards finding water solutions for the region. Respectfull , 5934 Priestly Drive• Carlsbad, California 92008 Phone: (760) 93 I -8400 • l:'ax: (760) 'U 1-'J l'i3 • E-mail: chambcr~rlcarlsbad.org • Web: www.carlsbad.org From: To: Date: Subject: <kcinciarelli@adelphia.net> <Planning@[205.142.109.13]> Wed, May 31, 2006 4:10 PM CITY OF CARLSBAD I CONTACT US ------------~---~--~p-·_11ei1l A visitor to the City of Carlsbad Web site has completed and posted the "Contact Us" form to department, Planning . •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• FOR SECURITY REASONS, DO NOT CHANGE THE SUBJECT LINE. ********************************************** Below, please find the information that was submitted: Please register my opposition to the "upzoning" of Robertson Ranch from 954 dwelling units to 1383, and forward this to the Planning Commissioners for tonights meeting. CUSD has told the City and Developer that there will NOT be an elementary school build in this development. The traffic studies did NOT include parents required to drive all age students off-site for school. In addition in the words of Superintendent Roach of the CUSD sent to parents in May 2006, "Carlsbad High School suffers from Severe Overcrowding in delapidated facilities." Contrary to what may be stated in this EIR the impact of additional development on the High School is NOT mitigable -short of building a new High School. I don't hear any of the developers, including this one stepping up to the plate to do that. Deny this project until all traffic impacts due to trips offsite for schools and potential failures at existing intersections have been thoroughly examined and mitigated for. If Edinburg is to be kept closed due to public outcry (as Mira Monte is being) then that should be fully assessed also. For the a fore mentioned reasons, under no conditions should addition density be added to what has been designated the Growth Control Point of 953 for this Southern half of the Robertson Ranch project. kasey cinciarelli 2727 Lyons Ct. Carlsbad, CA 92010 kasey cinciarelli 2727 Lyons Ct. carlsbad, ca 92010 USA kcinciarelli@adelph ia. net Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.01; Windows NT 5.0; .NET CLR 1.1.4322) 68.65.192.127 MAY 31 2006 16:18 FR SIAJ§ OF £A.I JPORNTA RPSINRS-$. TRAN$P08TATTQN ANP HQIJS[NQ AQfNCX l>EPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION District 11 · 4050 Taylor S1ree1 · M.S. 50 San Die,o, CA 92110-2737 PHONE (6l9)688-69S4 FAX (619) 688-4299 May 31, 2006 Ms. Barbara Kennedy City of Carlsbad Planning Dept. 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92024-3633 TO 917606028559 ARNO! P SCHWARZBNBQQ6B OPYCrne• Flm: your pow,r! 81 41111"1}' ,Jfittettlf 11-SD-005 PM49.28 RE: Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final Program EIR (SCH 2004051039) Dear Ms. Kennedy: The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) appreciates the opportunity to review the City of Carlsbad's responses to Caltrans' comments regarding the Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Robertson Ranch Master Plan project. This project involves the construction of 1,383 residential dwelling units and 175,000 square foot of commercial uses on 404 acres located east of the Interstate S (I-S) at the eastern comer of the Tamarack Avenue/ El Camino Real intersection in the City of Carlsbad. We have the following comments. According to the traffic study included in the EIR, the development is expected to generate 17,254 Average Daily Trips (ADT) which may potentially impact existing and future facilities at the 1-5 I Tamarack Avenue interchange, as well as other intersections in the vicinity. The Traffic Impact Study (TIS) included in the EIR is incomplete as it does not include the entrance and exit ramps at l-5 / Tamarack Avenue, nor does it include the interchange at I-5 I Carlsbad Village Drive. Cumulative impacts of a project, together with other related projects, must be considered when determining the project's impacts. A cumulative impact is the sum of the impacts of existing conditions, other projects, and the project itself -no matter how small the contribution is from the project itself. There is no nrinimwn size limitation on projects that may be required to mitigate for cumulative impacts if the project contributes to a traffic problem in any amount. Caltrans supports the concept of "Fair Share" contributions on the part of developers for future improvement to the State Highway System projects and/or other measUfCs needed to mitigate for traffic impacts created by proposed developments. ln order to determine traffic impacts and to assess potential mitigation, State-owned, "Calrra,u Improves mobi/lry 4CJYn3 Ozl;/amia •• MAY 31 2006 16:18 FR Ms. Barbara Kennedy May 31, 2006 Page2 TO 917606028559 P.03/03 signalized intersections must be analyzed using the Intersecting Lane Vehicle (IL V) procedure from the Caltrans Highway Design Manual Topic 406, page 400-21 using the year 2030 traffic forecast. Caltrans requires Level of Service (LOS) "C" or better at State-owned facilities, including intersections (see Appendix "C-3" of the TIS guide). If an intersection is currently below LOS "C," any increase in delay from project-generated traffic must be analyzed and mitigated. Caltrans is currently developing the I-5 North Coast project in order to increase capacity on the 1-5 corridor in the vicinity of this proposed project. As such, there may be an opportunity for the developer to provide funding for improvC111ents as part of the project's "fair share" transportation impacts mitigation. Calttans disagrees with the City of Carlsbad's statement that "at this time there has been no mechanism established to define such projects or to collect fees (Response to Comment DOT4)". Caltrans would like to meet with the City of Carlsbad to discuss potential mitigation related to the Robertson Ranch project. Caltrans appreciates the opportunity to review the EIR for this project proposal. For questions regarding the Department's comments, please contact Brent C. McDonald at (619) 688-6819. cc: BMcDonald AJacobo EGojuangco SMorgan Planning 1-5, PM Frwy. Ops. State ClearingHouse (SCH) "Callrt1111 impl't'WU m(lbllity d~l'OU California .. ** TOTAL PAGE.03 ** RECEIVED CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING DEPT Attn Ms B. Kennady, Planning Dept City of Carlsbad. Dear Madam, J Mr Eric C. Williamson 1530 Sunrise Circle Carlsbad, CA 92008-3648 Wednesday, May 31, 2006 Citizen Comment on Robertson Ranch Plan Thank you for your response to my Citizen Comment dated December 1, 2005 on the above ranch plan. And for copies of the numerous comments on the problems ofthis development plan. This massive growth plan will bring too many people, too much traffic, our city and schools are already over crowded. This development is way over the top, it needs to be considerably reduced or totally eliminated. Your responses to all the problems mentioned by people who have communicated their concerns seem to refer to studies, environmental impact reports, circulation studies etc. Missing from the equation are practical real life experience and eye witness accounts from citizens of Carlsbad. Traffic problems and over crowding problems experienced by residents are not answered by simply referring to traffic circulation studies and traffic counts, and other reports. It takes "get our there and actually see for yourself'. It also takes actual driving on a daily basis to get out there to see that El Camino Real and local roads have reached "Build Out". Every evening, going North on El Camino Real is difficult. The huge traffic back up from Jefferson reaches a long way South. Folk are getting off and driving through the mall parking lots to get around the traffic jam. The same is true at the intersection of El Camino Real and Palomar Airport road. The turning lane is too short. Traffic enters the turn off lane, but there is such a lot of traffic, the line extends back into the regular roadway and cuts off an entire traffic lane. This project will add to existing traffic nightmares but it will also cause too many people issues. Too many homes are planned and the multi family condos and apartments do not belong in the area of single family homes. Of special interest is the multi family area of PA 1. This is right on the comer of El Camino Real and Tamarack. We already have a problem with traffic on this comer. The addition of multi family units on PA 1 would 2. generate too much traffic on El Camino Real and a real problem on Tamarack. Mention must be made of all the parents who pick up children from Kelly school. Many parents are parking on side roads to avoid the congested roads around the schools. Tamarack is one of them. Parents are asking their children to walk out of the traffic areas around the schools. You will not find any of this by referring to traffic counts and circulation studies. On the issue of traffic, a newspaper report quotes a Planning Department staff member stating "we will ask the developer to fix any problems as they arise". We have to conclude that if he buys a home without a roof, he would wait for it to start raining and then ask the builder to fix the problem. Sorry, it is already raining traffic and people and the problem is now. A newspaper report tells us that the Planning Department is going to allow the developer to build on the planned school site at PA 13. This site should not be given to the developer, it should be held in case it is needed in the future. This site will belong to the people of Carlsbad and should not be given away. In the mean time, if it is not needed immediately, make it a common for people to enjoy. We have just received a letter from the Superintendent of schools. He states the Carlsbad High School is already over crowded, he needs input for how to accommodate another approx 30% increase in student population. He favours increasing the size of the present CHS. Just like the Roberson Ranch project, he has forgotten about the roads around the schools, how congested they are and how it impacts local residents. No, you will not realize or fix all this by referring to studies and reports. Mention was made of allowing the developer to build more homes, the total number would not exceed numbers counted in the "Build out Plan" made in the 1980s. This "Build out Plan" is totally obsolete, it sadly needs revision in light of modem experience, traffic and population problems. Constantly quoting a plan made over twenty years ago is not realistic today. Just take a look at Bressi Ranch. There are huge homes built on postage sized lots with minimum space between homes. The people who live there are lucky, they are able to shake hands with their neighbours without ever leaving their homes ! ! ! Who planned this ? This not the quality development we are looking for in our lovely city of Carlsbad ! We certainly do not wish to have a Bressi Ranch built at Robertson Ranch. In retrospect, the present agricultural land of Robertson Ranch looks lovely just the way it is. To summarize, I repeat:- We would very much rather have the beautiful hills than more homes, people and traffic. We are totally unable to accommodate the additional people and traffic. Remember, we have not seen the full impact of the new residents and traffic from Bressi Ranch. I'm afraid we are in for a rude awakening. Ifwe are not able to shut this whole development down, then at least find some way to reduce it considerably. Change the multi family to single family homes to limit the people factor and elevate the area to the higher Carlsbad standards Lastly, completely scotch PAI, it is going to have a terrible effect on the comer of Tamarack and El Camino Real. Same as last time, local residents will be solidly against this multi family area. Thank you for considering my comments. Sincerely, ' Eric C. Williamson phone 760-729-8485 Copy to Carlsbad City Council 1s (( £ ~ S I (<. A IY C t-f I ~ FROM :SOA SOFTWARE FAX NO. :3108208601 May. 31 2006 09:29AM Pi 5/31/06 Re: Robertson Ranch Planning Commissioners, I am writing to comment on the Robertson Ranch development currently being reviewed by the city. I live in the nearby community ofCalavcra Hills. J support the community concept of Robertson Ranch. I do, however, have a couple issues with some ofthe more specific plans. My criticisms are rooted in my (and many others) concern over the perceived growing disparity between the economic prosperity ofnor1hcm and southern Carlsbad. It appears as though the overwhelming majority of recent housing projects in southem Carlsbad have average lot si:i:es of7500 sq. n. and houses greater than 3000 sq. ft. Examples arc La Costa Oaks and La Costa Greens. In northern Carlsbad it seems as though most of the lot sizes arc 5000 -6000 sq. ft. and the houses are less than 3000 sq. ft. Examples arc Calavera Hills IT and Robertson Ranch. This leads lo lower house prices in the north and higher prices in the south contributing to the perception of economic disparity. I request an increase in s,lme of the lot sizes and an increase in the number of larger homes in Robertson Ranch to make it more consistent with the other developments. Another contributing factor to the disparity in my opinion is the building of apar1ment homes. I think if you look at the ratio of apartment homes to detached homes in the two areas, you'll see a much higher ratio in the north (consider surrounding areas ol'lhc village and the mall as examples of dense apartment homes). I understand thal the city has laid out guidelines for building affordable housing with every new development, but I believe we should look at the over.ill topology of the city and make more subjective decisions in this matter. Northern Carlsbad borders southern Oceanside which is already san1rated wilh apartment homes. There are no shortages of available apartment~ in this area. One of the topics on the eo1111cil's agenda is approve more apartment homes in Robertson Ranch. I am opposed t<, adding any more to the plan than was orighially specified. Once again, 1 do approve of the overall Robertson Ranch concept. I just feel that the city should take into considcrat.ion maki11g small changes that can help promote all areas of Carlsbad more equally. ~k------ Tony Gullotta 3744 Cavern Place From: To: Date: Subject: Hi Barbara "Eric Munoz" <emunoz@hofmanplanning.com> "'Barbara Kennedy"' <Bkenn@ci.carlsbad.ca.us> 05/30/2006 3:05:04 PM robertson ranch I wanted to let you know that the Agua Hedionda Lagoon Foundation is in support of the Robertson Ranch Master Plan, primarily because of the improved situation it will deliver to the health of the lagoon and watershed. Additionally, it is consistent with the City's General Plan, Habitat Management Plan and assists with implementing the Master Drainage Plan. We will be providing a short letter for the PC hearing on May 31. Thanks and take care EM 30 May 2006 CC: "'Brian Milich"' <bmilich@mcmillin.com>, "'Steve LePage"' <slepage@m-rep.com> fage .1 J From: To: Date: Subject: Don Neu Barbara Kennedy 05/30/2006 7:43:41 AM Fwd: Robertson Ranch concerns .•. " : : : »> "David Stoffel" <dpstoffel@msn.com> 05/29/06 8:32 PM »> Hello, We appreciate your efforts to help plan our community. We are very concerned that plans are being made to over-develop the Robertson Ranch area. We are lifelong residents of Southern California, and residents of Carlsbad for the past 23 years. We have lived in the Colony at Calavera Hills during this time. We understand that the city's zoning ordinance allows a maximum of 954 homes in this area (maximum). It doesn't seem to be in the best interests of Carlsbad and the residents in this area to even reach this maximum, let alone exceed it! We have the seen the traffic congestion and density grow. Please help us have sensible planning! Please help us maintain some of the reasons why we live in this area. Thank You, David and Paula Stoffel May 30, 2006 Barbara Kennedy Associate Planner, City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 RECEIVED MAY 3 1 2006 CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING DEPT SUPPORT FOR ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN -MP 02-03 The Agua Hedionda Lagoon Foundation (AHLF) is in support of projects that are processed through the City of Carlsbad consistent with the General Plan, city standards and policies, and statewide environmental review requirements. In that context, the AHLF supports the Robertson Ranch Master Plan, corresponding Environmental Impact Report (EIR 03-03), and related entitlements. The master plan development is located directly upstream of the lagoon, within the Agua Hedionda watershed. Many features of the project will result in a healthier lagoon due to the significant reduction of offsite sedimentation. Compliance with new regulations affecting offsite soil loss, stormwater management and related water quality will improve existing conditions. Support for the project is based on the delivery of structural improvements to the area which will assist with the implementation of the City's Master Drainage Plan and Stormwater Quality Management efforts. Support is also based on the establishment of related Best Management Practices, implementation of EIR 03-03 and related mitigation monitoring program, consistency with the City's Habitat Management Plan, provision of trails and parks, and long-term environmental management obligations. The AHLF concurs with the staff recommendation that the Planning Commission support this project, and likewise recommend approval by the City Council. Sincerely, (~. M ~~ ERIC MUNOZ President -Agua Hedionda Lagoon Foundation A California Non-Profit Corporation, 1580 Cannon Road, Carlsbad CA 92008 • 760-804-1969, www.aguahedionda.org May 30, 2006 ~~ t3MMad Owners' Association, Inc. 5200 El Camino Real, Carlsbad, California 92008 Phone: (760) 438-0333 Fax: (760) 438-1808 Carlsbad City Planning Commission 1200 Carlsbad Village Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008 RE: Robertson Ranch E.I.R. Dear Commission Members: This letter is written, in part, to express our thanks to Brian Milich and the McMillin Company for their ongoing response to issues of importance to Rancho Carlsbad Owners' Association, and its' members. We began our working relationship during processing of Calavera II Project in 2001, and the construction of College Blvd and Cannon Rd. We had specific issues regarding the highways, including their effect on our Flood Mitigation Plan, a prime concern of our community. Brian worked with us cooperatively to resolve those issues. Discussions then ensued in early 2004 on the future development plans for Robertson Ranch. Again we had specific issues regarding development along our northern border below Cannon Rd. Flood mitigation was an important part of these discussions. Brian and his organization again worked cooperatively with us to meet and resolve our concerns. Recently, Rancho Carlsbad Owners' Association, and Calavera Hills II, LLC, on behalf of the owners' have entered into an agreement addressing the issues raised by us related to the Robertson Ranch Project. As a result we support the EIR, the modification of the master plan for PA-22, and the Flood Plain Special Use Permit, which includes the 84" diversionary pipeline. In general, we find nothing to oppose in the overall Robertson Ranch Master Plan and Project. @) ,f.~:-& Pt~-f t . . ~' ~· gr . -(" . f. ' &I' f ' J~ ~ ~ c' ~ -~--fr.,~ ~~ ",Q.2 f &, Jci j~"[1~t1t.· ~ cf· ~~e_l,c" ~ t) e f ~ <:$ r \i t ~ ~.-' ~ Cf', \ q ....:: . ~ ---~ ~ /,' ~t' ' -....... ~ if! I~ I I (, , .. .l=:, May24,2006 To: Cc: From: RE: RECEIVED MAY 2 4 2006 City Planning <',0mmission Members CITY OF CARLSBAD City Council Members, M. Escobar-Eck, B. Kennedy PLANNING DE PT The Colony Residents at Calavera Hills (Primary contacts: Greg & Jill Agosti, Kari Atherton, Ken & Judy Miller) Robertson Bwh As citi7.eos of The Colony in Carlsbad, we have several concerns regarding the Robertson Ranch application. We are communicating our concerns in one letter to demonstrate our individual and collective apprehensions in a single, concise document and to avoid having you read a plethora of individual letters repeating the same points. Please be aware the concerns and views contained in this letter are tep.esentative of numerous Colony residents. Upon meeting with the City of Carlsbad Planning Department and representatives from both McMillan and Robertson Ranch, we have identified and SUlJIIJl8ri7.ed our concerns, and we have provided recommendations and suggested solutions. As a community, we were aware of Robertson Ranch eventually being developed, which is their right, but not at the density proposed in the Master Plan application. Thus, we want the growth in our existing neighborhood to be managed effectively and the right things to be iotplemented. Our primary concerns are excess 1ketkY, ttJffle. ud yfety. fwmp•lgtigp is also briefly addressed. DENSITY Original estimates called for this property to have 1,122 homes. After a more intensive analysis by the city (in accordance with the City's zoning standards), that figure was later reduced to 983. The proposed Master Plan for Robertson Ranch currently reflects 1,383 dwelling units-a 41 "ilu:lwlff. This additional density is made up mostly of apartment/multi-family units. City Planners have said that the request for the additional 400 units is permis&ble because the land developers will meet additional low income housing goals, and the Robertson Ranch area is in the Northeastern quadrant, which is expected to come in well below the City's Growth Management Housing Standards by the time the city reaches its build out stage in 15 -20 years.1 1 North County Tmes, May 14, 2006 Rober18on Ranch-Colony Residents Page2 "So, we said, it makes sense to put these excess dwelling units into the Robertson Ronch parcel" Barbara K.ennedy.2 In our opinion, the added density to Robertson Ranch is not responsible growth. It contributes to several existing issues including, but not limited to: extensive traffic congestion (discussed in additional detail below), increased safety issues, potential for increased crime and reduced property values. Our concern is also with the total number of apartment/multi-family units. According to the Council Policy Statement 43, dated 4/26/05 "In approving a request for allocation of excess dwelling units (DU). the City Council shall consider the location of the requesting project and the compptjbilitv of ill£""!'M'4 dgjty with efflins adjacent residential 9eighhnrhoodll." Calavara Hills bas no apartment/multi-family units in the adjacent neighborhoods to the North. West or South. The sole apartment projec:t' to the East is the~ development, Mariposa in Calavara Hills. with a total of l 06 units at a density of approximately 13 DU's per acre 4. In comparison, proposed units for Robertson Ranch range from 16. 7 - 22.9 DU's per acre with a total number 677 dwelling units, of which, 534 or 79% of these are in the West Village alone. Denllty Complltnn ol Dwellng Unlta Exlalll19 tr. Plapa11d (111 •• Plan Lind UN Plan dlllld 02 ..... ) PARCEL DU's GRIN AwragemJ AcNI perltl:tta lllrtpaal (Exlltlng) 108DU's 8.18 13.0DU/AC Eat VIiiage (Propo11d) PA14 63DU 3.6 17.5DU/AC PA15 80DU 3.5 22.9DU/AC Walt VIiiage (P1apa11d) PA7 201 DU 11.8 17.3OU/AC PAS 195DU 11.7 16.7OU/AC PA13 138OU 8.8 20.3DU/AC Robll1aon Ranch Total 877DU lncnilll Above llllrlpou 35% 78% 33% 29% 58% Compatible, defined by Webster, indicates, "going well together". In our opinion, the number of apartment/multi-family units proposed for Robertson Ranch will not blend well together at this volume. if at all. We don't understand why the City would approve a project where 49% of tlae total DU'• an apartmentlaaltl-family Dill when the adjacent neighborhoods have only one very small apattment/multi-family complex. Not 2 North County TIIMS, May 14, 2008 'To our knowledge 4 Figures from the City of Cartsbld websilll Roberllon Ranch -Colony RNidents Page3 only will the volume of apartment/multi-family units aesthetically be incompatible, our property values will decline due to the proximity of the volume of apartment/multi-family units, crime is more likely to increase due to the proximity of housing defined as "low income", and the excess density will bring ,aignificantly more traffic on Edinburgh and Glasgow resulting in increased noise ftom additional cars. While it may be legal, we do NOT believe this meets the intent of compatibility with the existing adjacent residential neighborhoods. Additionally, the proposed excess density in the form of multi-family units far exceeds the 15% low-income requirement. On 4/25/06 during the Public Hearing of the Mira Monte Barricades issue, Mayor Pro Tero, Matt Hall said, "Growth Management Plans were designed to protect quality of life". The 41% increase in density above and beyond the City's revised property analysis figure of983 units is significant. Just because the density fits within the quadrant's Growth Management number, doesn't mean that it is the right thing to do. Additional density impacts the quality of life within our community on every level: children's safety, increased noise and air pollution, lower property values (based on excessive apartment/multi-family units) and traffic (discussed in further detail below). TRAFFIC "A City where travel is safe and easily accommodated whether it is by mass transit, in an automobile, on a bicycle or as a pedestrian". ' After reviewing the traffic study impacts to Edinburgh and Glasgow, we have numerous concerns, ~nning with the fact that the conclusions are based on dk-assumption that Cannon Road Reach 4 is completed in the near term, near term defined as 1-10 years per Planning personnel. Discussions with Traffic and Planning personnel indicate that the Cannon Road Reach 4 is at least 10 years away, if ever. ( .. U ever" wu ned mllltiple times dl..,,.._t coavenationL) This is for several reasons: • The Cannon Road Reach 4 project has yet to receive funding; • Environmental and ecological impact issues; • Planning and coordination with a second city, and while Cannon Road Reach 4 is part of the General Plan, the City of Carlsbad has not identified the project as a priority. Thus, the probability of this extension being completed in the "near term" is extremely low and cannot be relied upon in decisions linked to the Robertson Ranch application. Additionally, the traffic study pertaining to existing traffic patterns collected data on only one day, leaving much room for error. There was no evidence whatsoever verifying that the one day was rep1esentative of and consistent with other days. The survey was conducted in October the same week as the Columbus Day holiday and may not be accurately representative of "daily" traffic patterns. Robertlon Ranch -Colony R81idents Page4 The traffic study's conclusion of a 6% overall distribution northbound on Glasgow and Edinburgh troubles us and in our opinion, is very low. We question the actual 1rips per day when Glasgow and Edinburgh become the primary routes for those attending Hope or Calavera schools. We do not believe that families in the lower part of the West Village will choose the option of a 6-lane major thoroughfare and 3 traffic lights in order to get to Tamarack when they can simply use Edinburgh and/or Glasgow. As far as we can determine from our review of the traffic study, the demographic assumptions for school age families in the West Village are not identified, which is a flaw of the study. Further clarification from the City's Engineerina 1ep1esentative (who has been very professional) implied that they were included but did not absolutely confirm it. Nevertheless, we believe such assumptions are incorrect. In addition, with only one main entrance/exit in the West Village we don't feel the traffic study adequately addresses driving patterns in the West Village. If6% of the entire Robertson Ranch traffic will be diverted to Edinburgh and Glasgow, we do not believe the fflJllining 94% of all traffic flow will occur through the thnle main entnmces/exits, even with the road improvements on Cannon and El camino Real. Again, to get to Tamarack from the West Village: the option of a 6-lane major thoroughfare and 3 traffic lights or simply using Edinburgh and/or Glasgow. Without completion of Cannon Road Reach 4, the figun:s in the traffic report reflect an increase on Glasgow Drive from 300 existing VPD to 1,640 -a -,,Olltllflb/ ""'" u,c,au. Edinburgh will increase from 1,200 to 1,750, a 46% increase. Although it is within city engineering acceptable standards, in practicality we find these figun:s unreasonable for an existing community of single-family homes filled with children and grandchildren. The majority of homes, if not all, front both of these streets. A "'" u,c,au Is slplfkat, Ind•"''" inanu Is wllllOIII • ,Jodt 111U1Ca,f116.le, np«Wly co,uldnb,g Slffdy, Traffic from both Villages -especially the East -will conlribute to the already "failed" intersections of College & Lake and College & Plaza Dr. (in Oceanside) for access to the CA-78. Although these failed intersections are in Oceanside, approval of the Robertson Ranch project, at any density level, will further conlribute to these failures. B2tll Carlsbad and '>ceanside own this problem as it greatly affects the citi7.ens of Carlsbad and further reduces the quality of life in this area. Often. and especially during the afternoon/evening commute, the failures occur in Carlsbad on College towards Tamarack (North) and sometimes to Carlsbad Village Dr. and beyond when other traffic problems occur on specific days. (See attached pictures for reference.) Accolding to the Carlsbad Growth Management Plan, major concept #4 states, "U tit IIIIY tlav •prop,,,...~ WOllhl rnlllt bl •fdlln of IIIIY o/lM ""4'f/ldftldllty per/lllWIM«,,,,,,.,., Ill,~ CIIIIIIOI N ,,,,,,,._ 11111111M pro/Jlffll Is rnolNd." Due to the intent of this statement and because the city boundary attaches to these already failed intersections, we believe the City of Carlsbad has an obligation to address this problem and work with the City of '>ceanside to resolve the problem, Robertson Ranch-Colony R8lidenls Page5 possibly with a specific implementation plan and date, as a condition for approval of the Robertson Ranch project. Lastly, the EIR stated that during peak hours the intersection at El Camino Real and Lisa Street would have a Level of Service (LOS) "F' by 201 0, and after the widening of El Camino Real a WS "D". Similar conclusions were stated for the Oceanside intersection of College and Plaza. SAFETY Until the Cannon Road Reach 4 is completed, approving a project that will result in traffic increases of 46% on Edinburgh and 446% on Glasgow is not a prudent decision. With the number of homes fronting the two streets, the safety impacts to the residents could not be found during our review of the EIR. A statement was identified in the EIR that said the impact on Edinburgh and Glasgow would be •IJkat but offered no solutions or further discussion. If the project is approved, these conditions must be corrected before occupancy can occur. The Colony's primary streets are Edinburgh and Glasgow with several other streets interconnecting. For over 20 years, om neighborhood of 172 homes has consisted of both young and "older" families with lots of children and grandchildren. Parents are responsible in our neighborhood, but children will always be children. The little ones (and even big ones) can be exceptional "escape artists". It takes only seconds for an accident to occur. We have witnessed kids on their bikes and skateboards who don't observe stop signs now and have had many close calls. Luckily, adults in our neighborhood know to watch for children since it is so heavily concentrated with families. Without the Cannon Road Reach 4 extension, Edinburgh and Glasgow will experience a tlpffln•t i•enue i• ad .......... tralllc. The cut-through traffic drivers will not be attentive to children; they will be focused on reaching their eventual destination. Since the opening of College, Tamarack and Cannon are the two primary thoroughfares to get to El Camino Real by commuters ftom the East. The majority of traffic in the mornings is commuters traveling south onto El Camino Real (supported by pictures). Cannon is much more heavily used than Tamarack. In our opinion widening Cannon is not going to resolve the current backup problem in the two left lanes in the mornings. This is due simply to the volume of vehicles tlD'ning left, and the two left tum lanes have limited capacity. During peak commute times, the one left band lane ftom Tamarack onto El Camino Real backs up and requires 2-3 light rotations to get through onto El CamiM Real. Once commuters learn that they can eliminate ' lights (at Tamarack and Kelly) by using Edinbmgh and Glasgow, these roads will become commuter arteries. Commuters are notorious for finding their own solutions to circumvent traffic congestion. On 4/25/06, during the Public Hearing of the Mira Monte Barricades issue, per Mayor Lewis said, "Small roads opened up turn into mqjor arteries ". _.... , __ Robertson Ranch -Colony Residents Page6 In addition to the safety of children, the increased traffic at pen:entages of 446% and 46% will undoubtedly resuh in more car accidents -simply as a matter of statistics. We have already experienced accidents (can be confirmed with the Carlsbad Police Dept.) and numerous close calls at the intersection of Edinburgh and Glasgow. Because tl\is intersection is an access point to Calaveras Park and to additional residential neighborhoods. it will require more than just a 4-way stop. Additional traffic safety stops will be required throughout the Colony at intersections including, but not limited to, Edinburgh/Gateshead, Edinburgh/Inverness, Glasgow/Gateshead, Glasgow/Sterling and stop signs at all cul-de-sacs. COMMUNICATION On 5/8/06, we met with City personnel in what was a very professional and informative meeting, and they have continued to answer questions in the planning process. We were told that we would be receiving formal notifications 10 days prior to the Planning Commission Hearing for the Robertson Ranch application. Residents outside the City's 600' parameter did not receive notices. Upon request, the notice was emailed to us on 5/22/06. The City met its requirements, but we're disappointed that not all of the 172 homes in The Colony were notified since it is the primary adjacent neighborhood to the Robertson Ranch project. During our meeting with the City on 5/8/06, it was suggested that we meet with the developer. We met with McMillin and Robertson Ranch representatives on 5/16/06. As the adjacent neighborhood to the Robertson Ranch project, we are disappointed that the meeting was at our request. McMillin alluded to their surprise that they had not heard from anyone in The Colony. They did not attempt any outreach efforts with Colony residents and relied on minimal requirements citing the newspaper as their only notification obligation. Although the majority ofdJe community is not within the 600' parameter of notification by the City we are still an adjoining community. McMillin communicated their happiness with our meeting request and the strong desire to have more meetings like ours with other residents; however, only 15 days remained until the 5/31 Planning f'-ommission meeting. Therefore, items that required more intensive answers. discussion or resolution could not b., properly addressed. Both McMillin and Robertson 1epresentatives were receptive as well as inviting to having The Colony actively involved in the street/traffic design of the West Village, which was publicly acknowledged. Hearing from both sides regarding the excess density was contradictory. City personnel told us that the developer was requesting the additional 400 units. McMillin told us that the City requested the developer to increase the density in order to decrease the Excess Dwelling bank. Roberllon Ranch-Colony Residenla Page7 Rec:omaeadatlou 1. We believe that approval of this project at this point is premature because of speculative and possibly lDlSOund assumptions the City still needs to addn:ss, and resultant unamwered questions. 2. Until Cannon Road Reach 4 is completed, we strongly encourage approval of barricades or emergency access gates at the transitions to the West Village ftom both Edinburgh and Glasgow; 3. In any reconted approval of the project, inclusion of the condition that Calavera Hills Colony representatives (Greg Agosti, Jill Agosti, Kari Atherton, & Ken Miller) actively participate in and approve the stn:et/traffic planning development of the West Village. Both McMillin and Robertson Ranch representatives were in agreement with this concept. 4. Do not approve excess density over the City's property analysis figure of 983 units. Growth Management plans were designed in years past to protect future quality of life. Do the right thing and follow those plans. 5. Include a condition for development of courtyard and/or town homes instead of apartment/multi-family units. This will satisfy the incompatibility issues with existing adjacent residential neighborhoods in the event any increased density is approved The density comparison table illustrates that the proposed "multi- family" units (aka apartments) are not compatible with the existing adjacent neighborhoods (or with the sole existing apartment complex). 6. Carlsbad has and continues to contn"bute to the "failed" intersections of College & Lake and College & Hacienda (in Oceanside) for access to the CA-78. Approve a condition that requires the City of Carlsbad to work. with the City of Oceanside until this problem is resolved, and tie the condition to a specific/ongoing implementation plan and date. This addresses the latent of major concept #4 of the Carlsbad Growth Management Plan, "ff at any time a proposed development would result in a failure of any of the adopted facility performance standards, the development cannot be approved until the problem is resolved " 7. Perform another traffic survey to monitor traffic patterns during a non-holiday time-frame and that ensures consistency for more than just one 24-hour period. 8. Additional traffic safety stops will be required throughout The Colony at intersections including, but not limited to, Edinburgh/Gateshead, Edinburgh/Inverness, Glasgow/Gateshead, Glasgow/Sterling and stop signs at all cul-de-sacs. OTHER POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS • Rezone school district so children living in the West Village attend Kelly School. This will reduce traffic going to Calavera Hills area; Robertllon Ranch -Colony Residents Pages • Relocate the current intersection at Tamarack and Edinburgh Drive by acquiring The Colony's private park, located between Edinburgh and the Calaveras City Park, and constructing a new roadway. This new roadway would reroute traffic going to the City Park and other residential neighborhoods using the Edinburgh entrance by cutting traffic through The Colony and mtucing accidents at a 4-way intersection to a 3-way stop intersection. The entrance at Edinburgh and Tamarack Drives would then become a cul-de-sac. SUMMARY We oppose die demity pnpo•ed for die..._.... Raadl applicadoa. We want the growth in our existing neighborhood to~ managed effectively and the right things implemented. In our opinion, the excess density, especially in the form of apartments/multi-family units, is not responsible growth for this area of Carlsbad. It contributes to already existing traffic congestion and failures, and impacts safety, especially of our children and grandchildren, in our neighborhood. Additionally, results in the potential for increased crime and reduced property values. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Greg & Jill Agosti, 4730 Edinburgh Dr, Carlsbad ~- ~ =:;:~ ~;tw~ ~= ; ~ ~N',tl,11~ Enclosures: Supporting Photographs Maps Illustrating Connections to Robertson Ranch property WEST VILLAGE Failed Intersections College/Plaza College/Lake Carlsbad City Limit Carlsbad Village Dr & College College Ave Robertson Ranch Impacts to Colony Neighborhood and College Ave .. J a3 h Ii)/ © i~ !) !f l ,,:> • .... , J: It If , :iu ~ ~J ® 12 ~1 .,.,,.,~ \ ec. ,II "' ® SUPPORTING PHOTOGRAPHS TAMARACK & EL CAMINO REAL Just entering the left turn lane. I 1 Time shown is 1 hr behind due to Day Light Savings CANNON & EL CAMINO REAL 2 Time shown is 1 hr behind due to Day Light Savings CANNON & EL CAMINO REAL (CONTINUED) 1 Time shown is 1 hr behind due to Day Light Savings CANNON & EL CAMINO REAL (CONTINUED) 1 Time shown is 1 hr behind due to Day Light Savings CANNON & EL CAMINO REAL (CONTINUED) EL CAMINO BETEWEEN TAMARACK & CANNON EL CAMINO BETEWEEN CANNON & COLLEGE COLLEGE & CARLSBAD VILLAGE DR TOWARD CA-78 COLLEGE & TAMARACK (N) TOWARD CA-78 COLLEGE & TAMARACK(N) TOWARD CA-78 ~ •. . . ---- COLLEGE & TAMARA CK (N) TOW ARD CA-78 Tiny green "Entering Oceanside" sign (left middle behind suburban) COLLEGE APPROACHING CARLSBAD VILLAGE DR TOWARD CA-78 (almra ~ilb COLLEGE BACK-UP TO CANNON APPROACHING CARLSBAD VILLAGE DR TOW ARD CA-78 COLLEGE APPROACHING CARLSBAD VILLAGE DR TOW ARD CA-78 . fuM f>atk..N... f'e,fct.5 S/2.3/otp ~~ ~~l!.A-1 Tu.vc.bfvitmr Co~ c,j_, ~°'-~~,~ : ~~ I '?P.,0fiLcM5 WHic!-i wiLL NEE.!> To ~E:. SOL\/E::]) \F £:Oit-\SURG:.rl :::D R\'1/e i~ Of€N Tc_ -rl-3-~U<bH 1R/lff1c, c Vll)t li~1t.d U/1 &.o.w, ~ ~d(U'\<..!,) ----------1-·-- I ! ·-\.-------·------------------------- ! -1 • ----------- 1 ------------------.. -. ,. ' FU"f<JR€ PRof,L£rn5 To ,AK€. Llr-\".D~R C.oNSl:b€R..- ATiON '\F Otl\.lSUR<a\4 •~ MA::l:x; A 7'1-\RoU<SH STRE.ET ( Al<A '. A])\fANC6 _PLAC\ll,J°IN<n) ----. . . (i)i 11,\t, --~-tit\/~ fui,~-~ ~~ J L ~ 4-z'.) ~ 15 cj.Q_\fEOo~ -~ -~;::.~ f.&~-t , -ro IA.ou~ WLLM& 6~ ill!-~ . .Ck,~ ~ . W .............. ·-···· ........... ~Uf1 -~· w~ 1&ruL -4-n loo., Ca;i.,fJozAJ . ½ CVJA,.~ . . ~c.,~ 6..AA.O. ~~. Rc-000:t·~ ~ tr~ ., . . .. @ Cki>_ -t.11& ~ w: , lAilc .. ~ ~ .. -.ClMCL . ~-~ ~ d.Mv~ta41-I --~ -~ . wJ.Q_ ~ tiµ. ~ _lwu OW-V.. V ~ • _1 _. ___ . ~,.at~ ~24~·°: 6~ w·~ ~ ____ c_~_l5>Jf'.M) -fp .~-···-~ --~ .. ~---~ ~ -~ d'>.., ~ CLIYlt; W?_,;, ---·· ~1·'b~ ~-~ t~ ~. - .. --· CtX ~ / i:tvtt ~ ·· --· · · · -~ ____ L.-----~-~-·~-· w~~~--·· : ~ , ~-~~ ---_T___ -----1 ~ CY----------- ~----·-J__,.,-~~ -----------------------··---------· . ---------· --------·----------·----------·-- ' I -i-··------·-··-------·-··----·-·-- I ' +· -.... -. - I . -------•----.------·--------------·. --------- . , . . Li .. H·\~3 'TO RE.l>uc.E PtMTtCtf'Al'EJ) 7"RAFF""IG Fl.Ou.I . OI\) ~\"-1&.}R.G;,l.4. 'tr" 0 11" 'e; MA'.llE: A 7"fH<OUGl-'.J :::."TR€.€.T i T -· - ~bu)lli'f!(Jj__ts/su_r~-+,6£l5'., rJ .. '=\- : AA , • . Y2\Lef..> UJv a, ~ ., aOOL--,,, w ~ ? lvhru,.; e.aM.i -1.L.JJJ,., ~ 4J ~ db W}1_ 4'4-d fl~. dilJ ~d.Jl.U,lb U) llcf!7J -~ -to .~all.~-ne~;~~: {l ftnnuµ ~ To ~ .. ··~ ~ (JJIL) . ~···· -9) .,.. . 11 UU ~+~J . ~ Wu r: ~ ~-·, .. ·~ ~ . tl1h v.~ .. ~ .~··· wlTh .. ~ .. ··: ~··/·~~~-~~. ! -----~ ---j ---t,a,NU.l' ... -"' . - . ... __ Jo tvtaJ€.e._ TWb ~ 16-tJ-, n1· .. &ed. .. " . ~ ~ C t>t-• : U/).g__<f-crritD . _ ~. -___ J_ -~-~7 (k .. , '24.:-_f_ ·~···· ~-i1«.ff_J .. _ ... : _ d ~/_{J:lt, .Q..AA.d .... ~······~· W~.G ,A. . .... i \ --... ~-j--~·----~--{Jef-~. -.. · --..... . ., .. .. . .,.. ., -- 1 .1' ' -· -· -····-·-·-·-------~·AV~ .. ---·· -,----· -····-···-·----·· ·· --· · · ·· · · - -~~-~ -\~IE: I · .... ·-~ ----t . -kv , -~------..... can~ --·---________ I ___________ --- [Barbara ~ebnedy -Re: Robifilson ~~nch. ". :m:-~"'.": From: To: Subject: Barbara Kennedy CCates8431@aol.com Re: Robertson Ranch >» <CCates8431@aol.com> 05/21/06 2:20 PM»> The homeowners of Calavera Hills recently invited representatives of McMillan to speak to us We met with them and a representative of the Robertson Ranch (West Sile) on May 16. After having spoken with you at length, went several meetings with various groups, and given all sides consideration I believe i would like to urge the following course of action for the planning commission and city council. 1) Edinburgh/Glasgow Drives -It is clear to me, and I feel comfortable in including the residents of Calavera Hills, that opening up these drives all the way to El Camino will create an iminent danger to our children and ourselves. We already experience accidents and near misses at the corner of Edinburgh and Glasgow and our traffic is estimated to quadruple. In a recent interview with the Coast News, Matt Hall and Bud Lewis stated that traffic on residential streets is one of their highest priorites. However, I also understand the need for a fire emergency access to both communities. I would propose allowing an emergency access road that would connect the two communities. This would allow pedestrian and bicycle traffic which would also ease the future community's access to Hope or Calavera schools. There are many precedents for creating this in both Carlsbad and Oceanside. I have discussed this with several neighbors and they all feel this is reasonable compromise. And, just for the record, this was not my idea. I believe it was first mentioned as an example of what could be done by McMillan. 2) Density -The representatives of McMillan and Robertson Ranch felt that the 1128 unit density plan was acceptable to them. They originally had planned for this number, except that the city came back and requested that the number be raised. We, as a community, feel that we should shoulder our fair share of the density requirements for our area. We should not have to live with a more traffic, more pollution, and longer waits at everything from grocery stores to restaurants just because the city has decided that they wish to change their requirements. I think that this is request that all sides can live with. I have had my vacation planned for 5/27-6/6 for over 2 months and cannot move these dates. But, like the original planning meeting when the yellow signs were originally posted, I would be there and speak for these two issues. Please consider this my time at the microphone. I would also like to add that everyone who has worked with you has had positive things to say about your thoroughness and attention to detail. This is very encouraging for me because I believe that my community is only asking for safety and to maintain our neighborhood. thank you. Charlie & Nancy Cates 4725 Edinburgh Dr Carlsbad, Ca 92010 since 1987 ~ "J5'f'e 1 .•.! ······· ~--· From: To: Date: Subject: ::: : ~= . ·::::::: :::: :· =: "Wofford Robin A."<RWofford@WPKT.com> <bkenn@ci.carlsbad.ca.us>, <council@ci.carlsbad> 05/18/2006 10:52:07 AM Robertson Ranch Development Dear Planning Commission and Esteemed Members of the City Council: I write this letter as a long time citizen and tax payer of Carlsbad California. My husband and I moved to Carlsbad in 1988. We have lived at our current address on Edinburgh Drive since 1989. We have two young children and often tell our friends and family we are blessed to have chosen Carlsbad as a place to raise our family. Over the years we have watched Carlsbad grow from a quaint seaside village into a complex, unfortunately over crowded city. While I have been a proponent of growth it appears we are over estimating the capacity this city has to absorb more people and traffic. I understand that the Planning Commission and City Council are considering increasing the size of the Robertson Ranch development by more than 40%, from 950 homes to 1350. I question how such extreme growth adds to the quality of life of any of our citizens, let alone those that will move into the new development. It seems only the developer will benefit from this one and leave the citizens of Carlsbad to deal with the over crowded streets, schools, parks and libraries. I believe the commission and the City Council are entrusted to look out for all of the citizens and are smart enough to know when to say, enough is enough. Now is that time. I understand the temptation to grow, generate tax revenue and fees. However, it appears ii must be done consistent with the Growth Management Plan of our City. As elected officials you are obligated to follow that plan. To that extent I have been advised that the additional housing units you are considering exceed the Growth Management Plan by 40%. Why would anyone want to exceed the plan by that much? Also, has there been any study to determine the impact such growth will have on traffic in our neighborhood? As Bud Lewis has said "Small roads opened up turn into major arteries". I am told no study has been done of the traffic impact on Glasgow and Edinburgh Dr. If you have not had the opportunity to visit our neighborhood let me tell you a little about it. We are a tight knit community, working hard to raise lots of children. We have seen children grow and move out, and a lot of new young couples move in with their babies because this is a great place for children to grow and play. Our home has at least 5 to 10 neighborhood children come in and out every weekend. We jokingly refer to our front yard as "Lord of The Flies" when it is filled with young neighborhood boys playing stickball, football, basketball and hide and seek. As we know "boys will be boys" and those games find them running across Edinburgh Dr. all the time. If that road became a major thorough fare open to commuter traffic the danger it would impose is frightening! In writing this letter I am asking each and everyone of you to consider the safety of these children and the many more to come. Please stick to the growth plan and be aware of the impact opening access to this residential area will have on the quality of life for everyone. I appreciate your dedication to the citizens of this community and trust you will do the right thing. Robin A. Wofford, Esq. WILSON PETTY KOSMO & TURNER LLP 550 West C Street, Suite 1050 San Diego CA 92101 (619) 236-9600 (619) 236-9669 (facsimile) rwofford@wpkt.com This electronic transmission contains information from the law firm of Wilson, Petty, Kosmo & Turner LLP, which may be confidential or protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or the work product doctrine. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the content of this message is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and delete the original message. CC: "Don Wofford" <donwofford@adelphia.net> : Pag~)] Dr. and Mrs. Donald Wofford 4757 Edinburgh Dr. Carlsbad, CA. 92010 (760) 720-1618 May 911\ 2006 Dear Planning Committee, I am writing this letter in regards to the Robertson Ranch project. First let me tell you that I have been a Carlsbad resident living in the original house we bought some eighteen years ago. Although we had many opportunities to move, because we loved the neighborhood and the city, we never did move. Each time someone asked where we lived, I was proud to say Carlsbad. Needless to say, Carlsbad has evolved over time. For the most part we have been pleased with the growth. The Robertson Ranch project is puzzling though. Why would Carlsbad consider increasing the Growth Management Plan Standards by somewhere around 40%. It is my understanding that instead of around 950 homes being built you are planning on building 1350. As a family with two young children, I find it alarming that my street will be significantly impacted with far more cars using Edinburgh Dr. Furthermore, I understand that you have not formally looked into the impact on Glasgow and Edinburgh Dr. We moved into this house because of the neighborhood. We felt it would be a great place to raise a family. There is a weekly baseball game in the street that all the kids on the block participate in. I fear that our quaint little neighborhood is going to turn into a major artery with far more traffic. Safety and our quality of life will be negatively impacted. I urge you to look at this project with great care. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact my wife or myself. Sincerely, \lr 0r7 Dr. Donald Wofford Ill Ill _ 111: Ill 1111 I:~ f • • • • ----------------------------------- --------------------------------------------- -------·----··" Ill 1111 rJ:ti l i Barbara ~e~nedy-Ro~ertson ~a[clibi!Yelopm~'.~J'~= ... : :: .. :=• ·:::: From: To: Date: Subject: ASHOK BHARDWAJ <acd1313@sbcglobal.net> <bkenn@ci.carlsbad.ca.us> 05/02/2006 7:02:24 PM Robertson Ranch Development As a concerned resident of carlsbad. I Really believe that opening of the Glasgow drive to the Robertson Ranch has a negative impact on the Calavera Hills colony. The Safety of the children in our neighborhood is of a deep concern. By opening small roads traffic increases. as more and more commuters find out the short cut. We Hope the city would reconsider allowing high density housing in this area which will increase traffic both for El Camino Real and College Blvd. As you are aware both of these main roads are heavily congested during peak times. Very truly Ashok Bhardwaj 4 7 40 Inverness Ct Carlsbad. Ca 92010 CC: <council@ci.carlsabd.ca.us> ':: =::: Page:;!] I S:arbara Kiii'.nedy -Re: Robertson Ranch=-•: := _: From: To: Date: Subject: " Frances Caminer" <jfcaminer@adelphia.net> <Bkenn@ci.carlsbad.ca.us> 05/01/2006 3:25:25 PM Re: Robertson Ranch We-the residents at the Colony at Calavera- :: = : •=::· are very concerned about the traffic impact we will experience when Edinburgh is extended for cars to be able to reach that area. We have many children playing in their front yard also walking home from school. We want to come to the council meetings to express our feelings. Thank you for reading this Email-the best and fastest way to communicate these days Frances Caminer CC: <council@ci.carlsbad.ca.us> CITY OF OCEANSIDE April 28, 2006 Barbara Kennedy Carlsbad Planning Department 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 PLANNING DEPARTMENT RE: Transportation Analysis for the Robertson's Ranch EIR Ms. Kennedy: Thank you for sending the revised traffic section of the Robertson Ranch EIR. The City of Oceanside remains concerned regarding the findings outlined in the traffic analysis. Comments are outlined below: 1. Existing Conditions: a. The City of Oceanside does not recognize the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology used for intersection analyses under existing conditions. The study should use the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology for analysis of intersections within the City of Oceanside for all scenarios. b. The City of Oceanside requires that daily volume to capacity ratio methodology be used to analyze Oceanside street segments for all project scenarios. c. Our records show that the existing daily traffic volume on College Boulevard south of Plaza Drive is approximately 49,000 ADT. The EIR shows 15,000 ADT for College Boulevard south of Plaza Drive. Count data sheet enclosed. d. The study area should be expanded to include the intersections of El Camino Real at the eastbound and westbound SR78 on-/off-ramps and El Camino Real at Vista Way. 2. Year 2010 Conditions: a. The projected 2010 ADT of 38,000 on College Boulevard between Lake Boulevard and SR 78 is below existing ADT. Moreover, the SANDAG Combined North County Sub-Area Model forecast for 2010 shows approximately 58,000 ADT on College Boulevard south of Plaza Drive. CIVIC CENTER 300 N. COAST HIGHWAY OCEANSIDJ. CA 92054 TELEPHONE 760-435-3520 FAX 760-754-2958 b. While the study shows failing conditions without the project at the intersection of College Boulevard at Plaza Drive, the increase in delay with the project is over 2 seconds and is therefore a significant project impact. The project will be required to, at a minimum, contribute their fair share toward mitigations that are acceptable to the City of Oceanside. The City of Oceanside does not agree with the statement "Due to the fact that the significant cumulative impacts identified are primarily a result of regional traffic, the City of Oceanside should be responsible for these improvements." This statement is not acceptable. c. The City of Oceanside requires that the daily volume to capacity ratio methodology be used to analyze Oceanside street segments for all project scenarios. 3. Year 2030 Conditions: a. The study should include buildout network alternatives with and without Marron Road. b. Figures 7-1 and 7-2 show no Marron Road connection between El Camino Real and College Boulevard, while Figure 7-3 shows Marron Road connecting El Camino Real and College Boulevard. The report should clearly state whether Marron Road is assumed to connect El Camino Real and College Boulevard. c. It is unclear in the report why 2030 ADTs on College Boulevard between SR 78 and Lake Boulevard are lower than existing ADTs. This should be justified in the report. However, the SANDAG Combined North County Sub-Area Model forecast for 2030 shows approximately 61,000 ADT on College Boulevard south of Plaza Drive. d. The City of Oceanside requires that daily volume to capacity ratio methodology be used to analyze Oceanside street segments for all project scenarios. e. The intersection of College Boulevard at Lake Boulevard is projected to operate at LOS F with and without the project. The increase in intersection delay with the project is over 2 seconds and is therefore considered a significant project impact. The City of Oceanside does not agree with the statement "Due to the fact that the significant impacts identified are primarily a result of regional traffic and the unknown extension of Marron Road, the City of Oceanside has the responsibility for providing the construction of a third southbound through lane at this intersection. " College Boulevard, south of Lake Boulevard is designated in the City's circulation element as a four-lane major arterial. f. While intersection delay at College Boulevard and Vista Way is slightly less than 2 seconds with the project, the City of Oceanside requires a fair share contribution toward measures to reduce intersection delay during the peak hours. The project 2 should contribute their share toward adaptive traffic signal hardware upgrades at this intersection. The City of Oceanside does not agree with the segment ADTs shown for College Boulevard in all scenarios. The methodologies utilized in the study for existing intersection analyses and for segment analyses are not recognized by the City of Oceanside. The revised study identifies significant project impacts to key intersections on College Boulevard south of Vista Way but recommends that the City of Oceanside mitigate those impacts. The traffic study should be revised as outlined in this letter and the project should be responsible for mitigating their impacts to Oceanside streets and intersections. Please feel free to contact me at your convenience as I would like to have an opportunity to discuss our comments and concerns with you. You may call me direct at (760) 435-5091 or you can send e-mail to jamberson@ci.oceanside.ca.us. John Amberson, Transportation Planner cc: Peter Weiss, Public Works Director Jerry Hittleman, Acting Planning Director enclosures: Segment Count Data Sheets for College Boulevard from Vista Way to Lake Boulevard 3 Ill ,,-------' ' ·,,101umes for: Tuescl /, Januar1 25:;i; City: Oceanside Project -tt: 05-4(•22-003 Ill Location: College Bl b j/j 1ay ano Plaza1Haymar ' AM Period NB SB EB WB PM Period NB 58 EB WB 00:00 42 18 12:00 391 356 II 00:15 48 17 12:15 371 360 UU:JU 29 13 12:30 ,51 .401 00:45 30 149 19 67 216 12:45 484 1697 399 1516 3213 01:00 25 16 13:00 391 375 II 01:15 31 15 13:15 336 367 01:30 9 9 13:30 342 366 01:45 19 84 8 48 132 13:45 357 1426 356 1464 2890 ., 02:00 14 8 14:00 421 . 420 02:15 24 1: 14: 15 431 453 02:30 23 7 14:30 438 443 02:45 21 82 13 40 122 14:45 494 1784 , 430 1746 3530 ' 03:00 16 9 15:00 422 405 03:15 8 25 15:15 432 442 03:30 18 14 15:30 457 435 506 ' ' 03:45 25 67 21 69 136 15:·45 18171 450 1732 3549 04:00 21 24 16:00 488 330 04:15 23 41 16:15 521 372 04:30 16 43 16:30 594 420 ' 04:45 24 84 75 183 267 16:45 604 2207, 441 1563 3770 05:00 30 89 17:00 535 Sll 05:15 46 138 17:15 563 488 ' 05:30 68 192 17:30 532 512 05:45 102 246 226 645 891 17:45 488 2118 460 1971 4089 06:00 95 259 18:00 •1i 356 ' 06:15 155 277 18:15 506 360 06:30 203 310 18:30 476 440 06:45 270 723 378 1224 1947 18:45 379 1778 405 1561 3339 07:00 318 470 19:00 302 356 ' 07:15 351 495 19:15 310 302 07:30 314 642 19:30 239 256 07:45 372 1355 552 2159 3514 19:45 205 1056 240 1154 2210 ' 08:00 312 516 20:00 229 211 08:15 363 639 20:15 212 156 08:30 482 564 20:30 211 140 08:45 440 1597 528 2247 20:45 242 894 130 637 1531 I 09:00 327 425 21:00 205 156 09:15 277 430 21:15 202 133 09:30 271 335 21:30 157 105 09:45 317 1192 304 1494 2686 21:45 141 705 112 506 1211 ' 10:00 313 305 22:00 146 105 10:15 383 335 22:15 119 88 10:30 315 356 22:30 108 60 I 10:45 310 1321 320 1316 2637 22:45 88 461 50 303 764 11:00 339 305 23:00 73 40 11:15 287 288 23:15 81 30 I 11:30 394 403 23:30 48 35 11:45 350 1370 3" 1331 -,..,n, 23:45 41 243 4n 145 388 "" ... ,.., .... ,v Total Vol. 8270 1ne.2~, 1.909~ 16186 j.12_% 3. '-':. I Daily T \l'tais NB SB EB WB Combined 24456 25121 49577 PM ' -:,, .. ~.'6:~~~~~~,,li~~~' I . ,;-·1i.OO · II Volumes for: Tuesda January 25, W City: Oceanside Prcject #: 054022,004 ,, Location: College Blva. za/Haymar AM P~rj~d NB s~ ~B WE PM Ps;ci~~ NB SB Ii~ ~~ 00:00 25 13 12:00 399 . 367 ·II 00:15 30 11 12:15 380 356 00:30 33 8 12:30 405 ,344 00:45 20 108 6 38 146 12:45 445. 1629 356 1423 3052 01:00 21 8 13:00 405 377 II 01:15 18 10 13: 15 336 360 01:30 15 15 ll:30 356 356 01:45 14 68 11 44 112 13:45 364 1461 335 1428 2889 . ' ·, 02:00 22 s 14:00 420 , 430 02:15 25 7 14:15 405 456 ' 02:30 21 6 14:30 442 445 ' ' ': 02:45 15 83 8 26 109 14:45 485 1752 , 420 1751 3503 ' II 03:00 8 10 15:0C 430 399 03:15 11 16 15: 15 456 405 03:30 15 15 15:30 460 ' 442 II 03:45 20 54 21 62 116 15:45 505 1851• 405 1651 3502 04:00 21 20 16:00 522 350 04:15 25 30 16:15 556 388 04:30 15 40 16:JO 604 435 ' 04:45 18 79 88 178 2" 16:45 664 2346 405 1578 3924 J, 05:00 30 IOI 17:00 550 540 05:15 55 140 17:15 560 501 II 05:30 60 188 17:JO 530 552 05:45 105 250 205 6~4 17:45 405 2045 456 2049 4094 06:00 112 224 18:00 420 360 06:15 156 225 18:15 552 388 ' 06:30 204 245 18:JO 445 450 06:45 256 728 331 1025 1753 18:45 356 1773 445 1643 3416 07:00 304 356 19:00 330 442 ' 07:15 3S5 450 19:15 305 405 07:30 320 486 19:JO 256 345 07:45 356 1335 504 1796 3131 19:45 201 1092 331 1523 2615 ' 08:00 336 556 20:00 199 256 08:15 360 488 20:15 202 225 08:30 405 504 20:30 211 201 08:45 440 1541 552 2100 3641 20:45 240 852 168 850 1702 ' 09:00 331 420 21:00 205 160 09:15 256 405 Zl:15 188 156 09:30 260 334 21:30 140 105 09:45 304 1151 299 1456 2609 21:45 105 638 120 541 1179 ' 10:00 335 305 22:00 130 !OS 10:15 380 320 22:15 105 78 10:30 324 340 22:30 88 68 ' 10:45 305 1344 305 1270 2614 22:45 90 413 66 317 730 11:00 334 331 23:00 67 60 11:15 289 288 23:15 77 35 11:30 345 405 23:30 50 33 ' 11:45 350 1318 334 !358 2676 23:45 40 234 35 163 397 Total Vol. 8059 9989 18048 !608E 1~~17 31003 ~ Daily Totals NB SB EB WB 24145 24906 II ~ :· ::: :: ' From: To: Date: "lrasema Perrot" <pcsostraining@sbcglobal.net> <bkenn@ci.carlsbad.ca.us>, <council@ci.carlsbad.ca.us> 04/25/2006 8:36:49 AM Subject: Robertson Ranch Project I am writing to state my opposition to the above mentioned project. Carlsbad is currently over-built. Our schools are crowded and our traffic has become as bad as Orange and LA counties. We moved here 18 years ago and have seen our open areas built out. With the completion of Bressi Ranch the congestion on Palomar Airport Road and El Camino Real will be horrific. Last week traffic was backed up from El Camino Real at Canon all the way to the 78 Freeway. This will only get worse. Recently, a 4.5 mile commute from Tamarack to Faraday, took over 30 minutes, a commute that used to take me 7 minutes. It is also my understanding that the the city is planning to open Glasgow to El Camino Real. Has anyone in city hall checked out who lives on Glasgow Drive? It is full of young families with small children. These families will now have to contend with more dangerous traffic. It is unconscionable what has happened in this city. lrasema Perrot (760) 434-3509 Barbara Kennedy, AICP Associate Planner Dear Barbara, Thank you for taking the time to speak with me regarding Robertson Ranch. I am sorry it has taken me some time to get back to you but I have been working very long weeks lately and time is very precious to me. In regards to my first concern to the viability of securing Edinburgh from becoming a major thoroughfare used to bypass the traffic at the corner of Tamarack and El Camino: I appreciate the fact that your department intends to use traffic impediments to try and control traffic down thi_s street. I feel it may work at off peak driving times; however, with each new traffic light on College/Cannon, you are diverting more traffic onto Edinburgh during the morning and evening rush hours. I don't believe your department intended Tanglewood to be the thoroughfare it has become, yet it happened. There are many school children who walk to school during the morning rush and cross Edinburgh and this could lead to injuries and possible deaths if your department is wrong in their assumptions, and I believe they are. Drivers trying to get to work will not want to deal with the longer lights on Tamarack and Cannon when they can roll through stop signs on Edinburgh with little cross traffic. I know your department is trying to balance many concerns; but, the safety of the residents of the community must be a priority. Glasgow, on the other hand, does not appear to have the same issues as it doesn't lead as directly to El Camino. I feel Edinburgh should remain a dead end or at least not connect to El Camino or Cannon. Maybe it could be diverted onto Glasgow so that drivers realize that by taking either street, they will not be gaining any time. Secondly, why is the city adding density to achieve the 15% affordable housing mandate. If 954 units were mandated under the city density law, then make 15% of the 954 units affordable housing. Higher density will translate to more traffic, more local noise and water pollution, and it is against the current city planning ordinances. Adding housing to achieve the 15% rule is just an unacceptable argument. I hope that in an election year the council will consider the residents of the established community when voting on these concerns. I appreciate your time and look forward to your reply. Charlie & Nancy Cates 4 725 Edinburgh Carlsbad, Ca 9201 O From: To: Date: Subject: Don Neu Barbara Kennedy 04/03/2006 7:34:49 AM Fwd: Robertson Ranch Project In case you had not received this e-mail yet. >» "lrasema Perrot" <pcsostraining@sbcglobal.net> 04/02/06 7:48 PM »> I am writing to state my opposition to the Robertson Ranch Project. Our schools are overcrowded, traffic is horrific, not to mention what will happen to the water supply in this area with another 1300+ homes. All this construction is destroying our quality of life. Please stop the insanity and maintain what is left of Carlsbad. Thank you, lrasema "Ira" Perrot If your computer isn't talking to you --you'll be glad you've contacted us! (760) 434-3509 <http://www.pcsostraining.com/> www.pcsostraining.com -, :""":::~9e 1 1 03/28/2006 12:10 FAX 7607294928 AGOSTI iaioo1 March 28, 2006 To: Council Members • City of Carlsbad Marcella Escobar-Eck (City Planning Director) Barbara Kennedy (City Planning Project Manager-Robertson Ranch) RE: Robertson Ranch We have lived in the older section ofCalavera Hills on Edinblll'gh Drive since I 986. Please consider our concerns about the proposed Robertson Ranch project. We realize growth is inevitable, but ifwe don't voice our concerns (not necessarily complaint$) then they cannot be: effectively evaluated. The City's allowed zoning ordinance of954 homes will undoubtedly Impact Carlsbad's human habitat. But a 42% increase beyond that with an additional 429 homes in this location would be an extraordinarily poor decision. The negative consequences of excessiVe traffic, noise, school crowding, pollution and safety are twofold, since they are already occurrina. Since the opening of College Ave: ✓ Traffic on Tamarack (mornings & afternoons), El Camino Real, and Cannon are already excessive. I challenge any City Planning cmplayee or Councilperson to drive this area of surf84le streets during morning and afternoon school and wotk hours. Sometimes, it can take up to IO minutes to go l mile in these sreas. In the mornings, simply actting onto El Camino Real via Cannon or Tamarack is a challenge in itself. The additional 850 cars (to the approximate 2,000 cars from 954 homes) would sianificantly worsen the negative traffic impacts of what the area is cum:ntly zoned for. (Rezoning doesn't improve any of the impacts.) ✓ Already, the City of Carlsbad has had to take action for the increased traffic and safety issues on Glasgow between Edinburgh and Carlsbad Village Drive near Calaveras Park. Even with the 954 homes, this Is an unavoidable issue that will ~ate and also present itself to Edinburib Drive. ✓ What mitigation efforts are planned to avoid kids gettina killed drivers while riding their bicycles and skateboards? Kids riding from Calaveras Park now don't observe the stop sign at Edinburah and Glasgow. A traffic liaht at this location is unacceptable, and a traffic light at Edinburgh and Tamvack won't resolve the problem either. With the extension ofEdinbllfi)l and Glasgow, it is simply a matter of time before somebody will be killed. ✓ Access to Hwy 78 from Colleac is not only a traffic nightmare, but unsafe. Excessive traffic on College occum:d shortly after it opened and goes right b;y Calavera Hills Elementary. In addition to sianificant traffic congestion, safety has 03/28/2006 12:10 FAX 7607294928 AGOSTI become a problem. Fewer kids are walking to and from school, and traffic accidents have increased (at Lake & College). For years, access to Hwy 78 has been a tremendous challenge for Carlsbad residents. Access fivm College improved temporarily, but is no longer convenient due to the substantial traffic congestion on College. For the addition of 954 homes alone, the City of Carlsbad must effectiycly work with City of Oceanside to improve these conditions. Oceanside is not the sole owner of this problem; Carlsbad owns it too. ✓ The Reclamation project for extension of Marron Road and future dense development is also going to worsen the traffic problems. The additional cars from Robertson Ranch and this project do not improve the human habitat. Again, the City of Carlsbad must effectively work with the City of Oceanside as both cities own the problems these projects create. Many residents in my neighborhood have concerns about overcrowding of &ehooJs. (Again, I challenge any City Planning employee or Councilperson to get through the traffic on El Camino Real in the mornings to get kids to Kelly school.) Why do the majority of schools appear to be located in the northern sections of Carlsbad? Robertson Ranch W8$ supposed to include a school, possibly a high school? Another school in Robertson Ranch is not an effective resolution to the City's schools problem. ✓ Is it logical that kids and families fivm the La Costa area drive such a distance? ✓ Is it logical to put additional schools in the areas already heavily concentrated with schools? ✓ Isn't it lo&ical to build a second hieh school in a more centralized and southern part of Carlsbad? Robertson Ranch originally called for a "YiUvs Center-Commercial -Community Center" Many residents avoid the Von's Center across from the mall because it is such a :zoo. The Quarry Creek Center in Oceanside is nice but the traffic on College to get there is worsening, and business is occurrinl: in Oceanside, not Carlsbad. Open land would be ideal; however, a "Village Center -Commercial • Community Center" would be much better than a sea of homes. Sincerely, Jill ,¼osti 4730 Edinburgh Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92010 760-729-4928 la]002 I ~afbara Kennecjy--~p'.§rtson~anch . : " : From: To: "Tim Cunningham -Cunningham Tax Service" <cunningtax@excite.com> <bkenn@ci.carlsbad.ca.us> Date: 03/14/2006 10:12:35 AM Subject: Robertson Ranch I am writing to express complete dismay that the City would allow this to go through. El Camino Real has become a nightmare in the past few years and this is only going to make it worse. Also, Carlsbad High School is overflowing with a crowded population. Where do you expect both the traffic and students to go? 5 South will be heavily impacted as well as you cannot move on it as it is now (in the Summer especially). I was upset enough at Bressi Ranch. This is just going to add to the misery. When will you guys stop? Our quality of life has just completely deteriorated with all this non-stop building on every piece of land. Timothy J Cunningham Carlsbad Resident Join Excite! -http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! · Page 1J May 31, 2006 ITEM# 1 TO: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS FROM: Barbara Kennedy, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ERRATA SHEET FOR EIR 03-03/MP 02-03/GPA 02-04/LFMP 14(B)/HMP 06-04 ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN and CT 02-16/HDP 02-07/SUP 02-05 -ROBERTSON RANCH EAST VILLAGE MASTER TENTATIVE MAP Staff Report: Page 31: Add: Attachment 21. Response to Comments for the Final EIR Resolutions 6105 through 6107 and 6109 through 6112: Change the typographical error on the first page of each resolution, first paragraph, fourth line, of the legal description from November 16, 1986 to 1896. Proposed Revised Wording for Reso. No. 6110, Condition #43 43. If the City Recreation Department is able to obtain approval for a future trailhead, parking areas, and related trails located within PA 23E prior to completion of all construction activities associated with the development of the Robertson Ranch East Village, then the Developer shall be responsible for the funding and construction of these regional trail features, including a parking area for no more than 10 cars and a nature trail from the parking area to the west side of Calavera Creek. The Developer shall prepare the plans and forward for review to the City Trails Manager. The plan together with the security posted shall ensure that the improvements are constructed, pending approval of the plan. If the approved plans allow for a crossing of the creek, and the City desires to construct the creek crossing and/or a bridge, then the City shall be responsible for financing and construction of the creek crossing only.