HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-09-20; 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: September 20, 2006
ItemNo. G)
Application complete date: N/ A
Project Planner: Barbara Kennedy
Project Engineer: Jeremy Riddle
SUBJECT: EIR 03-03/MP 02-03/GPA 02-04/LFMP 14(B}/HMP 06-04 -ROBERTSON
RANCH MASTER PLAN and CT 02-16/HDP 02-07/SUP 02-05 -
ROBERTSON RANCH EAST VILLAGE MASTER TENTATIVE MAP -
Request for: 1) a recommendation for certification of an Environmental Impact
Report, and recommendation of adoption of the Candidate Findings of Fact,
Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program; and a request for a recommendation of approval for the
Robertson Ranch Master Plan, General Plan Amendment, Zone 14 Local
Facilities Management Plan Amendment, and Habitat Management Plan Permit
for Incidental Take consistent with the City's Habitat Management Plan for the
Robertson Ranch Master Plan; and 2) a request for approval of a Master Tentative
Tract Map, Hillside Development Permit, and Floodplain Special Use Permit for
the 176 acre East Village of the Robertson Ranch Master Plan. The Robertson
Ranch Master Plan encompasses a 398 acre site located north of El Camino Real,
east of Tamarack Avenue, and east and west of College Boulevard, and east and
west of Cannon Road in Local Facilities Management Zone 14.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission: 1) ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 6105
RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION of EIR 03-03 and RECOMMENDING
ADOPTION of the Candidate Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution
No. 6106, 6107, 6108, and 6109 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of MP 02-03, GPA 02-04,
LFMP 14(B) and HMP 06-04-ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN; and,
2) ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions No. 6110, 6111 and 6112 APPROVING CT 02-
16, HDP 02-07 and SUP 02-05 -ROBERTSON RANCH EAST VILLAGE MASTER
TENTATIVE MAP; based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein.
II. INTRODUCTION
The Robertson Ranch Master Plan, EIR and associated applications were first heard by the
Planning Commission at the May 31, 2006 public hearing. At the conclusion of the meeting, the
applicant requested a continuance to the June 21, 2006 hearing so that a number of issues could
be addressed. At the conclusion of the June 21, 2006 meeting, the applicant again requested a
continuance to a date uncertain so that a number of additional concerns that were raised during
the hearing could be resolved. New notices for the September 20, 2006 public hearing for the
Robertson Ranch Master Plan, EIR and associated applications were posted on the site,
0
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
September 20, 2006
Pae 2
published in the newspaper, and sent to all interested parties and property owners within 600 feet
of the project site as well as to the entire Colony neighborhood at their request.
At the June 21, 2006 hearing, the Planning Commission generally concurred that they would
support a reduction in the number of proposed dwelling units from 1,383 du's to 1,122 du's (or
1,154 du's with development of the school site) and that a majority of Planning Area 7 should be
developed with Senior Housing. Additionally, the Planning Commission directed the applicant
to continue to meet with representatives of the Colony neighborhood; to further explore
alternatives for reducing cut-through traffic in the Colony neighborhood, including a new
roadway connection at Tamarack Avenue and Planning Area 2 (Tamarack Connection); and to
provide data showing the success of traffic calming devices.
III. DISCUSSION
Staff and the applicant have met a number of times over the past several months with the Colony
residents (see chronology of meetings in Attachment 2). In addition, the Colony residents have
been given the opportunity to review the various traffic studies prepared by USA that are
attached to the staff report. The applicant and their consultants have been working closely with
the residents to address their technical questions. Staff understands the Colony resident's
concern regarding increased traffic and cut-thru traffic in their neighborhood and three
circulation alternatives have been developed for the West Village to address these concerns.
Unfortunately staff, the developer, and the residents were unable to reach consensus for a
preferred alternative. Other issues raised by the Colony residents include the number of units
proposed for the Master Plan, adding senior housing to PA 7, CUSD student generation rates,
fire department access issues, and traffic concerns. These issues, as well as those raised and
discussed by the Planning Commission, are discussed below.
LAND USE PLAN
Reduced Density
In response to the Planning Commission's direction to reduce the number of units in the
Robertson Ranch Master Plan, the applicant has prepared a new Land Use Plan (Attachment 3)
reflecting a reduction in residential density by up to 261 units. Attachment 4 details the Planning
Areas where units have been deleted and Attachment 5 provides a summary table comparing the
original Master Plan with the reduced unit alternatives (1,122 du's with school and 1,154 du's
without school).
The "1,122 du's with school" alternative results in a reduction of 176 du's from the West Village
and a reduction of 85 dwelling units from the East Village. The request for an allocation of units
from the City's Excess Dwelling Unit Bank would be decreased accordingly from 400 units to
171 units. Several changes are required to the resolutions to reflect this revision as outlined in
the attached errata.
Revised General Plan Land Use Designations
EIR 03-03/MP 02-03/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
September 20, 2006
Pae 3
The reduced density results in several changes to the proposed General Plan Land Use
Designations as shown in Attachment 6. The reduction of units within PA 10 results in a
decrease in density which would change the previously proposed RM ( 4-8 du/ac) designation to
the RLM (0-4 du/ac) designation. The minimum lot size for PA 10 would be increased from
5,000 sfto 6,000 sf. PA's 13 and 14 will be changed from the RH (15-23 du/ac) designation to E
(Elementary School) and PA 22 will be changed to UA (Unplanned Area) as proposed by the
applicant (refer to May 31, 2006 staff report).
MASTER PLAN TEXT REVISIONS
The modifications noted above necessitate a number of associated revisions to the Master Plan
Text and Graphics. These revisions will be made pending the final decision on the Master Plan
by the City Council. In addition, several revisions to the Master Plan text would be required for
the following items:
PA 7 -Senior Housing
The applicant is proposing to allocate 105 units (over 50%) within PA 7 as Senior Housing.
These units would be developed according to the design criteria of the Master Plan and pursuant
to the City's existing development standards for Senior Housing (CMC Chapter 21.84-Housing
for Senior Citizens). The Master Plan text for PA 7 will be amended to specify that over 50% of
the units shall be developed as Senior Housing and to add a requirement for compliance with the
Development Standards and Design Criteria ofCMC Chapter 21.84.
PAs 13 and 14-School Site and Alternative Land Uses
As noted at the previous Planning Commission hearing, the Carlsbad Unified School District
(CUSD) has indicated a desire to reserve 10 acres within PA's 13 and 14 for an elementary
school. Pursuant to Section 66478 of the Subdivision Map Act, within 30 days after approval of
the tentative map, the school district must offer to enter into an agreement to accept dedication of
the site. The required dedication may be made any time before, concurrently with, or up to 60
days after, the filing of the final map on any portion of the subdivision.
The Master Plan text and graphics will be revised to reflect the elementary school land use
designation. In the event that CUSD does not enter into an agreement to accept dedication of the
site as planned, an alternative land use of small Jot single-family development with up to 52
dwelling units would be allowed. The unit allocation is based on the Growth Control Point for
the existing RLM designation which would allow 32 units (10 acres x 3.2 du/ac) together with a
shift of20 du's from several other Planning Areas (PA 5 -10 du's, PA 6 -1 du, PA 10-6 du's,
and PA 21 -3 du's). As proposed, 35 du's would be located within PA 13 and 17 du's would be
located within PA 14. These planning areas would be developed as detached single-family
residences on minimum 5,000 sf Jots, similar to the development standards currently proposed
forPA's 16, 17 and 18.
PAs 1 and 2 -Relocation of RV Storage Area
Revisions to the Master Plan text and graphics will be required if the Tamarack Connection from
PA 2 to the West Village (shown in Circulation Alternatives 2 and 3) is approved by the
Planning Commission and City Council. PA 2 is currently proposed as an RV storage site for the
East and West Villages of the Master Plan. Construction of the Tamarack Connection would
EIR 03-03/MP 02-03/GPA 02-04/LFMP 14(B)/HMP 06-04-ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER
PLAN and CT 02-16/HDP 02-07/SUP 02-05 -ROBERTSON RANCH EAST VILLAGE
MASTER TENTATIVE MAP
September 20, 2006
Pae 4
leave the remaining area in PA 2 undevelopable. Therefore, PA 2 would be relocated to a
portion of PA I. The CF (Community Facilities) land use designation for PA 2 (in it's current
location) would be deleted and re-designated as OS (Open Space). PA I currently has an RM
General Plan land use designation and RV storage would be a permitted use, subject to approval
of a Site Development Plan and Planned Development Permit.
WEST VILLAGE CIRCULATION PLAN ALTERNATIVES
A number of alternatives have been suggested and evaluated in order to reduce cut-through
traffic that may be experienced by the Colony residents with the development of the West
Village. At the July 11, 2006 meeting with McMillin Representatives, staff and the Colony
representatives, it was agreed that only solutions that did not violate City standards would be
presented to the Planning Commission for consideration. Given that parameter, the following
three alternatives were developed:
Alternative 1 -Circuitous Routing (Attachment 7):
This alternative provides three points of access to the West Village development areas utilizing
the planned roadway connections for the West Village. Primary access would be located at a
signalized entrance point on El Camino Real (ECR) at Street "Z" (Lisa Street). Two secondary
local street connections would be provided at the planned extensions of Glasgow Drive and
Edinburgh Drive. This alternative provides emergency access consistent with Fire Department
Policies as well as City Engineering Department standards and polices.
The street design incorporates the City's policies for Livable Neighborhoods by providing
interconnected neighborhoods and pedestrian/bicycle connections between neighborhoods. The
streets would be designed using circuitous routing to discourage cut-through traffic through the
Colony neighborhood. The supplemental report "Analysis of Traffic Calming Strategies for
Robertson Ranch" prepared by Gary E. Kruger, P .E. evaluates and supports the effectiveness of
the proposed circuitous routing on cut-through traffic. Additionally, the developer, if
conditioned, would incorporate traffic calming features into the existing Colony neighborhood
which would further discourage cut-through traffic.
The projected ADT on the public streets is within the capacity of the adopted design standards.
This alternative does not increase traffic on Tamarack Avenue and it complies with the existing
Hardline Agreement with the Wildlife Agencies.
Alternative 2 -Circuitous Routing Plus Tamarack Connection (Local Street Standards)
(Attachment 8):
This alternative is identical to Alternative I, with the addition of a fourth access point at
Tamarack Avenue. The Tamarack Connection point was originally suggested by residents of the
Colony neighborhood and has been evaluated over the last several months by City staff and the
developer in consultation with the USFWS and CDFG (Wildlife Agencies). The road would be
designed as a right-in, right-out access from Tamarack Avenue at PA 2 connecting to PA 3 and
the majority of the West Village development areas. This roadway would be designated as a
local street and would function primarily to siphon north-bound traffic out of the West Village.
As proposed, this access point would not increase south-bound traffic on Tamarack Avenue nor
would it add to traffic at the intersection of Tamarack and ECR. Minor increased roadway
EIR 03-03/MP 02-03/GPA 02-04/LFMP 14(B)/HMP 06-04-ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER
PLAN and CT 02-16/HDP 02-07/SUP 02-05-ROBERTSON RANCH EAST VILLAGE
MASTER TENTATIVE MAP
September 20, 2006
Pae 5
maintenance cost would be associated with the construction of this roadway. The projected ADI
on the public streets is within the capacity of the adopted design standards.
The Tamarack Connection impacts the existing Hardline Preserve Area and would require
relocation of the RV storage facility planned for PA 2. Staff has been working closely with the
Wildlife Agencies and has obtained preliminary concurrence from USFWS for the Tamarack
Connection (Attachment I 0). The traffic, visual and biological impacts of the Tamarack
Connection have been evaluated and are described in detail in the "Additional Environmental
Analysis" section at the end of this staff report. The reports and analysis are included as
Attachments 11 through 14 of the staff report. The Tamarack Connection does not result in any
new significant impacts and no additional mitigation measures are required.
Alternative 3 -Tamarack Connection (Collector) & Emergency Access at Glasgow and
Gated Access at Edinburgh (Attachment 9):
This alternative provides two access points to the West Village development areas. Primary
access would be located at a signalized entrance point on El Camino Real (ECR) at Street "Z"
(Lisa Street) with a second access point occurring at the Tamarack Connection. The Tamarack
Connection would be designed as a collector road (with limited driveway access on the roadway)
and would likely be designed as a signalized intersection. Traffic movements would consist of
left and right turns out of the West Village onto Tamarack Avenue and north or south-bound
traffic on Tamarack Avenue could enter the West Village at the Tamarack Connection. Full
access at the Tamarack Connection is necessary with this alternative to allow for emergency
access to the site since there would only be two points of access to the development. This
alternative would result in a minor increase in traffic at the intersection of Tamarack Avenue and
ECR. Existing traffic at this intersection has been identified as a concern by the Planning
Commission and Colony neighborhood.
This alternative would provide "Emergency Access Only" gates at Glasgow Drive and Planning
Areas 9 and IO would be designed as a gated community with private roads. Under this
scenario, only 71 units in the West Village would have access in and out of the Colony
neighborhood. The two gated access points for PA' s 9 and IO would be located at the southerly
extension of Edinburgh Drive and at the south end of PA 10. This alternative meets City
standards of providing two access points to developments of over 25 units. Proposals for gated
communities have been supported in some instances by staff, the Planning Commission, and the
City Council. However, gated communities do raise issues related to delayed emergency
response times, delays in the event of an evacuation, and neighborhood connectivity.
With this alternative, the circulation design for the West Village would be based on a modified
grid pattern, rather than a circuitous design, to allow for a more interconnected street pattern.
Traffic calming features for the Colony neighborhood would not be included with this
alternative.
The impacts to the Hardline Preserve Area resulting from the Tamarack Connection and the need
to relocate the RV storage area in PA 2 are identical to the discussion for Alternative 2 above.
The Colony residents have voiced support for Alternative 3 because they believe it will provide
the greatest reduction in traffic to their neighborhood. However, the gated access to PA's 9 and
EIR 03-03/MP 02-03/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
September 20, 2006
Pae 6
10 and emergency access gates at Glasgow Drive may impede access during an emergency
response or evacuation. Gated communities, when approved, are generally set apart from the
rest of a development when there are no opportunities to provide connectivity between
neighborhoods. The extensions of Glasgow Drive and Edinburgh Drive have been envisioned
since the subdivision was approved and these road extensions would provide convenient access
for the Colony residents to drive to the future neighborhood commercial area and daycare in the
West Village. Furthermore, the installation of a traffic signal at the Tamarack Connection
complicates the approach to the Tamarack Avenue/ECR intersection. Traffic congestion at this
intersection has been identified as a concern of the Colony residents. For these reasons, this
alternative is not fully supported by staff.
UPDATED TRAFFIC STUDIES AND TRAFFIC CALMING ANALYSIS
In the last Planning Commission meeting, the traffic study prepared by Urban Systems
Associates (USA), dated June 15, 2006 provided results showing that street capacities, after
development of the West Village along Edinburgh Drive and Glasgow Drive, would operate at
95% and 99% of residential roadway capacity, respectively. However, as stated in the report,
these capacities did not account for potential reductions in traffic that may result from
implementing circuitous routing and employing traffic calming measures within the We~t
Village. The Developer agreed to provide empirical information that incorporates the effects of
circuitous routing and traffic calming measures employed in the West Village.
Since the last meeting, a total of two (2) new traffic reports have been prepared to demonstrate
the affects. They are:
I. Robertson Ranch West Village Roadway Alternatives, prepared by USA, dated
September 6, 2006.
2. Analysis of Traffic Calming Strategies for Robertson Ranch, prepared by TJKM
Transportation Consultants, dated September 7, 2006.
For all three circulation alternatives presented, the USA traffic report summarizes the anticipated
street capacities for those road segments within the Colony development. They account for
potential reductions in trips resulting from the effects circuitous routing and traffic calming have
on destinations. In addition, the reports have incorporated the proposed reduction in density and
the effects that the senior housing component has within PA 7. A table from the USA traffic
study summarizing the alternatives and associated street capacities is provided in Attachment 13.
The conclusions in the USA study demonstrate that, with incorporating the affects of circuitous
routing and employing traffic calming within the West Village and incorporating the land use
updates (density reductions, etc.), vehicular traffic within the Colony will be substantially
reduced as originally anticipated.
Currently Glasgow and Edinburgh operate at 45% and 60% of street capacity, respectively.
After development and upon applying the effects of traffic calming and circuitous routing
Glasgow is expected to operate at 74% of street capacity, versus 99% before the effects.
Edinburgh is expected to operate at 76%, versus 95% before the effects.
EIR 03-03/MP 02-03/GPA 02-04/LFMP 14(B)/HMP 06-04-ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER
PLAN and CT 02-16/HDP 02-07/SUP 02-05 -ROBERTSON RANCH EAST VILLAGE
MASTER TENTATIVE MAP
September 20, 2006
Pae 7
The Developer has provided TJKM as a technical expert with expanded experience in
implementing traffic calming measures in residential development. TJKM prepared the second
study noted above, which provides a technical evaluation showing the effects of traffic calming
employed in the West Village. This report uses an independent approach (different from USA's
report) that shows how circuitous routing and traffic calming extend travel times to potential cut-
through vehicles and certain planning areas within the West Village trips. This report shows that
circuitous routing and traffic calming will make cut-through trips longer (87-271 seconds longer)
than using the Tamarack Avenue and El Camino Real road segments. The report also
demonstrates that traffic calming will discourage a portion of West Village trips from traveling
north through the Colony streets. The findings of this report verify the assumptions made in the
USA report for traffic reductions and expect that traffic will be even less than what USA is
anticipating.
Tamarack Dual-Left Turn Lanes
At the previous Planning Commission hearing, a number of concerns were raised about the
traffic back-up experienced during the a.m. peak hour at the west-bound intersection of
Tamarack and ECR. There was some discussion about the possibility of adding duel left tum
lanes at west-bound Tamarack. The traffic reports indicate that this intersection is not a failed
condition and the intersection operates at LOS C. The efficiency of the intersection is expected
to improve when the full-width improvement are completed on north and south-bound ECR (3-
lanes each direction) with the development of the West Village.
The Planning Commission may consider requiring dedication of an I.O.D. on Tamarack Avenue
adjacent to PA I. However, the development of the Robertson Ranch West Village does not
trigger the need for installation of dual left-tum lane improvements on Tamarack Avenue. If the
City desires to improve this intersection in the future, it would be considered as part of a Capital
Improvement Project.
CUSD Student Generation Rates
At the June 21, 2006 public hearing, residents of the Colony neighborhood presented information
showing a higher student generation rate for CUSD than had been given to staff by CUSD
officials. The Colony residents claimed that this "new" student generation rate affected the
results of the Traffic Studies. After further discussion with CUSD officials, it was found that
CUSD is looking into updating the student generation rates; however, new rates have not been
adopted at this time. The student generation rate presented by the Colony Neighbors did not
accurately represent the rates under consideration by CUSD. The traffic consultant has reviewed
the minor modifications to the student generation rates currently under consideration by CUSD,
and has found that they would not affect the conclusions of the Traffic Studies prepared for
Robertson Ranch.
ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENT AL ANALYSIS
Project Description: The· Tamarack Connection would provide a direct roadway connection
from the West Village core planning areas to Tamarack Avenue. This roadway connection
would be designed at no greater than 60-feet in width, and would be constructed approximately
700-feet in length. It would connect the top of the West Village plateau at PA 3, through PA 2,
EIR 03-03/MP 02-03/GP A 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
September 20, 2006
Pae 8
to connect with the south side of Tamarack Avenue at a point approximately mid-way between
La Portolada Dr. and Pontiac Drive.
Biological Impacts: The Tamarack Connection would cross the approved Hardline open space
hillside between PA 3 and PA 2. The connection would directly impact approximately 1.66
acres of the Hardline area in this location, although the crossing location was chosen for its
relatively low quality vegetation. Approximately 1.52 acres of the impacted hardline area
consists of agricultural row crops, and the remaining 0.14 acre contains coastal sage scrub.
In exchange for the impacts to the Hardline, the brush management limits along the eastern side
of PA 9 and PA IO will be pulled back 60-feet, which will widen the hardline of Link "8" of the
HMP. Since Link "8" is identified as having the highest linkage resource value of the Robertson
Ranch property, this exchange is considered by the City and Wildlife Agencies as being a
beneficial exchange.
The developer is also proposing (and the City and Resource Agencies concur) that specific traffic
calming features and traffic signage warning of wildlife crossing be provided at the short stretch
of Glasgow Drive that crosses the Hardline corridor north of PA 5.
Due to the fact that the exchange of hardline open space and quantity and quality of coastal sage
scrub protected is a beneficial trade-off, the Tamarack Connection is not considered to result in
any new significant biological impacts. The Resource Agencies have indicated concurrence with
this program and if the Tamarack Connection is approved by the City Council, an amendment to
the HMP will be processed by the City in order to finalize the Robertson Ranch hardline plan.
Traffic Impacts: The Tamarack Connection is intended to siphon off West Village traffic that
would otherwise travel through The Colony neighborhood via Glasgow Dr. and Edinburgh Dr.
In conjunction with circuitous routing of the West Village roadway design, the Connection is
projected to reduce buildout traffic on these roads. With the Tamarack Connection included,
Glasgow and Edinburgh are projected to operate at 64% and 69% of their respective roadway
capacities. Thus, the Tamarack Connection does offer a reduction in the number of vehicles
traveling on The Colony neighborhood residential streets.
A traffic analysis of the Tamarack Connection projects that all associated intersections
(ECR/Tamarack Ave. and the Tamarack Ave./Tamarack Connection), would operate acceptably
(LOS D or better) during both AM and PM peak hours through buildout. Thus, it is concluded
that the Tamarack Connection would not result in any new significant impacts.
Visual Impacts: The Tamarack Connection would be constructed along an existing agricultural
hillside through excavation and embankment of soil to support the roadway. A photosimulation
of the roadway has been prepared which demonstrates the extent of view impacts that would
result from the grading and placement of a roadway within an area which is currently used for
agricultural purposes.
The roadway surface will be constructed at 40-feet in width, with curb, gutter and sidewalk
placed in a I 0-foot parkway on both sides of the road. The highly-visible cut and fill slopes
EIR 03-03/MP 02-03/GPA 02-04/LFMP 14(B)/HMP 06-04 -ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER
PLAN and CT 02-16/HDP 02-07/SUP 02-05 -ROBERTSON RANCH EAST VILLAGE
MASTER TENTATIVE MAP
September 20, 2006
Pae 9
associated with the road will be landscaped with coastal sage scrub vegetation, which will allow
for the most visible portions of the project to blend into the surrounding natural landscape. Thus,
this connection is not considered to create a significant visual impact.
As evidenced in the above discussion, the Tamarack Connection will not result in any new
significant impacts and, therefore, would not constitute a significant change in the project
description or significant new information requiring an amendment and recirculation of the Final
EIR. If approved, the Tamarack Connection would lessen traffic in the Colony neighborhood
thus reducing the overall effects of the project. The Tamarack Connection, therefore, could be
considered an appropriate project modification that is made in response to new insights gained
during the public discussion of the project.
IV. SUMMARY
Staff is requesting direction from the Planning Commission for the items listed above. Staff also
recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Master Plan and
Program EIR and approve the East Village Master Tentative Map. The errata included as
Attachment 15 contains suggested conditions or actions for each of the discussion items, and
includes items still applicable from the May 31, 2006 and June 21, 2006 hearings. In addition,
the errata includes several typographical corrections needed for the EIR. Staff recommends that
the Planning Commission make a motion to include all items on Pages I though 4 of the errata,
and include the errata items identified for either Alternative I, 2 or 3 listed on pages 5 through 8.
Additional correspondence received after the June 21, 2006 Planning Commission hearing is
included as Attachment 17. The City's responses to questions asked by the Colony residents at
the Town Hall Meeting are included as Attachment 18. Minutes from the May 31 and June 21,
2006 hearings are also included for the Commission's reference (Attachment 27 and 28).
ATTACHMENTS:
I. Location Map
2. Chronology of Meetings with The Colony
3. Robertson Ranch Master Plan Land Use Map (Revised)
4. Robertson Ranch Master Plan I, 122 DU Alternative -With School
5. Robertson Ranch Land Use Table -Revised Residential Unit Counts
6. Robertson Ranch General Plan Land Use Map
7. West Village Circulation Alternative I -Circuitous Routing
8. West Village Circulation Alternative 2 -Circuitous Routing Plus Tamarack Connection
(Local Street Standards)
9. West Village Circulation Alternative 3 -Tamarack Connection (Collector) & Emergency
Access at Glasgow and Gated Access at Edinburgh
10. Preliminary Concurrence from USFWS for the Tamarack Connection, dated August 22,
2006
11. Proposed Tamarack Avenue and Glasgow Collector Roads and their Potential Biological
Effects, Robertson Ranch West Village, Merkel & Associates, dated July 18, 2006
12. Visual Analysis (3 sheets)
EIR 03-03/MP 02-03/GPA 02-04/LFMP 14(B)/HMP 06-04 -ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER
PLAN and CT 02-16/HDP 02-07/SUP 02-05 -ROBERTSON RANCH EAST VILLAGE
MASTER TENTATIVE MAP
September 20, 2006
Pa e 10
13. Robertson Ranch West Village Roadway Alternatives, USA Inc., dated September 6,
2006.
14. Analysis of Traffic Calming Strategies for Robertson Ranch, TJKM Transportation
Consultants, dated September 7, 2006.
· 15. Errata
· 16. Program EIR Errata
· 17. Correspondence received after June 21, 2006
J8. City Responses to Town Hall Meeting Questions
19. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6105 (EIR 03-03)
20. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6106 (MP 02-03)
21. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6107 (GPA 02-04)
22. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6108 (LFMP 14(B))
23. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6109 (HMP 06-04)
24. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6110 (CT 02-16)
25. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6111 (HDP 02-07)
26. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6112 (SUP 02-05)
127. Minutes of the May 31, 2006 Planning Commission Hearing
, 28. Minutes of the June 21, 2006 Planning Commission Hearing
, 29. Planning Commission Staff Report with Attachments dated May 31, 2006 (previously
distributed)
30. Planning Commission Staff Report with Attachments dated June 21, 2006 (previously
distributed)
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
Robertson Ranch
Meetings with the Colony representatives
Date Day Time Location Attendees
(Aoorox.)
May 16, 2006 Tuesday 7:30 PM Agosti's house (15) Colony reps.
& Applicant
June 6, 2006 Tuesday 5:00 PM O'Day's office (10) Colony reps.,
Applicant & City
Staff
June 15, 2006 Thursday 6:00 PM Agosti's house (10) Colony reps. &
Applicant
June 19, 2006 Monday 6:30 PM Colony HOA Park (40) Colony reps. &
Applicant
July 11, 2006 Tuesday 9:00AM Faraday Building (14) Colony reps.,
Applicant & City
Staff
Aug. 17,2006 Thursday 6:30 PM Colony HOA Park (50) Colony reps. &
Applicant
Aug. 31, 2006 Thursday 6:00 PM Faraday Building (75) Colony reps. &
Citv Staff
Sept. 8, 2006 Friday 4:30 PM Faraday Building (2) Colony Resident
& Planning staff
Sept. 12, 2006 Tuesday 9:00AM Faraday Building (7) Colony reps. &
Citv Staff
ATTACHMENT 2
STATISTICAL SUMMARY
LANDUSE I GROSS ACRES I NET ACRES I ws I NET I::ENsm·
Multifamily Rc:oidcm,l 9.3 4.6 27 S.9
Single Family 21.0 18.S 82 4.4
SIJl&leFamiy 9.8 8.2 2S 3.0
Sin&l•F11my 17.0 !S.4 61 4.0
Multifamily R.,;dem.,J 11.6 9.6 201 20.9
Multifamily Residemal 11.7 9.3 186 20.0
I· :!9. ·: Sin&JeFamily l•.5 13.7 34 2.5
SingleFomiy 10.3 9.4 37 3.9
Multifamily Rc:oid.,.;al 3.S 3.S 78 22.3
Single Family 20.6 19.9 106 53
Single Family 22.8 222 gs 4.0
Sinai• Family 21.3 21.3 110 S.2
Counyard Rcaideutial 9.0 7.0 87 IH
Jlll!l1D61(17AL TOTAU 11:U 1Q.f 1.122
IBNJW.
R. V. Storqe 3.3 2.0
CxnmuutyRecrwicm 1.1 1.0
Village Ceotffi'CcmnaciAI 15.1 13.0
Pm: 13.9 13.5
School 6.8 6.1
School 3.6 2.9
Commuuty Recrulicm 1.7 1.7
Wattt Quality Facility 2.9 2.9
Un-Rmned Aru 43 3.2
Open Space 140.S
22.4 I ,~ nu 41.9 ,-.o 309.S
Robertson Ranch
PA4
I.I Gross AC. J.ONetAC. Community Recreation
"'~ ,, ...
~, WEST ~~-Vll..LAGE
i f -----
\ ·\ .. ::::·: ; A~" , ,
. 14.s Gross'-t.:c:'. 13.7NetAC. _ -2.5DU/Ae,
· 34 Du's. · RI¥·:',
EAST
Vll..LAGE
PA 13/PA 14
Alternative Use
PA 19 1.7 Gross AC. J.7NetAC. Community Recreation '
0 150 300 800
~ 83
NORTH
MAsTER PLAN LAND UsE PLAN
MASTER PLAN I~ I ••I
ATTACHMENT 3
_:
"''ti----\;;~-~~~ . ·.;~~-,
Community Recreation
ROBER TSO~ R_.A_~CF-I
1,122 DU -WITH SCHOOL
WEST VILLAGE
.~ft~~ 11''1~~ 'C , ·'1t,,
-~(}. ~ ~'
'§!-7.-----~'l::li ~-, .. ;1
. ' .. PA 9
11 DUs less
'.
EAST VILLAGE
'-
Community Recreation
NOTE:
PA20
2.9 Gross AC.
Water Quality
Basin
~J~ NORTII
If the PA 13/14 School is declined by CUSD, a total
of 1,154 DU's will be allowed on the project.
0' 600'
1 I I I 300' 1200'
Scale: 1" = 600'
I PJt=G I 1•1
A TT AC HM ENT 4
~ ~ (")
:::c s: m z -I
<11
I,
ROBERTSON RANCH LAND USE -REVISED RESIDENTIAL UNIT COUNTS
MASTER PLAN LAND USE TABLE 1122 UNIT -WITH SCHOOL
Maximum
Planning Net Acres MP Units Existing Planning
Area (Res.) Der:isity Master Plan Area Land Use Density
1 4.6 5.9 27 1 RM 5.9
3 18.5 4.4 82 3 RM 4.4
5 8.2 3.0 25 5 RLM 3.0
6 15.4 4.0 61 6 RM 4.0
7 9.6 20.9 201 7 RH 20.9
8 9.3 21.0 195 8 RH 20.0
9 13.7 3.3 45 9 RLM 2.5
10 9.4 5.9 55 10 RLM 3.9
13 6.7 20.6 138 13 SCHOOL 0.0
W. Village 95.4 829 W. Village
14 2.9 21.7 63 14 SCHOOL 0.0
15 3.5 22.9 80 15 RH 22.3
16 19.9 5.3 106 16 RM 5.3
17 22.2 4.0 88 17 RM 4.0
18 21.3 5.2 110 18 RM 5.2
21 7.0 12.4 87 21 RMH 12.4
22 3.2 6.3 20 22 Non-Res. 0.0
E. Village 80.0 554 E. Village
TOTAL I 1383 TOTAL
,,,
7/25/06
1154 -WITHOUT SCHOOL
Change Planning Change
Units From MP Area Land Use Density Units from MP
27 0 1 RM 5.9 27 0
82 0 3 RM 4.4 82 0
25 0 5 RLM 1.8 15 -JO
61 0 6 RLM 3.9 60 -1
201 0 7 RH 20.9 201 0
186 -9 8 RH 20.0 186 -9
34 -11 9 RLM 2.5 34 -11
37 -18 10 RLM 3.3 31 -24
0 -138 13 RM 5.2 35 -103
653 W. Village 671
Reduction -176 Reduction -158
0 -63 14 RM 5.9 17 -46
78 -2 15 RH 22.3 78 -2
106 0 16 RM 5.3 106 0
88 0 17 RM. 4.0 88 0
110 0 , 18 RM 5.2 110 0
87 0 21 RMH 3.9 84 -3
0 -20 22 Non-Res. 0.0 0 -20
469 E. Village 483
Reduction -85 Reduction -71
-
1122 -261 TOTAL 1154 "'-'229
~ ,,
-LEGEND
RLM
RM
RMH
RH
CF
@L
OS
~
Low Medium Density (0-4 DU/ AC)
Medium Density ( 4-8 DU/ AC)
Medium High Density (8-15 DU/ AC)
High Density (15-23 DU/AC)
Community Facility
Com1nunity Facility/Local Shopping Center
Open Space
$"
~1 ~, 0~, PA2 ..:~_~/
~-
• "oJ/1--1,
' '1¢_,<)f • }-)~--"!_ -
'-~
-,-~ ...;':;-,, e/ #
#
( 1;11
' ,,,,
·•=·' ~-q >..
~ ,-J· ~
CF • ~ ... -, -<;~-✓--
,,, # ,,, # '/ ~-
PA3
RM
✓--
PA 11
L
@
I
I
I
WEST I EAST
VILLAGE I VILLAGE
I
r··1
I
I
I
I
I
' ' I
I ,
I
' ,
OS
"
\
' ' \
' ' I
I
I
I
0 150 300 600
~Ba
NORTH
Robertson Ranch L,,~--: AMENDED GENERAL PLAN LAND UsE MAP
MASTERPLAN 1~, ••L
. -
ATTACHMENT 6
Alternative 1
Circuitous Routing
Concept Circulation Plan
., ...... __
-. r-~----
West Village
ROBERTSON RANCH
/4
1.-..:-
Q)
~ Cl)
~ -~ --.J
."";'.""~--::_ ..
--...... , ,,
..... :
...... ,..,,,,_ ....
-'">-;';
, __ ~-·• . \.--... '·· ,..... ,.
"~ .... \ ___ .., .. ,.,. ---...... \ '---~ '\
{ '· ... -·•-i:; '· ·~i
~----, '--(Y~ j l
-·······,r
0
'-
1~
-··--/ r··,, /
<<-?. ;// lj fu ((0 \))
~90, , i ,-'-· ao·::-< j / / __J,-•' , ' --·· -)·
_,.,, .... ,~
'ft ii' U\
;
J
.{, :~-
,.....,
, .....
·~ .
..,.....,____. ... ...., ....... ,_ . .,,,, ..................... ..,,,, .. ....
JOB41:5U<XD
D.\li:06-293
i "' TU PlANNING CX>NSUI.TANTS ltt~== .. -a ,ca ,a, -~
~-~
ATTACHMENT 7
/.
PA 7
Alternative 2
·,
:"' -----
Tamarack Connection (Local Street Standards)
Concept Circulation Plan -West Village
ROBERTSON RANCH
Qi
~ ci)
q, -~ -..J
--:-.:.:.;-:,.
--... , ',
--.. ..... ,. -.. ..,__
101#:53)-0))
DAlt:Ge,D<lS
.,_..""'!\-
ll ~
/ .
..._ ... :'
; \ ~--' ' \ ' -'
:~'-:.:-;it\
,_ "-\,.,...,.,~.,,..
,.r""_,~--
..--.. .._ __ _
./ '
.. , i 1/, ·----., . --
,,, • ''!"W: /',., -~r
-~
10<
. ·-~ -\ ~ , ''"' .._,,. . '£\~ / -. -j/;,,:j / /-•\ ; (\-. ',, '-.,.-'/_,~--/, .' ii; : :
·--' , ~ ( I/ \ . '
--.. '90 ;
_.;.---,--\80 .-) ) i f---
1 /
('"·.-:-.. _\
;
-~ :r i l
If ?
_,, 7'
: ,.-;✓ .... ,~ "·
'.--,-Oe,,
'I pft.:_::::_· , :J!~~-?3'~:£
i ' .<s..::, c,2..._~,~ ~-----~ '-~;,.°'!-.~ J!/~-~?;J,4:J,t,~)"~--~-~~-
1//"-J-~-:~?;~-:~~ C, V, •~ ~; •• t: C•!• '-:-:•~~~ , ... ~ ~ 0 ,-~
'-
~ ....
.... ......., ............. .--. ............... _...,,...,., __
TU l'lANNINC CONSUi.TANT$ ~=.~~,3,.,.°'1!'90 --~ ,, 1«1 200' -~ ~-en
ATTACHMENT 8
~ Gated Community
PA 7
.. -.: ..... ~
·--.. C"-..,,).. __ ,.
!< "
:-_
Alternative 3
\ .:"" -. --
Q)
~ Cf)
ct -~ -..J
Collector Tamarack Connection/Gated Glasgow and Edinburgh
Concept Circulation Plan -West Village
ROBERTSON RANCH
--..... ,,.,,
-,._,,__
/
'-"":' ---, .. \, '---··\ '•··•\_,..-.... ~ ....--
0
·, \
' ..... _ ' ~--~~ \(~
-,
/
/ ,,
10( \ ---/ r'.. ;
--~ .--\ <>:,:-~_-·;/! Ojfi '·~ .-{£_J \ i I ~9\i' , ,'-. . \ ;
/{
j
(. ~
' l
1 ·,.,
-~,,.·~. ___ __.,,, .. , --~ --/~----1; tl (
'-
· .. #~1)
)01.,,,,,_
D,\1',•294
.... -
,.....,___, .......... .,..,.......,,,,,,, ..... ....., ....... & ..............
; • TH PIANNINC CONSULTANTS
4 I ~ ~::.:ri~.:,;..,...t>.w. l ( L -.tbponning.a,m
f110Cl»:t -~ ~-~
ATTACHMENT 9
From: <Marci_Koski@fws.gov>
To: · "Paul Klukas" <pklukas@planningsystems.net>, 1'Brian Milich" <bmilich@mcmillin.com>,
"Barbara Kennedy" <bkenn@ci.carlsbad.ca.us>, "Ken Cablay" <kcablay@seabournecorp.com>
Date: 08/22/2006 7:56:09 AM
Subject: Robertson Ranch Tamarack Connection Concurrence
In Reply Refer To:
FWS-SDG-3620 .4
Hi Paul -
This email is intended to provide you with the Wildlife Agencies'
preliminary concurrence for the proposed amendment to the approved
hardline preserve for Robertson Ranch. If the City of Carlsbad City
Council approves the Robertson Ranci"t·project with the Tamarack Connection,
the City wilt need to submit to the Wildlife Agencies a formal request for
concurrence of a minor amendment to the City's HMP with equivalency
findings. The Wildlife Agencies would support an amendment that would
allow for an exchange of hard line areas which involves the following:
1) The "Tamarack Connection" would be allowed between Planning Area 3 and
Tamarack Avenue which impacts approximately 1.66 acres of the existing
hardline area, as illustrated in the revised·"HMP Hardline Map -Tamarack
Connection Modifications" figure you provided to us August 8, 2006
(attached). Upon completion of the grading for this connection, the cut
and fill slopes associated with the road would be revegetated with coastal
sage scrub (CSS).
2) In exchange, the brush management limits along the western side of
Carlsbad's Habitat Management Plan Link "B" would be moved westerly a
distance of 60 feet along the interface between Planning Areas 9 and 10,
and the Link "B" hardline. This 60-foot area increases the hardline area
in Link "B" by approximately 1.93 acres, as depicted on the
above-referenced figure. The brush management zone will remain outside of
the hardline preserve, and the portions of this 1.93 acres that do not
presently contain CSS would be revegetated with CSS. The change in the
hardline would not affect the approved limits of disturbance allowed
pursuant to the Sept. 15, 2005 hardline plan, but any grading that is
performed within the limits of disturbance in the hardline preserve would
be revegetated with CSS.
3) Traffic calming features and signage would be implemented on Glasgow
Drive between Planning Area 5 and The Colony neighborhood to reduce
traffic speed and wildlife mortality along this 400-foot stretch of "-
roadway. These features would include traffic circles, landscape
pop-outs, landscape medians, and/or enhanced pavement areas. Signage to
remind motorists of the 25 mph speed limit and wildlife crossing would be
erected in this area.
Thank you for your efforts in coming to this agreement. If you have any
questions, please call me at (760) 431-9440, ext. 304, or David Mayer at
(858) 467-4234.
Marci
ATTACHMENT 10
Marci L. Koski, M.S., Ph.D.
Fish and Wildlife Biologist
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office
6010 Hidden Valley Road
Carlsbad, CA 92011
760.431.9440 ext. 304
760.431.5902 fax
CC: <David_Zoutendyk@fws.gov>, <DMayer@dfg.ca.gov>
_.
t II ,
• -II
I r/ ,, )l 'il. ,,
•\\)[ ·Tamarack
Connection I
11;;,. •. I
~
i''·}~t~' . r· \: · ·Revegetate I
Slopes with l
css
-.i,·.,r •r1•· •• -....·, . .. ' .,, •, ~"-'.~-( .··.-~ .... )' -\
Insert 1
Scale: 1" = 300'
&iii
-w.:t -·-~; ,•A',•/ ·).,CI :,-,:rl"M ·~~tfJrr:,~
0,c
Location
New Hardline
Location
C:
'"'. i"'''' '' .. . !ft;;' ·~·":-?)';·:•.',.,.-:, · .. :,,
.!;·•~-~ .. ·.··.' .-.-,· .. •.· f .· ···-r1v-i J ( \tF::"~. J.~~ )l\~;~·:IJtt
i. r,· .. •· ··.-" tl"".· g r.--:,. ~j/· cpij
,:..~ [. /·:/: ! f"' 3f:-i-l ,Jt. ·lt.:, ...
J#ft'·. ·• !ti
,y/JJr ,~ ..
i/:i 7
:,1dlf.0/ll
Insert 2
Scale: 1" = 300'
Insert 1
City of Carlsbad
Habitat Management Plan -Zone 14
HMP Hardline Map -Tamarack Connection Modifications
ROBERTSON RANCH
Insert 3 ,----,
I,!;' I
Is I I N I ~ I
'1AP ELEMENTS
~-
Insert 3
Scale: 1" = 200'
SOURCE:
HMP Hardline -Sept. 15, 2004
m 4:
m Brush•Mana;iement
:;J Parle/School Site
Development fire•
Dlcgan Coastal Sage Scrub
"' Revegotallon Arca
o· 800'
~
·Dl=TENTJON
OASIN
1600'
Scale: 1" = 800'
11.,~.~;,~1 s,~1e,-,:.1 ~
·,
Mr. Brian Milich
Merkel & Associates, Inc.
5434 Ruffin Road, San Di~go, CA 92123
Tel: 858/560-5465 • Fax: 858/560-7779
e-mail: associates@merkelinc.com
McMillin Homes, Corporate Headquarters
2750 Womble Road
San Diego, CA 92106
July 18, 2006
M&A #01-046-07
Re: Proposed· Tamarack Avenue and Glasgow Collector Roads and their Potential
Biological Effects -Robertson Ranch West Village
Dear Brian:
Per your request, Merkel & Associates, Inc. (M&A) has examined the Tamarack Avenue connection
and Glasgow Roadway extension in the context of the existing biological resources to determine the
likely biological effects of the proposed roadway development, specifically the anticipated effects on
habitat connectivity and wildlife movement.
BACKGROUND
Concern has been expressed (by the Wildlife Agencies) about development of a local street or
collector road from Tamarack Avenue southward into (and out of) the Robertson Ranch Planning
Area 3. The Tamarack Avenue Collector or Local Roadway would be an asphalt roadway 40 feet in
width (curb-to-curb) with street lighting spaced every 250 feet (staggered). This road would cross
the hardline boundary and impact agricultural lands and coastal sage scrub. The road would overlay
a very small portion of the coastal sage scrub within the Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan (HMP)
Link B's western branch. This report will refer to the roadway as a collector, even though the
Carlsbad design width of local streets or collectors are the same and thus the analysis of impacts for
either roadway design would be effectively the same. -Coocern has also been expressed about the project's northwestern access road from Glasgow Drive
into Planning Area 6 (which also crosses Link B's western branch) and the road',;-.possible effects on
wildlife movement. It has been suggested that inclusion of the Tamarack Avenue Collector Roadway
within the project may need to be off-set by an alteration in the function/designation of the Glasgow
Drive extension from a local road to an emergency-access only road.
Linkage B connects HMP Core #2 to Core #4 through its western branch and Core #3 to Core #4
through its wider eastern branch. According to the HMP, Link B is probably moderately effective
for birds and mammals. The HMP conservation goals include maintenance of viable habitat linkages
across Linkage Area B to ensure connectivity for gnatcatchers and other HMP species between Core
Areas 3 and 4.
ATTACHMENT 11
Link B's western branch is configured in an unusual pattern ·as it generally runs north-south, but ~
includes a "dead-end" sage scrub "hook" to the west. There is no native habitat contiguity with Link
B's western sage scrub "hook", but it is likely to act as a stepping stone corridor for avian sage scrub
associates, including gnatcatcher, as sage scrub persists less than 1,000 feet to the northwest, across
Tamarack Avenue. The very western tip of this "hook" would be the location of direct impacts from
the Tamarack Avenue Collector Roadway (see Collector Road from Tamarack Biological Impacts
and Mitigation Figure).
The remainder of Link B's western branch connects Core #2 and #3. It is within this connection that
the Glasgow Drive extension is proposed, and is allowed per the approved Robertson Ranch HMP
Hardline Map. The Glasgow Drive extensionilocal road would be 34 feet in width (curb-to-curb)
with street lighting staggered every 250 feet. It provides access from the existing Glasgow drive into
PA 6. The average daily traffic (ADT) for the Glasgow Drive connection as a local road would be
1,700ADT.
METHODS
Using the M&A biological base and the O'Day conceptual roadway design plans, Planning Systems
provided M&A with the Collector Road from Tamarack Biological Impacts and Mitigation Figure,
habitat impact quantifications, and specifications on the roadway widths, surfaces, sidewalk
placement, lighting spacing, and ADT. M&A utilized ArcView® to overlay GIS layers of local
biological resources ( e.g., vegetation communities, sensitive species), the Carlsbad Habitat
Management Plan Linkages, topography, and existing roadways. Utilizing this information, in
conjunction with the references cited herein, M&A prepared this analysis of the expected biological
effects of the proposed Tamarack Avenue Collector Roadway (including connectivity impacts) and
the biological effects of the Glasgow Drive extension as a local public street versus an emergency
access only street.
RESULTS
Tamarack Avenue Collector Roadway Direct Impacts and Mitigation
Construction of the Tamarack Avenue Collector Roadway would result in impacts to 0.14 acre of
coastal sage scrub and 1.52 acres of agricultural lands. As depicted on the Collector Road from
Tamarack Biological Impacts and Mitigation Figure and proposed by the project proponent, these
impacts would be mitigated through the following:
• avoidance of previously authorized impacts to 0.25 acre of coastal sage scrub;
• restoration of 1.55 acres of roadway slopes to coastal sage scrub; and
• creation of 0.20 acre of coastal sage scrub within agricultural lands pre1.viously considered
for development.
The avoidance, restoration, and creation areas are all located within or immediately adjacent to the
hardline preserve and would expand the existing sage scrub from the Link B "hook" to the south.
This expansion would create a contiguous sage scrub swath southward, within the hardline preserve
( connecting with the preserved sage scrub north of El Camino Real). The mitigation to impacts ratio
proposed exceeds 8: I. ··
•
'
•
...
,..
--
Connectivity Analysis
Since the "hook" portion of Link B is effectively a dead-end, relative to direct habitat connectivity,
and is composed entirely of sage scrub, it can be concluded that it was intended as a gnatcatcher
movement route, not to foster significant mammalian movement. Based on its location within the
biological landscape, it can be expected to function as either or both, a small population source site
and/or a stepping-stone, connecting Core Areas #2, #3, and #4. Either of these functions would be
improved by an expansion of the sage scrub habitat found in close association with Link B and
preserved within a hardline open space area. Proposed mitigation for the Tamarack Avenue
Collector Roadway consists of just this, an overall expansion of the sage scrub within the hardline
preserve that encompasses Link B (see Collector Road from Tamarack Biological Impacts and
Mitigation Figure). The Tamarack Avenue Collector Roadway is proposed to be 40 feet in curb-to-
curb width, an expanse easily crossed by a dispersing gnatcatcher. [Gnatcatchers abilities to cross
larger roadways (including Interstate 8 in east San Diego County) have been documented (Haas and
Campbell 2003).]
Native upland habitat connectivity under existing conditions consists of a stepping stone corridor
throu~~ this westernmost portion of the Robertson Ranch site, continuing north through Core #2 and
sage scrub west of there, and south into Core #4 and sage scrub patches north of Core #4. The
proposed Tamarack Avenue Collector Roadway is not expected to detrimental affect this
connectivity, particularly in light of the proposed mitigation, which would augment connectivity by
increasing the area of preserved sage scrub and creating sage scrub north-south connectivity, which is
absent under existing conditions.
Riparian or wetland habitat connectivity through western Robertson Ranch consists of a north-south
band of marsh and willow scrub habitat, with constrained connectivity off-site in both directions.
This area is likely used for mammal movement and is important in supporting continued mammalian
access to Agua Hedionda Lagoon. The proposed Tamarack Avenue Collector Roadway avoids
impacts to this area and maintains the 100-foot wetland setback. No direct impacts to this corridor
are anticipated from the proposed roadway.
Tamarack Avenue Collector Roadway Indirect Impacts and Mitigation
Long-term increases in artificial lighting within the preserve lands adjacent to the Tamarack Avenue
Collector Roadway, particularly the riparian corridor area, may discourage wildlife use of the area or
alter natural processes; therefore, street lighting for the Tamarack Avenue Collector Roadway should
be modified to avoid indirect impacts.
Street lamps should be fully shielded/full cutoff lighting; such shields eliminate the horizontal and
upward projection of light and direct the light downward, eliminating excess il1U<I1ination. ·Lighting
should also consist of low-pressure sodium lamps, which are less likely than other lights to shift
circadian rhythms and may be used to reduce the adverse effects of artificial lighting. These
modifications, in conjunction with the 100-foot setback, should ensure avoidance of indirect lighting
impacts. The 100-foot wetland buffer should further ensure avoidance of other indirect and direct
impacts associated with the roadway and maintain wetland functions and values.
Glasgow Drive Extension/Local Road
! ·
As previously mentioned, it has been suggested that the Glasgow Drive extension/local road might be
designated as an emergency only access road to off-site the Tamarack Avenue Roadway affects.
This suggestion assumes that the Glasgow Drive extension/local road would have negative biological
impacts, which correspond to traffic, and that those impacts could be alleviated through a substantial
reduction in traffic.
The ecological effects of roads are wide-ranging and varied. More obvious effects include direct
road mortality (road kill), habitat loss, and noise and lighting effects. Landscape level effects may
include barriers to wildlife movement, which alter the natural processes ( e.g., migration, breeding,
feeding dispersal, etc.); increases in edge amount and effects; and increases in some species
populations and dispersal abilities. Some road effects are related to traffic volume and speed, while
others relate to roadway construction and the resulting habitat alterations.
Factors affecting road mortality of wildlife include traffic characteristics, road dimensions and
engineering, landscape influences, and species behavior and ecology. No single factor operates in a
vacuum; as a result, any analysis of roadway impacts must be site/road-specific and even species or
at least group-specific.
Studies of wildlife collusions yield varying results, but several studies implicate vehicular speed as a
major cause of wildlife mortality. Early studies show that vehicles traveling at speeds greater than 40
miles per hour (mph) appear to have a greater impact on songbirds and rabbits than slower speed
traffic (Dickerson 1939 in Forman et al. 2003). According to Case (1978), the numbe_r of road-killed
wildlife was not significantly correlated with ADT on either a monthly or annual basis, but road
mortality was significantly correlated with vehicle speed. Finally, a study of raccoons also found
vehicle speed as a major cause of mortality (Rolley and Lehman 1992 in Forman et al. 2003).
However, studies of moose and armadillo found that traffic volume did affect mortality for these
species (Inbar and Mayer 1999 and Joyce and Mahoney 2001 in Forman et al. 2003). Thus, species
mobility and behavior certainly affect road mortality as much as traffic volume and speed. Overall,
in terms of traffic volume and speed, it appears that traffic volume has varying effects, higher vehicle
speeds are (consistently) detrimental, and increases in traffic lanes (which represents both an increase
in volume and width of the hazard) are detrimental.
The landscape effects most influential on direct road mortality are proximity of habitat cover and the
presence/absence of a movement corridor. The proposed Glasgow Road connection lies within the
western branch of Link B, considered to be a moderately effective link for birds and mammals (City
of Carlsbad 2004). The roadway would be constructed within agricultural lands that bisect coastal
sage scrub. It is unlikely that this area supports substantial long-distance mammalian movement due
to the lack of cover and current disturbed state of the habitats, sloping top~raphy leading to
Tamarack Avenue in the northwest, and development immediately to the north. -Mammalian
movement here would be dominated by urban tolerant mammals such as opossum, rabbit, raccoon,
skunk, coyote, and gray fox. Using the rabbit and raccoon as examples, we can assume that these
urban tolerant species are not expected to be subject to high 11:vels of direct road mortality if
vehicular Sp(l.l;ds...are kept low and barriers to movement are minimized. Similarly, movement of
songbirdM!trough .the area is unlikely to be substantially affected by the proposed local roadway so
long-as traffic speed is kept below 40 mph. The standard posted speed limit on the Glasgow Road
connection would be 25 mph.
•
'
'
--
-
-
•
Species attracted to roads for basking or foraging are naturally more likely to experience direct road
mortality. These species generally include lizards, some snakes, and corvids. Lizard and snake road
kill victims most commonly encountered in the coastal San Diego area include western fence lizards,
whiptails, gopher snakes, racers, and rattlesnakes. Of these species, the habitat generalists appear to
experience the highest mortality (i.e., western fence lizards), which is consistent with the fmdings of
Forman et al. (2003). Direct road mortality losses of these more common species would not be
significant from the small stretch of local road proposed. As corvid populations are on the rise
within the region, possible road kill effects from a small roadway would be insignificant for the birds
within this group.
Those species with an aversion to roads as weli as habitat specialists are less affected by direct road
mortality (Forman et al. 2003), but these species may experience increases in indirect mortality due
to the road's barrier effect. Generally speaking, the barrier effect of a road on specialist species or
road-averse species is related to the fact that the "habitat" (asphalt road) is foreign and inhospitable
and the barrier effect is the same regardless of traffic volume or speed. Where roads act as barriers
they divide habitats into smaller areas that may lack the resources or genetic flow to sustain
populations and which are more susceptible to catastrophic, stochastic events. Regardless of whether
a roadway creates a physical or behavioral barrier effect for wildlife, it increases the amount of edge.
Due to their linear nature, roads create long, unnatural edges, which can opportunistically utilized by
invasive species, predatory species, and nest parasites. Thus, altering the designation of a roadway
from a local road to emergency access only will not alleviate the indirect effects of the roadway.
Based on the known biological effects of roads; the length, width, and location of the Glasgow
connection roadway within the landscape; and the expected species presence within the area,
biological impacts from the Glasgow connection road would not substantially reduced by designating
the road as emergency only. While such a designation could reduce direct road mortality, similar
results may be achieved through application of a low speed limit. The majority of the road's
biological effects are due simply to the road's presence and would persist so long as the road exists.
CONCLUSIONS
In response to the suggestion that the Glasgow Drive extension/local road should be designated as an
emergency only access road to off-site the Tamarack Avenue Roadway affects, it does not appear
that such a mitigation strategy would achieve substantial biological gains. The indirect effects of the
roadway at Glasgow would persist and the reduction in direct impacts is not expected to substantially
alter the biological sustainability of local populations or corridor efficacy.
The restoration and preservation of sage scrub recommended herein to off-set the impacts of the
Tamarack Avenue Collector Roadway coupled with a low speed limit (25 m,,h) throughout the
Glasgow Drive extel1'Sion/local road is expected to be biologically superior to a redesignation
(emergency-only design) of the Glasgow Drive extension/local road.
The HMP Conservation Goals for Zone 14, which encompasses Robertson Ranch include
maintenance of connectivity for gnatcatchers and other HMP species between Core Areas #3 and #4,
no net loss of wetlands, and conservation through preservation, restoration, or enhancement of 67%
of coastal sage scrub. The application of the proposed mitigation for the Tamarack Avenue Collector
Roadway is expected to result in HMP compliance. It meets the JOO-foot wetland setback and does
not result in wetland impacts. It would ensure continued conservation of at least 67% of the coastal
sage scrub within Robertson Ranch. Specifically, of the 72.6 acres of coastal sage scrub on-site,
-
impacts previously totaled 20.9 acres (28.8 %) and preservation totaled 51.7 acres (71.2 %). With
the addition of the Tamarack Avenue Collector Roadway, impacts total 20.8 acres of sage scrub
(28.7 %), while 51.8 acres (71.3%) of sage scrub would be preserved. Also, the primary portion of
Link B (the eastern branch, which connects Core #3 and #4) is not affected by the Tamarack Avenue
Collector Roadway. The western branch (between Core #2 and #4) is only minimally affected at the
very western end of the "dead-end hook", where the sage scrub restoration and preservation are
proposed as mitigation.
Sincerely,
Melissa A. Booker
Senior Biologist
LITERATURE CITED
Case, R.M. 1978. Interstate highway road-killed animals: A data source for biologists. Wildlife
Society Bulletin 6:8-13.
City of Carlsbad. 2004. Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad.
December 1999, As Amended; Final Approval November 2004, Including Implementing
Agreement and Terms and Conditions.
'
Forman, R. T., D. Sperling, J. A. Bissonette, A. P. Clevenger, C. D. Cutshall, V. H. Dale, L. Fahrig, ,
R. France, C.R. Goldman, K. Heanue, J. A. Jones, F. J. Swanson, T. Turrentine, and T. C. Winter.
2003. Road Ecology: science and solutions. Island Press, Washington. Pp. 481.
Haas, W. and K. Campbell. 2003. Report of Coastal California Gnatcatcher Juvenile Dispersal
across Interstate-8 at the MSCP Southern Lakeside Archipelago Lands San Diego County,
California. Varanus Biological Services/Campbell BioConsulting Report prepared for: County of
San Diego Department of Parks and Recreation.
'
AG
Mitigation Table
[I]]]
CSS area previously
allowed for development
to be preserved (0.25 acres)
Agriculture area previously
allowed for development
to be restored with CSS
(0.20 acres)
Roadway slopes to be
restored with CSS (1.55 acres)
Biological Impacts
Agriculture
css
1.52 acres
0.14 acres
PA3
• .-• '
•• -•• •• -----
·--· • ---• ••
Collector Road from Tamarack
Biological Impacts and Mitigation
~ ·•--.····-·
II II
El Camino Real
, ..... _.,,,_ ,_,. ·----· ..... ,.,..,..._
BASEMAP: O'Day Consultants, 2006. SOURCE: Planning Systems, 2006.; BRG Consulting, Inc. 2006,. 08/05/06
Robertson Ranch EIR
-m-m-m-Photosimulation Keymap
FIGURE
1
BRG CONSULTING, INC.
ATTACHMENT 12
BASE MAP: O'Day Consultants, 2006. SOURCE: Planning Systems, 2006.; BRG Consulting, Inc. 2006,. 08/05/06
Robertson Ranch EIR
·ill·ill·ffi· Photosimulation Keymap
FIGURE
1
BRG CONSULTING, INC.
ATTACHMENT 12
·1 C: ' 0 ~ '""O C: 0 u 0) C: :.::; -~ X w
C ·,.o I :!= "O C ·O u "O Q) Cl) 0 C. e 0.. fl
URBAN SYSTEMS ASSOCIATES, INC.
PLANWING & TRAFFIC ENGINEERINCJ, MARKET1NG & PROJECT SUPPORT
CONSULTANTS TO INDUSTRY AND GOVERNMENT E-MEMll.,vEo
ATTN: Brian Milich c1·ry 0 E-Mail: l' F CARLSBAD
COMPANY: PLANNING DEPT
The McMillin Companies bmilich@mcmillin.com
Sam P. Kah, II ~~ TOTAL PAGES (Including Cover): : :ttachments FROM:
DATE: September 6, 2006 TIME: 10:39:02AM JOB NUMBER: 003101
SUBJECT: Robertson Ranch West Village Roadway Alternatives
As you requested, Urban Systems is providing below a final summary of the results of our evaluations for the
various roadway alternatives for the Robertson Ranch West Village that will effectively reduce through traffic.
The Attachment 1 table summarizes the reduction in ·traffic volumes on Glasgow and Edinburgh Drives with the
various alternatives.
EXISTING AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUlv!ES
Attachment 2 sho~s existing average daily traffic volumes within the Colony.
ROBERTSON RANCH MAS1ER PLAN
Attachment 3 shows the future traffic from the Robertson Ranch Master Plan without unit reductions and
without traffic calming.
CIRCUTIOUS ROUTING ONLY·
Attachment 4 shows the effect of providing circuitous routing only of vehicles through the West Village. The
right angle turns, traffic circles, and other traffic calming measures (narrow streets etc.) are expected to reduce
through traffic up to 45%. A report by the Federal Highway Administration and the Institute for Transportation
Engineers has estimated a 45% reduction on traffic volumes for blocks with traffic diverters which are similar
to the right angle turns provided with Robertson Ranch circuitous routing.
This 45% reduction was applied to the previous evaluation of through traffic (dated.June 15, 2006) and shown
in Attachment 3. The West Village trip generation is based on a reduction of units to 1,122 D.U. with the
school. Planning area 7 is assumed to include 105 D.U. of senior housing so that no school traffic is associated
with those senior dwelling units .. Ultimately with an elementary school assumed in the East Village, no
elementary school trips will use the Colony streets. However, these evaluations include elementary school
traffic to and from the north as a conservative assumption.
As a result of these traffic calming measures the segment of Edinburgh Drive south of Glasgow Drive could
increase by only 27%, from 1,200 ADT to 1,523ADT. ·
3 l 01-09 l 206-ememo-spk-d
4540Kearny Villa Road, Suite 106 • San Diego, CA 92123 • (858) 560-491 l • Fax (858) 560-9734
ATTACHMENT 13
Brian Milich Urban Systems Associates, Inc.
The Corky McMillin Companies September 6, 2006
The segment of Glasgow Drive south ofKirkwall Avenue could increase by 64%, from 900 ADT to 1,478
ADT.
CIRCUITOUS ROUTING PLUS CONNECT TO TAMARACK AS A LOCAL STREET
Attachment 5 shows the result of the circuitous routing (with no gates on Edinburgh or Glasgow Drive), and
with the connection through to Tamarack A venue as a local street.
The segment of Edinburgh Drive south of Glasgow Drive could increase by only 16% from 1,200 ADT to 1,387
ADT.
The segment of Glasgow Drive south ofKirkwall Avenue could increase by 41% from 900 ADT to 1,273 ADT,
CONNECT TO TAMARACK WITH COLLECTOR STREET. GATE PA-9. 10. EMERGENCY GATE ON
GLASGOW DRIVE
This alternative would prevent through traffic on Glasgow Drive south of Edinburgh Drive with the installation
of an emergency access only gate, as shown in Attachment 6,
Planning Area 9 and IO would be a gated community, with limited access to Edinburgh Drive,
A traffic signal would be installed at the collector street intersection on Tamarack Drive as part of the project.
Edinburgh Drive south of Glasgow Drive could increase by 15% from 1,200 ADTto 1,381 ADT,
Glasgow Drive south ofKirkwall Avenue would not increase in traffic volumes.
TAMARACK A VENUE CONNECTION
The connection to Tamarack Avenue with a collector street and gates within the West Village would divert
project traffic to Tamarack Avenue and possibly affect project traffic through the El Camino Real/Tamarack
Avenue intersection. Therefore, both the Tamarack A venue/Collector Street Connection and the El Camino
Real/Tamarack A venue intersection have been evaluated for peak hour levels of service with this diversion of
traffic assumed.
As shown in the table below, each of these intersections would operate acceptably (LOS Dor better) during
both A,M and P .M. peak hours at buildout.
2
Brian Milich Urban Systems Associates, Inc.
The Corley McMi/lin Companies September 6, 2006
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Location Delay LOS Delay LOS
El Camino Real/ Tamarack Avenue *(57.6) 50.8 *(D)D •( 46.3) 44.5 *(D) D
Tamarack A venue / RR Collector 23.7 C 23.9 C
Tamarack Avenue/ Robertson Ranch Local Street 14.8 B 15.5 B
• (XX.X) = Without Connection
Therefore, no additional mitigation would be needed with this alternative.
Attachment 7 includes a traffic signal warrant worksheet for the Tamarack Avenue/Collector Street Connection
intersection. Attachment 8 includes estimates of the peak hour traffic as a result of this alternative and level of
service worksheets. Also included are planning area dwelling unit amounts for each of the reduced project
alternatives and elementary and middle school estimates for the master plan.
Cc: Barbara Kennedy
Jeremy Riddle
Bob Johnson
Don Mitchell
Ken Cablay
Paul Klukas
Tim Gnibus
Gary Kruger
3
ATTACHMENT 1
Attachment 2
Street Segment Class. Existing ADT
Edinburgh Drive
Tamarack Avenue to Glasgow Drive Local 1,455 (73%)
Glasgow Drive to Mid-Point Local 1,200 (60%)
Glasgow Drive
Carlsbad Vi11age Drive to Edinburgh Drive Coll. 3,995 (40%)
Edinburgh Drive to Kirkwall A venue Local 415 (21%)
Kirkwa\1 Avenue to South End Local 900 (45%)
Kirkwall Avenue
Tamarack Avenue to Glasgow Drive Local 530 (27%)
Class. = Roadway Classification Per City of Carlsbad Street Design Criteria Table A
Coll. = Collector (2,000 to I 0,000 ADT Design ADT at LOS C}.
Local = Local 40 ft. (20 to 2,000 ADT Design ADT at LOS C).
Attachment 3 Attachment 4
Alternative 1
Circuitous
Master Plan Routing Only
1,383 DU 1,122 DU
1,479 (74%) 1,515 (76%)
1,858 (95%) *1,523 (76%)
4,769 (48%) 4,486 (45%)
1,407 (70%) 914 (46%)
1,977 (99%) *1,478 (74%)
580 (29%) 558 (28%)
Attachment 5 Attachment 6
Alternative 2 Alternative 3
Gates PA-9 & PA-10
Circuitous Routing Plus Elementary Gate @
Local Street Connection Glasgow/ Collector
@Tamarack Connection @Tamarack
1,122 DU 1,122 DU
1,527 (76%) 1,616 (81%)
1,387 (69%) 1,381 (69%)
4,221 (42%) 4,293 (43%)
737 (37%) 415 (21%)
1,273 (64%) 900 (45%)
530 (27%) 530 (27%)
09/12/06
* = At 1,154 DU with no school in the East Village, there are 609 DU in the West Village that could affect Colony streets, fewer than the 626 DU with 1,122 DU plus the school. Therefore. the ADT
on these links would be approximately 3 to 5% less with the 1,154 DU alternatives (1,523 ADT vs. 1,469 ADT) & (1,478 ADT vs. 1.398 ADn.
3101-ATT-JD.wpd
~~ ;; fl
l~
il:: li-" ~ ~
~ ~ §
if
~ §
~
"'"' ~ :l -'"' ~ ~ .,. '"' .. 0 ~ ~--"' -"' ~ <:) -
<:) :?
"' f>
Brian Milich
The Corley McMillin Companies
LEGEND
ATTACHMENT 2
Existing Average Daily Traffic
Without Robertsons Ranch
Hope Elementary ~
School~
• = Traffic Circle
Urban Systems Associates, Inc.
September 6, 2006
Ca/averaH/1/s ~
Middle School ~
Brian Milich Urban Systems Associates, Inc.
The Corley McMi/lin Companies September 6, 2006
ATTACHMENT 3 Page 1 of6
Master Plan 1,383 Dwelling Units
Resulting Average Daily Traffic
Hope Elemeniary ~
School~
1,309EX
120ES
50P -........__~~..,.__._'\
1,479ADT "-.
701EX ~ 137MS
103ES
259WV
68CT
_!liP
1,407 ADT
• = Traffic Circle
EX = Existing With Diversion
· MS = Middle School
ES = Elementary School
WV = West Village Through Trips
CT = Cut Through
P =Parle
3.696EX
228MS
120ES
431WV
113 CT
CalavoraHills~
Mirldle School ~
282P
4,789ADT
1,320 EX
91MS
t~ 137ES
172WV
46CT
~p
1,868ADT
NOTE
No Reduction Due To
Circuitous Route
Brian Milich
The Corky McMil/in Companies Urban Systems Associates, Inc.
September 6, 2006
ATTACHMENT 3 Page2 of6
Existing Average Daily Traffic
With 10% Diverted To/ From The South
Hope ElemenJtuy ~
School~
328
(Diverted Traffic at :l
South End) ..±...iQ
513
416
-42 tlll 701
PA-3
3,996
:..AQQ
3,695
PA-7 PA-11
LEGEND
e = Traffic Circle
3101.~nlsJ(.dwg
---
NOTE
No Reduction Due To
Circuitous Route
Calavera Hills ~
Middle School ~
(Diverted Traffic at
South End)
Brian Milich Urban Systems Associate:;, Inc.
The Corky McMillin Companie., September 6, 2006
F.leme
Area Students
3,5,6 37
7,S 53
9,10 22
Total 112
Note:
ATTACHMENT 3
Elementary School & Middle School Trips
West Village Only
Page 3 of6 ·
Hope El•~ m 448ES
Ca/avera Hill, ~
Middle School ~
228MS(. )
44S 57
~-~-c.-i'J!, ... 6.
( 228MS
t 228MS
...12.QES
348ADT
Elemenlaly school split 60/40 to Glasgow/Edinburgh
at subdivision boundary.
PA-3 PA-7
106ES
LEGEND
• = Traffic Circle
MS = Middle School Trips
ES = Elementary School Trips
;.
!
PA-11
NOTE
No Reduction Due To
Circuitous Route
Brian Milich Urban Systems Associates, Inc.
The Corky McMillin Companies September 6, 2006
ATTACHMENT 3 Page4of6
West Village Short Term Project Trips (Shopping, Work, Recreation)
PA
PA-3
PA-5
PA-8
PA-7
PA-8
PA-9
PA-10
PA-11
Total
Excluding School Trips
DU
82
25
81
201
195
45
55
884
Rate
10/DU
10/DU
10/DU
8/DU
8/DU
10/DU
10/DU
HopeE/"'1Wttaly ~
School~
ADT
820
250
810
1,208
1,170
450
550
2,800
7,858
-School 878
Extern& 7,180
8%• 431
••To 01asgow
And Edinburgh
LEGEND NOTE
• = Traffic Circle No Reduction Due To
Circuitous Route
~
882
CE)
\ 431
Calavera Hills ~
Mtddle School ~
Brian Milich
The Corky McM/1/in Companies
ATIACHMENT3
Cut Through Traffic
Hop,EI"": m
Note:
The WB delay at TamarackAvenue and
El Camino Real occurs only during the
AM Peak Hour. Therefore, cut-through
trqffic is assumed as a portion of AM
Peak How-WBj/ow. Future WB approach
volume is 565 VPH Assume 20%
cut-through trqffic to Glasg<JW I Edinburgh.
PA-7
LEGEND N01E
• = Traffic Circle No Reduction Due To
Circuitous Route
• l)t•
Urban Systems Associates, Inc.
September 6, 2006
Page 5 of6
CaiaveraHi/ls ~
M"uldle School ~
Brian Milich
The Corley McMillin Companies
ATTACHMENT 3
Park Trips From West Village
Hop, Elementary ~
School~
Note:
Park Trips
664 DU
x.25
166
x2
332 ADT
Park vehicle trips are assumed
to occur from 25% of the total homes
In the West Village, with each trip
to the park assumed to return to
the home by the same route.
LEGEND
• = Traffic Circle
;,
PA-7 _, PA-11
-.J-.i=-: ~
100 "'
NOTE
No Reduction Due To
Circuitous Route
Urban Systems Associates, Inc.
September 6, 2006
Page6 of6
Calavera Hills ~
Middle School ~
Brian Milich Urban Systems Associates, Inc.
The Corley McMillin Companies September 6, 2006
ATTACHMENT4 Page I of6
Alternative 1 Circuitous Routing Only
Resulting Average Daily Traffic
REDUCTION TO 1,122 DU
Hope Elementary ~
School~
3,795 EX 96MS 92ES
224WV
62CT ___gm p
4,486ADT
f'
PA-7 iii PA-11
LEGEND
e = Traffic Circle
EX = Existing With Diversion
MS = Middle School
ES = Elementary School
WV = West Village Through Trips
CT = Cut Through
P =Park
NOTE
All School Traffic
To/ From The North
Calavera Hills ~
MiddleSchool ~
1,067EX
57MS
lrcultous Routing Only
Brian Milich Urban Systems Associates, Inc.
The Corky McMillin Companies September 6, 2006
ATTACHMENT 4 Page 2 of6
Existing Average Daily Traffic
With 5% Diverted To / From The South
LEGEND
Hope Elementary t888'.8J
School~
415
-21 + 184
558
PA-7 . PA-11 .,
~-
• = Traffic Circle
3101-AIIKllnla~
Ca/avera Hills t888'.8J
Middl• School~
(Diverted Colony
Traffic at South End)
Brian Milich
The Gorky McMl/lin Companies Urban Systems Associates, Inc,
September 6, 2006
ATTACHMENT4 Page3of6
Alternative I Circuitous Routing Only
Elementary School & Middle School Trips -West Village Only
REDUCTION TO 1,122 DU
Area Studems
3,5,6 27 14
7,8 45 23
9,10 11 6
· Total 83 332 43
Note:
Elementary school split 60/40 to G/asguw/Ed/nl,urgh
at subdivision boundary.
With an elementary school assumed m the East
Village, elemeniary school trips.from the Wut
Village would not use Colony streets. However, Iarknll Ava.
all school trips haw bun assigned to and.from
the norlh to be conservative in this evaluation.
PA-3 PA-7
LEGEND
e = Traffic Circle
77MS 149ES
(45% Diverteq)
MS = Middle School Trips
ES = Elementmy School Trips
;.,
PA-11
Calavera Hills ~
Middle SchtJol ~
172MS(.
96MS
Brian Milich Urban Systems Associates, Inc.
The Corky McMi/lin Companies September 6, 2006
AITACHMENT4 Page4of6
Alternative 1 Circuitous Routing Only
West Village Short Term Project Trips (Shopping, Work, Recreation)
Excluding School Trips
PA
PA-3
PA-5
PA-8
PA-7"
PA-7
PA-8
PA-9
PA-10
PA-11
Total
REDUCTION TO 1,122 DU
DU
82
26
61
106
96
186
34
37
626
Hope Elementary ~
School~
Rate ADT
10/DU 820
10/DU 250 C§:>t 10/DU 610
4/DU 420 691
6/DU 576
6/DU 1,116
10/DU 340
10/DU 370
2,800
7,302
-School 504
External 6,798
6%• 408
••To Glasgow
And Edinburgh
* Includes 105 Senior Housing
DUand96MFDU
t' PA-7 PA-11
LEGEND
• = Traffic Circle
@
815
CalaveraHi//s~
Middle School ~
6% minus 4S% diversion -3.3%
Brian Milich Urban Systems Associates, Inc.
The Corky McMillin Companies September 6, 2006
ATTACHMENT 4
. Alternative 1 Circuitous Routing Only
Cut Through Traffic
REDUCTION TO 1,122 DU
Page 5of6
Hope E/,m,ntary ~
School~
Calavera Hills ~
Middle School ~
Note:
The WB delay at TamarackAvenue and
El Camino Real occurs only during the
AM Peak Hour. Therefore, cut-through
trqffu: is assumed as a portion of AM
PeakHourWBjlow. Future WE approach
volume is 565 VPH. Assume 20%
cut-through trqffic to Glasgow I Edinburgh
without circuitous routing, but reduces from
20% to I 1% with circuitous routing.
LEGEND
e = Traffic Circle
31Df-Atlaclmtds..J(.dwg
PA-3
P/>,-7 _. PA-11 ..
Brian Milich
The Corky McMillin Companies Urban Systems Associates, Inc.
September 6, 2006
ATTACHMENT 4
Alternative 1 Circuitous Routing Only
Park Trips From West Village
REDUCTION TO 1,122 DU
Page 6of6
Hope Elementary ~
School~
Calavua Hills~
Middle School ~
Note:
Park Trips
626 DU
x.25
157
x2
314ADT
Parkveluc/e trips are assumed
to occur from 25% of the total homes
in the West Village, with each trip
to the park assumed to return to
the home by the same route, with
45% reduction on Colony streets
due to circuitous routing.
LEGEND
@)
Plus 45% reduction on
colony streets.
• = Traffic Circle
• ~-
Brian Milich
The Corley McMillin Companies Urban Systems -Associates, Inc.
September 6, 2006
ATTACHMENTS Page I of6
Alternative 2 Circuitous Routing Tamarack Connection Local
Resulting Average Daily Traffic
REDUCTION TO 1,122 DU
668EX
29MS 28ES
87WV
18 CT
Hope El1t111<nklly ~
School~
1,382EX
18ES
127P ~
1,627 ADT "-..
rff~T J'Qrkwall Ave.
Add 2-Lane
Local Roadway
LEGEND
e = Traffic Circle
PA-3
EX = Existing With Diversion
MS = Middle School
ES = Elementmy School
WV = West Village Through Trips
CT = Cut Through
p =Parl<:
~
NOTE
I)<•
3,796EX
48MS
47ES
112WV
31CT
_JUP
4,221ADT
All School Traffic
To/ From The North
Ca!av,ra Hills ~
Middle School ~
1,087EX
Brian Milich
The Corley McMil/in Companies Urban Systems Associates, Inc.
September 6, 2006
ATTACHMENT 5 Page2 of6
Existing Average Daily Traffic
With 5% Diverted To / From The South
LEGEND
Hope Elementary ~
School~
415
• 21 ±..JM-------..... 658 '-....
• = Traffic Circle
PA-11
3,995
::....2.QQ.
3,796
.~·
Calavera Hills ~
Middle School ~
Brian Milich
The Cprky McMillin CPmpanies
Urban Systems Associates, Inc.
September 6, 2006
ATTACHMENT 5 Page3 of6
Alternative 2 Circuitous Routing Tamarack Connection Local
Elementary School & Middle School Trips -West Village Only
REDUCTION TO 1,122 DU
Hope Elan= ffl 332 ES
)
Area Stadeam
3.5.6 14
7,8 45 23
9,10 II 6
Total 83 43 ~~~-~~~-~~-~ 124MS
Nou: 287ES
ElemenJary school spill 60/40 to Glasgow/Edinburgh
at subdivision boundary.
With an elementary school assumed in the East
Village, ,lemmta,y schoal tripsfrom the West
Village would not use colony streets. However,
all school trips have been assigned to and from
the north to be conservaliVe in this evaluation.
With Tamarack connectivity. assume 50¼ of
school trips rtmaining on ColonJI strew will
use Tamarack connection after 45% diversion
due to circuitollS rtJUtinK.
Add 2-Lane
Local Roadway
PA-7 f"
38MS
74ES j
LEGEND
e = Traffic Circle
MS = Middle School Trips
ES = Elementary School Trips
3101-Atlachmwa.J(.dwg
PA-11
• \)t•
Ca/avua Hills ~
MlddleSchoal~
172MSr.
Brian Milich
The Corley McMillin Companies Urban Systems Associates, Inc.
September 6, 2006
ATTACHMENTS Page4of6
Alternative 2 Circuitous Routing Tamarack Connection Local
West Village Short Term Project Tnps (Shopping, Work, Recreation)
Excluding School Trips
PA
PA-3
PA-6
PA-6
PA-7'"
PA-7
PA-8
PA-9
PA-10
PA-11
Total
REDUCTION TO 1,122 DU
DU Rate
82 10/DU
25 10/DU
Hope Ele=ntary ~
School~
ADT
820
250
@0
815
Ca/avera Hills ~
Middle School ~
@5)'
81 10/DU 810 \ 112 105 4/DU 420 Note: 98 8/DU 578
188 8/DU 1,118
34 10/DU 340
37 10/DU 370
2,800
828 7,302
-School 604
External 8,798
8%• 408
• • To Glasgow
And Edinburgh
;,
PA 7 PA-11
"""'-==;;;;:;;\-=:;,~ '=~~ ...
352 .I
:I
LEGEND
e = Traffic Circle
)101-Allach~
Assumes one half of 3.3%
diverted to Tamarack connection
Brian Milich Urban Systems ,Associates, Inc.
The Corig, McMillin Companies September 6, 2006
ATTACHMENT 5 Pages of6
Alternative 2 Circuitous Routing Tamarack Connection Local
Cut Through Traffic
REDUCTION TO 1,122 DU
Note:
Hope E/em,nJQ,y ~
School~
The WB delay at Tamarack Avem,e and
El Camino Real occurs only during the
AM Peak Hour. Therefore, cut-through
trqffic is assumed as a portion of AM
Peak Hour WB jluw. Future WB approach
volume is 565 VPH. Assume 20%
cut-through trqffic 10 Glasguw I Edinburgh
without circuitous routing, but reduces from
20% to 11% with circuitous routing, and to
5.5% with Tamarack connection.
;.
PA-7 ;j PA-11
Add 2-Lane
Local Roadway
LEGEND
• = Traffic Circle
3101-AtlaGhmanls.J(.dwg
--
Calaw,ra Ht/ls ~
Middle School ~
Brian Milich
The Corky McMil/in Companies
Urban Systems Associates, Inc.
September 6, 2006
ATTACHMENT 5 Page 6 of6
Alternative 2 Circuitous Routing Tamarack Connection Local
Park Trips From West Village
REDUCTION TO 1,122 DU
Hope Elementary ~
School~
Note:
Park Trips
626 DU
x.25
157
x2
lliADT
Park vehicle trips are assumed
Klrknll Ave.
to occur from 25% of the total homes
in the West Village, with each trip
to the park assumed to return to
the home by the same route, with
45% reduction on Colony streets
due to circuitous routing, and 50%
reduction with Tamarack connection.
LEGEND
e = Traffic Circle
'II'·
Calavera Hills ~
MiddisSchool~
Brian Milich Urban Systems Associates, Inc.
The Corky McMil/in Companies September 6, 2006
ATTACHMENT 6 Page I of6
Alternative 3 Gates With Tamarack Connection Collector
Resulting Average Daily Traffic
REDUCTION TO 1.122 DU
Add 2-Lane
Collector
LEGEND
Hope El,mtntary. ~
School~
1,466EX
22ES
139 P ~
1,816ADT "-
Emergency
Acceaa Only
e = Traffic Circle
EX = Existing Wrth Diversion
MS = Middle School
ES = Elementmy School
WV = West Village Through Trips
P =Park
3101-Attadlmenlu(.6,¥g
NOIB
3,996EX
24MS
22ES nwv
__JZ§.P
4,293ADT
CalaveraHi/1, ~
Miiltlle School ~
1,200EX 416EX 24MS
44ES
77WV __np
1,381 ADT
All School '.Iraffic
To I From The North
Brian Milich
The Corley McMfllin Companies
Urban Systems Associates, Inc.
September 6, 2006
ATIACHMENT6 Page2of6
Alternative 3 Gates With Tamarack Connection Collector
No Existing Traffic Diverted To / From The South
REDUCTION TO 1,122 DU
LEGEND
Hope Elemenlary ~
School~
r PA-7 iii PA-11 -.,.._-~V
e = Traffic Circle
EX = Existing With Diversion
3101~
3,995EX
Calavsra HIiis ~
Middle School ~
k
Gate l
Brian Milich Urban Systems Associates, Inc.
The Corky McMil/in Companies September 6, 2006
Arn
9,10
ATTACHMENT 6 Page 3 of6
Alternative 3 Gates With Tamarack Connection Collector
Elementary & Middle School Trips P A-9 & 10 Only
REDUCTION TO 1.122 DU
Hope Elementary ~
School~
Stadr:atTri Generation
F.lcmellUI School Middle Sehool
Students T · Stwlcnts Tri
II 44 6 24 22ES
Calrnera Hllls ~
Middle School ~
24MS
22ES
24MS
~44ES
• '
Add 2-Lane CoUector
LEGEND
• = Traffic Circle
MS = Middle School
ES = Elementacy School
r PA-7 _, PA-11 .,
NOTE
All School Traffic
To I From The No.r1li.
Brian Milich Urban Systems Associates, Inc.
The Corky McMillin Companies September 6, 2006
ATTACHMENT6 Page4of6
Alternative 3 Gates With Tamarack Connection Collector
West Village PA-9 & 10 Project Trips (Shopping, Work, Recreation)
Excluding School Trips
REDUCTION TO 1,122 DU
Hope Elementary ~
School~
PA ADT
PA-9 340
PA-10 370
Total 710
-School 68
Exter 642
12"1.• 77
• • To/From North
Note:
WilhouJ gates, 6% used
Tamarack, 6% used G/a,gow
and Edtngw-gh: but gai<s
restrict PA-9 and PA-JO to
Edinburgh so 12% use
Edinburgh.
Add 2-Lane
Collector
LEGEND
Emergency
Access Only
e = Traffic Circle
WV = West Village Through Trips
3101~
;.
PA-7 -' PA-11 .,
NOTE
77WV
All School Traffic
To I From The North
• l)<•
Calovera Hills ~-
Mlddle School~-
Brian Milich
The Corley McMillin Companies
Urban Systems Associates, Inc.
September 6, 2006
ATTACHMENT6 Page5of6
Alternative 3 Gates With Tamarack Connection Collector
Cut Through Traffic
REDUCTION TO 1,122 DU
Hope Elementary ~
School~
Note:
No cut through traffic diverted from El
Camino Real I Tamarack Avenue intersection
since gates prevent through traffic.
PA-3
LEGEND
e = Traffic Circle
;.
PA-7 ;,i PA-11
•
Gate
CakmraHll/s ~
Mllidle School ~
Brian Milich Urban Systems Associates, Inc.
The Gorky McMillin Companies September 6, 2006
ATTACHMENT6 Page6of6
Alternative 3 Gates With Tamarack Connection Collector
Park Trips From PA-9 & 10 Only
REDUCTION TO 1,122 DU
Add 2-Lane
CoU ctor
LEGEND
HopeE/em,nJary ~
School~
Park Trips
PA-9&10
71 DU
x.25
18
x2
MADT
Emergency
Access Orily ~
PA-3 j,, PA-7 _, PA-11
~-,::,:,::~ .,
• = Traffic Circle
P =Parle
i° = Other Park Trips Not From PA-9 & lO ••• ,._
• l)t•
Gate
CalaYeraHIII, @QSJ
Mltldl• School ~
Brian Milich Urban Systems Associates, Inc._
September 6, 2006 The Corley McMl/ltn Companies
'• .
ATTACHMENT 7
Traffic Signal Warrants
Tamarack Avenue at RR Collector
MUTCD 2003 California Supplement Page 4C-B
--:. May 20, 2004
Table 4C-101. Traffic Signal Warrants Worksheet
(Average Traffic Estimate Form)
03ased on Estiinated Average Dally Traffic -See Note) .
URBAN RURAL · 4o+1fPH Minimum R11ctulremert!s
EADT
1. Minimum Vehlcule1r Tam.Bl'!lCk Avenue RR Collector
Sotlsfle., Not Sofisfied X Vohlclae par day on Vahlclas r,•r dcy on mcjcr otreat (total of hlghor-vo ume minor both approcohes) rrtroat "Jll:roaoh )one
Number of lanes for moving traffic_ on ocoh
dlro on only
13,000ADT l,!SOADT approach
Url?an Rural Urban Rural
Major Streat Minor Streat 8,000 5,600 2,40Q 1,680
1 , 9,600 IB,7201 2,400 11,6B01
@)or mere . .0 9,600 6,720 3,200 2,240
2 or mor-2 or mare 8,000 5,600 3,200 2,2'40
1 2 or mo,
2, lnteruptlon of Continuous T.rafflc Vohloles par day on Vohloles r.•r day on
major rrtroot (total of hlghor-vo uma minor
X Not Sotlsfle.,
both approaches) streat approach ~ one
Satisfied direction only
Number of lanss for moving traffic on each l,lSOADT
,approach Urban Rural Urban Rural
Major street Minor stroat 12,000· 8,-4-00 1,200 850
1 1 14,400 j10,oao1 1,200 ~
@or mer ... G) 14,400 10,080 1,600 1,120
2 or more 2 or mor-" 12,000 8,400. 1,600 1,120
1 2 or mo,
3, C~mblnctlon
SctisfleA Not Satisfied 2 Warrants 2 Warrants
Na one warrant satlsfled1 but fol\~wtng warrants
fulfilled BO" or more 68% lOO°lci
1 2
Noto• To be uaed only for NEW INTERSECTIONS or other location• where It Is not reasonable to
oount actual traffic volumes
Brian Milich Urban Systems Associates, Inc.
The cdrlcy McMll/in Companies September 6, 2006
ATTACHMENT 8
AM I PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
Tamarack A venue / El Camino Real With & Without RR Collector
8 ,...._
I() t--
"',...._ /WtthRRCollector ~ I() .__, 0
og.::::, l '-so (100)
~ ~ ~ ll +-240 (2ss)
) + " ! ~2:;:.os)
165J
360 (385)---
465 (440)~
-+-590
r31s
~(
0 l!) oo-
"'
Note, Approved Volumes With Revised Volumes in Parenthesis
,...._
0
I(),,.... :: g /With.RR Collector
.__, ~ /
o ~:; l '._75 (125) .
~;:: :'.; ~ -245 (270)
) + ~ ! £,~::~so)
11sJ
240 (215)---
275 (300)""\
-570
r31s
Note, Use 50% of Volumes on Collector for Local Street Volumes
SHORT REPORT
General Information Site Information
Intersection EL CAMINO REAL @
,nalyst USA/ TAMARACK AVE. ~9 ,gency or Co. USA/ ~rea Type All other areas ~~~ Date Performed 07115/05 Jurisdiction CARLSBAD
"Ima Period 2030AMPEAK ~alysls Year YEAR 2030 WTTH
PROJIWITH MIT
Volume and Timina lnout
EB WB NB SB
LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT
~um. of Lanes 1 1 1 1 2 0 1 3 1 1 3 0
_ane group L T R L LTR L T R L TR
olume <voh 165 360 465 325 240 50 350 1515 175 50 1730 140
% Heavv veh 2 2 2 2 2 2. 2 2 2 2 2 2
JHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
o.ctuated (P/A\ A A A A A A A A A A A A
Rtartuo lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 20 2.0 2.0 2.0
Ext. eff. •reen 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 20 2.0 2.0
Anivaltvoe 3 5 5 3 5 3 5 5 3 5
Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Oed/Blke/RTOR Volume 10 250 10 0 50 10 0 0 10 0 140
Lane Width 12.0· 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N
Parking/hr
Bus stopa/hr o 0 0 0 ·o 0 0 0 o 0
Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3,0 3.0 3.0 3.0
0hasin• EB Only WBOn"1 03 04 Exel. Left NB Onlv Thru & RT 08
nm1J1g · G= 26.0 G = 16.0 G= G= G = 20.0 G= 1.0 G = 42.0 G=
Y= 5 Y• 5 Y= Y= Y= 5 Y= 5 Y= 5 Y=
Duration ·of Anal"cis-ihrs = 0.25 "'cle Len,..,.h C = 130.0
Lane Grouo Caoacitv. Control Dela• , and LOS Determination
EB WB . NB SB
Adj. flow rate 174 379 226 181 414 368 1595 184 53 1B21
Lane group cap. 354 392 560 218 451 373 1972 768 272 1726
lv/c ratio 0.49 0.97 0.40 0.83 0.92 0.99 0.81 0.24 0.19 1.06
Green ratio 0.20 0.20 0.35 0.12 0.12 0.20 0.37 0.49 0.15 0.32
Unlf. delay d1 46.1 51.6 31.7 55.7 · 56.4 51.8 36.9 19.0 48.0 44.0
Delay factor k 0.11 0.47 0.11 0.37 0.44 0.49 0.35 0.11 0.11 0.50
lncrem. delay d2 1.1 36.7 0.5 22.9 23.7 26.1 1.1 0.1 0.3 35.8 ·
PF factor 1.000 0.833 0.635 1.000 0.906 1.000 0.610 0.354 1.000 0.682
. Control delay 47.2 79.7 · 20.6 78.5 74.8 77.9 23.6 6.8 48.3 65.li
Lane group LOS D E C E E E C A D E
Apprch. delay 55.3 75.9 31.4 65.3
~pproach LOS E E C E
lntersec. delay 51.6 Intersection LOS D
HCS2000™ Ccprri5h1 c;, 2000 Unh-cnity 0fFlotid11., All Ri5hb R,Qcrvcd Version 4.l~
fil e://C: \Documents%20and%20 S ettings\administrator\Local %20 Settings\Tem p \s2kA8. tmp 7/16/2005
SHORT REPORT '
General lnfonnation LSite Information
Intersection EL CAMINO REAL @
i.,1,,0 Analyst USA/ TAMARACK AVE.
Agency or Co. USA/ 11.raa Type All other areas ~\ Date Performed 07/19/06 Jurtsdlotion CARLSBAD
nme Period 2030AMPEAK 11.na lysls Year WITH COLLECTOR@ 1122
D.U.
Volume and Timina lnout
EB WB NB SB
LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT
Num. of Lanes 1 1 1 1 2 0 1 3 1 1 3 0
Lane group L T R L LTR L T R L TR
\/olume (voh) 165 385 440 305 265 100 325 1450 175 105 1575 140
% Heamrveh 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
DHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
"'ctuated IP/A\ A A A A A A A A A A A A
Startun lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Ext. eff. araen 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
;"•rival tvoe 3 5 5 3 5 3 5 5 3 5
Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Ped/Blke/RTOR Volume 10 250 10 0 100 10 0 0 10 0 140
Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N
Parking/hr
Bus stops/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 '3,0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Phaslno EBOnlv WB Onlv 03 04 Exel. Left NB On1v Thru & RT 08
7ming G= 28.0 G = 16.0 G= G= G = 19.0 G = 1.0 G = 41.0 G=
Y= 5 Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= 5 Y• 5 Y= 5 Y=
Duration of Anatvsis /hrs = 0.25 Cvcle Len-C = 130.0
Lane Grouo Caoacitv. Control Dela· and LOS Determination
EB WB NB SB
~dj. flow rate 174 405 200 180 420 342 1526 184 111 1763
Lane group cap. 3B1 422 572 218 452 358 1931 756 259 1684
kr/c ratio 0.4.6 0.96 0.35 0.B3 0.93 0.96 0.79 0.24 0.43 1.05
Green ratio 0.22 0.22 0.36 0.12 0.12 0.19 0.36 0.48 0.16 0.32
Unif. delay d1 44.4 50.4 30.3 55.6 56.4 51.9 37.1 19.6 50.6 44.5
Delay factor k 0.11 0.47 0.11 0.36 0.44 0.47 0.34 0.11 0.11 0.50
lncrem. delay d2 0.9 33.5 0.4 22.2 25.7 20.0 0.9 0.1 0.9 33.2
PF factor 1.000 0.817 0.622 1.000 0.906 1.000 0.622 0.373 1.000 0.693
Control delay 45.3 74.7 19.3 77.8 76.9 72.0 24.0 7.4 51.5 64.1
Lane group LOS D E B E E E C A D E
~pprch. delay 53.9 77.2 30.5 63,3
Approach LOS D E C E
lntersec. delay 50.8 Intersection LOS D
HCS1000™ Copyright Cl 2000 University of:Florid11 AJl rushts Reserved Version 4.lf
file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\SKab\Local%20Settings\Temp\s2.k290.tmp 7119/2006
--c:,• ..•....
SHORT REPORT
General lnfonnation site lnfonnatlon
Intersection EL CAMINO REAL @ .,;,rJJ ll.nalyst USA/ TAMARACK AVE.
~ency or Co. USA/ ~rea Type All other areas \\,.\~q,,
Date P arformed 07/16/05 Jurisdiction CARLSBAD
nme Period 2030PMPEAK ~nalysis Year YEAR 2030 WITH PROJIW
MITJGAT
Volume and T-imina Jnout
EB WB NB . . SB -....
LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT
Num. of Lanes 1 1 1 1 2 0 1 3 1 1 . 3 0
Lane group L T R L LTR L T R L TR
Volume (voh) 115 215 300 270 245 75 525 1355 335 135 1205 200
% Heavvveh 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Actuated (PIA) A A A A A A A A A A A A
Startuo lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2,0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Ext eff. areen 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Arrival tvoe 3 5 5 3 5 3 5 5 3 5
Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Ped/Blke/RTOR Volume 10 260 10 0 0 10 0 0 10 0 100
Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
"arldng/Grade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N
Parking/hr
Bus stops/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3,0 3.0 3.0
Phasinn EBOnlv WBOmv 03 04 Exel. Left NB Oniy Thru & RT OB
'imlng G = 19.0 G = 18.0 G= G= G = 15.0 G = 20.0 G = 33.0 G=
Y• 5 Y= 5 y .. Y= Y= 5 Y= 5 Y= 5 Y=
Duration of Analvsls fhrs = 0.25 :vela Lanm "C= 130,0
Lane Grouo Caoacitv. Control Dela• and LOS Determination
EB WB NB SB
Adj. flow rate 121 22B 42 170 451 553 1426 353 142 1373
Lene group cap. 259 287 414 245 495 573 2383 B92 204 1339
v/c ratio 0.47 0.79 0.10 0.69. 0.91 0.97 0,80 0.51 0,70 1.03
Green ratio 0.15 0.15 0.26 0.14 0.14 0,31 0.45 0.45 0.12 0.25
Unlf. delay d1 50.9 53.6 36.4 53.4 55,2 44.3 27.Z 25.B 55.3 48,5
Delay factor k 0.11 0.33 0.11 0.26 0.43 0.47 0.19 0.12 0.26 0.50
lncrem. delay d2 1.3 13.6 0.1 8.2 21.0 25,2 0.3 0.5 8.0 28,7
PF factor 1.000 0.886 0.764 1.000 0.893 1.000 -0.463 0.463 1,000 0.773
Control delay 52.2 B1.0 27.9 B1.6 70.3 69.5 12.9 12.5 63.3 6B.2
Lana group LOS D E C E E E B B E E
~pprch. delay 54.7 67,9 26.3 65,9
~pproach LOS D E C E
lntersec. delay 46,3 Intersection LOS D
Ccpyri3ht C, 2000 Univcr-.itJ• cfFlc;iridc, All Righi.I Reserved Version 4,Ja
file://C:IDocuments%2Dand%20Settings\administrator\Local%2DSettings\Temp\s2kFD.tmp 7/16/2005
SHORT REPORT
General lnfonnation Site lnfonnation
Intersection EL CAMINO REAL @
• .,1,,.() ~nalyst USA/ TAMARACK AVE'.
!'¼lency or Co. USA/ ~rea Type All other areas \-~ ..
Date Performed 07/19/06 Jurisdiction CARLSBAD
Time Period 2030PMPEAK ~nalysis Year WITH COLLECTOR@ 1122
D.U.
Volume and Timina lnout
EB WB NB· SB
LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT
~um. of Lanes 1 1 1 1 2 0 1 3 1 1 3 o
.ane group L T R L LTR L T R L TR
lolume <voh\ 115 240 275 250 270 125 500 1305 315 190 1150 200
% Heavv veh 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Actuated IP/A) A A A A A A A A A A A A
startuo lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Ext. eff. areen 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Arrival tvoe 3 5 5 3 5 3 5 5 3 5
Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 10 21>0 10 0 50 10 0 0 10 0 100
Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
0arking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N
'arking/hr
Bus stops/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Unit Extension 3.0 3,0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
>hasina EB Onlv WB Onlv 03 04 Exel. Left NBOnlv Thru & RT 08
Timing G = 19.0 G = 18.0 G= G= G= 17.0 G = 18.0 G = 33.0 G=
Y= 5 Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= 5 Y= 5 Y= 5 Y=
Duration of Analvsis /hrs = 0.25 ::Vele Lenoth C = 130.0
Lane Grouc Cacacitv. Control Dela• and LOS Determination
EB WB NB SB
11.dj. flow rate 121 253 16 210 416 526 1374 332 200 1316
Lane group cap. 259 2fJ7 438 245 497 573 2301 669 231 1338
~le ratio 0.47 0.88 0.04 0.86 0.84 0.92 0.60 0.50 0.67 0.98
Green ratio 0.15 0.15 0.28 0.14 0.14 0.31 0.43 0.43 0.13 0.25
Unlf. delay d 1 50.9 54.4 34.3 54.7 54.6 43.4 2B.4 26.8 55.4 48.2
Delay factor k 0.11 0.41 0.11 0.39 0.37 0.44 0.19 0.11 0.40 0.49
lncrem. delay d2 1.3 25.7 o.o 24.7 11.9 16.8 0.3 0.5 23.0 18.2
PF factor 1.000 0.886 0.745 1.000 O.B93 1.000 0.495 0.495 1.000 0.773
Control delay 52.2 73.9 25.6 79.5 60.7 60.3 14.4 13.7 78.4 55.5
Lane group LOS D E C E E E B B ·E E
~pprch. delay 65.2 67.0 25.1 58.5
~pproach LOS E E C E
,lntersec. delay 44.5 Intersection LOS D
11cs2000™ Copyriahl Cl 2000 UnfVcrsity of Florida, All Righl.s Reserved Version 4.lf
file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\SKab\Local%20Settings\Temp\s2k2AF.tmp 7/19/2006
SHORT REPORT
General Information ,ojte lnfonnation
Intersection TAMARACK AVE.@RR
-06,) P.nalyst USA/ COLECTOR
~gency or Co. USA/ P.rea Type All other areas
Dale Performed 07/19/06 Junsdiction CARLSBAD
'ime Period 2030AMPEAK l\nalysls Year WITH COLLECTOR@ 1122
D.U.
Volume and T:imina lnout
EB WB ' NB SB
LT 71-l RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT
Num. of Lanes 0 2 0 1 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0
Lane group TR L T L R
!Volume lvnh\ 570 75 315 590 BO 315
% Heawveh 0 0 0 0 0 0
PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
•ctuated IP/A) A A A A A A
Startun lost 1ime 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Ex!. eff. areen 2.0 2.0 2.0 · 2.0 2.0
4 •rival tvpe 4 4 4 4 4
Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Ped/Blke/RTOR Volume 0 0 0 75 0
Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N N
0arking/hr
Bus stops/hr . 0 0 0 0 0
lnlt Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Phaslna WB Onlv Thru & RT 03 04 NB Onlv 06 07 08
Timlng G= 23.0 G= 45.0 G= G= G • 22.0 G-G• G=
Y= 5 Y= 5 Y= Y= y = 5 Y= Y= Y=
nuration of Analvsls (hrs = 0.25 'ucle Lenath C = 105.0
Lane Grouo Caoacit . Control Dela• and LOS Determination
EB W8 NB SB
o.dj. flow rate 679 332 621 84 253
Lane group cap. 1523 395 2515 378 338
~/c ratio 0.45 0.B4 0.25 0.22 0.75
Green ratio 0.43 0.22 0.70 0.21 0.21
Unif. delay d1 21.2 31,.2 5.9 34.4 38.9
Delay factor k 0.11 0.38 0.11 0.11 0.30
lncrem. delay d2 0.2 14.9 0.1 0.3 8.9
PF factor 0.862 1.000 0.276 1.000 1.000
Control delay 18.5 54.2 1.7 34.7 47,B
Lane group LOS B D A C D
/\pprch. delay 18.5 20.0 44.6
/\pproach LOS B B D
lntersec. delay 23.7 Intersection LOS C
HCS2f!OO™ Copyright C 2000 University of Florida, All Righls Rcsm-cd Vmion 4.lf
file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\SKab\Local%20Settings\Temp\s2k2C6.tmp 7/19/2006
SHORT REPORT
General Information SHe Information
USA/ Intersection TAMARACK AVE.@ RR
,nalyst COLECTOR ~~ ,gency or Co. USA/ Area Type All other areas
Date Performed 07119/06 Jurisdiction CARLSBAD
1rne Period 2030PMPEAK Analysis Year WITH COLLECTOR@ 1122
D.U.
Volume and Tirninn lnDut
EB WB NB SB
LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT
Num. of Lanes 0 2 0 1 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0
Lane group TR L T L R
~olume /voh 665 80 315 570 75 315
% Heavvveh 0 0 0 0 0 0
PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Actuated (P/A\ A A A A A A
Startuo lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
~vt. eff. oreen 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Arrival tvoe 4 4 4 4 4
Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Ped/Blke/RTOR Volume 0 0 0 75 0
Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N N
Parking/hr
Bus stops/hr 0 0 0 0 0
Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
"haslno WBOnlv Thru & RT 03 04 NB OnlV 06 07 08
'irning G= 23.0 G" 45.0 G= G= G = 22.0 G= G• G•
Y= 5 Y= 5 Y= y., Y= 5 Y= Y= Y=
Duration of Analvsis /hrs C 0.25 Cvcle Lennffl C = 105.0
Lane Grouo Caoaci , Control Dela~, and LOS Determination
EB WB . NB SB
Adj. flow rate 784 332 600 79 253
Lane group cap. 1525 395 2515 378 338
vie ratio 0.51 0.84 0.24 0.21 0.75
Green ratio 0.43 0.22 . 0.70 0.21 0.21
Unif. delay d1 22.0 39.2 5.8 34.3 38.!I
Delay factor k 0.12 0.3B 0.11 0.11 0.30
lncrem." delay d2 0.3 14.9 0.0 0.3 B.9
PF factor 0.862 1.000 0.276 1.000 1.000
Control delay 19.3 54.2 1.7 34.6 47.8
Lane group LOS B D A C D
Apprch. delay 19.3 20.4 44.7
Approach LOS B C D
lntersec. delay 23.9 Intersection LOS C
HCS2000™ Copyrlghl. C 2000 Univcraity ofFlorid11, All P..ighl.5 Rcsi=rvcd Version 4.lf
file://C:\Documents¾20and%20Settings\SKab\Local¾20Settings\Temp\s2k2BA.trnp 7/19/2006
SHORT REPORT
General I nfonnation Site Information
IA,nalyst USA/ Intersection TAMARACK AV.E.@RR
LOCAL f!lgency or Co. USA/ l4rea Type All other areas Date Performed 07/24/06 Jurisdiction CARLSBAD Tirne Period 2030 AM PEAK Analysis Year WITH LOCAL@ 1122 D.U.
Volume and Timino lnout
EB WB NB SB .. LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT
Nurn. of Lanes 0 2 0 1 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0
Lane group TR L T L R
volume (voh) 570 40 155 51)0 40 155
% Heawveh 0 0 0 0 0 0
PHF 0.95 0,1)5 0.1)5 0.95 0.95 0.95
~ctuated fP/A) A A A A A A
Startuo lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Ext. eff. a reen 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
~rival tvoe 4 4 4 4 4
Unit Extension 3.0 3,0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Ped/Bika/RTOR Volume 0 0 0 75 0
Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
'arking/Grade/Parklng N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N N
Partkinglhr
Bus stops/hr 0 0 0 0 0
Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3,0 3.0 3.0
Phasina W8 Onlv Thru & RT 03 04 NB Onlv 06 07 08
Tirnlng G = 23.0 G = 45.0 G= G= G = 22.0 G= G= G=
Y= 5 Y= 5 Y= y = Y= 5 Y= Y= Y=
Duration of Analvsis lhrs = 0.25 :!vela 'Lenath C m 105.0
Lane Grouo Caoaci ,. Control Dela" and LOS Determination
EB WB NB SB
l\dj. flow rate 642 163 621 42 84
Lane group cap. 1535 395 2515 378 338
iV/c ratio 0,42 0.41 0.25 0.11 0.25
Green ratio 0.43 0.22 0.70 0.21 0.21
Unlf. delay d1 20.9 35.2 5./) 33,6 34.6
Delay factor k 0, 11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11
lncrem. delay d2 0.2 0.7 0.1 0.1 0.4
PF factor 0.862 1.000 0.276 1.000 1.000
Control delay 18.2 35.9 1.7 33.7 35.0
Lane group LOS B D· A C C
Apprch. delay 18.2 8.8 34.6
~pproach LOS B A C
lntersec. delay 14.8 Intersection LOS B
HCSlOOO™ Copyrisht C 2000 University 0fFlorid1, AltRJgbts Reserved Ve:r&ion 4.1£
file://C:\Docurnentso/o20ando/o20Settings\SKab\Local%20Settings\Ternp\s2k3D5.tmp 7/24/2006
SHORT REPORT
General Information 1Slte Information
l\nalyst USA/ Intersection TAMARACK AVE.@RR
LOCAL ~ency or Co. USA/ l!.rea Type All other areas Date Performed 07/2.4/06 . Jurisdiction CARLSBAD '"ime Period 2030PMPEAK Analysis Year WITH LOCAL@ 1122 D.U.
Volume and Timing Input
EB W8 NB SB
LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT
Num. of Lanes 0 2 0 1 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0
Lane group TR L T L R
volume rvoh) 665 40 155 570 40 155
'lo Heavvvah 0 0 0 0 0 0
PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
ctuated IP/A) A A A A A A
startuo lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Ext. aff. areen 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
!Arrival type 4 4 4 4 4
Unit Extension 3,0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Pad/Blka/RTOR Volume 0 0 0 75 0
Lana Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N N
Parking/hr
Bus stops/hr 0 0 0 0 0
Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Phasina WBOnlv Thru & RT 03 04 NB Onlv 06 07 08
Timing G = 23.0 G= 45.0 G= G= G = 22.0 G= G" G=
Y= 5 Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= 5 Y= Y= Y=
Duration of Analvsis '"rs = 0.25 ""'cle Lanath C • 105.0
Lane Group Capacit . Control Delav and LOS Determination
EB WB NB SB
~dj. flow rate 742 163 BOO 42 84
Lane group cap. . 1537 3g5 2515 378 338
vie ratio 0.48 0.41 0.24 0.11 0.25
Green ratio 0.43 0.22 0.70 0,21 0.21
Unlf. delay d1 21.6 35.2 5.8 33.6 34.B
Delay factor k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11
lncrem. delay d2 0.2 0.7 0.0 0.1 0.4
PF factor 0.852 1.000 0.276 1.000 1.000
Control delay 18.9 35.9 1.7 33.7 35.0
Lane-group LOS B D A C C
~pprch. delay 18.9 9.0 34.6
~pproach LOS B A C
lntersec. delay 15.5 Intersection LOS B
Copyrlght O 2000 University ofFlorida, All rughts Reserved Version 4. lf
file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\SKab\Local%20Settings\Temp\s2k3E0.tmp 7/24/2006
o/li/o(.
ROBERTSON RANCH LAND USE. REVISED RESIDENTIAL UNIT COUNTS
MASTER PLAN LANO USE TABLE 1122 UNIT -WITH SCHOOL 1154-WITHOUT SCHOOL
Maximum
Planning Net Acres MP Units &Ulting Planning Chang!! Plannlng Change
Area (Res.) Density Muter Plan Ar .. Land Use Density Unlt, From MP ArH Land Use Density Units from MP
1 4.6 5.9 Tl 1 RM 5,9 Tl 0 1 RM 5.9 Tl 0
3 18.5 4.4 82 3 RM ... 82 0 3 RM .4.4 82 0
5 . 8.2 3.0 25 5 RLM 3.0 25 0 5 RLM 1.8 15 ·10
6 15.4 4.0 61 6 RM 4.0 61 0 8 RLM 3.9 60 ·I 7 9.6 20.9 201 7 RH 20.9 201 0 7 RH 20.9 201 0 8 9.3 Zl.O 195 8 RH 20.0 186 .9 8 RH 20.0 186 -9
9 13.7 3.3 45 • RLM 2.5 34 ·11 • RLM 2.5 34 -11
10 9A 5.9 55 10 RLM 3.9 37 -18 10 RLM 3.3 31 -24
13 6.7 20.6 138 13 SOIOOL 0.0 0 -138 13 RM 5.2 35 -103
W. Village 95.4 829 W. Village ... , W. Village 671
Reduction -176 Reduction -158
14 2.9 21.7 63 14 SCHOOL 0.0 0 .,;a 14 RM 5.9 17 -46 15 3.5 22.9 80 15 RH 22.3 78 -2 15 RH 22.3 "' -2 16 19.9 5.3 106 . 18 RM 5.3 106 0 16 RM 5.3 106 0 17 22.2 4.0 88 17 RM 4.0 88 0 17 RM 4.0 88 0
18 21.3 5.2 ·110 18 RM 5.2 110 0 18 RM 5.2 110 0 n 7.0 12.4 87 21 RMI-I 12.4 87 0 21 RMI-I 3.9 84 -3 22 3.2 6.3 20 22 Non-Res. o.o 0 -20 22 Non-Res. o.o 0 -20 E. Village 80.0 554 E.. Village ••• B. Village 463
Reduction ... Reduction -71
TOTAL I I I 1383 TOTAL 1122 -261 TOTAL 1154 -229
ROBERTSON RANCH STUDENTS GENERATED I ' Calavera
Hope HIiis Calavera Hills
Elementary Elementary Middle · Carlsbad
DU School School School High School
RATIO {students per unit) 0.1614 0.1614 0.0815 0.095
West Village (minus PA 13}
1383 MP Units 691 111.53 56.32 66.27
1154 Units 495 79.89 40.34 47.47
East Villaae (olus PA 13)
1383 MP Units 692 111.69 56.40 66.36
1154 Units 659 106.36 53.71 63.20
7125/06
Transportation
Consultants
September 7, 2006
Mr. Brian Milich
Calavera Hills 2, LLC
2780 Womble Road
San Diego, CA 921 06
Plusanton
5960 Inglewood Dr., Suite 100
Pleasanton, CA 94588-8535
925.463.0611
925.463.3690 fax
SantaRou
141 Stony Cir., Sule 280
Santa Rose, CA 95401-4110
707.575.5800
707.575.5888 fax
Subject: Analysis of Traffic Calming Strategies for Robertson Ranch
Dear Mr. Milich:
Saclamenro
980 9th St., 16th Floor
SaaamMto, CA 95814-2736
916.449.9095
""" 516 W. Shaw Aw., Suite 200
Fresno, CA 93704-2515
559.325.7530
559.221.4940 lax
tJkm@tJkm.com
www.(fkm.com
Project Number 289-00 I
At your request TJKM has evaluated the potential effectiveness of the traffic calming plan for reducing potential
cut through traffic in The Colony should Robertson Ranch West Village be developed as planned. The basic
objective of this analysis is the independent assessment of the potential for increased traffic on streets within an
existing residential development just north of Robertson Ranch, called The Colony. The increased traffic comes
from two sources:
I. Non-local traffic shifting off of Tamarack Avenue and El Camino Real to a shorter route
2. Traffic to and from the development in West Village oriented to places north of The Colony.
More specifically, if two of the streets (Edinburgh Drive and Glasgow Drive) in The Colony are connected to
similar streets in the West Village of Robertson Ranch, is there a potential for non-local traffic to use Edinburgh
Drive and Glasgow Drive as a shortcut between Tamarack.Avenue at Edinburgh Drive and El Camino Real at
Lisa Avenue? "Non-local" in this sense means traffic coming from elsewhere and going elsewhere than West
Village or The Colony. Further, there is also interest in the potential for how many vehicle trips could be loaded
onto Edinburgh Drive and Glasgow Drive from the new housing and other uses in Robertson Ranch (West
Village). Figure I shows the vicinity of West Village at Robertson Ranch and The Colony. Figures 2A and 2B
show the total additional daily traffic that could increase traffic in The Colony if West Village were developed
with no traffic calming strategies.
We based our analysis upon the approved Transportation Analysis Final Report for Robertson Ranch dated
September 1, 2005 by Urban Systems Associates. That report contained the following information:
• Trip generation for the West Village Planning Areas for development in Robertson Ranch
• Trip distribution (i.e., the geographic locations for trip origins and destinations for Robertson Ranch)
• Transportation facility information
Subsequent to that report, the number of housing units was decreased in several of the planning areas, and senior
housing was added. Urban Systems Associates made appropriate reductions in the number of trips generated.
These adjustments are described in newer traffic reports showing volume forecasts for average daily traffic
volumes through The Colony .
.. W e c r " a t f? t r a n ~ p o ,r 1 a t I o n s o I u t I o n s . , . 1 t ' t, , ; ~ , , "
ATTACHMENT 14
ToHwy-78
,-,
I I
I \ ' ' ' \
Tol-5
n
NORTH
Not to Scale
C •-ity_o_f_C_a-rl-sb_a_d ____________________ F-ig~u-re ~ Robertson Ranch
Vicinity Map & Planning Areas -West Village
289-001 -818/06 -GK
LEGEND
-West Village Traffic • • • Non-Local Traffic
City of Carlsbad
Robertson Ranch
ToHwy-78
To f-,5
I I
I ' I \
' I
I \
I I
I I
l
n
NORTH
Not to Scale
.....
..._... _________________________ F!_ig~ure ~ Total Potential Added Daily Traffic With West Village
1122 Dwelling Units-No Traffic Calming Assumed
289-001 • 9/6/06 • GK
LEGEND
-West VIiiage Traffic • • • Non-Local Traffic
City of Carlsbad
Robertson Ranch
To Hwy,-18
Tol-5
Total Potential Added Daily Traffic With West Village
1154 Dwelling Units-No Traffic Calming Assumed
289-001 • 9/6/06 • GK
CITY OF OCEANSIDE
Figure
2B
H
NORTH
Not to Scale
Mr. Brian Milich September 7, 2006 5
The volumes in The Colony can be further reduced, according to Urban Systems Associates, if traffic calming and
circuitous routing are used in the West Village circulation plan. Urban Systems Associates used published studies
of traffic calming projects throughout the United States as the basis for estimating reductions due to traffic
calming. They reduced the total potential traffic demand by the reported 45 percent average decrease in traffic on
"calmed streets" as reported in Traffic Calming: State of the Practice, co-authored by the Federal Highway
Administration and the Institute of Transportation Engineers.
This report by TJKM also makes direct use of the trip generation and trip distribution data in those reports as well.
However, the forecasting methods used by TJKM are entirely independent from Urban Systems Associates. That
is, by using standard transportation modeling and forecasting techniques, we confirm that Urban Systems
Associates' estimates of average daily traffic in The Colony due to development of West Village are higher than
our estimates overall, and are thus conservative. Our estimates show that the amount of traffic added to Edinburgh
Drive is likely to be a little higher than estimated in the Urban Systems Associates' reports, and that traffic added
to Glasgow will be substantially lower than estimated by Urban Systems Associates. The subsequent reports from
Urban Systems Associates are dated June 15th, July 27th, August 23rd, and September 6, 2006. The newer reports
reflect changes in the number of dwelling units and the addition of senior housing in West Village under two land
use scenarios as well as two circulation scenarios. This TJKM report is based on the September 6, 2006 report
from Urban Systems Associates because the basis for that report is the land use and traffic conditions in the
proposed West Village project to be presented to the planning commission in September 2006.
There are two land use alternatives under consideration: I) West Village with l, 122 dwelling units, and 2) I, 154
dwelling units. In addition, there are two circulation schemes for each land use with and without a local access
road connecting to Tamarack Avenue from Planning Area 3 in West Village. Figures 3A and 3B show the
planning areas and the two circulation schemes. The assumptions and conditions used for analysis in this report
assume no traffic calming in The Colony.
Figures 3A and 3B also show the traffic calming strategies in each of the two circulation plans within West
Village: The planned calming strategies are simply the introduction of traffic circles at four intersections plus
forcing sharp right and left turns (circuitous routing) that also work to slow traffic. The combination of traffic
circles and circuitous routes greatly increases both distances and travel times through West Village, thus reducing
the potential for West Village streets as a preferred shortcut route. With these calming strategies, along with
capacity improvements on El Camino Real, more traffic in West Village will find that using El Camino Real and
Tamarack Avenue is faster than using streets in The Colony and in West Village. TJKM, in this report, only
addresses the traffic calming and circuitous routing scenarios, because the Urban Systems Associates' reports
describe traffic conditions without calming and circuitous routing in West Village.
This letter report presents our findings. Detailed information and calculations showing how the findings were
determined are attached as appendices. I have also attached my qualifications as a traffic calming expert including
a paper written for a meeting of the Institute of Transportation Engineers describing the use of traffic calming
devices to discourage through traffic in neighborhoods of Campbell, California.
l
.i ...,
LEGEND
@ Traffic Circle
.ti. Sharp Right Angle Turn
-Local Through Street • ••Non-Through Street I NOTE: Traffic calming plan shown is preliminary and additional traffic calming measures may be used .
City of Carlsbad
Robertson Ranch
·-\.
•·.:;,. . ~ ;-' .. ~
" '!
,}
' ~-:_~i:c':.·::-::--~('=":':,,
It···· r· -.. _ ---,
IJ""'ii!:.:. -~-~; _ji t-·-: /
r=--__~
-.......... _
,>-'/ '-"r..,-=.....:.:. . -· l. ~)(,·;, .,.. . _ .. r --__ ,,._ I • 1';:,r'fW / ,, .. r •' . • ».c•-j . . }tf' ... , . . . -,:j;,1-
Figure
n
NORTH
Not to Scale
Concept Circulation Plan -West Village With No Local Tamarack Access 3A ~ 289-001 • 9/6/06 • GK
PA 11 / ,f:
I .i ...,
LEGEND
@ Traffic Circle
.A. Sharp Right Angle Turn
-Local Through Street • • • Non-Through Street I NOTE: Traffic calming plan shown is preliminary and additional traffic calming measures may be used .
City of Carlsbad
Robertson Ranch
Concept Circulation Plan -West Village With Local Tamarack Access
289-001 -9/6/06 • GK
',;,,
' ' ,/''
-
0,~c,f '.F'.i&Xj,:: ;,;·
.;t,;;:~r_:~
'/:',, ,,, . ' ! / ""' ,;1J!~"-i'-, \ ' \ .-'-, /,i '-"' -·.,-l _j "' !.-11 -:,,, •.. ,_\ .. r_____ -, i•""---"" \ ,~~:~'.~~~<.f _ _/~
'l" r•· ...... .. :~ -------,,
";---<, .. ~!......_
"-.f ~--,_, ----. l
', A':'., ,.,.J,'::"~• ' t ',
~j W ,;-i-•:-:"/-' ,_---. -·•.::::·~ r ff~#~, , -.,;-? ;., •' / --~--~
' ~,;{;/ ' " ' : '. . -';;:,~
,_,;:/-
-' ~-=-/'/-;~ <I r/ ,, ~~-~-·-,,:-t• .... ,,,I'. '
Figure
3B
n
NORTH
Not to Scale
~
Mr. Brian Milich September 7, 2006 8
Existing Conditions
Figure 4 shows the existing daily non-local traffic volume that might wish to use The Colony and West Village
streets as a shortcut. These 2,000 vehicles daily currently use Tamarack Avenue and El Camino Real to get
between the intersection of Carlsbad Village Drive/Tamarack Avenue and the intersection of El Camino Real/
Cannon Road. Details on how TJKM calculated the 2,000 daily potential shortcut trips through The Colony are in
Appendix B. Figure 4 also shows existing daily volumes on Edinburgh Drive and Glasgow Drive within The
Colony. The existing volumes shown for Edinburgh Drive and Glasgow Drive are based upon the volumes in
Attachment I in the July 27, 2006 Urban Systems Associates' traffic report. The volumes on Edinburgh Drive and
Glasgow Drive are well under the design volume of2,000 vehicles for their "Local" classification.
It is obvious from Figure 4 why either or both Glasgow Drive and Edinburgh Drive coupled with a straight route
through West Village to Lisa Avenue/El Camino Real could be a shortcut. The distance for the route between the
intersection of Carlsbad Village Drive/Tamarack Avenue and the intersection of Cannon Road/El Camino Real is
2.2 miles via the intersection of Tamarack Avenue/El Camino Real. If either Glasgow Drive or Edinburgh Drive
were extended straight through West Village to intersect El Camino Real at Lisa A venue, the total distance
between the same intersections above, Carlsbad Village Drive/Tamarack Avenue and El Camino Real/Cannon
Road is only 1.6 miles, or 0.6 mile shorter than the current arterial route.
Figure 5 shows travel times for traffic currently traveling between the intersections of Carlsbad Village
Drive/Tamarack A venue and El Camino Real/Cannon Road via the arterial routes of Tamarack A venue and El
Camino Real as compared with the potential shortcut route should West Village be developed with a straight route
between El Camino Real/Lisa Avenue and Edinburgh Drive. As can be seen in that figure, the internal routes of
West Village (with no traffic calming -they would be straight), when joined with Edinburgh and Glasgow could
save between one and two minutes over the longer, current arterial route for trips coming from the north. For trips
going to the north, the travel times are almost the same, with the arterial route having a slight advantage of 15
seconds in the a.m. peak and 17 seconds in the p.m. peak. The total travel time between the intersections of
Carlsbad Village Drive/ Tamarack A venue and El Camino Real/Cannon Road is a function of how long it takes to
travel this approximate 2¼ mile distance at 55 mph on El Camino Real and 45 mph on Tamarack Avenue plus the
additional time spent stopped and waiting at the signal by the average vehicle. Note: to calculate the travel times,
the travel time for the free speed needs to have the intersection delays added for the appropriate movements. This
calculation has been made for the reader's convenience in the tables included in Figure 5.
The waiting time at the signal is called "control delay" and includes the additional time needed to slow on the
approach and accelerate from a signal as well as time spent at the red light. Not all drivers have to wait, of course,
and others wait far longer than average. The estimates of control delay for the Tamarack/El Camino Real signal
are based on the Synchro reports in Appendix F. TJKM used 2030 with project volume estimates from the
September I, 2005 Transportation Analysis Final Report/or Robertson Ranch, Section 7, Figures 7-6 and 7-7.
The actual values used for control delay at the signalized intersections are also shown in Figure 5. We
acknowledge that the project volumes at Tamarack/El Camino Real are a little high, because these forecasts were
made prior to reducing the number of dwelling units in West Village. However, the minor increased traffic
volumes would have the effect of slightly increasing control delay, thus making the arterial routes less
competitive with Edinburgh and West Village streets on a comparative basis for travel times. TJKM also used the
lane assumptions for 2030. We also improved the intersection of Z Street/Lisa Avenue and El Camino Real with a
separate left turn lane on Lisa to allow normal signal phasing. TJKM also used the standard 10 seconds of
additional delay at the intersection of Tamarack Avenue and Edinburgh Drive for right turns onto Tamarack
Avenue and for left turns onto Edinburgh Drive. This is conservative, because at certain times of the day, it takes
more than an additional IO seconds to turn left onto Edinburgh and to tum right onto Tamarack because drivers
must wait for oncoming traffic to clear. The least delay is IO seconds, so travel times through West Village and
The Colony are probably longer by 5 to 15 seconds over the day.
LEGEND
• • • Current Through Route
11111111 Potential Shortcut Route
-xx Daily Volume
City of Carlsbad
Robertson Ranch
To Hwy-TB
Tol-5
Non-Local Traffic Volumes and Volumes in The Colony
289-001 • 9/1/06 • GK
,-,
I I
I \
' I ' I \
I
I
Figure
4
n
NORTH
Not to Scala
~
LEGEND
-Arterial
• --Shortcut
AM (PM) Slgnal Delay
A__.B
Arterial AM 5' 23"
PM 5' 3"
Shortcut AM 3' 32"
PM 3'45"
B__.A
Arterial AM 3' 11"
PM 3' 17"
Shortcut AM 2'56"
PM 3' O"
City of Carlsbad
Robertson Ranch
ToJ.5
ToHwy-78 NOTE:
· ·"' To calculate total travel time, add the free
flow segment times plus intersection delays.
Calculations shown on Appendix F.
I
I
I
I
\
\
I
H
NORTH
Not to Scale
Travel Time Comparison -Arterial Vs. Shortcut -
No Calming
Figure
5 ~
289-001 • 9/8/06 -GK
Mr. Brian Milich September 7, 2006 11
Analysis with West Village Development
Figures 3A and 3B on pages 6 and 7 show the street pattern and traffic calming strategies proposed for West
Village including traffic circles and circuitous routing via forced right and left turns. The circuitous routing and
traffic circles accomplish three objectives: 1) they require drivers to slow to maneuver through the tum or circle;
2) the circuitous routing increases the distance through West Village which adds to travel time; and 3) they
present a complex route for any through traffic and thus reduce the utility and convenience of these streets as a
potential shortcut. Of the two objectives, the most important is the slowing of traffic that contributes to longer
travel times within the new development.
TJKM used the trip generation from Urban Systems Associates for each of the Planning Areas (as recently
updated due to reductions in the number ofresidential units in some of the Planning Areas). Only those trips to
and from the north (on Edinburgh Drive and on Glasgow Drive) from West Village Planning Areas are shown in
Table 1 and Table 2, including trips to Hope Elementary School and Calavera Hills Middle School. School trips
are included within these totals. Table I relates to the I, 122 dwelling unit plan and Table 2 on the next page
relates to the 1, 154 dwelling unit plan. They are valid for both circulation schemes -with and without the local
access connection to Tamarack Avenue. It should be noted that Urban Systems Associates added trips on top of
those presented in Table 1 to be conservative. T.TKM used trip generation rates from the standard reference, Trip
Generation, 7th Edition. The trips shown in the various USA reports in June through September 2006 overstate the
amount of actual traffic to be expected from West Village. The park trips, the school trips, etc. would normally be
considered simply as part of the daily totals shown in Tables I and 2.
The proportion of trips to and from the north from West Village Planning Areas that would use Edinburgh Drive
and Glasgow Drive without traffic calming in West Village was estimated to be 12 percent of all West Village
vehicle trips in the Urban Systems Associates' June 15, 2006 updated traffic study (page 3, last paragraph). The
trip generation rates shown in Tables 1 and 2 are 12 percent of total trips.
TABLE 1: WEST VILLAGE TRIP GENERATION TO THE NORTH (12 % OF TOTAL)
1,122 DWELLING UNITS
Plan Daily Daily Trips
Area Use Units Trips To/From
Per Unit The North
3 SF 82 10 98
5 SF 25 10 30
6 SF 61 10 73
7 MF 201 6 145
8 MF 186 6 134
9 SF 34 10 41
10 SF 37 10 44
11 Commercial na 2925 351
TOTALS 916
Once the number of trips to and from the north are calculated in Tables 1 and 2, the next step is to evaluate which
route drivers from each of the planning areas will take assuming traffic calming and circuitous routes. This step in
the analysis is the primary difference in the methods used by TJKM and those used by Urban Systems Associates.
The estimates by Urban Systems Associates are based upon an average 45 percent reduction from calming
Mr. Brian Milich September 7, 2006
projects throughout the United States. The method used by TJKM is based upon the theory that drivers will take
the shortest time route to and from a destination.
TABLE 2: WEST VILLAGE TRIP GENERATION TO THE NORTH (12% OF TOTAL)
1,154 DWELLING UNITS
Plan Daily Daily Trips
Area Use Units Trips To/From
Per Unit the North
3 SF 82 10 98
5 SF 15 10 18
6 SF 60 10 72
7 MF 201 6 145
8 MF 186 6 134
9 SF 34 10 41
10 SF 31 10 37
11 Commercial na 2925 351
TOTALS 896
The T JKM analysis follows the specific procedure below:
• We assumed drivers will always use the shortest time route between the start of their trip (origin) and
where they are going (destination).
• The trips in Tables I and 2 are those trips in the West Village Planning Areas that would use Edinburgh
Drive and Glasgow Drive if there were no traffic calming in West Village, because they represent the
shortest distance and fastest route.
• The alternative routes are (the reverse is also true -the "to" direction of a trip from the north):
o from a Planning Area north to either Glasgow or Edinburgh
o from a Planning Area south to Lisa/El Camino Real, to Tamarack/El Camino Real to Carlsbad
Village Drive/Tamarack Avenue
12
o from a Planning Area out to Tamarack Avenue (local access circulation alternative) to Tamarack
Avenue/Carlsbad Village Drive
• Overall travel times between each Planning Area and Carlsbad Village Drive/Tamarack A venue were
calculated on this basis:
o Tamarack Avenue -between signals= 45 mph (66 feet per second).
o EI Camino Real -between signals= 55 mph (80.67 feet per second).
o Edinburgh and Glasgow = 30 mph ( 44 feet per second).
o West Village streets between calming devices = 30 mph (44 feet per second).
o Specific delays were added for each calming device (10 seconds -see Appendix E).
o Specific delays for specific movements were added as calculated by Synchro (see Appendix F).
o The resulting travel times are shown in Figure 6.(same calculations as in Figure 5)
o Note that there are no average speeds of55 mph on El Camino Real, or 45 mph on Tamarack
Avenue, because the average speeds are a function of both the freely flowing traffic between
signals as well as the added travel times due to congestion and delays for specific movements at
signals.
• Trips to and from Planning Areas were assigned to the shortest time route. Note that Planning Areas front
on West Village streets in more than one location, so in some Planning Areas, some of the trips were
assigned to the north, and some of the trips were assigned via El Camino Real/Tamarack.
• Delays at signals were based upon the analysis of2030 volumes in the September I, 2005 traffic report.
LEGEND
-Arterial
• --Shortcut
AM (PM) Signal Delay
A-B
Arterials AM
PM
Glasgow AM
PM
Edinburgh AM
rr MN C!:!1 . ' NCI> ~M
PM
5' 23"
5'3"
6' 27"
6'41"
5'39"
5' 53"
B-A
Arterials AM
PM
Glasgow AM
PM
Edinburgh AM
PM
79" (70").; J ~"--3" (7")
19• (13")--rn· (2S"l,"---
City of Carlsbad
Robertson Ranch
ToHwy-18
3' 11"
3' 17"
5' 51"
5'56"
5'24"
5' 29"
COLONY
Comparison of Travel Times Existing Vs. Colony/
West Village With Calming
2B9-001 • 9/B/06 -GK
NOTE:
To calculate total travel time, add the free
flow segment times plus intersection delays.
Calculations shown on Appendix F.
I \
I ' I
\
Figure
6
n
NORTH
Not to Scale
Mr. Brian Milich September 7, 2006 14
• Finally, the above procedure is the same as used by the author in the traffic calming projects in the City of
Campbell and San Leandro while employed by those cities, and subsequently on traffic calming projects
as a consultant at TJKM. In all cases the predictions of volumes, traffic speeds and driver behavior were
quite close to actual experience, before and after implementation of traffic calming strategies. In all cases
with before and after data, drivers responded to changes in travel time between alternative routes.
Basically, drivers appear to notice differences in travel time when the difference is as low as 30 seconds.
Appendix E describes the field observations of the effects of right turns and traffic circles on travel speeds. The
idea in the traffic calming strategies for West Village is to require drivers to maneuver around sharp right angle
turns and around typical traffic circles. Without these turns and traffic circles, a driver moving at 30 mph (44 feet
per second) will travel 440 feet in IO second s. Our observations of drivers on streets where normal traffic is 30
mph show that it takes drivers 20 seconds to travel 440 feet if they need to go around a comer or around a traffic
circle. The traffic calming devices proposed for West Village will add up to 90 seconds for the route connecting to
Glasgow Drive, and up to 90 seconds for the route connecting to Edinburgh Drive.
Figures 7 A and 7B show the estimated daily volumes on Glasgow Drive and on Edinburgh Drive without and
with a local access connection to Tamarack Avenue extending west from Planning Area 3 with the 1,122 dwelling
unit scenario. Figures 8A and 8B show daily volumes on Glasgow Drive and on Edinburgh Drive without and
with a local access connection to Tamarack A venue extending west from Planning Area 3 using the I , 154
dwelling unit scenario.
There is one other comparison of significance. Note that Figure 6 shows overall travel times for a driver wishing
to drive all the way through The Colony and West Village from Tamarack Avenue/Edinburgh Drive to go south
on El Camino Real. This "shortcut" would avoid the additional distance and time in congestion at the signal at
Tamarack/El Camino Real. However, as can be seen in Figure 6, the shortcut travel time is between 5 minutes 24
seconds and 6 minutes 41 seconds, while the travel time to go around via Tamarack Avenue and El Camino Real
is between 3 minutes 11 seconds and 5 minutes 23 seconds, averaging 83 seconds less than Edinburgh and I 05
seconds less than Glasgow as seen in Figure 6. The travel times are fairly close in the a.m. peak between the
arterial route and Edinburgh. The complexity of the Edinburgh route will tend to minimize the potential for cut-
through traffic. In the a.m. peak hour, however, some non-local traffic may use Edinburgh/West Village in lieu of
Tamarack and El Camino Real.
Of the two potential types ofnew traffic on streets of The Colony, only traffic to and from West Village is likely
to use The Colony streets. Traffic calming strategies, as assumed in this report, result in a 37 to 53 percent
reduction in potential West Village traffic in The Colony. This calculation can be illustrated in this example: take
the total potential West Village trips to and from the north from Figure 28 (896) and compare that with the
forecast increase for Edinburgh and Glasgow in Figure 8A (1,565 + 1,040 -1,200 -900 = 505 added vehicles).
The proportion of 505/896 = 56 percent, so the reduction is I 00 percent less 56 percent = 44 percent. The greatest
reduction is 53 percent for the 1,154 Dwelling Unit alternative with the Tamarack Connection (Figure 8B), and
the least effective is the 1,122 Dwelling Unit alternative without the Tamarack Connection of37 percent (Figure
7A).
The estimates in Figures 7 A through 8B are calculated without any traffic calming strategies in The Colony.
Simple measures such as traffic circles at four-way intersections in The Colony would induce an additional 30
seconds of travel time on Edinburgh. Should these measures be implemented, traffic would be greatly reduced on
Edinburgh. With traffic calming on Edinburgh in The Colony (specific strategies would need to be determined
through the city's standard process), traffic on Edinburgh in Figure 7 A would be reduced to 1,270, in Figure 7B to
1,280, and in both Figures 8A and 8B, Edinburgh traffic would be 1,262. Total percent reduction in West Village
traffic traveling into and through The Colony would be reduced between 73 and 87 percent from the total
potential increase. The travel time on local streets between Tamarack Avenue and Avenue Z/Lisa Avenue ranges
from 16 seconds to almost 3 minutes greater, even with the long delays for left turns at Tamarack Avenue and El
Mr. Brian Milich September 7, 2006
Camino Real. These reductions can be made without closure of the connections between The Colony and the
planned extensions of Colony streets through West Village.
15
The planned traffic calming strategies will work to discourage West Village traffic nearest El Camino Real and
Lisa from using internal streets to go to Tamarack/Carlsbad Village Drive and beyond. The arterial route is faster
for Planning Areas 3, 7, and portions of 8 and 11. Typically, Planning Areas 5 and 6 are oriented to Glasgow,
while portions of Planning Areas 8 and 11 plus all of Planning Areas 9 and IO will use Edinburgh to go north.
ToHwy-78
'°-• -• ""w• -P••• -.. ,-,. • ••
City of Carlsbad
,-,
I I
I \
' \
\
I
I
l
I
I
n
NORTH
Not to Scale
Total Daily Volumes in The Colony with Traffic Calming in
Robertson Ranch Figure ~
West Village 1122 Dwelling Units -No Tamarack Connection 7 A
289-001 • 9f7/06 • GK
City of Carlsbad
,-,
I I
( \
\
I
\
' I
I
' I
I
' I .~
<l ·~·' ·~ ••'"' •
n
NORTH
Not to Scale
Total Daily Volumes in The Colony with Traffic Calming in
Robertson Ranch Figure~
West Village 1122 Dwelling Units-With Tamarack Connection 7B
289-001 • 9nt06 • GK
ToHwy-78
I
City of Carlsbad
,-,
I l
I \
I ' I
\
' '
J
' I
n
NORTH
Not to Scale
Total Daily Volumes in The Colony with Traffic Calming in
Robertson Ranch Figure ~
West Village 1154 Dwelling Units -No Tamarack Connection BA
289-001 -917/06 -GK
ToHwy-78
City of Carlsbad
,-,
I I
I \
' ' I I
I \
I I
I I
I
I
I
n
NORTH
Not to Scale
Total Daily Volumes in The Colony with Traffic Calming in
Robertson Ranch Figure ~
West Village 1154 Dwelling Units-With Tamarack Connection SB
289-001 • 9f7/06 -GK
Mr. Brian Milich September 7, 2006 20
The Colony residents closer to Edinburgh Drive and Tamarack Avenue are still likely to use the arterial routes
because the circuitous routes in West Village coupled with the traffic circles will continue to represent a longer
travel time -in other words, the new streets in West Village are no travel time "bargain" to residents in The
Colony, excepting those closest to West Village in similar fashion to trips to and from Planning Areas 9 and I 0. It
is our opinion that resulting daily volumes in The Colony will be further reduced by some Colony residents using
West Village streets. By heading south for shopping or to just go south on El Camino Real, these trips will be
subtracted from the estimates in Figures 7A through 8B. TJKM did not make an estimate of the use of West
Village streets by residents of The Colony.
Findings
The traffic calming strategies that add to travel times on internal streets ultimately reduces the amount of new
traffic through The Colony.
• The proposed traffic calming strategies for development in West Village will be effective in eliminating
cut through traffic in The Colony. The "shortcut" northbound is between 16 seconds to almost 3 minutes
longer than using El Camino Real and Tamarack Avenue, and only in the a.m. peak hour is the
southbound "shortcut" even close to the arterial travel time. At other times of the day, the southbound
route through The Colony and West Village will be I to 2 minutes longer.
• The proposed traffic calming strategies for development in West Village will also serve to discourage 37
to 53 percent of all West Village traffic from using streets in The Colony depending upon the alternative
that is implemented.
• It is the opinion of TJKM that the estimates by Urban Systems Associates for traffic reduction due to
traffic calming strategies are reasonable and valid, and most likely conservative.
• Our estimates of total daily traffic on Edinburgh and Glasgow including all West Village traffic (all
purposes including school trips) are shown in Figures 7A through 8B.
Detailed data and calculations, plus basic modeling data attached in appendices. Also attached is a paper
written and presented to the Institute of Transportation Engineers in the annual meeting of District 6 in
Portland, Oregon in 1994. The use of traffic calming to manage traffic in neighborhoods is well established as
effective, and has been practiced since the early I 970's throughout the United States.
Very truly yours,
A/ <;: ~a-
Gary E. Kruger, P.E.
Principal Associate
Attached Appendices
Appendix A: Gary Kruger Qualifications
Appendix B: Calculation of Non-Local Cut Through Traffic Potential in The Colony
Appendix C: Traffic Calming Paper of Diverting Cut Through Traffic Out ofNeighborhood
Appendix D: City Council Report, City of Campbell Regarding Diversion of Cut Through Traffic
Appendix E: Field Observations of Travel Time Increases Due to Calming Devices
Appendix F: Synchro Reports Regarding Signal Delays
Appendix G: Analysis Data in Project Model
j: \j11risdict ion \c\car/sbad\289-00 I V090 706 _report.doc
APPENDIX A -GARY KRUGER QUALIFICATION
.APPENDIX B:.... CALCULATION OF NON-LOCAL CUT THROUGH TRAFFIC
POTENTIAL IN THE COLONY
--I.{)
't""" ...__,
r,....
'q'
Carlsbad Village Dr. t F 98 (91)
· 27 (37)~ t --Non-Local WB to SB 0) -q-
am:(~~~") X 143 = 89 ~received --co N r,.... N
pm: (1~~) X 172 = 81 't""" 't"""
sent...__,
M -q-
't"""
••
Non-Local NB to EB
t am :(~~~) X 59 = 59 G) ~ --~ 0 (,) -q-
pm: (~!5) X 267 = 151
(II ...
~sent a,
E ~ r--:--N --~ Assume: M c.o am peak = 9% ADT N received......,.
M pm peak = 10% ADT
< ~ -q-19%/100% = 5.26 factor ----• Daily Traffic: N -q-
..-""""N WB-+SB = 5.26 X (81 +89) = 895 r,.... T""" T""" N......,.......,.
NB -+EB= 5.26 X (59+151) = 1105 ........ I.{) I.{)
M N I.{) M T""" N ..J+~ -=---59 (267)
10 (33)J t El Camino Real
--0 . -q-
~ ...__, • 00 LEGEND I.{)
XX AM Peak Hour Volume NORll-t
(XX) PM Peak Hour Volume Not loScale
City of Carlsbad
Robertson Ranch Appendix ~
Traffic Counts for: Transportation Analysis for Robertson B
Ranch, September 1, 2005. Figures 3-5 and 3-6 .
24~1 • 8129106 • GK
APPENDIXB
METHODOLOGY FOR ESTIMATING SHORTCUT TRAFFIC DEMAND
TJKM used the 2005 traffic turning movement counts in Transportation Analysis for Robertson
Ranch, dated September l, 2005. Figures 3-5 (Existing a.m. peak traffic) and 3-6 (Existing p.m.
peak traffic) w_ere used.
There are several asswnptions in this method:
1. The traffic "sent" from the intersection of Carlsbad Village Drive/f amarack turning
left to southbound El Camino Real is in direct proportion to the proportion of left
turns from Tamarack to southbound El Camino Real.
2. The proportion of northbound El Camino right turns to the total traffic "sent" from
Tamarack Avenue to the intersection of Carlsbad Village Drive/Tamarack Avenue is
in direct proportion to the total traffic "received" at Carlsbad Village Drive at
Tamarack Avenue. For example if 25 percent of all traffic sent form El Camino Real
--at Tamarack is from northbound El Camino Real right turns, then 25 percent of all
traffic received at Tamarack/Carlsbad Village Drive is from these right turns.
3. The typical a.m. peak hour proportion to daily traffic is 9 percent.
4. The typical p.m. peak hour proportion to daily traffic is 10 percent.
5. To estimate total daily traffic from the sum of a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic, you
take the reciprocal of 19 percent times the combined' a.m. and p.m. peak volumes, or
5 .26 times this volume.
6. The inference is that drivers heading towards El Camino ReaVf amarack from the
intersection of Tamarack/Carlsbad Village Drive and tum left are drivers that would
use a shorter route if it were provided, such as a direct connection from either
Glasgow Drive or Edinburgh Drive to El Camino Real/Lisa.
7. The inference is that drivers traveling north on El Camino Real and passing Lisa
Avenue, then turning right onto Tamarack Avenue to Tamarack/Carlsbad Village
Drive, are drivers that would use a shorter route if one were provided between
Lisa/El Camino Real and Tamarack /Edinburgh.
8. The combination of these patterns is the estimated daily "demand" for a shortcut
through The Colony if a continuous route existed.
APPENDIX C -TRAFFIC CALMING PAPER OF DIVERTING CUT THROUGH
TRAFFIC OUT OF NEIGHBORHOOD
APPENDIX D -CITY COUNCIL REPORT, CITY OF CAMPBELL REGARDING
DIVERSION OF CUT THROUGH TRAFFIC
l
l
APPENDIX E -FIELD OBSERVATIONS OF TRAVEL TIME INCREASES DUE
TO CALMING DEVICES
APPENDIX F -SYNCHRO REPORTS REGARDING SIGNAL DELAYS AND
CALCULATION OF OVERALL TRAVEL TIMES (FIGURES 5 AND 6)
Figure 5 Calculations (No Traffic Calming)
Ato B
Description of route AM PM Comments
Travel time -A to Edinbur hon Tamarack 22 22 Based on 45 m
Travel time -Edinbur h to ECR on Tamarack 81 81
Left-turn dela at ECR/Tamarack 137 124
Travel time -Tamarack to Lisa on ECR 39 39
Thru dela at Lisa/ECR 19 13
Travel time -Lisa to B on ECR 24 24
Total 322 303
5.37 5.05
In Minutes! 5'23" 5'3'1
Ato B
r .. -~:z~tF,~•~1~~ ~ f. -.o.•'..-.-~~ .. ·I.~~·.;,,. ~, ... ::. ,.t ....
Description of route AM PM
Travel time -A to-Edinbur hon Tamarack 22 22
Left-turn dela at Edinbur h/Tamarack 10 10
Travel time -Tamarack to ECR shortcut 117 117
Left-turn dela at Lisa/ECR 39 52
Travel time -Lisa to B on ECR 24 24
Total 212 225
3.53 3.75
3'32" 3'45" In Minutes._! __ ...., __ __,
B to A
Description of route AM PM Comments
Travel time -B to Lisa on ECR 24 24 Based on 55 m
Thru dela at Lisa/ECR 19 28
Travel time -Lisa to Tamarack on ECR 39 39
Ri ht-turn dela at ECR/Tamarack 6 3
Travel time -ECR to Edinbur h on Tamarack 81 81
Travel time -Edinburgh to Bon Tamarack 22 22
Total 191 197
3.18 3.28
In Minutes! 3'11" 3'17"
B to A
Description of route AM PM
Travel time -B to Lisa on ECR 24 24
Ri ht-turn dela at Lisa/ECR 3 7
Travel time -ECR to Tamarack on Edinbur h 117 117
Ri ht-turn dela at Edinbur h/Tamarack 10 10
Travel time -Edinburgh to Bon Tamarack 22 22
T?tal 176 180
2.93 3.00
In Minutes I 2'56" 3'0"
Figure 6 Calculations (With Traffic Calming)
AtoB
Descrie_tion of route AM PM !Comments
Travel time -A to Edinburqh on Tamarack 22 22 !Based on 45 m
Travel time -Edinburah to ECR on f amara~ -I 81 81
Left-tum delav at ECR/famarack I 137 124
Travel time -Tamarack to Lisa on ECR I 39 39
Thru delav at Lisa/ECR I 19 13
Travel time -Lisa to B on ECR ~ 24
Total! 322 303
5.37 5.05
In Minutes l 5'23" ! 5'3" l
AtoB
Description of route (Via Glasgow) AM
rTravel time -A to Edinburah on Tamarack 22
Left-tum delay at Edinburahffamarack I 10
Travel time -Tamarack to ECR shortcut via Glasaow I 292
Left-turn delay at Lisa/ECR I 39
Travel time -Lisa.to Bon ECR I 24
Total~
6.45
PM!Comments (With Traffic Calming)
~JBased on 45 moh travel speed
10
292
52
24
400
6.67
In Minutes HiillllllUia: i, . . . .
AtoB ; ~~:·;~rs· ~1J~~,_ ... i3·~~11
,Description of route !Via Edinburgh) ~ ~
Travel time-: A to Edinburqh on Tamarack 22 22
Left-turn delay at Edinburah/Tamarack 10 10
!Travel time -Tamarack to ECR shortcut via Edinburgh 265 2.65
Left-tum delay at Lisa/ECR 39 52
1Travel time -Lisa to B on ECR 24 24
Total 360 373
6.00 6.22
In Minutes 6'0" I 6'14" ___ .._ __ _
Figure 6 Calculations (With Traffic Calming)
BtoA
Description of route AM PM !Comments
!Travel time -B to Lisa on ECR 24 24 !Based on 55 m
iThru delay at Lisa/ECR 19 28
!Travel time -Lisa to Tamarack on ECR 39 39
RiQht-tum delay at ECR/Tamarack 6 3 ut
!Travel time -ECR to Edinburah on Tamarack -I 81 81
Travel time -Edinburgh to Bon Tamarack I 22 22
BtoA
Description of route (Via Glasg<>_w_)
Travel time -B to Lisa ori ECR
RiQht-tum delay at Lisa/ECR
Travel time -ECRto Tamarack via GlaSQOW
Riaht-tum delay at Edinburah/Tamarack
Travel time -Edinburg_h to B on Tamarack
BtoA
Description of route (Via Edinburgh)
Travel time -B to Lisa on ECR
Riaht-turn delav at Lisa/ECR
Totalr7°91 197
3.18 3.28
In Minutes I 3'11" I 3'17"
AM PM7Comments (With Traffic Calming)
24 24 !Based on 55 moh travel soeed
3 7
292 292 ·1sased on 30 moh soeed with traffic calmin
10 10 !Based on 2030 volumes Synchro output
22 22 !Based on 45 mph travel speed
Total! 351 355
5.92 5.85
In Minutes ~~:,,·•,,.,... •.· ~-.....-.-~
AM PM
24 24
3 . 7
Travel tima-:-ECR to Tamarack via ~dinburah 265 2.65
Rlaht-tum delay at Edinburah/Tamarack 10 10
Travel time -Edinburgh to Bon Tamarack 22 22
Total 324 328
5.40 5.47
In Minutes 5'24" I 5'29"
l
I
1
l
I
l
l
l
I
I
APPENDIX G -ANALYSIS DATA IN PROJECT MODEL
APPENDIX G: MODEL DATA
The procedure for detennining which route drivers in each Planning Area will use to go beyond
The Colony is the simple addition of travel times between a Planning Area and the intersection of
Carlsbad Village Drive/Tamarack A venue.
The first graphic shows the Planning Areas by number, and how they are connected to the
computerized map, or network.
The second graphic shows the distances for each link in the network.
The third graphic shows the "free" travel time for each of the links. The tum penalties shown in
Figure 6 are not included in these travel times. To calculate the minimum travel time path
between a Planning Area and "Zone 20" you need to add up the individual link travel times and
then add the appropriate signal delay times along the path. Also note that 10 seconds of additional
travel time is added for each square on the West Village road network, standing for the traffic
circles and right or left turns that drivers must traverse to go through. There is an additional 90
seconds of travel time from Node 7 to Node 15 (to Glasgow Drive) and an additional 70 seconds
of travel time from Node 7 to Node 1 (Edinburgh Drive).
In addition to the model output, the diagonal diverter introduces additional travel time of 45
seconds.
Robertson Ranch Network: Link Free Flow Travel Time
Applies to All Scenarios
C:\Projects\289-001 Robertson Ranch\Model\1122 with Tamarack Connection\REALDISTANCE.NET 9/6/2006 11 :57 AM Allen Nie, TJKM
Licensed to TJKM Transportation Consultants
Robertson Rench Network: Link Distance In MIies
2.18
C:\Projects\289-001 Robertson Ranch\Model\1122 with Tamarack Connection\REALDISTANCE.NET 8/28/2006 11 :15 AM Allen Nie, TJKM
Licensed to TJKM Transportation Consultants
September 20, 2006
TO: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
FROM: Barbara Kennedy, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: ERRATA SHEET FOR EIR 03-03/MP 02-03/GPA 02-04/LFMP
14(B)/HMP 06-04 -ROBERTSON RANCH MASTER PLAN and CT
02-16/HDP 02-07/SUP 02-05 ROBERTSON RANCH EAST
VILLAGE MASTER TENTATIVE MAP
Resolutions 6105 through 6112:
1. Include the following recitals:
WHEREAS, after hearing the staff presentation for the Robertson Ranch
Master Plan and public testimony on the project, the Planning Commission did
continue the public hearing to June 21, 2006, and;
WHEREAS, after hearing the additional staff presentation for the
Robertson Ranch Master Plan and public testimony on the project, the Planning
Commission did continue the public hearing to a date uncertain, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 20th of September 2006
hold a duly noticed public hearing on the continued Robertson Ranch Master Plan
project: and;
2. Revise the date of adoption of the resolutions to September 20, 2006.
EIR Resolution 6105:
1. Add a new condition to resolution 6105:
The Program EIR Errata labeled as Attachment 16 of the staff report shall
be incorporated into the Final Program EIR (EIR 03-03).
Master Plan Resolution 6106:
I. Finding# 10: Revise excess dwelling unit allocation from 400 to 171.
2. Finding # 11: Revise last sentence to read: The Zone 14 LFMP estimates current residential
build-out for the Northeast Quadrant to be 7,467 dwelling units including the Master Plan
proposal of 1,154 units.
1
AffMlb!I 31 lif K
3. Add a new condition to Resolution 6106: ·
Any future development proposals for Planning Area 22 or the Option Parcel
shall take into consideration the following:
a. Line of sight from Rancho Carlsbad to the proposed development;
b. Hours of operation of any proposed uses;
c. Noise and light mitigation from the proposed project; and
d. Site designs that reduce landform alteration, where feasible, and
reduce the removal of healthy mature trees.
4. Add a new condition to Resolution 6106:
Planning Areas (PA) 13 and 14 shall be offered for dedication to CUSD upon
approval of the First Tentative Map within the Master Plan in accordance
with Section 66478 of the Subdivision Map Act.
5. Add a new condition to Resolution 6106:
The Robertson Ranch Master Plan shall be revised, subject to the Planning
Director's approval as follows:
a. Replace the Robertson Ranch Master Plan Land Use Plan Figure 11-4
with the new exhibit included as Attachment 3 of the staff report dated
September 20, 2006. Revise the associated text and graphics to reflect the
new Land Use Plan.
b. Revise the associated text and graphics of the Master Plan and individual
Planning Areas to reflect the new maximum number of dwelling units,
the revised General Plan land use designations, and the revised allocation
of excess dwelling units.
c. Revise the text for PA 7 to require a minimum of 50% of the units be
developed as senior housing. A reference shall be incorporate to
Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 21.84 -Housing for Senor Citizens as
additional development standards for the senior housing portion of the
site.
d. Revise the text and graphics for PA 13 and 14 to allow development of the
site as an elementary school as a primary use. In the event that CUSD
does not purchase or develop the site as planned, the alternative land use
shall be RM (Residential Medium Density 4-8 du/ac) with a maximum of
52 dwelling units. The unit allocation is based on the Growth Control
Point for the existing RLM designation which would allow 32 units (10
acres x 3.2 du/ac) together with a shift of 20 du's from several other
Planning Areas (PA 5 -10 du's, PA 6 -1 du, PA 10-6 du's, and PA 21-
2
3 du's). As proposed, 35 du's would be located within PA 13 and 17 du's
would be located within PA 14. These planning areas would be developed
as small-lot, detached, single-family residences on minimum 5,000 sf lots,
according to the development standards currently proposed for PA's 16,
17 and 18.
General Plan Amendment Resolution 6107:
I. Revise Finding # 1 as follows:
The Planning Commission finds that the project is in conformance with the
Elements of the City's General Plan based on the facts set forth in the staff report
dated May 31, 2006 hereby incorporated by this reference, including, but not
limited to the following: . that the proposed change in General Plan Land Use
designations from Residential Low-Medium Density (RLM, 0-4 du/ac),
Residential Medium Density (RM, 4-8 du/ac), Open Space (OS) and "floating"
Elementary School (E) and Local Shopping Center (L) designations to RLM,
RMH, Residential Medium-High Density (RMH, 8-15 du/ac), Residential High
Density (RH, 15-23 du/ac ), L, Community Facilities (CF), Elementary School
(E), Unplanned Area (UA) and OS land use designations are required to reflect
the Land Use designations of the Robertson Ranch Master Plan; that the proposed
Land Use designations are compatible with the surrounding land uses in that the
adjacent lands are designated for RLM, RM, L and OS land uses; that the land
use change to OS is based on the environmental constraints of the property and is
environmentally and topographically appropriate for the site in that the slopes and
the habitat areas included in the open space preserve areas are consistent with the
"hardline areas" shown on the draft Robertson Ranch Hardline Map dated
September 15, 2004, and that these areas are proposed to be designated as Open
Space on the General Plan Land Use Map; that City policy allows for transfer of
density from designated open spaces to developable areas resulting in the new
RM, RMH, and RH designations; that the Cllflsead Uaif.ied Seheel Distriet has
fellfta that aa elemefttary seheel site is aet Fllf!UiFea feF the Reeertsea Raneh
MasteF Plaa, that the CF designation implements the Master Plan requirement for
Community Facilities; and that the L designation reflects the site of the Local
Shopping Center, and that the UA designation will allow for future
comprehensive planning efforts on Planning Area 22 in conjunction with the
"Option Parcel".
2. Add a new condition to Resolution 6107:
Exhibit "GPA 02-02" shall be revised to reflect a "RLM" (Residential Low-
Medium) designation on Planning Area 10, an "E" (Elementary School)
designation on Planning Areas 13 and 14, and an "UA" (Unplanned Area) on
Planning Area 22.
3
Local Facilities Management Plan LFMP 14(B) Resolution 6108:
1. Add a new condition to Resolution 6108:
The Zone 14 LFMP Amendment shall be revised, subject to the Planning
Director's approval, to reflect the new maximum number of "1,122 du's -
with school" and "1,154 du's -without school", and revise the General Plan
Designations and allocation of excess dwelling units as described in the
General Plan Amendment errata.
The following are additional Errata Items from the May 31, 2006 Planning
Commission Public Hearing:
Staff Report dated May 31. 2006:
Page 31: Add: Attachment 21. Response to Comments for the Final EIR
Revise Resolutions 6105 through 6107 and 6109 through 6112:
Change the typographical error on the first page of each resolution, first paragraph, fourth
line, of the legal description from November 16, 1986 to 1896.
Proposed Revised Wording for Resolution 6110, Condition #43
43. If the City Recreation Department is able to obtain approval for a future
trailhead, parking areas, and related trails located within PA 23E . prior to
completion of all construction activities associated with the development of
the Robertson Ranch East Village, then the Developer shall be responsible
for the funding and construction of these regional trail features, including a
parking area for no more than 10 cars and a nature trail from the parking
area to the west side of Calavera Creek. The Developer shall prepare the
plans and forward for review to the City Trails Manager. The plan together
with the security posted shall ensure that the improvements are constructed,
pending approval of the plan. If the approved plans allow for a crossing of
the creek, and the City desires to construct the creek crossing and/or a
bridge, then the City shall be responsible for financing and construction of
the creek crossing only.
4
THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ARE TO BE INCLUDED DEPENDING ON THE
SELECTED WEST VILLAGE CIRCULATION ALTERNATIVE:
ALTERNATIVE I
Circuitous Routing
Master Plan Resolution 6106
1. Add a new condition to Resolution 6106:
In conjunction with the submittal of the First Tentative Map for the West
Village, the developer of the West Village shall coordinate with the Colony
HOA or it's designated representatives to determine what methods of traffic
calming, if any, are acceptable to the residents according to the procedures in
the Traffic Management Program. Any approved traffic calming measures
shall be designed and secured by the developer prior to the recordation of the
First Final Map within the West Village. Traffic calming measures shall be
installed prior to the extensions of Glasgow Drive and Edinburgh Drive.
2. Add the following new condition to Resolution 6106:
The Robertson Ranch Master Plan shall be revised to include Attachment 7
of the staff report, Alternative 1 -Circuitous Routing as a new Figure IV-4A
in the Robertson Ranch Master Plan.
ALTERNATIVE 2
Circuitous Routing plus Tamarack Connection (Local Street Standards)
EIR 03-03 Resolution 6105
I. Add a new Finding to Resolution 6105:
As evidenced in the discussion included in the staff report dated September
20, 2006, the Tamarack Connection will not result in any new significant
impacts and, therefore, would not constitute a significant change in the
project description or significant new information requiring an amendment
and recirculation of the Final EIR. If approved, the Tamarack Connection
would lessen traffic in the Colony neighborhood thus reducing the overall
effects of the project. The Tamarack Connection, therefore, could be
considered an appropriate project modification that is made in response to
new insights gained during the public discussion of the project.
Master Plan Resolution 6106
I. Add a new condition to Resolution 6106:
5
In conjunction with the submittal of the First Tentative Map for the West
Village, the developer of the West Village shall coordinate with the Colony
HOA or it's designated representatives to determine what methods of traffic
calming, if any, are acceptable to the residents according to the procedures in
the Traffic Management Program. Any approved traffic calming measures
shall be designed and secured by the developer prior to the recordation of the
First Final Map within the West Village. Traffic calming measures shall be
installed prior to the extensions of Glasgow Drive and Edinburgh Drive.
2. Add a new condition to Resolution 6106:
The Robertson Ranch Master Plan shall be revised, subject to the Planning
Director's approval as follows:
a. Include Attachment 8 of the staff report, Alternative 2 -Circuitous
Routing plus Tamarack Connection as a new Figure IV-4A in the
Robertson Ranch Master Plan.
b. Revise the associated text and graphics of the Master Plan to include a
conceptual access point from Tamarack Avenue at PA 2 to PA 3.
c. Relocate the RV Storage site within Planning Area 2 (PA 2) to within PA
1. Revise the associated text and graphics to show the new "Tamarack
Connection" and to reflect the new Open Space (OS) boundaries.
General Plan Amendment Resolution 6107
1. Add a new condition to Resolution 6107:
Exhibit "GPA 02-02" shall be revised to delete the Community Facilities
(CF) land use designation within Planning Area 2.
Habitat Management Plan Permit (HMP 06-04) Resolution 6109
I. Add a new condition to Resolution 6109:
A formal request for concurrence of a Minor Amendment to the City's
Habitat Management Plan for Robertson Ranch with Equivalency Findings
shall be submitted for the "Tamarack Connection", subject to the terms
outlined in the e-mail from USFWS, dated August 22, 2006 included as
Attachment 10 of the staff report.
6
ALTERNATIVE 3
Tamarack Connection (Collector) & Emergency Access at Glasgow and Gated Access
at Edinburgh
EIR 03-03 Resolution 6105
I. Add a new finding to Resolution 6105:
As evidenced in the discussion included in the staff report dated September
20, 2006, the Tamarack Connection will not result in any new significant
impacts and, therefore, would not constitute a significant change in the
project description or significant new information requiring an amendment
and recirculation of the Final EIR. If approved, the Tamarack Connection
would lessen traffic in the Colony neighborhood thus reducing the overall
effects of the project. The Tamarack Connection, therefore, could be
considered an appropriate project modification that is made in response to
new insights gained during the public discussion of the project.
Master Plan Resolution 6106
I. Add a new condition to Resolution 6106:
The Robertson Ranch Master Plan shall be revised, subject to the Planning
Director's approval as follows:
a.
b.
c.
Direct staff to include Attachment 9 of the staff report, Alternative 2 -
Tamarack Connection (Collector) & Emergency Access at Glasgow
and Gated Access at Edinburgh as a new Figure IV-4A in the
Robertson Ranch Master Plan.
Direct staff to revise the associated text and graphics of the Master
Plan to include a conceptual access point from Tamarack Avenue at
PA2 to PA3.
Relocate the RV Storage site within Planning Area 2 (PA 2) to within
PA 1. Revise the associated text and graphics to show the new
"Tamarack Connection" and to reflect the new Open Space (OS)
boundaries.
General Plan Amendment Resolution 6107
I. Add a new condition to Resolution 6107:
Exhibit "GPA 02-02" shall be revised to delete the Community Facilities
(CF) land use designation within Planning Area 2.
7
Habitat Management Plan Permit (HMP 06-04) Resolution 6109
l. Add a new condition to Resolution 6109:
A formal request for concurrence of a Minor Amendment to the City's
Habitat Management Plan for Robertson Ranch with Equivalency Findings
shall be submitted for the "Tamarack Connection", subject to the terms
outlined in the e-mail from USFWS, dated August 22, 2006 included as
Attachment 10 of the staff report.
8
EIR Errata
Program EIR Errata
Subsequent ta the publication of the Final Program Environmental Impact Report far the proposed
Robertson Ranch Master Plan project, several errors in the published Final EIR text and Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program have been identified. These corrections do not change any intended conclusions
of significance in the published Final EIR.
FINAL PROGIAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Transpartalfan/Clrcutaflan
figure 5,2-1, Figure 5.2-1 incorrectly depicted the existing average daily traffic volumes on College
Boulevard between Plaza Drtve and Lake Boulevard and between Lake Boulevard and Carlsbad Village
Drive. This figure has been revised ta depict the correct volumes. These revisions were addressed in Final
EIR response ta comment COL As discussed in response to comment COl, these edits do not change the
conclusions of the traffic section of the Final EIR.
Table 5.2-1. Table 5.2-1 has been edited to be consistent with the edits ta the existing average daily traffic
volumes as revised on Figure 5.2-1. These edits do not change the conclusions of the traffic section of the
Final EIR.
Table 5.2-2. The LOS far intersection #14 in the A.M. peak hour, as identified in Table 5.2-2, has been edited
fram A to C, to be consistent with the ICU value. These edits do not change the conclusions of the traffic
section of the Final EIR.
figure 5.2-4 and Table 5.2-5. Figure 5.2-4 and Table 5.2-5 have been revised to show revised average
daily traffic volumes to be consistent at each segment. The level of service evaluation far street segments
was determined using peak hour volumes. which were taken from the intersection peak hour traffic turn
movements and not from average daily traffic volumes. The City of Carlsbad Growth Management
Program outlines these procedures. Because peak hour volumes were used ta determine segment levels of
service, these edits do not change the conclusions of the traffic section of the Final EIR.
Figure 5.2-5 and Table 5.2-7. Edits have been made to Figure 5.2-5 to be consistent with the average daily
traffic volumes in Table 5.2-7. These edits do not change the conclusions of the traffic section of the Final
EIR.
Table 5.2-6. On Table 5.2-6, the Intersection #1 and #25 level of service has been edited to be consistent
with the ICU value. No change ta the conclusions of the traffic section of the Final EIR because these levels
of service ore better than the acceptable level of service D.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR
Errata
4-1 August 2006
A.ff___,..
EIR Errata
Table 5.2-8. Table 5.2-8 has been edited from C to D for the A.M. Peak Hour LOS with Project at Intersection
#20. No change to the conclusions of the traffic section of the Final EIR because these levels of service are
better than the acceptable level of service D.
Figure 5.2-7. The segment volume on Connon Road between Lego Drive and Faraday Avenue was
omitted from Figure 5.2-7. This figure has been revised to depict the segment volume. This edit does not
change the conclusions of the traffic section of the Finol EIR.
A memorandum prepared by Urban Systems Associotes, Inc. (July 26, 2006) summarizing the edits, and
providing the edited Figures and Tables is attached to this Errata as Attachment A.
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
CuHural Resources
On page 52 of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, two of the cultural resources sites located
in the East Village portion of the project are incorrectly labeled in the "Monitoring Frequency" Column as
follows:
SDl-10, 135 should be labeled SDl-16, 135.
SDl-10, 138 should be labeled SDl-16, 138.
Revised MMRP poge 52 is attached to this Errata as Attachment 8.
Robertson Ranch Moster Pion Final EIR
Errata
4-2 August2006
EIR Errata
Attachment A
Urban Systems Associates Memorandum and Revised Traffic Figures and Tables
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR
Errata
4-3 August 2006
URBAN SYSTEMS ASSOCIATES, INC. E-MEMO PLANNING & TRAFFIC ENGIH&IRING, MARKEWQ. & PROJECT SUPl'ORT
CONSULTANTS TO INDUITRY AND GOVERNMENr
ATTN: Tim Gnibus E-Mail: T
COMPANY:
FROM:
BRG, Inc. L ~ Q ( Tln@brginc.net
Sam P. Kab, ll / \l,el;.OTAL PAGES (Including Cover): 2 + 12 Attachments
DATE: July 26, 2006 TIME: 3:01:14 PM JOB NUMBER: 003101
SUBJECT: Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR
The attached tables and figures from the traffic section of the Robertson Ranch Final EIR have minor edits that
do not change the conclusions of the Final EIR traffic evaluation.
Figure 5.2-1:
Table 5.2-1:
Table 5.2-2:
Figure 5.2-4 &
Table 5.2-5:
Figure 5.2-S &
Table S.2-7:
The existing average daily traffic volumes on College Boulevard between Plaza Drive
and Lake Boulevard and between Lake Boulevard and Carlsbad Village Drive have been
revised. These revisions were previously addressed in our response to comments of the
City of Oceanside letter dated November 14, 2005. An excerpt from our response memo
is attached for reference. These edits do not change the conclusion of the traffic section
of the Final EIR.
This table has been edited to be consistent with the edits on Figure 5.2-1. No change to
the conclusion of the traffic section of the Final EIR as a result of these edits.
The LOS for intersection #14 in the A.M. peak hour has been edited from A to C, to be
consistent with the ICU value. There is no change to conclusions.
This figure and table have revised average daily traffic volumes to be consistent at each
segment. The level of service evaluation for street segments was determined using peak
hour volumes taken from the intersection peak hour traffic turn movements and not from
average daily traffic volumes. The City of Carlsbad Growth Management Program
outlines these procedures. Since peak hour volumes. were used to determine segment
levels of service, these edits do not change the conclusions of the Final EIR traffic
section.
Edits have been made to Figure 5.2-5 to be consistent with the average daily traffic
volumes in Figure 5.2-5. These edits do not change the conclusions of the Final EIR
traffic section.
1 3101-072606-ememo--spk-d
4540 Kearny Villa Road, Suite 106 • San Diego, CA 92123 • (858) 560-4911 • Fax (858) 560-4911
TlmGntbru
BRG, Inc.
Table 5.2-6:
Table 5.2-8:
Figure 5.2-7:
Urban Systenu Associates, Inc.
July 26, 2006
Intersection #1 and #25 the level of service has been edited to be consistent with the ICU
value. No change to the conclusions of the Final BIR traffic section since these levels of
service are better than the acceptable level of service D.
At Intersection #20, a minor edit to A.M. LOS does not change the conclusions of the
Final BIR traffic study.
The segment volume on Cannon Road between Lego Drive and Faraday Avenue was
omitted. Adding this volume does not change the conclusions of the Final EIR. traffic
section.
Please contact me if you have questions or need additional information.
CC: Barbara Kennedy
Jeremy Riddle
Brian Milich
Don Mitchell
Paul Klukas
2 J JO J-072606-ememo--spk-d
4540 Kearny Villa Road, Suite 106 • San Diego, CA 92123 • (858) 560-4911 • Fax (858) 560-4911
-
Chapter 5 -Environmental Impact Analysis 5.2 -Troffic/Circulolion
TABLE 5.2-1
Existing Street Segment Levels of Service
~"'t"~'~:1rt' ....... •t,.. T'U~";l"io-'\.,/":.~'"vt'i;:' .. ';_';r''t"i~,n,_:c ';~l'\:"r:'l• •• •;!,L'..~"";i11~~-.l:,1t ~l_2~~:";'•'if/ii'...._(~ l~r •~1"!'1,.., :',I• ;,,;,\-:r I, •, "?";f•,, ••~•t,r""f,-:,;J',! ~ :• ~"f'~,~~m
1!ifir~.,., .. r._.J..',-:J:;j.'~d·J;.ri:;:t'-:)'tlffl~v ..... ,~· -· ~ ... ~1,fr~ \ ft;,'=f'· -.lv··~·,m~~T:;..!~ ... J~ "'"'' . _. ........ , ......... , ,1. ,l -~,:c ,i,., f. -,; :, •• /_.,/.~•rte J,,.....t , ,w:;;· '"'"'•o'./k ,, ·.'.; ,·,,r 'C'. : ·\;<>; •":e;;ic,,:;,.,,, · , ~ , IW•::' r ·pip 1,, i '1 ;,~'\\''/•,. ; ;:: ·; '" q-',;,• ,,., ',r ,: ;,' :c~.\'i
1N•~• ':I.•~-=-= 1-• .. (,•..,. 1,,,,::1'/ s;•,, ,,•-•,.,•1 ,1',ifi -'h,~•'''l\~1,,,a1.-i",1,1'1VJ ,•, "'"'•• o\,tl '' ;#~rt~~-'-. !\:.;f1t ",J~·E.:r;r~-~t\". ~,..,,l.~l_~;-.: ~ ~-.!;.\11~-:;,~ .. J ,:~/,; •,~ :{·kiti :~i\'•r.,~ ~ ·_ ~· :?-:../~::, :.,<1r":i 1r1:: .:.i? f h11~,! ~:-/--·-~;'f-' ~ ';~ .. f ;1~,,7 .• 11. ··~ ,t ').. ~--1 ~b~-'.:fi,~%;:t;Jti;,t:1> :'?,,+,1i ?;,l;Jft ~'r/ J:S;',f;\~,,;,'~J,"J.~¥J~W't:~·;_,~,: /,•:.,!'. ~k;/./1~!{;_--,;, ~{ti{;,/,\,:•-,''.,: ,,::~.•{'_\1~,:Z:. ,,l!;c ~: ·?,.~j
~?ct-~)~11~•--l-~>~~ti1&~ :~t~.z:~ ~ ,-,(~ l \ ~~ 1tff}J:*i~~ t.:i .. i!t;1:l~2)iifs~: ~Jif .tK~ ~~3u-. , j(~:. ,: · t~,-~~
Cannon Road
1-5 -Paseo Del Norte
Paseo Del Norte -Leao Dr.
Leao Dr. -Faradav Ave.
Faradav Ave. -El Camino Real
8 Camino Real -Colleoe Blvd.
C6lleae Blvd. -East Citv limit
l:ast Cltv Limit -Melrose Dr.
Colleoe Boulevard·
Palomar Airoort Rd. -B Camino Real
El Camino Real -Cannon Rd.
Cannon Rd. -Carlsbad Villaae Or.
Carlsbad Vlllaae Dr. -Lake Blvd.
Lake Blvd. -SR-78
El Camino Real
SR-78 -Marron Rd.
Marron' Rd. -Carlsbad Vlllaae Dr.
Carlsbad Villaae Dr. -Tamarack Ave.
Tamarack Ave. -Cannon Rd.
Cannon Rd. -Colleae Blvd.
Colleae Blvd. -Faradav Ave.
Faradav Ave. -Palomar Airoort Rd.
Tamarack Avenue
B Camino RetJI -Carlsbad VillaQe Dr.
B Camino· Real-Highland Dr.
Notes: 6PA" 6~ane prtmary arterial
4MA" 4-lane major arterial
4SA = 4-iane secondary arterial
2MA " 2~one mojar arterial
VPHPL" Vehicles per hour per lane
CPL • Capacity p'er Iona @ 1.800 VPH
LOS =-Level of service
Source: Urbon Systems Associates, Inc., 2005.
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR
4MA
4MA
4MA
4MA
2MA
4MA
4MA
4MA
. 4MA
4MA
4MA / I
6PA 41
6PA
6PA
4PA
4PA
SPA
6PA
6PA
4SA
4SA 7 ()
5,2-3
22.000 892 0.50 A
19.000 713 0.40 A
11,000 413 0.23 A
8,000 413 0.23 A,
10,oob 946 0.53 A
-Not Built-
14.000 320 0.18 A
13,000 560 0.31 A
-Not Built-
10;000 946 0.53 A
ncot-t;OOe-488 0.27 A
coo 15,000 492 0.27 A
. '40,000 630 0.35 A
34,000 702' 0.39 A
27,000 922 0.51 A
33,000 980 0.54 A
28,000 1,154 0.64 B
26,000 748 0.42 A
33.000 716 0.40 A
10,000 220 o.'12 A
>O i'l,Bee 175 0.10 A
April2006
212
LEGEND
• ~-•• • ··-• Future Street
SOURCE .
SANDAG Year 2002 Traffic Flow Map,
City of Carlsbad Year 2004, Traffic Monitoring Report
Caltrans 2003, Volumes Shown In Thousands
SOURCE: Urban Systems Associates, Inc., 2005
------.--··-.. ·-. • • ' '
.. --.·· .. •
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Program EIR
Existing Average Daily Traffic
19
7/21/05
FIGURE
5.2-l
U.t:UJh,.J'I ol.l.J.l.C,l'Jl) .l'i&>i.JVv.vi.A.Ui.J, .tHv.
l'INftHo • nwnca--~ • l"rtO.wt:r~
COHIU.TJWIW TI) INOUfflly MO ~
COMP ANY: BRG Consulting, In .
e-mail: ..
Tim@BRGInc.net
MEMO
ATTN: Tim Gnibus ~ .
FROM: Sam P. Kab, II TOTAL /"AGES: 2.
ATE: December 12, 2005 TIME: 11 :04 am TllANSM/1TED VIA: E-mail
SUBJECT: Robertson Ranch DEIR Response to Traffic Comments USAJjob #3101
Provided below are suggested responses to DEIR comments:
CITY OF OCEANSIDE LE'ITER. NOVEMBER 14. 2005
1. Existin~ Conditions;
A. This comment states that the College Boulevard average daily traffic (ADT)
volume south of Plaza.Drive is approximately 49,000 ADT.
An evaluation of this segment using this revised ADT volume is provided below.
College Blvd. Segment ADT No. of Lanes LOS (1)*
Plaza Dr. To Lake Blvd. 49,000 6-PA C
South of Lake Blvd. 15,000 4-MA A
*( I) See Table D-2, 2002 SANDAO Congestion M111agoment Program (attached)
OIIJ/11/
The SANTEC/ITE Guidelines for Traffic Im.pact Studies in the San Diego Region,
March 2, 2000; suggests that significant project impacts could occur at LOS "E" or
"F" but that LOS "D" or better is acceptable. Theref~re, for these segments of
College Boulevard the project impact is considered less than significant for existing
plus project conditions.
Page I of 9 JJOJ./2/2(1$-1"tma-,pk ... pd
,1(1((1 ,.,,,.,.,,v v,,,. R,..,,. c: ....... /II,<;. c: ... n,~,,,. ro O?l?LH7?. IR~JII ~l'o(1.4CJ//. Fu (R58) 560-9734
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.2-Troffic/Circulolion
TABLE 5.2-2
Existing Intersection Level of Service Summary (ICU Method)
~---~~ ,?{!:',~ ~v,.;r,~ ~ '.i(.:;r1,--\? .. ~"-~ i,'.,:r; t/7}p :r.:.~.,~:R;~-?t~J, ~ji:1:-~; -~~.~~ ,; !f •,~' ';7~\1~{;~·.-:-,w,,~ .. lfl;;·~~~z ,,-;. ''½~£' ~.!:i\ .... 1J 1~~, ~iT1• .. ':P.' ... w -ii .,:-~•1,.-:,',-' 1>~--,,•-~-'·,··l'i':-'·-,·,tf', ;,;•':,'Jg{'/;,"'{', ·::-, ·<:.11.~ I' ,.l_'il'i;,;,J,'f .. .:'' .... ,; .. ,,,,, ,,. ),·:,''•;,1,_<,1\-t,-,•, ~~"e~J-(l•·l~'}'••A•J~'~ ~ 'Jr... • .-)"' •~~~ ''"t';,;~-~~-/ :~r1 ·~~-"•,-•~~.,~,,-.~l..;,.(~•.~..,,: >-,4,,._...-_._, _ _.,,.._-.:,.,..i. ,.,,d J\..,;i-:.i,.,....,__..i..,.,.J.'.\. .. ~, ~ :.,..~y.1 .~~~-l:;~:fi~~:\\~~t1'rl!.Qr'-:tj:<~~:·:~.:;)~·~~:;i,{~~~~~\~)"~. \.[~'!.'J\'/1r'~·f.rITr~~~flif:2;~\~~1~~t("i:;,;~r--\.~:,-:~1:-;; . .:r;.ZFt.~··r:-!.c~~·'.~-!~; ~ 1if~h~J :c:r~ 'rJ"..:.t{tt~ct?1::~£:..1.;~ t i-;.~2;/;."i~~ ~~@ l~'!'!.~ rr.i~a.l;fil~~~i:},,.~~\r"~l;t,..,ll.)t't~~ .. -:: ,; \_ ~1,-j1~·~W:":..!'L~· ~1¼A.J~f~.~ t~v,J;,~t~ ~1!3
l Colleae Blvd. / Vista Way
2 College Blvd. / SR-78 EB Ramos
3 Colleae Blvd. / Plaza Dr.
4 College Blvd. / Lake Blvd.
5 Plaza Dr./ SR-78 EB Ramos
6 Colleae Blvd. / Carlsbad Villaae Dr.
7 Colleae Blvd. / Cannon Rd. (l)
8 Colleae Blvd. / El Camino Real
9 El Camino Real / SR-78 WB Romos
10 El Camino Real / SR-78 EB Romos
11 El Camino Real/ Plaza Dr.
12 El Camino Real / Marron Rd.
13 El Camino Real / Carlsbad Village Dr.
14 El Camino Real/ Tamarack Ave.
15 El Camino Real / Faraday Ave.
· l 6 El Camino Real / Palomar Airoort Rd.
17 Palomar Airoort Rd. / El Fuerte St.
18 Cannon Rd. / 1-5 SB Ramos
19 Cannon Rd. / 1-5 NB Ramos
-20 Cannon Rd. / Paseo Del Norte
21 Cannon Rd. / Leao Drive
22 Cannon Rd./ Faraday Ave.
23 · Cannon Rd. / E1 Camino Real
24 Farodov Ave./ College Blvd.
25 E1 Camino Real / Kellv Dr.
26 Cannon Rd. / Melrose Dr.
27 Carlsbad Village Dr./ Tamarack Ave.
28 El Camino Real / Future West Villaae
31 Palomar Aircort Rd. / Loker Ave. West
32 W. Vista Way/ SR-78 WB on-off Romos
33 Palomar Airoort Rd. / Melrose Dr.
34 Tamarack Ave. /La Portalada Dr. 12)
Notes: (1) ,. No traffic control devices currently instaDed.
(2) " Stop sign con1rol on minor street.
Source: Urban Systems Associates. Inc., 200S .
...
Robertson Ranch Moster Plan Final EIR
111
5.2-5
0.61 B 0.79 C
0.49 A 0.60 A
0.52 A 0.68 B
0.43 A 0.59 A
0.4] A 0.60 A
0.60 A 0.54 A
NA NA NA NA
0.55 A 0.54 A
0.59 A 0.70 B
0.43 A 0.60 A
0.51 A 0.66 B
0.53 A 0.56 A
0.60 A 0.70 B
0.74 C ~ 0.53 A
0.66 B 0.79 C
0.69 B 0.93 E
0.76 B 0.68 B
0.55 A 0.43 A
0.61 B '' 0.54 A
0.68 B 0.51 A
0.49 A 0.46 A
0.58 A 0.63 B
0.57 A 0.67 B
0.41 A 0.44 A
0.63 B 0.57 A
0.38 A 0.44 A
0.27 A 0.28 A
0.59 A 0.60 A
NA NA NA NA
0.56 A 0.63 B
0.92 E 0.79 C
NA B NA B
April2006
213
LEGEND
. ~-----_ ..... --·· ... ~ .. ---....
~ • . I
I • ,
.. -·· ..
·~
-• • • • • ----Future Streets
SOURCE: Urban Systems Associates, Inc., 2005 ,
-m-m-m-
~
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Program EIR
Existing + Project Only Average Daily Traffic
(Volumes Shown in Thousands)
7/21/05
FIGURE
5.2-4
Chapter 5 -Environmental Impact Analysis 5.2 -Traffic/Circulation
TABLE 5.2-5
Existing + Project Street Segment Levels of Service
~,1~~~;.f.~ftfr1;iif:V:l!~.r.':·:~~F~,;;~~~[,r:1-~'.%mrr1~~!:11:::,~f.ilrJ~t~t'i,Bi£#1tK~;,.,::1if~-~;~;··~{z:F':f:i•~-:.:':I '>'~~'.'!ic; ir,f'J :,,,. :;:,,\:,? ,~";...;.,:_.'i'#i;', :-/~v-~•:t~./;,.•1~•lf,;~~,'<~i~ k,~W~\,r-.t .i'&-~•,,1';/)'i;~t ,:: .:> ir:,.;·{.1;·,,. :;,;-<'' -:'F~' :., ,:-~-~]~;: ~}~,\. ••:~~:~::/~ ~:c,: •f~Y,~:~>.'•'!_;,~~)t <1~;:? :t{; •t1~:•f'L;\.\ •~1~ ~;~~~;i:li ;~ 1\ 1~,;.~• •. )~:.:•l~l:~•~W:4;,l~~/"-;;\,f:-.~•:1Ji1::,•~~ 1 ~l.']t I/er~~' ,~11 J ·:' ,:t. ~,,iif'. '> ,,,,, ..... I., •. -'••J '.,. ".~. ',1~1•,.,·1 r, . {"V".' '. -',,... • •,.••· ''. -. •',../ Ir, '
)'t'.i;.,,_,~.f1' >'i,-,·•~; ···'.tf, -:,,~•,.', . .,i;~•W,"•.'r', ~~~\[ .,..!L;,: [~idti~h-~•-~J:,},~•J•i"• •:,, .. ;1 t,,,.i~'. \ '""-:1 \, ";,, ·,.,,,, " _.:' ~~~-~•1••w;,~•••~-~ .... ~ 11,. • .,,,,,~ .... µ,,,~~~t ~ ,.,t,•,,,.t{'-t',(f'•#·'·~ ... \ ·1\ j 1•~.r. ,''\._',I' ~ ~{,.df~!.'!~Ni .._ ... ; ,,.r ~•L~i.,~l. !,• ~,J ~ ~~~\~..:'.1t:.?.~~lt!~;i:_:-:, ;;y .. ~~)l,J1,1 J~i.2Li:i:t~~~~--t:J
Cannon Road
1-5 -Paseo Del Norte ·
Paseo Del Norte -Leao Dr.
Leqo Dr. -Faraday Ave.
Faraday Ave. -El Camino Real
El Camino Real -Colleae Blvd.
Colleoe Blvd. -East Citv Limit
East City limit -Melrose Dr.
Colleae Boulevard
Palomar Airoort Rd. -El Camino Real
El Camino Real -Cannon· Rd.
Cannon Rd. -Carlsbad Villaae Dr.
Carlsbad Villaae Dr. -Lake Blvd.
Lake Blvd. -SR-78
El Camino Real
SR-78 -Marron Rd.
Marron Rd. Carlsbad Villaae Dr.
· Carlsbad Villaae Dr. -Tamarack Ave.
Tamarack Ave. -Cannon Rd.
Cannon Rd. -Colleae Blvd.
Colleae Blvd. -Faradov Ave.
· Faraday Ave. -Palomar Airoort Rd.
Tamarack Avenue
El Camino Real -Carlsbad Villaae Dr.
El Camino Real :.. Hiahland Dr.
Palomar Alroort !toad
El Camino Real -B Fuerte St.
8 Fuerte St. -Melrose Dr.
Noles: 6PA = 6-lone primary arteriol
4MA • 4-lone major arterial
4SA "' 4-lane secondary art&rial
2MA • 2-lane major arterial
VPHPL .. Vehicles per ho\X per kine
CPL "' Capacity per_lone O 1,800 VPH
LOS.= Level of sarylce
Soui:ce: Urban Systems Auoclates, lnc., 2005.
4MA
4MA
4MA
4MA
2MA
4MA
4MA
4MA
4MA
4MA
4MA
6PA
6PA
6PA
4PA
4PA
4PA
6PA
6PA
4SA
4C
6PA
6PA
. .
C 'l_ 1 I")
1-+. =· a i . eee 915 0.51 A ..
21,000 360 0.20 A
13,000 330 0.18 A
11,000 200 0.11 A
16,000 1,000 0.56 A
-Not Built-
14,000 320 0.18 A
16,000 570 0.32 A
-Not Built-
11,000 ·l,000 0.56 A
i'l1 11,Q -+5;098-650 0.36 A
,'/· ""'~ +r.600-NA NA -NA
4'1..i m 52,890 760 0.42 A
'2:1,~ [) -~&.OOQ 615 0.34 A
30,000 620 0.34 A
42. o '.XJ ·86,999 645 0.36 A
33,000 630 0.35 B
30,000 685 0.38 A ·
156,( bo s-t.eee 525 0.29 A
\~,( Ice -8;006-255 0.14 A
9,000 205 0 .11 A
r .11,, ~1' se.eee 1,1 45 0.64 B
S711) 111 se,eee l.145 0.64 B
204
LEGEND
-·-·····-""Future Street ·
SOURCE
-SANDAG Carlsbad/Cities/Counfy Forecast
Year 2010 Alt. 2, Dated April 6, 2000
Volumes Shown In Thousands
·soURCE: Urban Systems Associates, Inc., 2005
.. -.. --···· _ .. -
18
.. • _,. .
-~-i-Robertson Ranch Master Plan Program EIR
~-ll'.~-~
Year 2010 + Project Average Daily
Traffic Volumes
C-, 1 C
~ NO SCALE l
7/21/05
FIGURE
5.2-5
Chapter s -Environmental Impact Analysis 5.2-Trafflc:/Circulalion
TABLE 5.2-7
Year 20 l O With Project Street Segment Levels of Ser/ice
Cannon Road
1-5 -Paseo Del Norte 4MA 18.000 365 0.20 A
Paseo Del Norte -Leao Dr. 4MA 11.000 450 0.25 A
Leqo Dr. -Faraday Ave. 4MA 15.000 350 0.19 A
Faradav Ave. -8 Camino Real 4MA ::t: 15,000 350 0.19 A
8 Camino Real -Colleae Blvd. 4MA 11.000 330 0.18 A
Colleae Blvd. -Eqst Citv Limit 4MA ----
East City Limit -Melrose Dr. 4MA 14.000 0.21 A
Colleae Boulevard
Palomar Airoort Rd. -El-Camino Real 4MA ·* 18.000 480 0.27 A
8 Camino Real -Cannon Rd. 4MA 18,000 490 --.
Cannon Rd. -Cat1sbad YIDoae Dr. 4MA 22,000 480 0.27 A
Carlsbad Villaae Dr. -Lake Blvd. 4MA 33,000 535 0.30 A
Lake Blvd. -SR-78 6PA 38.000 510 0.28 A
El Camino Real
SR-78 -Marron Rd. 6PA 35,000 840 0.47 A
Marron Rd. -Carlsbad Villaae Dr. 6PA 32,000 585 0.33 A
Carlsbad Villaae Dr. -Tamarack Ave. 6PA 30,000 405 0.23 A
Tamarack Ave. -Cannon Rd. SPA 43.000 940 · 0.52 A
Cannon Rd. -Colleae Blvd. 5PA 36,000 1.050 0.58 A
Colleae Blvd. -Faraday Ave. 6PA 46,000 705 0.39 A
Faradav Ave. -Palomar Airoort Rd. 6PA 41.000 635 0.35 A
Tamarack Avenue . ;-. .. ~.:. .. . ,:,. . : . ' .. ..
·-'(-~ ·:1,:,~ru-~,--. .. \ ...
El Camino Real -Carlsbad Villaae Dr. 4SA 10:000 A
No1es: 6PA -6-lone primary orterlol . ....... ~: ... :~~--: .... · .. :• ..•.
SPA,. 5-lane primary orterlol .. ·.·:
•MA ~ •-lane· major orterlol •SA • 4~ar,e secondary arterial
VPHPL • Vehicles per hour per lone
CPL • Capacity per lone O 1,800 VPH
LOS "' Lavel of service
Source: Urban Systems Associates, Inc .. 2005.
WL C -,~-JP w . = ,..,_._. _ _... ___ "---'-,. __ £ __ ,.,.. __ c:--.1c1n ,: ,.,_ 1 ,L Anril ?Ml.
Chapter 5..: Environmental Impact Analysis 5.2 -Traffrc/Circulallon
TABLE 5.2-6
Existing + Project With/Without Project
Comparison of Intersection Peak Hour Levels of Service
(Intersection C~pacity Utilization Methodology)
e Blvd. / Vista Wa
2 e Blvd. / SR-78 EB Ram s 0.49 A A 0.60
3 0.52 . A 0.54 A 0.68
4 0.43 A· ·0.45 A 0.59 A
5 Plaza Dr .. SR-78 EB Ram s Q.47 A 0.48 A 0.60 A
6 Colle e Dr. 0.60 A 0.61 B 0.54 A
7 CoRe e Blvd. Cannon Rd. NA NA NA NA NA NA
8 Cone e Blvd. / 8 Camino Real 0.55 A 0.61 B 0.54 A
9 8 Camino Real / SR-78 WB Ram s 0.59 A 0.61 B 0.70 B
10 El Camino Real / SR-78 EB Ram s 0.43 A 0.43 . A 0.60 A
11 El Camino Real / Plaza Dr. 0.51 A 0.51 A 0.66 B
12 El Camino Real Morron Rd. . 0.53 A 0.54 A 0.56 A
13 El Camino Real / Carlsbad Villa e Dr. 0.60 A 0.62 B 0:70 B
· 14 El Camino Real/ Tamarack Ave. 0.74 C 0.86 D . 0.53 A
15 El C mino Real / Farad 0.66 B 0.68 B 0.79 C
.16 . 0.69 B· 0.75 C 0.93 E
17 0.76 C 0.79 C 0.68 B
18 0.55 A 0.58 A 0.43 A
19 Cannon Rd. . 1-5 NB Ram s 0.61 B 0.62 B 0.54 A
20 Cannon Rd. / Paseo Del Norte 0.68 B 0.71 C 0.51 A
21 Cannon Rd. / Le o Drive 0.49 A 0.51 A 0.46' A
22 Cannon Rd. / Forada Ave. 0.58 A 0.59 A 0.63 B
23 Cannon Rd. / El Camino Real 0.57 A 0.65 B 0.67 . B
24 Farad Ave. / Colle e Blvd. Q.41 A 0.42 A 0.44 A
25 8 Camino Real / Kell Dr. 0.63 B 0.69 B 0.57 A
26 Cannon Rd. / Melrose Dr. 0.38 A 0.38 A 0.44 A
-27 Carlsbad Villa e Dr./ Tamarack Ave. · 0.27 A 0.31 A 0.28 A
28 0.68 B 0.85 D 0.62 B
29 . w /Cannon Rd. 0.59 A
30 . e /Cannon -Rd. 0.54 A
31 Palomar Ai art Rd, Loker Ave. West NA NA NA NA NA NA
32 W. Vista Wa SR-78 WB on-off Ram s 0.56 A 0.58 A 0.63 B
33 Ptllomar Ai ort Rd./ Melrose Dr. 0.92 E 0.93 E 0.79 C
34 Tcmarack Ave./ La Portalada Dr. (1 NA B NA C NA B
Notes: ( 1) ,. Stop sign control on minor street.
Source: Urbon Systems Associates. Inc. 2005.
. . --
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Rnol EIR 5.2-13
0.62 B
0.69 B
0.60 A
0.61 B
0.55 A
NA NA
0.61 B
0.71 C
0.60 A
0.67. B
0.58 A
0.72 C
0.75 C
0.82 D
0.97 E
0.69 B
0.45 A
0.58 A
0.56 A
0.48 A
0.70 ·8
0.88 D
0.46 A
0.65 .k'
0.44 A
0.31 A
0.76 C
0.48 A
0.41 A
NA ·NA
0.64 B
0.83 D
NA D
April 2006
Chapter 5 -Environmental Impact Analysis 5.2-TrofllciCirculotion
TABLE 5.2-8
Year 2010 With/Without Project Comparison
of Intersection Peak Hour Levels of Service Without Mitigation
(Congestion Management Plan Methodology)
e Blvd./ Vista·Wa
e Blvd. / SR-18 EB Ram s 21.3
3 · Colle ·e Blvd. Plaza Dr. 32.4 C 33.5 C 126.2 F 131.1
4 Colle e Blvd. Lake Blvd. 37.8 D 38.5 D 40.9 D 41.8
5 Plaza Dr. / SR-78 EB Ram s 31.1 C 32.8 C 40.4 D 43.7
6 Colle e Blvd. Carlsbad Villa eDr. 26.4 C 29.6 C 14.2 B 18.1
7 Colle e Blvd. Cannon Rd. 25.1 C 26.2 C 26.0 C 26.2 ·
8 -Colle e Blvd. / El Camino Real 36.2 D 37.8 D 36.2 ·o 44.1
9 El Camino Real / SR-78 WB Ram s 25.8 C 26.3 C 28.7 C 29.0
10 El Camino Real / SR-78 EB Ram s 13.9 B 14.1 B 18.8 B 19.5
11 8 Camino Real Plaza Dr. 33.7 C 34.8 C 38.7 D 39.5
12 I Camino Real / Morron Rd. 28.3 C 30.1 C 31.1 C 32.9
13 El Camino Real / Carlsbad Villa e Dr. 36.3 D 39.3 D 38.9 D 39.0
14 El Camino Real/ Tamarack Ave. 29.5 C 36.6 D ·33.4 C 48.6
15 El Camino Real /'Forada Ave. 45.4 D 47.4 D 44.5 D 50.7
16 El Camino Real Palomar Air ort Rd. 37.7 D 38.1 D 47.0 .D 48.6
17 Palomar Ai ort .Rd. / El Fuerte St. 51.1 D 52.2 D 51.8 D 53.6
18 Cannon Rd. / 1-5 SB Ram s 33.3 C 33.3 C 32.4 C 33.3
19 Cannon Rd. 1-5 NB Ram s 14.9 B '15.4 B 23.1 C 24.1
20 Connon Rd. / Paseo Del Norte 32.8 C 37.8 ,Ji!; 33.0 C 34.B
21 Cannon Rd. Le o Drive 27.3 C 28.7 C 28.9 C '.YJ.7
22 Cannon Rd./ Forada Ave: 33.7 C 35.2 D 40.6 D 45.3
23 Connon Rd. 8 Camino Real 40.4 D 46:9 D 56.l E . 77.4
24 Forada Ave. Colle e Blvd. 43.5 D 43.6 D-49.8 D 49.8
25 El Camino Real / Kel Dr .. 34.3 C 38.0 D 14.2 8 1-4.3
26 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
27· 36.5 D 36.6 D 34.8 C 35.8
28 30.6 C 161.9 F 2.9 A 43.6
29 NA NA 18.5 B NA NA 17.8
30 NA NA 16.1 B NA NA 6.8
31 Palomar Ai ort Rd. / Loker Ave. West 50.0 D 51.3 D 36.7 D 38.8
32: SR-78 WB on-off Rom s 39.1 o· 39.6 D 39.4 D 39.8
33 Palomar Ai ort Rd. Melrose Dr. 53.9 D 54.l D 482 D 45.8
34 Tamarack Ave./ La Portolada Dr. 2 13.8 B 13.B B 14.7 B 16.1
Note: SignifJCcnce threshold of more !hon 2.0 seconds of oddltloncl delay only applies at LOS E or F.
(1) = Delay: Total control.delay per vehicle (seconds) per 2000 Highway Capacity Manuel.
(21 • Stop sign control on minor street.
Source: Urben Systems Associates, Inc .. 2005.
> • • • • -·. ••• • •••
F
D
D
B
C
D
C
·s
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
C
C
C
c
D
E
D ..
B
NA
D
D
B
A
D
D
D
C
.. , . .,
Robertson Ranch Master Pion Final EIR 5.2-17 April2006
SOURCE
SANDAG 2030 Combined North County Model
Dated July 1, 2004
V.olumes Shown In Thousands
SOURCE: Urban Systems Associates, Inc., 2005
.iTia:TiiTI Robertson Ranch Master Plan Program EIR
·ill·ill·~· Y8ar 2030 Average Daily Traffic Volumes
~
* . NO SCALE
I·
7/21/QS
FIGURE
5.2-7
,,..
Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Anplysis 5.2-Troffic/Circulolion
TABLE 5.2-1.0
Year 2030 With Project Street Segment Levels of.Service
r"'" '<·~-.... 1s;,.,.,.,,'ll')'-Yr~~T' r~•~• -.--,.,-,,1 ~-..-,-c-,;, · \ ,;, • · I;;-•1sJ~-• ..._, .... ,." ---••l'I,, , ... , ,::;r,ir~~•t.L.?~.,~ ~fr.: ·-.;:·..:J'-'r;,r•i-• :i1t"JJ"{'lr.-.·x1t11"~ ... ~ 1,:•,,.·, .. , .. ,,, ... "~~"' .... ~·•,\li..~·~•;-.,!..·~:,·;: •'fl'"'.1:., .. ,/ I·,':. f-,·-~; ... 1 .. ,~.--\ ....... ,,.1 .. ',}.r!';:•t ·~~'~-,~~·-:··~,t :r,,,.r-..; ..... l\. \~ (, r ... ,~ .... t'~,..2:.,;~, !
1•,··~ •(.t•:•, .. :·lJ ;.· .,:i~:..;·:ltl·' ~ .. n -•~ .. ·t· 1, .• ,(·~.··!·t· . .J·~!t.1.,-'I ~< .. ; ... ;,l'·.1.r·iJ. 1J! .. '"l··,:·.-'t·.~~..:v;~\J~{_;,~1,-.-:., . ...\·i;::'~
i:.t.'.J;,\}L ;:•: ;·;,•t:tilc~• ti,::. :}t;: \::tr:·;;2rlli~,i:,1t~f f Ztitl~!r;;;:!L~ .• ·:;
Cannon Road
1-5 -Paseo Del Norte
Paseo Del Norte -Leao Dr.
Leao Dr. -Faraday Ave.
Faradov Ave. -s· Camino Real
El Camino Real -Colleae B~; _.: • .. : . ~
Colleae Blvd. -East Citv Limit
East Cltv Limit-Melrose Dr.
Colleae Boulevard
Palomar Airoort Rd. -El Camino Real
El Camino Real -Cannon Rd.
Cannon Rd. -Carlsbad Villaae Dr.
Carlsbad Villaae Dr. -Lake Blvd.
Lake Blvd. -SR-78
El Camino Real
SR-78 -Marron Rd.
Marron Rd. -Carlsbad Villaae Dr.
Carlsbad Villaae Dr. -Tamarack Ave.
Tamarack: Ave. -Cannon Rd.
Connon Rd. -Colleae Blvd.
Colleae Blvd. -Faraday Ave.
Faraday Ave. -Palomar Airoort Rd.
Tamarack Avenue
El Camino Real -Carlsbad Villaae Dr.
Notes: 6PA a 6-lone primary ater1ol .
4MA • 4-lone major orterlcl
4SA .. -4-lane secondary orterlol
VPHPL "'Vehicles per hour per lone
CPL • Copoclty per lone @ 1,800 VPH
LOS "' Level of service
Source: . Urbon Systems Associates, Inc .. 2005.
RnhArl<nn l.'nn..-h Mnsf,.r Pinn Finni FIR
4MA
4MA
4MA
4MA
4MA
4MA
·4MA
4MA
4MA
4MA
4MA
6PA
6PA
6PA
6PA
6PA
6PA
6PA
6PA
...
4SA
34,000 1,025 0.58 A
20,000 755 0.42 A
22.000 595 0.33 A
23000 595 0.33 A
19,000 570 0.32 A
30000 650 0.36 A
33,000 810 0.45 A
29,000 595 0.33 A
42000. 595 0.33 A
31,000 650 0.36 A
46,000 1,055 0.59 A
64,000 865 0.48 A
43,000 775 0.43 A
34,000 615 0.34 A
35000 575 0.32 A
49,000 790 ·0.44 A
42,000 705 0.54 A
58,000 975 0.49 A
52,000 885 0.49 A
13,000 380 . 0.21 A
-.
Aoril 2006
/
;• · ... ,;,,
EIR Errata
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR
Errata
4-4
Attachment B
Revised MMRP Page 52
August2006
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Impact
Number
(Impact
provided
inMMRf'
Appendix
A
CRl
Mitigation Measure I Responsible
Monitoring
Party
-
CR-1 A phased data recovery system shall be completed for the significant archaeological sites I City Planning
impacted by the proposed project in compliance with the City of Carlsbad's Cultural Department
Resource Guidelines Criteria and Methodology for completing a Data Recovery Program
Phase Ill [City of Carlsbad, 1990). (Note: Appendix G [City confidential mop) of this MMRP
provides cultural resource site locations). This phased data recovery approach shall be
employed to ensure that the scope of proposed sampling is vo.lid with respect to research
questions that address data gaps of impact and interest. Data recovery provides for a
sample of the site to be excavated, artifacts and ecofacts to be analyzed, special studies
(i.e. radiocarbon dating, residue analysis, obsidian hydration and sourcing) and a report of
findings which addresses the important research questions. A research design shall be
prepared prior to data recovery, subject to peer review, prior to initiation of data recovery.
In addition. monitoring of brushing. grading, and trenching shall be required during the
construction of the project in order to identify any significant components of each
archaeological site that were not observed during data recovery excavations. Monitoring
will also focus on any potential to discover sites that were not identified in the previous
surveys due to the resources being buried or mask:ed from view. In the event that any
previously unrecorded sites are discovered during brushing. grading, or trenching, a
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final EIR 52
Required Time
of Application
Hiring qualified
archaeologist
prior to
issuance of a
grading permit.
Grading
release letter
prior to
issuance of a
grading permit.
Monitoring
throughout
grading
operations.
Monitoring
frequency
Once. prior
to issuance
of grading
permit.
Shown on
Plans/
Completion
Date
Verification:
East Village
East Village •SDl-10,610 I Date
(PA14)
lnit.
• SDl-10.611 •SDl-
~JA,135 •SDI-
~}.Q_.138
West Village • SDl-10.610
(PA13) • SDl-10,609
Once. prior
to issuance
of grading
permit.
Ongoing
throughout
grading
operations.
Name
I Verification:
West Village
I Date lnit.
I Name
April 2006
Correspondence Received after June 21, 2006
ATTACHMENT 17
.\\
McMillin Land Development
A Gorky McMillin Company
June 30, 2006
Chairman Montgomery and Members of the Carlsbad Planning Cammi
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Subject: Robertson Ranch Master Plan
Dear Commissioners:
As you know, on June 21st the Commission continued the Robertson Ranch Master Plan
for a second time.
In response to the issues raised by the Commission on June 21, we have taken the
following action:
I. Density: We have prepared a revised plan that reduces density within the
Robertson Ranch Master Plan to 1122 (1154 with no school). That reduction is
consistent with the density assumed under the Growth Management Plan and the
current LFMP for this property.
2. Senior Housing: We are proposing senior housing ( as well as non-age restricted
housing) on PA 7 and/or 8. This responds to the Commission's desire for an
additional mix of housing within Robertson Ranch, as well a reduction in traffic
generated by the West Village.
3. Tamarack Left Turn Movement: We will work with the City Engineering
Department to develop a design for two west-bound left turn lanes from Tamarack
onto southbound El Camino Real to the extent feasible.
4. West Village to Tamarack Road Connection: We are meeting with the City
Planning Department and the Resource Agencies to determine if an additional
roadway connection, from the West Village to Tamarack, is feasible. Any such
connection must also be weighed against any issues that it may generate in the
adjoining neighborhoods.
With respect to the primary issue, 1.e. roadway connections and traffic generation
between The Colony and the West Village, we met this week with Planning, Fire and
Engineering to again review a variety of designs intended to respond to the
Commission's concerns. We are scheduled to meet with The Colony representatives the
week of July 10. It remains our goal to find a solution that reduces the greatest amount of
traffic within The Colony, while meeting City requirements for adequate safety access.
The best design solution may or may not fully meet the demands of The Colony
neighborhood.
.\\. McMillin Reahy
.\\.
McMillin Mortgage
.\\. McMillin Land Development
.\\. McMillin Homes
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 85104 · San Diego, CA 92186-S104
2 750 Womble Road • San Diego, CA 92106
TEL(619)477-4117 • FAX(619)794-1604
www.mcmillin.com
.\\ McMillin Commercial
I would also like this letter to serve as my request to be docketed for one of the regularly
scheduled Planning Commission hearings in August, or a special Planning Commission
hearing on August 23.
Given the importance of the Robertson Ranch Master Plan (and the City's 84" storm
drain line) to the City; it is my hope that, with the changes articulated above, the
Commission will approve the Master Plan and related documents at its next hearing.
Thank you for your efforts to ensure that we develop the best design for the City.
Sio~ L
Brian J. Milich
Senior Vice President
cc. Mayor Lewis and City Council
Ray Patchett
Sandy Holder
Marcel Escobar-Eck
Barbara Kennedy
Jeremy Riddle
Ken Cablay
Gary Robertson
Brian Robertson
Robertson Ranch Development, Comments from Calavera Hills,
Knut Madden, 6/22/04.
Only by the wisdom of the Carlsbad Planning commission was the Robertson
Ranch development plan, submitted by McMillian Corp. and recommended by city staff,
prevented from devastating the community I'm a part of (The Colony at Calavera Hills),
our neighboring communities to the north, and constraining the new communities in the
"West Village" proposal to a similar fate.
At the March 31 st planning meeting, the commission members ask the developer and city
planners to come back with a better proposal, one that did not significantly increase the
front-yard traffic in these communities. The Planning Commission ask for an alternative
to using Glasgow and Edinburgh as thoroughfares, they did not want these streets as the
only secondary ingress/ egress for the ~ I 000+ homes proposed in the West Village,
second to the single entrance/exit on El Camino.
In the meeting June 21 '1, a similar proposal was presented to the Planning commission;
again they ask for similar changes. Thank you.
I see the fact that more than I 000 homes and a commercial center only have one
ingress/egress to the major thoroughfares surrounding the proposed development (El
Camino, Tamarack, Canon or College) as a design flaw for this proposal.
This design flaw was not addressed in the re-submitted proposal, recommended by city
staff on June 21st. Only circuitous routing and traffic calming where proposed [Both
only slow traffic, in front of "our" homes no less, and although this is perhaps safer
traffic, calm traffic is still traffic. In fact, slower cars are in front of our homes longer!
Sorry for the diversion.]
A review of an alternative ingress/egress to Tamarack, near the originally proposed RV
storage facility, was considered and is still an option. However, this option was not
incorporated into the re-submitted proposal. No re-submitted plan by the developer used
this new outlet to a major arterial as an option to reconfiguring the proposed
development. When city staff did commented on how such a Tamarack connection could
permit closing Glasgow Dr. to the West Village in the questioning period of the meeting,
they indicated the entire volume of traffic predicted to go through Glasgow would shift to
Edinburgh -without consideration of how such a new Tamarack connection could be
used to eliminate traffic through our community (nor how it could resolve Fire Safety
access challenges).
My point is that no serious consideration was given the design flaw in the proposal -that
being only one in/outlet to the surrounding arterials from such a large development.
In my humble opinion, I feel the proponents of the plan proposed yesterday where, again,
trying to get this project approved without tackling this design flaw, a design flaw that
would hamper the prosperity of this region of Carlsbad "forever". As the planners and
developers concluded by their resubmission, the single El Camino in/outlet to a major
arterial requires using our neighborhoods as in/outlets, and it forces the developer to build
communities with similar restrictions. Traffic from both communities would be driving
in front of one another's homes when instead the traffic should go out to an arterial.
At the June 21 st meeting, I was once again elated, and thank, the planning commission for
their decision. I hope that now serious consideration will be given to creating additional
in/outlets to major arterials from the West Village to keep our communities auto trips
from fouling the new community and vice versa.
As much as I believe a Tamarack Connection (through the currently farmed land and
proposed RV storage, down the most gentle slope on that side of the hill) can be used to
benefit all, I believe there may also be even better alternatives if all are willing to
redesign this project. For example, the small subdivision in the very comer of Tamarack
and El Camino is "dicey"; if you can drive through that development, from Tamarack to
the Kelly intersection (eliminating the Tamarack/El Camino intersection), wouldn't you?
I'm a greener, environmentalist than most, however, I can't help but think the waterway
coming into the Kelly "intersection" can be managed with an intersection at that point to
benefit all of West Village not just that North-Western section.
Given confidence that real change in the Robertson Ranch proposal will happen, I could
put my efforts towards a great plan, rather than fighting it. Do we not have time to do
just that?
The London bridge was brought to Lake Havasu City; couldn't Carlsbad have an
intersection with El Camino befitting this regal old highway .
. . . . . . .. I'm looking a creative architect that wants "his/her" bridge built!
Regards, Knut.
2705 Glasgow Dr.
Carlsbad CA, 92010
Emails: madval@adelphia.net; knut.madden@invitrogen.com
Planning Department
Carlsbad, California 92009
To all the Commissioners;
:',,-i:.:_~ .,..,,,. . -. ' " . ; ,.-'
"",'
We at_tended the two meetings concerning the _Roberts~n Ranch Proje~t. We definitel,r,
1
,. , w ,,., .. ,
concur with the concerns brought forth about the mcrease m traffic; defirutely too martf~§ lj,
planned for the area, and the access roads to El Camino Real and Tamarack. Cadsbao
Nothing was discussed about the impact on the residents on the North side of Tamarack near .
El Camino Real. We have only three (3) streets at this location and two of them are semi-¢µJ;.de-· · ·
sacs going into LaPortalado, as our only entrance and exit to Tamarack. (One of the
Commissioners asked where LaPortalado was in relationship to the Ranch). The only other
street in this area with access to Tamarack is Pontiac Drive which is farther east from us. We
are already having trouble getting on Tamarack at different times of the day.
We have appreciated having College Blvd. opened at Lake and the Pl117.11 Drive area. It saves
us using El Camino Real to get to Hwy 78 and the Vista area But, someone on the panel
suggested making LaPortalado a right turn only exit leaving our area. What about entering our
residental area from Tamarack. Our neighborhood should not be a victim by a new
development.
Nothing was discussed about the planned Commercial Development or its location. For over
fifteen (15) years, the residents of the NE Quadrant signed three different Petitions against
Commercial Development on the SE comer of Tamarack and El Camino Real. After the third
and last developer wrote to the City withdrawing his plans, the City Council agreed with the
citizens that they did not want more Commercial on El Camino Real. At that time, there was a
project approved at College and El Camino. We haven't heard any more about that. But, if
there is a Commercial Project allowed on the Robertson Ranch, it should not be located on El
Camino Real.
Have any of the "long-term" landowners whose property has been zoned Agriculture ever
considered selling to someone who is interested in keeping the land agriculture? If the zoning
was not changed -we could keep some of our agriculture land At least, it's something to think
about.
f?.:f"o~~~-
(!__~ ~"'-'-'1.20/,0 .,
!f-~4-, Very truly yours, ~•
Freda Schweitzer
(.':".
c,
•.'
/ ,' \, ·.
½:-ii\
August 2, 2006 ir' ,).<$-\\
/ ,; '\.':,~ ~ef, I I ' "',;,'J_. __ ,,
\r-,l .. 'to.~ 0 .... , /--.;,' 1r~ ~~~"" '"·,
\~' V:-,""" I\,/
To: Jeff Segall, Car1sbad Planning Commissioner \\,,., ,.,f:'/
Cc: Car1sbad Planning Commissioners, Barbara Kennedy, Bria~~
Re: Signage/Notification Clarifications (Per Your Request}-Robertson Ranch Application
Dear Commissioner Segall,
Per your request I am submitting to you and the other Commissioners clarifications from
discussions pertaining to signage and notifications from the June 21 st Robertson Ranch application
commission meeting. City Staff is of the view that signage and notification is in the past and that
energy would be better spent moving forward. We somewhat agree; however, there are three
important points that should not be over1ooked:
(1) Your questions regarding signage were not accurately addressed as we discussed after the
meeting. (I don't believe Ms. Kennedy's response was intentional; probably due to
confusion, as also with audience members, with the intent of your questioning);
(2) The lessons learned from the past help us avoid mistakes and improve processes in the
future. To not evaluate and implement lessons learned would be foolish; and
(3) Several Colony residents believe that the signage and noticing was insufficient and that
such issue needs to be a part of the record of this application.
Before addressing signage and notification, I'd like to respond to the 'word on the streer at City Hall.
The Colony residents are being described as a bunch of crybabies and whiners. As we've
demonstrated to you, we have strived to be nothing less than professional. We prefer to be referred to
as established citizens with courage to stand up and fight for the community in which we live by
keeping it and its streets safe, and to save it from being destroyed. "In Carlsbad, public input is not
only required, but welcomed ... Public input is a key part of that process . ., Is it fair to blame residents
for discovering the pitfalls of an inadequately planned project? Better to discover and address it now
than later. We have been above board in working with City Staff and the applicant and if folks are
upset enough to call us crybabies and whiners, the term "professionalism" speaks for itself.
Ms. Kennedy's (and Commissioner's) comments regarding Noticing as retracted from meeting
June 21st are provided below. Clarifications are made in red as applicable.
1 Carlsbad Commwiity Services Guide, Fall 2006, Page 17
(1) BK-4 signs posted. Glasgow, Edinburgh, ECR & Cannon, ECR & Tamarack. Application in Process
signs posted May 7, 2004 been up for over 2 years.
Statement is incorrect as it applies to Edinburgh and Glasgow. Below is the signage that was posted 2
years ago at the end of Edinburgh and Glasgow. It does not say "Application in Process•, but "Future
Road Extension'. These are the only signs that have been posted at these locations until the more
recent May 31st Public Hearing signs that were posted 10 days prior to May 31st•
Segall-is there an orange sign at Glasgow and Edinburgh? BK -yes. Some form of notification has
been there for two years. The May 31st Public Hearing signs were posted 10 days prior to May 31 st.
We were watching for them to go up.
Edinburgh Glasgow
"Pending Public Hearing" Sign on NE corner of Cannon & El Camino Real
Speaks for itself with respect to readability.
"Pending Public Hearing• Sign on SE corner of Tamarack & El Camino Real
Speaks for itself with respect to readability.
(2) BK -Sent notices to all the properties within 600' of the project on that.
A red line in the aerial view below indicates the point at which 600' is. Homes below the red line are
within 600' of the subject property. "All of the properties within 600 feet• doesn't account for even half
of Colony residents. Its no wonder the response was low from Colony residents.
(3) BK -Sent notice to the Public Agencies and any interested party that has contacted us wanting notification.
Both my husband and I contacted the City in March 2006, and requested to be noticed on the
Robertson Ranch Development. Additionally, in our meeting with Planning personnel on May 8th 2006,
Ms. Escobar-Eck specifically stated that we receive such notice by mail. We did not receive the postal
notice for the May 31 , 2006 hearing. When we discovered that we had been overlooked, we contacted
Ms. Kennedy who said that she would make sure to add us to the notification list. We've received
nothing new since then, but aren't sure anything has been sent. We do not want to be missed again.
( 4) BK-Subsequent to that we had a special scoping meeting for the rancho Carlsbad HOA and that was
held about a week later.
a. 360-380 people at those meetings
b. 250 comment letters as a result of the meeting agencies and organizations about 13 letters
c. RC -200 comment letters
d. General Residents-24 comment letters, 15 from the Colony concerned about existing
traffic in the neighborhood
-don't extend Edinburgh to ECR
-don't extend Glasgow to ECR
-No straight routes through to Glasgow
-One asked for addiUonal point of entry on Tamarack
Based on these comments that we got from those 15 residents, thaf s the direction we took with the
Master Plan and the EIR. That's why we had the traffic calming and the circuitous routing. Based on
those original comments that's how the Master Plan was developed.
Not exacUy sure how the Master Plan takes into account the comments from the 15 residents?
Edinburgh and Glasgow were extended to El Camino Real creating "sling-shots• through the Colony.
Using the graphic below, the Colony had similar barricades in the mid-1980's saying, "Future Road
Extension• prior to the addition of the cul-de-sacs Brookwood and Gateshead, which are circled in red.
This was the type of development residents envisioned except with a couple hundred homes and not
1,000+ homes.
Future Road Extension Sigrlage
before Brookwood and Gatehead
additions to Colony in mid-1980' s
(5) Baker -there was a comment about the HOA not receiving a letter or notice. BK -applicant is the one
responsible for preparing the labels and the City sends out the notice.
Kari Atherton (Colony) verified that two notifications were mailed to the Colony HOA but were
sent to incorrect addresses, that the Colony HOA was never at the addresses and asked for
clarification as to what happens to returned notifications. Ms. Kennedy stated, " We hold on to
the returned envelopes until after a final decision has been made on the project, then they are
thrown out. The City Clerk's Office follows the same procedure for the notices that are sent for
the City Council hearings." Both McMillin and the City were aware that the Colony is a major
stakeholder, as they have indicated verbally in the past If the notifications sent to major
stakeholders came back, would it not be prudent for the applicant and/or City to take some
type of action? Simply ignoring it is negligent
(6) BK -After the scoping meetings we did put noffces out for availability for the draft EIR in conformance
to SEQUA, sent out to public agencies, any parties that signed up from the scoping meetings we
noffced them and again it was noticed in the newspaper.
Colony residents weren't effectively notified from the beginning. We cannot be faulted for identifying
inadequacies pertaining to sound that other parties had an obligation to address. Thank goodness
somebody identified it.
Lessons Learned
1. The Colony cannot be faulted for identifying the shortcomings of this application at this stage of
the process. It was well known that there were 17 4 homes that would be affected if the roads
were opened to El Camino Real, and one would expect a prudent developer and City would want
to make sure those people really knew the ramifications of the development. Legal noticing
requirements were ineffective. Had the process been more effective by noticing every Colony
resident, we may have resolved many issues months, even years ago. To avoid this ineffective
process in the future (i.e., Master Plan amendments, etc.) we request this be a condition of any
approval associated with this development
2. It seams logical that the City and applicant would collaborate to deal with the returned notifications.
Simply ignoring them is absolutely unacceptable! Not only is it necessary to adequately deal with
them, but it is an obligation of the applicant, especially when a known major stakeholder is
involved. The applicant failed to meet such obligation/requirement. We have been advised that
failure to meet the proper notice requirements could subject the entire application process to legal
challenge, something we are confident no one wants to face. We suggest that the City and
applicants implement a more effective process to deal with returned notifications.
Thank you for your consideration of the signage and notification clarifications you requested.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 760-729-4928.
Regards,
Jill Agosti
4730 Edinburgh Dr.
PLANNING I
SYSTEMS
LAND USFJCOASTAL PLANNING
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE • LA3900
POLICY AND PROCESSING
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION
MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 15, 2006
TO: Carlsbad Planning Commission
CC: Jill Agosti, Barbara Kennedy, Brian Milich, Ken Cablay
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Paul Klukas; PLANNING SYSTEMS
ROBERTSON RANCH NOTICING
I have been provided a copy of a memo to Jeff Segall from Jill Agosti dated August 2, 2006. In
this memo, Ms. Agosti criticizes the signage and noticing of the Robertson Ranch project as
insufficient. Since PLANNING SYSTEMS was responsible for installation of the signage and
provision of the 600-ft. noticing list for this project, I would like to take this opportunity to
respond.
Ms. Agosti's comments with regard to signage and noticing are not supported by the facts.
Please see below.
Agosti comment:
(1) BK-4 signs posted. Glasgow, Edinburgh, ECR & Cannon, ERC &
Tamarack. Application in Process signs posted May 7, 2004 been up for uver 2
years.
Statement is incorrect as it applies to Edinburgh and Glasgow. Below is the
signage that was posted 2 years ago at the end of Edinburgh and Glasgow. It
does not say "Application in Process", but "Future Road Extension". These are
the only signs that have been posted at these locations until the more recent May
31'' Public Hearing signs that were posted 10 days prior to May 31st.
Facts: At PLANNING SYSTEMS' direction, "Application in Progress" and "Notice of Public
Meeting" signs were installed for the project as directed by City Staff on May 11, 2004 at four
locations; the intersection of El Camino Real & Cannon Road, the intersection of El Camino Real
and Tamarack Ave., and at the southern dead end stubs of both Glasgow Drive and Edinburgh
Drive. Pictures of both signs at all four locations are attached to this memo. The "Notice of
Public Meeting" sign on the right in the pictures shows the date Tuesday, May 18, 2004 for the
EIR Scoping Meeting. The four ''Notice of Public Meeting" signs were taken down shortly after
the May 18, 2004 Scoping Meeting. The four "Application in Progress" signs remained up until
May 17, 2006 when they were removed and replaced that same day by four "Pending Public
1530 }'ARADAY AVENUE• SUITE 100 • CARLSBAD, CA 92008 • (760) 931-0780 • FAX (7160) 931-5744 • info@plannlngsystems.net
Hearing" signs that are still up today. Thus, public noticing signs for the Robertson Ranch project
have been standing at the end of Edinburgh and Glasgow Drives for over 28 months.
Agosti comment:
(5) Baker -there was a comment about the HOA not receiving a letter or notice.
BK -applicant is the one responsible for preparing the labels and the City sends
out the notice.
Ka.ri Atherton (Colony) ver/fied that two notifications were mailed to the Colony
HOA but were sent to incorrect addresses, that the Colony HOA was never at
the addresses and asked for clarification as to what happens to returned
not\fications. Ms. Kennedy stated, "We hold on to the returned envelopes until
after a final decision has been made on the project, then they are thrown out.
The City Clerk's Office follows the same procedure for the notices that are sent
for the City Council hearings." Both McMillin and the City were aware that
the Colony is a major stakeholder, as thei; have indicated verbally in the past. If
the notifications sent to major stakeholders came back, would it not be prudent
for the applicant and/or City to take some type or action? Simply ignoring it is
negligent.
Facts: PLANNING SYSTEMS routinely requests and receives the updated list of property
owners within 600-feet of the exterior boundary of a project from the title insurance company.
The title'insurance company generates the owner's list from the most recent, updated San Diego
County Tax Assessor's rolls. In the Robertson Ranch case, First American Title Co. provided this
list.
The County Tax Assessor's rolls identify three open space lots within The Colony. These same
Assessor's rolls show the following mailing addresses for each parcel. We double-checked again
on Monday and all three addresses are still on file in the assessor roles as of August 14, 2006.
208-101-02 208-120-37 208-120-38
Quality Management Seacoast Escrow Seacoast Escrow
9373 Mira Mesa Blvd 251 N El Camino Real 251 N El Camino Real
San Diego, CA 92126 Encinitas, CA 92024 Encinitas, CA 92024
The above entities are apparently the legal owners of the open space lots. Per Section 21.54.060 of
the Carlsbad Municipal Code, notices must be sent to "all oumers of real property as shown on the
latest equalized assessment roll within 600-feet" (underline added). Notices for the May 2004
Scoping Meeting were sent to all three of the above addresses. No specific requirement exists to
provide notice to a HOA property management company or entity other than the property
owners. It is the responsibility of the property owner to ensure that the legal address for tax bills
and.title is correct on a property. It is not the responsibility of First American Title Co. or
PLANNJNG SYSTEMS [or the City] if the information on the Assessor's roles is inaccurate or
does not reach an otherwise interested party affiliated with the parcel.
My office has been involved in the coordination and preparation of noticing packages for over
200 projects over the last 20 years. We are very familiar with the specifics of noticing
requirements. Noticing of this project was provided with up to date information, for properties
as required by 21.54.060. J am prepared to discuss the noticing of this project if any further
questions remain.
Attachments: Photos of public notice signs
August 15, 2006
Tony and Sharon Barnes
2722 Glasgow Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92010
(760)729-5195
C;ty Ct
Carisllad
Carlsbad Planning Commissioners (Montgomery, Baker, Segall, Whitton, Cardosa, Dominguez, Heinemann)
Carlsbad City Council Members (Lewis, Hall, Ku/chin, Packard, Sigafoose)
Carlsbad City Manager, Raymond Patchett
Carlsbad Communitv Develooment Director, Sandra Holder
City Hall Faraday Center
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive 1635 Faraday Center
Carlsbad, CA 92008 Carlsbad, CA 92008
We are writing this letter to state our opposition to the access through the
Colony that will result from the Robertson Ranch Project. Our reasons are
as follows:
1. Our children's', seniors' and pets' safety is more important than access.
We believe that opening up Glasgow and Edinburgh will increase traffic
due to cut-through. As stated by Mr. Riddle in the June 21 st City Planning
Commission meeting: "Mr. Riddle stated that the numbers used in the
traffic study were extremely conservative and contributed to the
percentage rising to 99% and 95%, respectively" (Minutes from Planning
Commission meeting).
Should we wait until a child is killed, before the city realizes that opening
up Glasgow and Edinburgh is a serious mistake? We are not willing to
gamble with the safety of our children.
1. (Numbering is off)Validity/Reliability of Traffic Study 8: Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) Information
• Don't decide our future based on guesswork.
• Mr. Riddle confirmed to Planning Commissioners that traffic numbers
are "guesswork".
• Colony demonstrated on May 31 and June 21 that the traffic numbers
are guesswork.
• Colony already sees errors and flaws with the 3rd draft traffic study.
• What if the traffic numbers are significantly wrong?
2. Collector Tamarack Connection Results in Two Solutions (Cul-de-Sacs
and Gates): Meets the Colony's, City's, and Developer's needs.
• Meets all Code requirements including Fire Dept's buy-in (July 11 th )
• It does not destroy our neighborhood.
• Provided four emergency access points.
3. Gates
• Fire Dept claims they do not keep records of failed gate incidents;
thus, the statements and claims of the Fire Dept failures is hearsay.
Is it prudent to decide the Colony's future on something that doesn't
exist?
• Experts' testimonials and consultation indicate very few problems
with gates
a. Greg Dahlem, Battalion Chief, Baltimore Fire Dept.
b. Dan Runnestrand -Battalion Chief, Orange County Fire Dept
c. Ralph Davis -Captain, Corona Fire Dept.
d. Greg Largent -Paramedic, Los Angeles County Dept
e. Carlsbad Engine Co. 2211
• Knox Box -Western Acct Mgr
a.
b. Installed in over 9,000 Fire Departments nationwide
c. US Military uses Knox Box system worldwide (incl Camp Pendleton,
Mira Mar)
d. When gates don't work, it's usually due to dust or dirt on the
contact switch--and fixed by spraying compressed air in a can or
gum out if gunk is on it. CB is a long time Knox Box user
e. Carlsbad has a great Knox Box program as well as a wonderful
relationship w I Knox Box
f. No equipment failures have ever been reported to Knox Box from
Carlsbad
• Carlsbad has 161 gated communities, but no gate policy -specifically
a maintenance policy. Because a policy does not exists means that a
policy should be created instead of denying gates where it is prudent
to do so.
4. The developer did not adequately notify the Colony's home owners'
Association. Instead a notification was sent to an address in Encinitas
that had never belonged to GRG management. When we asked the
developer what happened with the returned notices, we were told
that they are placed in a box and discarded after the approval has
been granted. HOW CONVENIENT!
5. The developer has failed to provide effective notification to the
residents of the Colony. Until we started attending the City Planning
Commission Meetings, we did not realize the extent of the impact this
development will be to our community.
6. Our schools are already crowded. Our son's class, which is due to
graduate in 2008, started with 914 students. That is only one class.
Our children's education is being short-changed, and now the city
wants to allow additional housing which will already tax our over-
crowded schools. Why should our children pay the price to increase
the profits of a developer?
7. We believe that the increased traffic volume and associated hazards
will impact the safety of our neighborhood as well as make it less
desirable. Why should we take that chance? We are your voting
constituency now.
We ask that you approve cul-de-sacs or gates as stated above, or deny this
development altogether. It is unreasonable unfair and to destroy our
veteran neighborhood in the Village by the Sea for the sake of another.
Sincerely,
QO£cJ£9
Tony and Sharon Barnes
August 28, 2006
To:
Re:
i ·.
Carlsbad City Council Members (Lewis, Hall, Kulchin, Packard, Sigafoose)
Carlsbad Planning Commissioners (Montgomery, Baker, Segall, Whitton, Cardosa, Dominguez,
Heinemann)
Carlsbad City Manager, Raymond Patchett
Carlsbad Community Development Director, Sandra Holder
Robertson Ranch Master Plan Application
Dear City Leaders:
As the leaders of Carlsbad, we need your assistance to facilitate the implementation of appropriate
actions and forward movement of the subject application. We are looking to you, our City leaders, to
help protect our interests as citizens.
We have never opposed the subject development; we have major concerns regarding the adverse
safety and integrity impacts of access through our neighborhood as a result of this development. We
are long-lime residents with a vested interest in preserving the unique neighborhood in which our
families live and that has been a part of the 'Village By The Sea' for almost 25 years. We have strived
to be professional and have worked closely with City staff to find resolution. There remain several
concerns that homeowners have not been able to resolve with the City.
In a unanimous 7-0 vote at the first Planning Commission Hearing on May 31, 2006 the Commission
directed City staff and the Applicant to work with residents of the Colony and come up with a better plan
that would not cause significant negative impact to the Colony neighborhood. Al the second Hearing
on June 21, 2006, a decision could not be made since concerns and flaws were identified with the
alternative proposals presented to the Commission. It was also made very clear that the Commission
would not approve the application unless they were sufficiently convinced that the projected traffic
through our neighborhood would be minimal.
We invited City staff to two homeowners' meetings (6/19/06 and 8/17/06) to be held jointly with the
Applicant. The City declined to attend both meetings. We asked the City Planning Director for a town
hall meeting. This meeting will occur on Thursday, August 31st at 6:00 mat the Faraday facility, and
your attendance is strongly encouraged.
Both the City staff and Applicant verified this week that the Wildlife Agencies have ap~roved a second
ingress/egress point (aka Collector Tamarack Connection) in the development. With this second
ingress/egress point, two solutions now exist that are a win-win-win for all parties involved. The two
solutions:.
• Satisfy the needs of the Developer, City and Colony
• Meet all Code requirements including the Fire Department's buy-in (July 111h)
• Eliminate the significant safety and adverse impacts caused by the development to our
neighborhood
• Maintain the integrity and quality of life of our almost 25-year old neighborhood
• Provide four emergency ingress/egress points.
City Leaders -The Colony, An Established "Village By The Sea" Community, pg. 2
The two solutions include "back-to-back cul-de-sacs" in one and a gated community in the other.
Originally, buy-in for the "back-to-back cul-de-sacs" solution was hot supported by the City Planning
staff because of concerns with emergency vehicle access. We've consulted with and obtained
testimonials from several experts, including a Battalion Chief/Deputy Fire Marshal with 34 years of
experience, that claim the concerns are unfounded.
The other solution, a gated community (of which there are 161 gates already in Carlsbad), was
presented to the Colony on July 11, 2006 and the City staff, City Fire Departmen~ Applicant and Colony
all agreed to its feasibility. In late-July we learned that the Applicant and City staff no longer support
this solution, but we have been unable to get a direct answer as to why. The Applicant proposed both
of these alternatives. '
We have iJentified our concerns below, and provided additional infonmation supporting these concerns
(attachment enclosed).
I . Safety vs. Access
2. Gates (and Other Closure Tools For Easy Emergency Access)
3. Validity and Reliability of Data -Traffic Study & EIR Information
4. Noticing Requirements -Robertson Ranch (i.e., Master Plan Amendments)
5. Development Requirements -Growth Management Plan (Prop. E)
Your assistance in moving the process of resolution forward is appreciated. We wish to meet with
each of you to discuss these issues. Thank you in advance for your attention to the citizens.
Regards,
The Colony: An Established "Village by the Sea" Community
Repres:ntatives l
~wA~1
tJ'j/•' 'c1?i .. ,•-+--r,·
· _/ Gre~111~g~s3{\It;,J
4730 Edinburgh ·or.
729-4928 Evenings
949-368--8856 Daytime
Kari Atherton
4781 Brookwood Ct
858-229-5368
Attachment: Robertson Ranch -Impacts To Colony & Concerns
Enclosure: Colony Signatures, The Colony-Who Are We?
')
, / / ') ~ ,, !,,-. ·)</. // ·1l"N-;fi1-1 (/ (I (;/A __ ·.. J{_:/_· // I V L1 //// ~.1--~ {lf_C,)L--1' /-~ /
Robin W~fford , 1/-i: L L /
4757 Edinburgh Dr. /
619-5i4-8253
City Leaders -The Colony, An Established "Village By The Sea" Community, pg. 3
ROBERTSON RANCH • IMPACTS TO COLONY & CONCERNS
i C
1. Safety vs. Access
• How does one put a percentage figure on the increased risk to kids, pedestrians and pets
in a quaint, established, residential neighborhood of 174 homes?
• Is the frequency of car, pet, and pedestrian accidents more important than the frequency of
emergency vehicle access?
• For the Mira Monte closure with gates decision, Mayor Lewis said, "Small roads opened up
turn into major arteries. 11 April 25, 2006, City Council Meeting.
• Since the opening of Glasgow off of Carlsbad Village Drive, one particular location in our
neighborhood (see graphic below) is already experiencing increased accidents and near
misses due to additional traffic volume. There is an apex point where the two primary
streets within the Colony come together and Glasgow crosses the apex in both directions.
If Edinburgh and Glasgow are allowed to become through streets into and out of
Robertson Ranch, safety will be further impacted.
~ • Cut through traffic at Glasgow and Edinburgh has already resulted in one major accident,
in which a vehicle was "totaled" and was reported in April 2004.
• Calavera "Hills" logically indicates that streets are not level. Speeds naturally increase
when going downhill and so does the risk of safety.
2. Gates (and Other Closure Tools For Easy Emergency Access)
• Expert testimonials and consultation indicate very few problems with gates
a. Greg Dahlem, Battalion Chief, Baltimore Fire Dept.
b. Dan Runnestrand -Battalion Chief/Deputy Fire Marshall
c. Ralph Davis -Captain, Corona Fire Dept.
d. Greg Largent-Paramedic, Los Angeles County Dept
e. Carlsbad Fire q~pt (Engine Co. to remain anonymous)
• Knox Company (Knox-Box Rapid Entry System)-Western Acct Mgr., Marlene Briones
a. Installed in over 9,000 Fire Departments nationwide
b. US Military uses Knox Box system worldwide (incl Camp Pendleton & Mira Mar)
c. Carlsbad is a long time Knox Box user
d. Carlsbad has a great Knox Box program and a wonderful relationship w/ Knox Box
City Leaders -The Colony, An Established "Village By The Sea" Community, pg. 4
d. Carlsbad has a great Knox Box program and a wonderful relationship w/ Knox Box
e. No equipment failures have ever been reporteEI to Knox Box by Carlsbad
f. Gate failures are usually due to dust or dirt on the contact switch--and easily fixed
by spraying canned compressed air or gumout for heavier build up.
• Carlsbad has 161 gates in various communities, but no gate policy -specifically a
maintenance policy. Because a policy does not exist means that a policy should be
created and not denying gates where it is prudent to do so no matter where in Carlsbad.
In addition, PA 1 of Robertson Ranch may be a planned gated community, further
supporting application of gates where appropriate.
• Carlsbad's Deputy Fire Marshall, Greg Ryan, claims records are not kept on failed gate
incidents. If this is true, the statements and claims by the Fire Dept pertaining to gate
failures is hearsay. Is it prudent to decide an established family-oriented neighborhood's
future on something that doesn't exist?
• A manual gate secured with a Knox pad locl< and chain provides easy and inexpensive
emergency access; first with a Knox key for the pad lock, and second if the lock fails, the
chain can be cut using the "three-foot key" method a.k.a. bolt cutters. Chain links are cut
so a chain can be used many times before needing replacement.
• For electronic applications, Knox Box has a key switch override option and a 2-position
switch for both the open and closed positions.
City Leaders -The Colony, An Established 'Village By The Sea" Community, pg. 5
• Carlsbad's Deputy Fire Marshall also stated that so far-gate delays have not resulted in the
loss of life or property.
• While not the most aesthetically pleasing, several cities use delineators, commonly referred
to as bollards, for closures. Emergency access is easily accomplished as they are designed
to be driven over by emergency vehicles and either spring back into place or snap off. They ·
can be used in both permanent and temporary applications. Very low maintenance is
required. These are currently on El Camino Real in several locations in Carlsbad.
·.' .. . -·::>: ~ :.:~!-.),~:~~.::JIL.•t ·; ~· .~ ~-.;--. .. ~--; -~
3. Validity and Reliability of Data -Traffic-Study & Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
Information
• The Average Daily Traffic (ADT) of Glasgow and Edinburgh has consistently changed with
each traffic study.
a. The first traffic study remarkably claimed that only 6% of the entire Robertson
Ranch development (1,383 units) would cut-through Glasgow and Edinburgh.
i==·.·1 ·-=
['---...J_
-b. Further review, showed Glasgow and Edinburgh ADT at 99% and 95% capacity,
respectively.
c. The third study, while in draft, shows yet another figure remarkably hard to believe.
With 1, 100+ homes, the traffic increase on one street segment will be only .03%.
This is unrealistic.
• For the closure of Mira Monte, the traffic study that was relied on estimated almost 16,000
more cars on a key traffic segment (College between 78 & Plaza) than the Robertson
Ranch study (RR= 15,000 and MM= 31,000.) Obviously, by using the smaller number of
the RR study it reduces the ADT calculation applicable to the streets within the Colony. It
could be argued that the numbers are being skewed in order to obtain an intended result.
(Oceanside's figure for the same traffic segment was 49,000.)
City Leaders -The Colony, All Established "Village By The Sea" Community, pg. 6
• When asked by the Planning Commissioners, the City Engineer, Jeremy Riddle, confirmed
that the traffic numbers are "guesswork". i---
a. The Colony demonstrated this at both Commission Hearings (May 31 and June 21).
b. Our future cannot be d~cided upon on guesswork.
• The Commission asked, "What contingencies can be guaranteed if traffic numbers are
significantly wrong?" "Looking at the potential scenarios when they occur" is not
acceptable, per the Commission in response to the City Engineer's response.
• The EIR contained a table entitled, "Existing Plus Project"; the numbers should have been
identical, but they were not. After bringing it to the Applicant's attention, the Applicant
acknowledged that 14 of 21 entries were in error and revised the entries accordingly.
• The EIR did not address the noise impacts on Glasgow & Edinburgh. Whether believed to
be insignificant or not, they still should have been addressed.
• The Commission and Council cannot rely on inconsistent, flawed and possibly biased data.
Two solutions exist and satisfy the needs of the City, Applicant and the Colony; meet all
Code requirements; and will not destroy a neighborhood that has been part of the "Village
by the Sea· for almost 25 years.
4. Future Noticing Robertson Ranch (i.e., Master Plan Amendments)
In the aerial image below, the red line illustrates the number of Colony residents that were
legally notified. Residents below the red line were notified (approx.1/3); those above the red
line were not (approx. 2/3).
The HOA and residents have asked the Applicant to add all 17 4 names and addresses of the
Colony to the existing database.
To ensure this request is not overlooked, each resident who has signed below hereby informs
the City that they request to be notified by the developer and City of any public noticing
requirements pertaining to the Robertson Ranch Master Plan development including, but not
limited to, Master Plan Amendments.
City Leaders -The Colony, An Established "Village By The Sea" Community, pg. 7
5. Development Requirements -Growth Management Plan (Prop. E)
• The Fall 2006 Carlsbad Community Services Guide says, "The Plan ... also resulted in a
vision for ensuring that development would pay for the impact of new housing on the
community. "1
• There is no price that can be paid when a life is lost because of an unfortunate and even
innocent traffic accident. The new housing of Robertson Ranch impacts the Colony
neighborhood by increasing the risk of safety to residents and decreasing the integrity of
an established neighborhood.
• For the Mira Monte closure with gates .decision, Mayor Pro Tern, Matt Hall said, "Growth
Management Plans were designed to protect quality of life." April 25th 2006, City Council
Me~~--
• Density of Robertson Ranch has tentatively been agreed to not exceed 1,154 DU. But that
figure can be decreased and should not hinder consideration of any solution. On May 15,
2006 during the first Colony homeowners meeting the Applicant was specifically asked if
they could economically live with 983 DU's. Brian Milich stated,
"We would be willing to re-examine the 983 units we originally requested; they
wouldn't be happy, but would we still make money? Yes."
1 Carlsbad Community Services Gui~e, Fall 2006, page 2
August 28, 2006
Francis & lrasema Perrot
2726 Glasgow Dr
Carlsbad, CA 92010
(760) 434-9037
City Hall
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Page 1 of 3
t'LANNIIIG DEPMITMENT
C1!y Of
Carlsbad
Attention: Carlsbad Planning Commissioners: Montgomery, Baker, Segall, Whitton,
Cardosa, Dominguez, Heinemann
We are writing this letter to state our opposition to the access through the
Colony that will result from the Robertson Ranch Project. Our reasons are
as follows:
1. Our children's', seniors' and pets' safety is more important than access.
We believe that opening up Glasgow and Edinburgh will increase traffic
due to cut-through. As stated by Mr. Riddle in the June 21 st City Planning
Commission meeting: "the numbers used in the traffic study were
extremely conservative and contributed to the percentage rising to 99%
and 95%, respectively" (Minutes from Planning Commission meeting).
Should we wait until a child is killed, before the city realizes that opening
up Glasgow and Edinburgh are a serious mistake? We are not willing to
gamble with the safety of our children.
2. Validity/Reliability of Traffic Study & Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) Information ,
• Don't decide our future based on guesswork.
• Mr. Riddle confirmed to Planning Commissioners that traffic numbers
are "guesswork".
• Colony demonstrated on May 31 and June 21 that the traffic numbers
are guesswork.
• Colony already sees errors and flaws with the 3rd draft traffic study.
Page 2 of3
• What if the traffic numbers are significantly wrong?
3. Collector Tamarack Connection Results in Two Solutions (Cul-de-Sacs
and Gates): Meets the Colony's, City's, and Developer's needs.
• Meets all Code requirements including Fire Dept's buy-in (July 11 th )
• It does not destroy our neighborhood.
• Provided four emergency access points.
4. Gates
• Fire Dept claims they do not keep records of failed gate incidents;
thus, the statements and claims of the Fire Dept failures are hearsay.
Is it prudent to decide the Colony's future on something that doesn't
exist?
• Experts' testimonials and consultation indicate very few problems
with gates
a. Greg Dahlem, Battalion Chief, Baltimore Fire Dept.
b. Dan Runnestrand -Battalion Chief, Orange County Fire Dept
c. Ralph Davis -Captain, Corona Fire Dept.
d. Greg Largent -Paramedic, Los Angeles County Dept
e. Carlsbad Engine Co. 2211
• Knox Box -Western Acct Mgr
a. Installed in over 9,000 Fire Departments nationwide
b. US Military uses Knox Box system worldwide (inc. Camp Pendleton,
Mira Mar)
c. When gates don't work, it's usually due to dust or dirt on the
contact switch--and fixed by spraying compressed air in a can or
gum out if gunk is on it. CB is a long time Knox Box user
d. Carlsbad has a great Knox Box program as well as a wonderful
relationship w / Knox Box
e. No equipment failures have ever been reported to Knox Box from
Carlsbad
• Carlsbad has 161 gated communities, but no gate policy -specifically
a maintenance policy. Because a policy does not exists means that a
policy should be created instead of denying gates where it is prudent
to do so.
•
Page 3 of 3
5. The developer did not adequately notify the Colony's home owners'
Association. Instead a notification was sent to an address in Encinitas
that had never belonged to GRG management. When we asked the
developer what happened with the returned notices, we were told
that they are placed in a box and discarded after the approval has
been granted. HOW CONVENIENT!
6. The developer has failed to provide effective notification to the
residents of the Colony. Until we started attending the City Planning
Commission Meetings, we did not realize the extent of the impact this
development will be to our community.
7. Our schools are already crowded. Our son's class, which is due to
graduate in 2008, started with 914 students. That is only one class.
Our children's education is being short-changed, and now the city
wants to allow additional housing which will already tax our over-
crowded schools. Why should our children pay the price to increase
the profits of a developer?
8. We believe that the increased traffic volume and associated hazards
will impact the safety of our neighborhood as well as make it less
desirable. Why should we take that chance? We are your voting
constituency now,
We ask that you approve cul-de-sacs or gates as stated above, or deny this
development altogether. It is unreasonable and unfair to destroy our
veteran neighborhood in the Village by the Sea for the sake of another.
Sincerely,
Francis 8: lrasema Perrot
August 28, 2006
Lolita Buonaguidi
2726 Glasgow Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92010
729-3190
City Hall
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
; ... ~
,•1,·•.
,, j .,\
(_:;i;_\,TI0.:1
Page 1 of 2
Attention: Carlsbad Planning Commissioners: Montgomery, Baker, Segall,
Whitton, Cardosa, Dominguez, Heinemann
I am writing to protest the master plan for Robertson Ranch. Opening up
Glasgow and Edinburgh to the West Village and El Camino Real will be
disastrous for our homeowners as they all try to leave for work and return
in the evening. Not to mention the traffic congestion as parents attempt to
take their children to school. The children of the colony play on the
streets, should we wait until a child is killed by oncoming traffic? What
about the seniors in the Colony? I personally was almost side-swiped at the
corner of Glasgow and Edinburgh.
There is a safe alternative--use gates (for emergency access) at Glasgow
and Edinburgh. Open Tamarack into the West Village for additional
access-that would meet the fire codes as supported in the July 11 th
meeting.
• Experts' testimonials and consultation indicate very few
problems with gates
a. Greg Dahlem, Battalion Chief, Baltimore Fire Dept.
b. Dan Runnestrand -Battalion Chief, Orange County Fire Dept
c. Ralph Davis -Captain, Corona Fire Dept.
d. Greg Largent -Paramedic, Los Angeles County Dept
e. Carlsbad Engine Co. 2211
Collector Tamarack Connection Results in Two Solutions (Cul-de-
Sacs and Gates): Meets the Colony's, City's, and Developer's
needs.
Page 2 of 2
• Meets all Code requirements including Fire Dept's buy-in (July
11 th )
• It does not destroy our neighborhood.
• Provided four emergency access points.
I personally think it is VICIOUS AND CRUEL for the City and the
developer not to grant the homeowners' wishes. The city will get
the additional tax revenues, and the developer will get its money
for the new homes. The homeowners of the Colony only want to
keep children and pets safe and eliminate heavy traffic in a
family-oriented, gentle neighborhood. Do not destroy our
neighborhood.
Respectfully,
d(~~~-
Lolita Buonaguidi
August 28, 2006
City Hall
1200 Car1sbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
To the Carlsbad Planning Commissioners ( Montgomery, Baker, Segall, Whitton, Cardosa, Dominguez,
Heinemann),
It has come to our attention that in a neighborhood very close to ours, a new development
under the Robertson Ranch Master Plan will greatly impact many close friends and acquaintances of
ours.
It is our experience in the Trails of Calavera Hills, especially on Harwidl Drive, that a new
development with the addition of many new homes can greatly affect the quality of everyday life. The
addition of many new homes east of Tamarack on Harwich Drive has caused an increase in traffic that
directly affects our homes. Backing out of our driveway now takes much longer during peak traffic
hours due to the constant flow of cars coming from the new area. The inaease in traffic, as well as the
creation of the intersection at Tamarack and Harwich Dr (lacking a traffic signal or stop sign), have led
to dangerous environments for children, pedestrians as well as residential traffic.
Quality of life in this wonderful city is a precious attribute. We wish to keep the neighborhoods
safe and enjoyable. Please reconsider opening Glasgow and Edinburgh streets to an influx of traffic
that will change the neighborhood detrimentally. The citizens of Edinburgh Estates have our support in
opposing this change.
Sincerely,
~~
Janice and lim H
3630 Harwich Dr.
Carlsbad, CA 92010
(760) 434-9863
J.tck:-.1111
\l; ildt r:-.
1. 1 ~roup --· Management Consulting & Training
September 1, 2006
Mr. Raymond R. Patchett
City Manager
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, California 92008
cc: Ms. Marcela Escobar-Eck
Mr. Skip Hammond
Mr. Chris Heiser
Ms. Susan Irey
Mayor Claude "Bud" Lewis
Councilman Matt Hall
Councilwoman Ann Kulchin
Councilman Mark Packard
Councilwoman Norine Singafoose
Via Email
Dear Mr. Patchett:
Last evening I attended the "Town Hall Meeting" held for residents of "The Colony" to interact with city
representatives regarding the Robertson Ranch development. Our family was one of the first four families in
The Colony having moved to Edinburgh Drive in February 1981. In 1986, we re-located to another home on
Gateshead Road so have been 25 year residents of this small community Along with my neighbors, I seek to
mitigate the impact of a larger neighboring community and, as much as possible, preserve our feeling of a
small neighborhood. I most certainly realize the reality of change as new neighbors in Robertson Ranch join
us and do not oppose that development. Since our Planning Commission had directed City Staff and the
applicant to work with residents of The Colony to develop a workable plan, I (along with many other
residents) viewed last night's meeting as a unique opportunity to work together and move forward in creating
a plan.
My expectation of the meeting was for straightforward dialogue on the City's perspective and the perspective
of the homeowners in order to create a "win-win." Unfortunately, that did not occur and I believe the City
missed an ideal opportunity to partner with citizens in planning for necessary changes. The following points
capture my assessment of the meeting.
Jackson Wilders Group
4803 c;atcshead Road Carlsbad, C\ 92010
Phone 760.729.0594 Fax 760.729.0597
\V\VW. jack:-on ,vilder~. com
1. There was not a workable process.
a. We were told we'd review our alternative proposals asking questions that would all be
recorded. Staff would meet privately to review the questions then would return to answer
them. Questions were taken (although most of them had also been submitted in advance) as
well as comments but rather than list pertinent questions succinctly, this individual declined
to write some ("We'll deal with that later.") and wrote short phrases haphazardly.
Additionally, the writing was rather small and entered with a light marker so it was difficult
to read the input, even for those at the front of the room.
2. The two-hour period of time allotted was not managed well.
a. Approximately an hour was spent gathering and recording questions and input.
b. After a 15-minute break during which time city representatives were "organizing the
questions" each representative addressed the group. Rather than answer the specific
questions/concerns we voiced, they delivered philosophical soliloquies on the planning
process, general parameters, how difficult it is to establish a workable development plan,
barriers, etc.
c. At approximately 7:45 residents' questions started to be addressed. Within 5 minutes we
were told that time was running out and we'd have to limit questions.
3. Although we heard expressions from City staff to the effect that they're interested in working
with us, they want our input, they respect our viewpoints, etc., their behaviors did not support
those words. One example is that when asked about potential problems with the Colony's
alternative plan #3 (back to back cul-de-sacs), we were told that there were "fatal flaws" but
were never given specifics. Another example is they were unable to tell us when the draft traffic
report would be available to us. When confronted with the fact that we were not receiving
specific answers to our questions, the response was that all questions would be addressed in the
Staff Report. My understanding is that this document provides recommendations of all
alternatives to the Planning Commission at their meeting. Without that information in advance, it
is impossible for us to partner with the City in generating a workable solution.
My overall impression is that the City representatives were gratuitous and that the intent was to placate us,
not to truly collaborate and problem-solve as partners in this effort. At the end of the meeting the general
mood of those in attendance was one of extreme frustration, disappointment and, in some cases, anger.
Our City Council lists "Communication" as a critical value and wants to: "Ensure that community members,
Council and staff are well informed, continuing to be a more responsive government while providing a high
level of citizen confidence in its government." The City's mission statement reads "Our mission is to
continue to improve the quality of life for all those who live, work, and play in Carlsbad by providing top-
quality service to our City and in our region. " In reflecting on last night's meeting, I feel that City
representatives did not want to answer questions directly and did not want to deal with specifics. In tum, that
leads me to believe the City does not want to work with us in determining a viable solution. I most definitely
do not feel that the City desires to "improve the quality oflife for all ... "and also do not feel the City wants
us to be "well informed." In tum I absolutely recognize that we have not received "top-quality service." And
rather than a high level of citizen confidence in our City government, for me and I believe for my neighbors
in attendance last night, the level has been greatly diminished.
I appreciate your attention to this matter and ask your help in moving this process forward to a "win-win"
conclusion.
Sincerely,
Ada J. Wilders
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Dear Mr Gallup,
Barbara Kennedy
Council Internet Mailbox; tedgallup1@yahoo.com
09/06/2006 5: 10:04 PM
Re: CITY OF CARLSBAD I CONTACT US
C :
Thank you for your inquiry. The Planning Department will be presenting three circulation alternatives for
the West Village of Robertson Ranch to the Planning Commission on September 2oth. I believe that most
of the Colony residents are aware of the three alternatives that will be presented. The Colony
representatives that I have been dealing with have voiced support for Alternative 3 which includes a new
roadway at Tamarack Avenue, a gated community for Robertson Ranch Planning Areas 9 and 1 O
(bordering Edinburgh) and a gated emergency access at Glasgow. All three alternatives meet City
standards, however there are pros and cons to each of the alternatives. Staff will be presenting a
recommendation on the alternatives, however the ultimate decision is with the Planning Commission and
City Council.
If you have any additional questions, please contact me or call me to set an appointment. I would be
happy to meet with you in person and discuss the alternatives in more detail.
BK
Barbara Kennedy, AICP
Associate Planner
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314
(760) 602-4626
bkenn@ci.carlsbad.ca.us
>» <tedgallup1@yahoo.com> 09/06/06 11 :59 AM >»
A visitor to the City of Carlsbad Web site has completed and posted the "Contact Us" form to department,
City Council.
**********************************************
FOR SECURITY REASONS, DO NOT CHANGE THE SUBJECT LINE.
**********************************************
Below, please find the information that was submitted:
Our neighborhood group is trying to work with Carlsbad's Planning Department and land developer
McMillin Company to mitigate the negative impacts of the proposed Robertson Ranch development.
Robertson Ranch is located directly adjacent to our small 25 year old neighborhood of 174 single family
homes.
Like Carlsbad's Strawberry Fields that citizens are trying to preserve, the Robertson Ranch property is
also beautiful agricultural land, zoned residential under the City's General Plan and no one is trying to stop
the development. But this does not mean the project should be built so that it ruins an existing
neighborhood's quality of life. Specifically, City planners want to open up our streets as feeders to a new
commercial strip mall, the busy six-lane El Camino Real artery, and 1,200 new housing units (most of
them condominiums and apartments). While our streets are currently around 40% of possible utilization,
the City's plans call for more than double that amount! Currently these are quiet streets with front yards
containing many families with small children. City planners somehow believe that there will be no safety or
quality of life concerns with this level of greatly increased traffic.
The land developer, land owner, and our residents' group support alternative traffic and street plans that
will significantly mitigate the negative impacts to our established neighborhood. But for some reason the
City's planning staff continue to push for a conversion of our small streets into high traffic feeders, with no
regard for our concerns of safety and quality of life. If the developer, the land owner, and the neighboring
residents support alternate plans, why won't the City Planning Department?
Ted Gallup
4799 Gateshead Road Carlsbad, CA 9201 0
tedgallup1@yahoo.com
Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0; .NET CLR 1.1.4322)
162.119.232.109
. STAIE OE CAI IOOBNIA QllSINfrSS TRANSPOBWK>N AND IIQJIBINQ AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
District 11 · 4050 Taylor Slreel • M.S. 240
Sun Diego, CA 92110
PHONE (619) 688-6954
FAX (619) 688-4299
August 24, 2006
Mr. Jeremy Riddle
City of Carlsbad Public Works Dept.
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314
\·
ARNOI P SCIIWABZfilffQQfR Qovsmru:
Flex yo,,r po,rer!
Be energy ~fficlent!
11-SD-005
PM 49.28
RE: Robertson Ranch Master Plan -Final PEIR-response (SCH 2004051039)
Dear Mr. Riddle:
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) appreciates the opportunity to review the
City of Carlsbad's response to Caltrans' comments regarding the Final Program Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) for the Robertson Ranch Master Plan project. This project involves the
construction of 1,383 residential dwelling units and 175,000 square feet of commercial use on
404 acres located south of State Route 78 (SR-78) and east of Interstate 5 (1-5) at the eastern
comer of the Tamarack Avenue / El Camino Real intersection in the City of Carlsbad. This
letter is in response to the City of Carlsbad's letter to Caltrans dated June 14, 2006 (attached).
The previous Caltrans response letter dated May 31, 2006 is also attached and should be
considered in reviewing these additional comments. In particular, Caltrans questions the
project's anticipated traffic distribution which indicates that only a relatively low percentage of
traffic (4.5%) would use the most direct route -Tamarack Avenue -to access 1-5, thereby
precluding traffic impact analysis of the freeway ramps at this location.
As you are aware, Caltrans is currently developing the 1-5 North Coast project in order to
improve mobility along the 1-5 corridor in the vicinity of this proposed project. As such, there
may be an opportunity for the developer to provide funding for improvements as part of the
Robertson Ranch's "fair share" transportation impacts mitigation. Caltrans has developed
procedures to collect fair share mitigation via our Traffic Mitigation Agreements guidelines
(June 2006, attached). In order to better coordinate land use and transportation improvements
related to the Robertson Ranch project, we would like to meet with the City of Carlsbad to
discuss how to calculate and implement mutually beneficial traffic impact mitigation . ...
Caltrans appreciates the opportunity to continue working cooperatively with the City in planning
to meet local and regional transportation needs. For questions regarding the Department's
comments and to schedule a meeting, please contact Brent C. McDonald at (619) 688-6819.
~c~
~ MARIO H. ORSO, Chief
Development Review Branch
''Caltraru Improves mobJIIIJ acron Ca/{/ornia"
City of Carlsbad
. lititill•!ii·litJ.i
June 14, 2006
Department of Transportation,
Development Review Branch
Attn: Mario H. Orso, Chief
4050 Taylor Street, M.S. 50
San Diego, CA 92110-2737
1,
SUBJECT: CALTRANS COMMENT LETTER REGARDING ROBERTSON
RANCH MASTER PLAN (CT 02-16, Em 03-03, MP 02-03)
Dear Mr. Orso:
Thank you for your letter in regards to the Program EIR for Robertson Ranch Master
Plan (Project), dated May 31, 2006 (Attachment 1). This letter serves to respond to your
concerns.
As you are aware, the original traffic study for the Project did not analyze the
entrance/exit ramps at I-5 / Tamarack Avenue and 1-5 I Carlsbad Village Drive. Carlsbad
uses "SANTECIITE Guidelines for Traffic Impact Studies (I'IS) in the San Diego Region",
dated March 2000. This document serves to identify the limits and scope of a traffic
study by indicating those road segments and intersections to be evaluated by a traffic
study*. In accordance with SANTEC guidelines, the study shall analyze:
• All local roadway segments (including all State surface routes),
intersections, and mainline freeway locations where the proposed
project will add 50 or more peak-hour trips in either direction
• All freeway entrance and exit ramps where the proposed project
will add a significant number of peak-hour trips that CC!flSe traffic
queues to exceed their storage capacities ..... .
Per the "Project Distribution" (Attachment 2) in the traffic. study, the Robertson Ranch
project expects 4.5% of the Project traffic directed to the Tamarack Avenue/ I-5 ramps
and 1 % to the Carlsbad Village Drive/ I-5 ramps, Per the Distribution, the Robertson
• In accordance with lhe City of Carlsbad Gro,vth Manag,n~nl requirements, Carlsblld also requires traffit studies to include (within
lhc study limits) lhosc imcrsections and roadway segments that arc subject to 20% of the project•gcnerated traffic.
1635 Faraday Avenue• Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 802-2730 • FAX (760) 802-8582 @
Caltrans comments Robertson Ranch
June 14, 2006
Page 2 of3
I·
Ranch Project would create an additional 792 average daily traffic (ADT) and 176 ADT,
respectively between the two ramps. Upon using peak-hour trip analysis (see Attachment
3), this Project is not projected to add more than 50 peak-hour trips toward these ramps.
· Since the current levels-of-service (LOS) for those ramps are at LOS C or better, we see
no need to analyze these ramps. In regards to your comment that all state-owned
signalized intersections be evaluated using Intersection Lane Vehicle (IL V) procedure,
using 2030 forecast, the current interchange ramps operate within Cal trans' specifications
and future volumes would not increase beyond 10% at these locations. Although
improvement might be made by Caltrans in the future, the Robertson Ranch project
would not significantly affect volumes nor cause the need for improvements. For your
use, in Attachment 2, we have also provided ILV/HR values for these ramps which
demonstrate the ramps are operating within acceptable ranges. Therefore, we believe the
traffic study is complete.
The City is also aware that Caltrans is planning for the I-5 widening project. It is our
understanding the I-5 widening does not have environmental clearance yet, but is in the
beginning stages of the planning and Environmental Review process. We anticipate with
the I-5 widening, this will require reconstruction of the on-ramp and exit locations you
are concerned with. Final design of these ramps, as well as capacity upgrades to handle
future anticipated traffic should be addressed with the I-5 widening project.
In order for development projects to pay their fair-share toward capital improvement
projects (Improvement), first the projects must be defined by the public agency, have an
estimated construct cost, and have an approved financial approach that explains those
projects that will impact the Improvement and how the fair-share is attributed to each
project fairly. To-date, Carlsbad has not been informed as to the program (financial
mechanism) that defines how this Project (and any other project in San Diego County)
contributes toward Caltrans' improvement programs, such as the future I-5 widening
project. If there is such a program adopted by Caltrans, please forward the information
and we will re-evaluate our approach with respect to conditioning private projects relative
to Caltrans Improvements.
With respect to cumulative impacts, the traffic analysis evaluates the potential cumulative
impacts associated with the project-generated traffic, in conjunction with future
development (e.g.'s, Year 2010 with and without the Project analysis,"Year 2030 with
and without the Project analysis). The project's contribution to the cumulative impact at
the subject locations is considered less than significant for the reasons discussed above, in
that this Project is not projected to add more than 50 peak-hour trips toward the
Tamarack Avenue and Carlsbad Village Drive ramps, and, using the 2030 forecast, the
current interchange ramps operate within Caltrans' specifications and future volumes
would not increase beyond 1 O¾ at these locations.
Caltrans comments Robertson Ranch
June 14, 2006
Page 3 of3
I·
We hope this addresses your concerns in regards to this Project and the completeness of
the traffic study prepared for this EIR. If you have further questions, please feel free to
contact me at (760) 602-2737.
Attachments
C: Barbara Kennedy, Project Planner
Bob Johnson, Deputy City Engineer -Traffic
Bob Wojcik, Deputy City Engineer -Development Service
Skip Hammann, City Engineer
Brian Milich, McMillin Land Development
File (CT 02-16, #3R)
,· ... 'DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Dlslrlcl 11 • 4050 Taylor Stroct • M.S, 50
s ... 1>1qo,CA. nn~-2737
PffONI! (61,) 618-695~
PAX (61P) 08-4299
May31,2006
Ms. Bwara Kennedy
City ot Carlsbad Planning Dept.
163S Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad. CA 92024-3633
11-SD-005
PM49,28
RB: ·Robertson Rauch Master Plan -Final Program EIR {SCH 2004051039)
Dear Ms. Kennedy:
The Calif'omiaDepal'llllent of Transportation (Caltrans) appm:iates the opportunity to review the City of Carlsbad's responses to Caltrans' comments regarding· the Ptogram
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Robertson. Rancti .Mastor 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 ot the Interstate S (I•S) at the eastern comer of
the Tamarack Avenue / El Camino Real in.tcm:ction in the City ot Carlsbad. We have the
following comments. ·
According to the traffic &tudy included in. the f!IR, the development is expected to generate
17,254 Average Daily Trips (ADT) which may potentially impact existing and future
facilities at the I-5 I Tamarack A venue Interchange, as well as other intenectiona in the
vicinity. The Traffic Jmpaot Study (TIS) included in the BIR is inoomplcto as it does not
include th11 cntraueo and exit ramps at l•S I Tamarack Avenue, nor does it include the
interchange at I-S /-Carlsbad Village, Drive.
Cumulative impacts of a project, together with other related projects, must be considered
when dctennining 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 Thero is no minimum size, IimitatiOi on projects that
may be required to mitigate for 01.Ullulative impacts if the project contnoutes to a traffic
problem in any amount. Caltrans supports the col!,Ccpt of ''Fair Share'; contributions on the
part of developers for future improvoment to the State Highway System projects and/or other
mcQlll"CiS nccdod to mitigate for traffic impacts created by proposed devclopm0?1ts.
In ord(ll' to detennine traffic impacts and to assess potential mitigation, State-owned,
ATTACHMENT 1
? . .
Ms. Barbara Kennedy
May 31, 2006
Page2 I·
signali%ed intersections must be analyzed using the Intersecting Lane• Vehicle (ILV)
procedure from the Caltrans Highway Design Manual Topic 406, page 400-21 using the year
2030 traffic forecast. Caltrans requires Level of Service (LOS) "C" or better at State-owned
facilities, including iDtmectJons (see Appen!lix "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 cwrently developing_the 1-5 North Coast project in order to increase capacity on
the I-5 i;orrldor in the vicinity of. this pi:oposed project. As such, there may b11 an opporlllnity
for the developer to provide funding for improvements as part of the project's ''fair .share"
transportation impacts mitigation. Caltraos 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 ptoject proposal. For
questi011B regarding the Department's comments, please contact Brent C. McDonald at
(619) 688-6819.
ly,
~ OH. O,Chief
Develop_,. t Rmew·Branch
cc: BMcDonald
Aiacobo
BOojuangco
SMorgan
Plamung
I-S,PM
Frwy. Ops.
State ClearlngHouse (SCH)
<
)
_)
Robert1on Ranch
Calavera HIiis JI, LLC
LEGEND
§ = Project Only Diolribution Pen:onlages
•·· •••••• a Future Roods
SOURCE
Year 2030 Forecast (With Adjustment for Missing Street Segments)
FIGURES-I
OUrban Sysrem, As.roe/ate,. Inc.
Septemb,r 1, 2005
I·
~ NO SCALE I
Project Only Directional Distribution Percentages
For Existing Conditions
003/1)/ S-2
ATTACHMENT 2
l'UIHNINQ " TRAFRC ENQUI-MNIKlinNO 'PIIOJl!Ct SUPPORT
COHSULTANB TO INDUSTRY AND CJOVMNM!Nl' E-MEMO·
ATTN: Jeremy Riddle ke-mail ~.
COMPANY: _City of Carlsbad/_ jrldd@ci.carlsbad.ca.us
FROM: Sam P. Kah, II 7 TOTAL PAGES: 2 +Attachments
DATE: June 13, 2006 TIME: 4:53 pm TRANSM/7TED VIA: E-Mail
SUBJECT: . Calb·ans Comment Letter Regarding Robertson Ranch Master Plan
CopfidC:ntlal Commpnjcadgns
This Memo transminal is intended for th• reclplont named above. l!nles, olhcrWlso -ly indieatod, this .. u .. communlaadoo ii confidenlial and privileged
infonaation. If you arc not tho lnlelldod rcclplen~ do not dis<lose. copy, distribute or asc this information. If you reoelvcd this rnnsmlsslon In cm,r, pl-notify
os lffln!cdlatoly by li!lcphono, at our expense and destroy tho lnfonaation, ·
Provided below are Urban Systems' responses to the Caltrans May 31, 2006 letter regarding the
Robertson Ranch Master Plan.
Study Area
The Robertson Ranch traffic study did not evaluate the l~S/Carlsbad Village Drive or I-5/Tamarack
· Avenue interchanges since these locations were determined to be outside the study area for the project ·
The "SANTEC/ITE Guidelines for Traffic Impact Studies (TIS) in the San Djego Regjon", dated March
2000, were used to determine the extent of the study area. These guidelines state that a study area should
include, "All local roadway segments ~incl~ding all State surface routes);·intersections, and main lane
freeway locations 'where the proposed project will add SO or more peak-hour trips in either direction".
The project directional distribution (Figure 7-1 in the approved traffic study) sJlows a one percent project
contribution to ·carlsbad ViUage Drive at 1-5 and four and one-half percent on Tamarack Avenue atl-5.
The peak hour project flow is shown in the table below.
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
IN OUT lNl-OUT
100% 425 811 1.063 638
1% 4 g 11 6
4.5% 19 36 48 29
003101 Pag• l
4540 Kearny Villa Road, Suite 10~ • San Diego, CA 92123 • (858) 560-4911 • Fax (851) 560-9134
ATTACHMENT 3
. ··-· ... ·---•---------•-.. ·--· ...... ~----·-·-··--··· --•···-·--•"••--·-·····-·· ......... ~--------·----·· ---·-------·-----... ---.
Jeremy Riddle
Juno 13, 2006
Urban Sy.rems Astoclalu, Jnr,.
I·
As indicated in this table, the project only peak hour trips are expected to be fewer than the 50 trips in
one direction that the regional guidelines recommend for inclusion in the study area.
Levels of Service at 1-5/Carlsbad Villa~ Drive, I-51I'amaraek Avenue
The current levels of service, as determined by the City of Carlsbad Traffic Monitoring Program at the
ramp intersections at these two interchanges l\fe shown below, along with the IL V /HR values, using the
CALTRANS method, assuming a tight diamond interchange .
•
LOS AM PM
ICU LOS ICU LOS
1-S/Carlsbad Village Drive -northbound 0.54 A 0.72 C
I-5/Carlsbad Village Drive -southbound 0.50 A 0.73 C
I-5ffamarack Avenue -northbound 0.47 A 0.56 A
I-5ffamarack Avenue -southbound 0.60 A 0.49 A
ILV/HR AM PM
1-5/Carlsbad Village Drive 986 1364
l-5ffamarack Avenue 903 919
As shown, current ramp intersection levels of service and IL V /HR values are within acceptable
conditions.
Future Year 2030 traffic volumes, as taken from the SANDAG combined North County Traffic Model,
are expected to be no more than 10% higher than existing conditions. If the 10% increase was to be
applied to existing peak hour volumes, levels of service and IL V /HR values would remain acceptable,
and no. mitigation should be needed at the ramp intersections. '"
00JJ0J Page2 3/01-061306-ememo-spk. wpd
~ [i]...-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii...,
Local Development -
Intergovernmental Review Program
Traffic Mitigation Agreements
California Department of Transportation
June 2006
Traffic Mitigation Agreements
with
Local Development Project Proponents
Procedures for Collecting, Recording, and Expending Fair Share (Pro Rata) Funds
and
APP~ VED:
I
CfNDYMc IM
Chief Financial Officer
Chief Engineer
BR H
Chief Counsel
Securing Deferred Capital Improvements
Date
'
b I I /'Db
Date
"Ca/trans 1111proves mob1hty across Ca/,jornta"
Acknowledgement
The Office of Community Planning extends its great
appreciation for the individual and collective statewide
efforts that made possible the publication of these
procedures:
Traffic Mitigation Agreements
with
Local Development Project Proponents
Procedures for Collecting, Recording, and Expending
Fair Share (Pro Rata) Funds
and
Securing Deferred Capital Improvements
Division of Transportation Planning
Office of Community Planning
'
Local Development-Intergovernmental Review Program
1120 N Street, Sacramento, CA 95814
PO Box 942874, Sacramento, CA 94274-0001
Telephone (916) 653-0808
Calnet: 8-453-0808
Fax: (916) 653-4570
E-mail: betty_l_miller@dot.ca.gov
LD-IGR Traffic Mitigation Agreements
Table of Contents
Page
Definitions ...... ............... ...... .............. ........... ... .... ... ...... ................... .. . ............. 1
Introduction ................... ............. .. .......................... ............ ........ ......... ............ 5
Background ...................................................... .. . ... ............. ............... ............. 5
Scope .......................................................... , ..................................................... 6
Purpose ............................................................................................................ 7
Approach ......................................................................................................... 7
Traffic Mitigation Agreement ................................. ..................... ....... ............ 7
Accounting for Receipt of Funds................................................................... 9
I. Districts .............................................................................................. 10
A. Local Development-Intergovernmental Review (LD-IGR) ......... 10
B. Office of Budgets .................................................................... 10
1. Project Control Officer (PCO) ....................................... 10
2. Cashier ....................................................................... 11
II. Headquarters .................................................................................... 11
Division of Accounting ................................................................. 11
1. Cashiering ..................................................................... 11
2. Reimbursement Accountant ........................................... 12
3. EA Control & Overhead Assessment Section .............. 12
Expending the Funds ..................................................................................... 12
I. Identifying and Scheduling Projects ................................................ 13
A. Districts .................................................................................... 13
1. District Projects Monitor ................................................ 13
2. Project Manager ............................................................ 13
3. Project Control Officer ................................................... 13
B. Headquarters .............................................. ·•······"-····· ............ 14
1. HQ Budgets ................................................................... 14
2. Office Engineer .............................................................. 14
3. Reimbursement Accountant.. ........................................ 15
II. Project Cost Summary ..................................................................... 15
Appendices ...................................................................................................... 17
LD-JGR Traffic Mitigation Agreements
Appendices
1. Flow Chart:
2. Template:
3. Template:
4. Flow Chart:
5. Letter:
6. Form:
7. Flow Chart:
ii
Executing an Agreement
Fair Share Deferment Agreement
Capital Deferment Agreement
Accounting for Receipt of Fair Share Funds
Confirmation of receipt of mitigation measures
funds from Proponent
Sample Transfer Receipt (Form STD 440)
Accounting for Expenditure of Fair Share Funds
LD-IGR Traffic Mitigation Agreements
Definitions
1. Contributor Number. Identification number given to local proponent for a
specific Agreement by the Reimbursement Accountant at Headquarters
(HQ) and matched to the EA. A contributor number is required in order to
set up a reimbursement (R) line on an EA in TRAMS.
2. District Cashier. District officer who receives mitigation funds from Local
Development-Intergovernmental Review (LD-IGR) function , prior to funds
being transferred to HQ Cashiering.
3. District Projects Monitor. Function in each District responsible for
monitoring planned and programmed projects for the purpose of
identifying where mitigation funds can be committed. For example, in
District 6, Advanced Planning performs the function.
4. Division of Accounting (Dof A), Reimbursement Section. HQ office
responsible for assisting in setting up of both holding and project EAs for
mitigation funding and for the subsequent accounting activities required.
5. Division of Accounting, Office of Financial Accounting & Analysis
(OF AA). HQ office that certifies reimbursement authority for EA and
subsequently releases EA for entry into TRAMS. Two separate sections
within OFAA have respective responsibilities (Highway Appropriation
Management Section [HAMS] and EA Control & Overhead Assessment
Section [EA Control]).
6. Division of Budgets, Capital Outlay (HQ Budgets). Approves
Reimbursement Authority for mitigation measures project EA phase 4
funds.
7. Expenditure Authorization (EA). A 6-digit alphanumeric "number" that is
assigned to a specific project or work order to track all project-related
financial activities. Mitigation funds collected are assigned an "holding"
EA. (Temporary EA assigned with an EA status of 21 , which is used for
billing and collections only.) No activity may be recorded in,TRAMS by
any Department organization without an EA.
8. Expenditure Authorization System/Capital Outlay Monitoring System
(EAS/COMS). A subsystem of TRAMS that is used to masterfile an EA.
9. Funding Package. Set of funding documents detailing the phase 4 EA
construction financing for a capital outlay project. A Funding Package is
required for every project submitted to Office Engineer for advertising and
award of a construction contract.
1
LD-/GR Traffic Mitigation Agreements
2
10. Headquarters Cashiering. Receives funds from District Cashier and
posts per instructions received from Reimbursement Accountant.
11. Lead Agency. The public agency which has the principal responsibility
for carrying out or approving a project which may have a significant effect
upon the environment. (CEQA [PRC Section 21067).)
12. Local Development-Intergovernmental Review (LD-IGR) Coordinator.
Individual designated in each District to coordinate that District's functional
responses to environmental review of proposed local development
projects.
13. Local Agency. Any public agency other than a state agency, board, or
commission. (For CEQA, includes redevelopment agency and a local
agency formation commission [PRC Section 21062].)
14.Masterfiled. A term used to indicate that an EA or contributor number
has been entered into TRAMS.
15. Office Engineer (OE). Division of Engineering Services office that
performs the functions of preparation of the final contract documents,
project scheduling, advertisement, bid opening, award, and approval of all
Department highway construction contracts over $120,000.
16. Project Control Officer (PCO). District officer authorized and
responsible for processing Expenditure Authorization {EA) for mitigation
funds upon request of Local Development-Intergovernmental Review (LD-
IGR).
17. Proponent. Person/entity developing a project.
18. Public Agency. Includes any state agency, board, or commission, any
county, city and county, city, regional agency, public district,
redevelopment agency, or other political subdivision. (CEQA [PRC Section
21063].)
....
19. Reimbursement. Recovery in cash or its equivalent from another
governmental unit, fund, or department for an expenditure made on its
behalf. Mitigation funds are collected as "reimbursement funds." The
reimbursement funding line on an EA is called the "R" line.
20. Reimbursement Accountant. First level of approval in HQ AIR for
mitigation funds "holding" EA and subsequent masterfiling of both
contributor number and project EA into TRAMS.
LD-IGR Traffic Mitigation Agreements
21. Reimbursement Authority. Approval required from HQ Budgets before
HAMS can certify phase 4 construction project EAs in EAS/COMS (and
before funds can be expended). Reimbursement Authority for mitigation
funds is requested only for phase 4 construction projects. (When
approved, the mitigation funds Reimbursement Authority is not part of a
District's annual Reimbursement Authority allocation for capital projects.)
22. Traffic Mitigation Agreement (Agreement). The Agreement entered
into directly with a project developer (proponent) in order to collect funds
for traffic mitigation measures (Fair Share Deferment), or in order to
secure a commitment for improvements (Capital Deferment), to offset
impacts to the State Highway System when a project is approved by a
local public agency. The Agreement will include attachments of
supporting documentation.
23.Traffic Mitigation Agreement (Agreement) Package. The Agreement
"Package," in addition to the signed and notarized (preferably) Fair Share
Deferment Agreement and its attachments, consists of the check and
copies of any other pertinent documents generated in the District
pertaining to the collection and planned expenditure of the mitigation
funds. (Capital Deferment Agreements are not forwarded to HQ
Accounting, as there are no mitigation funds collected.)
24. Transportation and Accounting Management System (TRAMS). The
Department's accounting system.
25. TRAMS Collector. Overnight electronic "bin" for EA after it has been
released by OFAA, but not yet entered (or uploaded) into TRAMS.
26. Transfer Receipt. Form STD. 440 (REV. 6-2000). Used to record the
receipt of funds by District Cashier and the subsequent transfer of those
funds from District Cashier to HQ Cashiering.
3
LD-/GR Traf fie M;t;gation Agreements
Introduction
The Local Development-Intergovernmental Review (LD-IGR) Traffic Mitigation
Agreement (Agreement) was designed to fill a limited need . It is executed
directly between the California Department of Transportation (Department) and
project developers (proponents), both private and public, in order to capture
mitigation to the State Highway System (SHS) that might otherwise be lost.1
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), public agencies
can require proponents to mitigate or avoid significant adverse impacts to the
environment prior to approving a proponent's proposed project. Usually, public
agencies (lead agencies, under CEQA) administer the collection of funds or other
forms of mitigation to the SHS. Under certain circumstances, however, they will
require that the proponent work directly with the Department to mitigate impacts
to the SHS.
Background
CEQA grants public agencies the authority to mitigate or avoid significant effects
to the environment with respect to applicable projects within their jurisdictions.
The resulting environmental review, as established by CEQA and its Guidelines,
is central to the Department's ability to obtain mitigation for development impacts
to the SHS.
The Department reviews proposed planning and development activity for the
purpose of identifying potential significant impacts to the SHS. Depending upon
the type and size of the proposed project, some degree of traffic analysis will be
generated. The analysis may be in the form of a traffic impact study (TIS)
conducted by a local public agency or proponent; calculations from the Institute
of Transportation Engineers [ITE] Trip Generation Handbook; modeling; prior
traffic analysis that established per-trip cost; or, some other appropriate method.
Whatever the form of the analysis, if it is determined that a significant impact will
result from a proposed project, it is within the authority of the Department to
request mitigation that will either eliminate the impact or reduce it to a level of
insignificance.
'
The Department's recommendation for mitigation must be based upon sound
technical data that: (1) Establishes a nexus (connection) between the proposed
project and the impact to the SHS; and (2) calculates that the mitigation is
proportional to the impact (fair share). Recommended mitigation generally
results in direct infrastructure improvements, but it may also result in indirect
improvements, such as a proponent providing, or enhancing, local transit
services.
1 These procedures do not apply to the execution and administration of Cooperative Agreements,
pursuant to California Streets and Highways Code, Sections 114 and 130.
5
LD-/GR Traffk Mitigation Agreements
As indicated earlier, a local public agency generally administers mitigation to
offset the impact of a local development project to the SHS. The local agency
collects the fair share funds from the proponent and accounts for them until such
time as the mitigation measures are implemented. When the local public agency
does not want to administer mitigation to the SHS, however, the Department can
negotiate and execute an Agreement directly with the proponent to collect the
funds or to obtain a commitment from the proponent to make improvements.
Scope
These Traffic Mitigation Agreement (Agreement) procedures apply at the end of
the Local Development-Intergovernmental Review (LD-IGR) process, when
applicable. That is, they apply only when the Department enters into an
Agreement directly with a proponent for mitigation of adverse impacts to the SHS
caused by a proposed project that is subject to local public agency approval. The
procedures are used for agreements between the Department and project
proponents, both private and public.
These procedures are based upon the premise that:
~ A proposed local development project underwent an environmental
review, resulting in a determination that there will be an adverse impact to
the SHS and that mitigation is required; and
~ The Department will enter into an Agreement directly with a proponent to
collect fair share mitigation funding; the proponent will commit to construct
the mitigation improvements; or, in some instances. to do both.
The Department will enter into the Agreement because:
~ A local public agency does not wish to collect and administer funds for
SHS mitigation; therefore, it conditions project approval upon the
proponent entering into an Agreement with the Department for the
mitigation; or
~ A proponent will approach the Department, already having determined
that there will be an impact to some degree, and ask for assistance in
calculating fair share mitigation prior to project application ta the public
agency.
See Appendix 1. Flow Chart, Executing Fair Share Funds and Deferred
Capital Improvement Agreements with Proponents.
6
LD-IGR Traffic Mitigation Agreements
Purpose
The purpose of th ese procedures is threefold: (1) Provide Agreement templates
for use between the Department and local development proponents for direct
receipt of mitigation funding or a commitment from the proponent to implement
the mitigation measures; (2) describe the steps necessary to enter the direct
receipt of funding into the Department's accounting system, the Transportation
and Accounting Management System (TRAMS); and, (3) outline the steps
necessary to apply the funds to a project
Approach
The procedures described herein are based upon those that have been in place
in District 6 for some time. They reflect the successful coordination of efforts that
evolved over the years among the District's multiple functional units,
Headquarters Accounting and Budgets Divisions, local public agencies, and
proponents. 2
We'll begin with a description of how the Agreement templates can be used,
depending upon the type of mitigation that is negotiated . That is followed by a
description of the procedures that are required to set up an account in TRAMS
when funds are collected, and then discuss the expenditure of the funds Lastly,
the Appendices provide supporting information, including the Agreement
templates.
Traffic Mitigation Agreement
Depending upon the purpose of th e Agreement, one of two templates that were
prepared by the Department's Legal Division (Legal) can be used: (1) Fair Share
Deferment (we will collect the mitigation funds); and (2) Capital Deferment (the
proponent will make the capital improvements--the Department will not collect
funds).3
Further, there may be circumstances under which mitigation calls for the
proponent to pay a fair share in funds to the Department and construct
improvements to th e SHS. Under such circumstances, contents of both the Fair
Share Deferment and Capital Deferment formats can be used in a.f:ombined
Agreement. For example, a proponent may need to make improvements that
2 District Planning and Engineering units may wonder why the Accounting and Budgeting tasks
are included within these procedures. The thought is that if the Planners and Engineers know
what information the Accounting and Budgeting staff require, it will make it easier to ensure that
the record keeping is complete. Likewise, the Accounting and Budgeting staff can benefit by
knowing what the Planners and Engineers are working to accomplish.
3 Since no funds will be collected with a Traffic Mitigation Agreement for Capital Deferment, the
Agreement is not forwarded to Headquarters Accounting. However, District Permits should
receive a copy if the proponent's project will require an encroachment permit.
7
LD-/GR Traffic Mitigation Agreements
extend to our right-of-way in order to provide safer and more convenient access
to a new development prior to opening for business (perhaps installing a traffic
signal). Cumulative traffic impacts of the project may need mitigating, as well, so
we would also collect funds for improvements to the mainline facilities.
The flexibility of the Agreement reflects the various types of mitigation that can be
negotiated to offset traffic impacts to the SHS.
If the mitigation measures agreed to by the Department and the proponent simply
reflect changing those areas of the Agreement that describe specific project
information (highlighted in yellow in our templates), it is not necessary to obtain
another review by Legal before executing the Agreement. Once executed, the
Agreement can be forwarded to Legal for approval of form and procedure.
However, if a more extensive re-write of the template than simply changing the
"highlights" is necessary, the Agreement must be reviewed by Legal prior to
execution.
Mitigation funding can be used for a number of purposes, depending upon the
language negotiated in the Agreement between the Department and the
proponent. The description of the mitigation measures should be as generic as
possible, considering that the particular Agreement measures will normally be
part of a larger project. At the same time, the Agreement must be specific
enough to ensure that it clearly documents the required connection between
project impact and mitigation expenditures.
For example, analysis may determine that a proposed project will contribute to
the need for an interchange access improvement. Since there will be various
costs associated with the improvement, the Department might identify the
location of the interchange without identifying the specific measures to be
implemented (underground wire, guard rails, etc.). The more general description
provides flexibility and allows the most effective use of the funds. On the other
hand, analysis and conditions may dictate that the Department negotiate for a
specific improvement, such as a "signal," "turn lane," or "portion of HOV lane,"
etc.
Keep in mind that many years can go by between receipt and expenditure of the
funds. Whether the Agreement describes mitigation in general or in more
specific terms, there should be as much detail as possible to aid long term
connection of the funding and related expenditures to the mitigation. Whether it
is in the Agreement "proper" or part of the supporting documentation, information
such as location (including Post Mile, for example, if applicable); name of the
project, local jurisdiction, funding amount (unless Capital Deferment),
environmental references, and requirements for meeting certain warrants or
thresholds by dates (for example, "2020") should be included.
Each Agreement should be assigned a District number.
All Agreement signatures should be notarized. There is at least one (1) Notary
Public on staff at almost all of the Districts---usually part of the Right of Way
8
LD-IGR Traffic Mitigation Agreements
function. If in doubt, please contact the District Executive Assistant or Executive
Secretary, who can help identify the Notary(ies). Exceptions to having an
Agreement notarized will be authorized by the Districts.
When the Department enters into a Capital Deferment Agreement (or if a
combined Agreement is executed) it may wish to have the Agreement recorded
with the County Clerk as a means to ensure completion of the mitigation project.
Other options may be to require a bond or letter of credit. It will depend upon the
type of project. Again, Legal will help in determining whether the above, or other,
conditions are appropriate.
Appendices 2, and 3 provide sample templates for:
1. Fair Share Deferment Agreement;
2. Capital Deferment Agreement;
Each template provides. in yellow, those areas where the specific language (at a
minimum) would need to be changed with each new Agreement in order to reflect
the particular requirements and conditions. It is expected, as well, that revisions
to the "template" will be made, as warranted .
Accounting for Receipt of Funds
Mitigation funds are accounted for as reimbursements (in TRAMS as fund source
"R").
Procedures for recording the receipt of mitigation funds are similar to those used
by the Department in accounting for other reimbursement project funds. In most
cases with mitigation funds, however, the Department tracks the funds for many
years, so these procedures will emphasize some of the coding requirements for
the long-term collections.
Since the Department collects only a proponent's fair share of mitigation funds,
and it could take a long time to gather enough funds to complete an
improvement, the funds will not be assigned (generally) a project Expenditure
Authorization (EA) at the time they are collected. Rather, an "holding" EA will be
established in TRAMS, "R" fund source, EA status 21 (allows only billings and
collections to post). '
When they are scheduled for a project, the funds will be assigned the project
EA. (If an appropriate project exists at the time of collecting the funds, of course,
that project's EA will be assigned to the funds, and the Department won't have to
"hold" them.)
Steps to be taken to enter the funds into TRAMS are described in the following
few pages. (These steps assume that a holding EA will be required.)
Also, please see Appendix 4, Flow Chart, Accounting for Receipt of Fair Share
Funds from Proponents.
9
LD-IGR Traffic Mitigatfon Agreements
I. Districts:
10
A. Local Development~lntergovernmental Review (LD-IGR):
1. Receive check from the project proponent, following execution of the
Agreement.
2. Send a letter, or E-mail, to the local public agency, confirming receipt
of the proponent's check for mitigation measures. (See Appendix 5.)
3. Send a copy of the above confirmation to the project proponent.
4. Forward the following documents to the Project Control Officer (PCO):
a. ~ of the check.
b. Signed Agreement, including attachments.
c. Copy of the letter or E-mail that was sent to the local agency
confirming receipt of the mitigation funding.
d. Request an Expenditure Authorization (EA) for the funding. (The
District Cashier needs the EA in order to transfer the funds to HQ
Cashiering, also.)
5. Upon receipt of an EA, deliver the check and copy of Agreement
Package to District Cashier. Cashier will issue a Transfer Receipt
(Form STD. 440).
6. If the proponent's local development project requires an encroachment
permit, forward a copy of the Agreement and its attachments, including
EA, to Permits.
B. Office of Budgets:
1. Project Control Officer (PCO):
a. Assign an EA to the Agreement (holding or project EA, as
applicable).
b. Fax or e-mail the Agreement Package, to the appropriate
Reimbursement Accountant, so that a "Contributor Number" for the
project proponent will be masterfiled. Fax to: (916) 227-8789 or
Calnet 8-498-8789. In order to determine the appropriate
Reimbursement Accountant, go to the Reimbursement contact
page located at
http://onramp.dot.ca.gov/hq/accounting/prinV0AR0206.doc. The
accountant's name, phone number, and e-mail link are provided.
LD-/GR Traffic M;t;gat;on Agreements
c. Upon receipt of the Contributor Number from the Reimbursement
Accountant, set up the EA in EAS/COMS, Status 21 4, and transmit
to the Reimbursement Accountant for approval of the set up and R
line. (After approval, the EA will be forwarded to HQ EA Control &
Overhead Assessment Section [EA Control].)
d. Upon entry (approval) of the EA into TRAMS, notify all Department
project participants involved, and copy notice to Reimbursement
Accountant.
2. Cashier:
a. Receive proponent's check from LD-IGR. Complete a Transfer
Receipt (Form STD. 440) for check and give the original to the LD-
IGR staff person who delivered the check. Transfer Receipt must
include the following information:
(1) Date;
(2) Dollar amount collected;
(3) Check number;
(4) EA number;
(5) Purpose (project mitigation);
(6) The term "REIMBURSEMENTS";
(7) The words "For deposit into 'Account 84"'; and
(8) Any other pertinent identifying information (See Appendix 6).
b. Forward to HQ Cashiering:
(1) Check;
(2) Copy of Transfer Receipt;
(3) Copy of remainder of Agreement Package documents;
(4) Staple documents together.
II. Headquarters
Division of Accounting:
1. Cashiering:
' a. Upon receipt of check, Agreement Package, and copy of Transfer
Receipt from District Cashier, enter funds as a deposit of
Reimbursement dollars into Account 84.
4 "EA Status 21" allows billings and collections only to post in TRAMS---no expenditures. PCO
will not obtain Reimbursement Authority, and the EA will not have an authorized amount on
screen 64 in TRAMS for this "holding" EA. The YI indicator should be set at "O" (zero), indicating
that the EA is not to roll forward. (EA will remain in status 21 until the District identifies a project,
and the PCO submits a request to Budgets for Reimbursement Authority for the phase 4 under
the project EA.)
11
LD-IGR Traffic Mitigation Agreements
b. Upon receipt of an invoice (with EA and contributor number)
prepared by the Reimbursement Accountant for the mitigation
funds, withdraw these funds from Account 84 and apply to the
invoice provided by the Reimbursement Accountant.
2. Reimbursement Accountant:
a. Upon receipt of Agreement Package from District PCO, assign
Contributor Number to the project proponent and notify District
PCO.
b. Upon receipt (and approval) of EA from District PCO, forward to
Office of Financial Accounting & Analysis (OFAA)-Highway
Appropriation Management Section (HAMS).
c. Upon notice from PCO that EA has been masterfiled, issue an
invoice in the amount of the funds received.
d. Provide HQ Cashier with invoice copy for mitigation funds. (HQ
Cashier will withdraw from Account 84 and apply to invoice number
provided by Reimbursement Accountant.)6
e. Monitor the mitigation funds on deposit in EA Status 21 , and
manually transfer them to a current Fiscal Year (FY) if the FY in
which they are entered is lapsing.
3. EA Control & Overhead Assessment Section (EA Control):
Review EA to ensure that information is complete and correct, and
upon verification, release for entry into TRAMS COLLECTOR (TU).
Expending the Funds
As discussed earlier, mitigation funding can be used for a variety of
improvement purposes, depending upon the language negotiated in the
Agreement between the Department and the proponent.
Once a project has been identified, the accounting and budgeting activity begins
to move the funds from the holding EA to the project EA in order tQ offset the
funds collected with an encumbrance and expenditures.
Numerous functions will participate in the identification, scheduling,
encumbrance, and expending of the funds. There is no attempt here to detail
every step that will be taken by every function in the Districts and HQ during the
process. The following sections more or less outline actions taken by
5 The accounting system requires an invoice number to be applied to the receipt of funds. The
Reimbursement Accountant will prepare an invoice for in-house use only for the mitigation funds.
6 TRAMS screen 64 will show the invoice and collection amount. This invoice/collection of
mitigation funds will remain as such in TRAMS until the funds are transferred to a project EA.
12
LD-/GR Traffic Mitigation Agreements
participating functions. It is understood that communication will need to take
place between and among the District functions, HQ Accounting, Budgets, and
Office Engineers, as projects require.
I. Identifying and Scheduling Projects
A. Districts:
1. District Projects Monitor:
a. Monitor all District's planned and programmed projects in
coordination with LD-IGR and Project Management; and, identify
when, in accordance with the Agreement, the proponent's
mitigation funding should be included in a project.
b. Notify the PCO (via E-mail or other written documentation) that the
Project Manager has identified mitigation funds as part of a project
Funding Package. Notification should include the name of the
Project Manager, amount of funding, and the holding EA, as well as
the project EA to which the funds will be transferred by the
Reimbursement Accountant.7
c. Coordinate with Project Manager and the PCO to ensure that
affected District functions are notified.
d. Ensure that Project Manager receives a copy of Agreement.
2. Project Manager:
a. Submit project Funding Package to HQ Budgets, with a copy to
Office Engineer (OE), requesting project funds.
b . Forward a copy of Agreement to OE as part of Funding Package.
c. Identify mitigation funding as a lump sum amount on a separate line
in the Funding Package.
3. Project Control Officer:
' a. Upon notification from District Project Monitor that mitigation funds
currently in the holding EA have been scheduled for project
inclusion, request Reimbursement Authority for the amount of the
mitigation funds from HQ Budgets for the project EA. Include
Agreement Package with the request.8
7 Upon transferring from an holding EA to a project EA, the FY will be that of the Reimbursement
Authority FY assigned by Budgets.
8 Reimbursement Authority required only 1f the project EA is phase 4 construction (20.20).
13
LD-IGR Traffic Mitigation Agreements
b. Ensure that HQ Accounting, Reimbursement Accountant, is aware
of the change from holding EA to project EA through project EA
approval (including verifying fund source/distribution to OE) and via
e-mail.
c. Upon receipt of Reimbursement Authority from HQ Budgets (if
applicable}, forward approval to Reimbursement Accountant and
HAMS.
d. Using a "Contributor Number Request" form, accompanied by an
explanatory e-mail, request Reimbursement Accountant to
masterfile in project EA the same contributor number previously
masterfiled in holding EA.
B. Headquarters:
1. HQ Budgets:
Upon receipt of Agreement Package from District PCO, issue approval
of request for Reimbursement Authority for the mitigation funds for
phase 4 construction project EA via Memorandum hard copy or e-mail.
2. Office Engineer (OE):9
a. Set up the project Phase 4 EA in EAS/COMS after bid opening.
b. Enter the authorization amount for each funding source into the EA.
When entering the cost percentage distribution for the funding
sources, the R-line percent for mitigation funds will be set at "O,"
and no expenditures will be charged against those funds until the
Reimbursement Accountant manually transfers expenditures
against them. (Lump sum collections are not included in cost
percentage distributions.)
c. Send EA to District PCO for approval.
d. Upon receipt of approval from District PCO, route EA to HQ
Accounting Reimbursement Accountant and HAMS for certification.
e. Award contract after the certified EA is received front HQ
Accounting HAMS.
f. Send certified EA to HQ EA Control for release to TRAMS.
9 HQ OE will prepare the construction bid package and perform its associated activities for
projects with total estimated costs of $120,000 and above. For projects that are not forwarded to
OE for processing, Districts will proceed with mitigation projects as they do for other contracts
that are not sent to OE for advertising, bid opening, and award.
14
LD-IGR Traffic Mitigation Agreements
3. Reimbursement Accountant:
a. Masterfile holding EA contributor number in project EA.
b. Transfer billings and collections for contributor from holding EA to
project EA's R-line.
c. Suspend holding EA.
d. Verify that funds have transferred into the project EA.
e. When expenditures charged to all otherfund sources within the
project exceed the amount of the mitigation funds received, the
Reimbursement Accountant will manually transfer expenditures to
equal the amount of the mitigation invoice/collections.
f. Work with the District LD-IGR counterpart throughout the mitigation
project.
II. Project Cost Summary
The Reimbursement Accountant will prepare a Project Cost Summary (final
accounting) for the mitigation funds when the construction project is complete
and will forward a copy to the District Local Development-Intergovernmental
Review contact.
Please see Appendix 7, Flow Chart, Accounting for Expenditure of Fair
Share Funds Received from Proponents.
...
15
LD-JGR Traf fie Mitigation Agreements
Appendices
17
California Departme n t of Tr an sportation ,.
(it/ffCl/15
Traffic Mitigation Agreements with Local Development Project Proponents
Executing Fair Share Funds and Deferred Capital Improvement Agreements with Proponents (Developers)
Proponent requests help to determine mitigation prior
to applying to Local Agency for project approval.
Proponent proposes G --=
Project to Local = • Agency
Caltrans District reviews • TIS or other analysis ., ..........................
and determines that = II
Capi1 Local Agency (or .. proposed project will A Proponent) conducts ,,,. .. ~~ impact State Highway traffic impact study System (SHS). ""Ii NO (TIS) or other • ~~ comparable nexus ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
··································~~
ferment :!
ment :!
ceived Ii
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::'
study. Caltrans requests that
Local Agency condition
Local Agency approval of project on
[:]
conditions project ~ Proponent's mitigating Fair Share ..... -approval on Proponent ----• completing mitigation
traffic impact. Deferment
ment Agree
.......... t. .......... * .... measures as requested
by Caltrans, but does • Caltrans and Proponent . not want to bank funds. . . . •
+ : enter into Traffic Mitigation : • Agreement. . . . . .
Local Agency, as Pa,rt of ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
project approval, conditions
; I I
Proponent to pay Caltrans
Proponent for fair share mitigation
measures to SHS or enter
into agreement for capital
improvements, or both.
----Local Agency response to Caltrans
•
~
$ Rec ived
[:]
Coml
Fair Share.
Deferment
ned
nd Capital
Agreement
$ Rec eived
Appendix 1
LD-IGR Traffic Mitigation Procedures
TRAFFIC MITfGAT[ON AGREEMENT
FAIR SHARE DEFERMENT
TEMPLATE
THIS AGREEMENT, entered into effective this day of , 2006, by
and between the State of California, acting by and through its Department of
Transportation, hereinafter referred to as "Department," and __________ _
hereinafter referred to as "Owner," and collectively the "Parties" without regard for
number or gender.
RECITALS1
A. WHEREAS, Owner has proposed to develop xxxx located in the County City of
\.XX\. x, hereinafter referred to as ''Proposed Development," which will be constructed
on a piece of real property, hereinafter referred to as "Property," which is more
particularly described in Exhibit "A," attached hereto and incorporated herein by this
reference; and
B. WHEREAS, as part of the environmental process for this Proposed Development, a
Tranic Impact Study ( flS) was prepared and that TIS2 has determined that the
Proposed Development would result in (ex. UU\l!N.: imp,11.:ts to <-itatc Rotitc ( R) 60
at Fn:mont lntcrchangt!), hereinafter referred to as "Impacts"; and
C. WHEREAS, that TIS 'also identified specific mitigation measures to mitigate for
those Proposed Development Impacts, specifically that Owner would pay to
Department a pro rata share of the total anticipated costs of improvements required at
SR-60 al Fr..:mont Interchange. Said pro rata share has been determined to be [ '<X O o
of total improvement costs associated with this Proposed Development, which is
equal to]4 S XXXX, hereinafter referred to as "Funds"; and
D. WHEREAS, Owner now desires to mitigate for the Proposed Development Impacts
by paying Funds to Department.
1 The recital section needs to match the proposed project. Recital section generally tells the "story" as to why the
Department and Owner are entering into this Agreement.
i or, [D.:p,inm.:nt, bas.:d upon Institute of Traffic Engineers (lTI·) mc1hodologi.:~ Jnd cons,~tcnt w11h
D.:partmcnt"s 1ratlic stu<l)-guide,] Also note that, while some jurisdictions may not require mitigation during the
entitlement process, it does not preclude the Owner from entering into an agreement with Department to offset
impacts caused by the Project. However, this should be done only in limited circumstances and in lieu of the
Department challenging the Development project's environmental document. As always, the Department will
continue to provide !GR comments that include mitigation to offset traffic impacts Lo the State Highway Systt!m as a
result of Development projects.
3 or, [Di.:p,1rtrncnt"s dct.:m11nat1on described in prov1s1on B above].
4 If there 1s no% calculated, delete (text).
Appendix 2
1
LD-/GR Traff;c M;t;gation Procedures
NOW THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of
which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereby agree as follows:
I. Owner agrees to pay to Department, \\ithin tlmty (10) days of the abo\c stated
t::ffcctivc date of this Agreement' the Funds which represent Owner's pro-rata share of
the anticipated total costs of the improvements required to mitigate impacts to SR-60 at
Fn:mont lntcrch:.rngc.
2. Department hereby acknowledges that upon payment in full of Funds by Owner,
Owner will have satisfied its mitigation obligation to Department for Proposed
Development Impacts.6
3. Said Funds shall remain in the State Highway Account until such time as the balance
of other funds necessary to implement the required improvements to SR-60 at Fremont
Interchange or another equivalent project that would offset the Impacts as required by the
California Environmental Quality Acl (CEQA) are secured.
4. Department agrees that the Funds paid by Owner pursuant to the terms of this
Agreement shall be used for the purposes of instituting Lhe required improvements to SR-
60 at Fremont Interchange or another equivalent project that would offset the Impacts as
required by CEQA.
5. In the event that the Funds are not expended on improvements to SR-60 at F-rcmont
lnterchangc, or another equivalent project that would offset the Impacts as required by
CEQA, by Department on or before December 11. :!O.,oc, Department shall return to
Owner, within sixty (60) days of receipt of Owner's written request, all then unexpended
Funds.
6. All obligations of Department under the terms of this Agreement are subject to the
appropriation of resources by the Legislature, State Budget Act authority, and the
allocation of resources by the California Transportation Commission.
7. This Agreement may be executed in several counterparts and all counterparts so
executed shall constitute one agreement that shall be binding on all of the parties,
notwithstanding that all of the Parties are not signatory to the original or the same
counterpart.
8. This Agreement shall expire when Department has expended all of the Funds; Funds
arc returned to Owner, in whole or in part pursuant to Article 5 of this Agreement; or on
December 31, 20xx, whichever occurs first in time.
5 or [as specified at time ofgraJmg pcrnm. building permit, occupancy. etc.]
6 We can only acknowledge that Owner has satisfied the Department's mitigation requ1rementS. If the Owner has
more than one obligation to the Department, provision 2 will need to be modified.
Appendix 2
2
LD-IGR Traff;c M;OgaUon Procedures
[N WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Agreement as set forth
below.
CAUFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
By:
Dcs1gnaLed District Ofticial
OW~ER
By: -----------Authon✓.ed Reprcsemmive
Approved as to Form and Procedure
Attorney, State of California
Department of Transportation
Appendix 2
3
LD-/GR Traffic MiUgation Procedures
1 Recording Requested by: )
)
)
)
)
)
TEMPLATE
Conformed Copy to:
Department of Transportation
District Address
TRAFFIC MTTIGA TION AGREEMENT
CAPITAL DEFERMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, entered into effective this __ day of _____ . 2006, by
and between the State of California, acting by and through its Department of
Transportation, hereinafter referred to as "Department," and Charles Browning,
hereinafter referred to as "Owner."
RECITALS2
A. WHEREAS, Owner has proposed to develop a rcs,Jcncc located in the Ctty of
Opportunity, All County, hereinafter referred to as "Proposed Development." Said
Proposed Development will be constructed on a piece of real property, hereinafter
referred to as "Property," which is more particularly described in Exhibit "A,"
attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; and
8. WHEREAS, Owner, as part of compliance with the environmental process, had a
Traffic Impact Stutly (TIS) prcparctl' which determined that the Proposed
Development would result in adverse impacts to State Route (SR) 41 on the north
s1dt.: of Prnposcd Development Property, hereinafter referred to as "lmpacts"; and
C. WHEREAS, that T IS, and as 10corporated into the Proposed Dt:vclopment's
environmental documcnt,4 also identified specific measures to mitigate for those said
' 1 This section needs lo be removed if the Agreement will not be recorded. See paragraph 8.
2 The recital section needs to match the proposed project. Recital section generally tells the "story" as to why the
Department and Owner are entering into this Agreement.
3 or, [Dcpanmc:nt. ba:.c<l upon Institute of Traffic Engineers (I f E) mc:tho<lolog,es an<l consistent \~llh
Department's m1t1ic study guide,] Also note that, while some jurisdictions may not require mitigation during the
entitlement process, it does not preclude the Owner from entering into an agreement with Department to offset
impacts caused by the Project. However, this should be done only in limited circumstances and in lieu of the
Department challenging the Development project's environmental document. As always, the Department will
continue lo provide IGR comments that include mitigation to offset traffic impacts to the State Highway System as a
result of Development projects.
4 or, [Department's dcterminauon described 111 provision B abo"e]
Appendix 3
Page 1 of 4
LD-/GR Traffic Mitigation Procedures
Proposed Development Impacts, specifically that Owner would timely complete
certain improvements to SR • I on tht: nnnh ,;ide of Prnpo-.;ed De\ dopn11:nt Property,
hereinafter referred to as "Mitigation Measures"; and
D. WHEREAS, Department and Owner now desire to set forth the terms and conditions
that will allow Owner to proceed with Proposed Development and phase the
implementation of the Mitigation Measures, when requested by Department, in a
manner that will offset the Impacts.
NOW THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of
which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereby agree as follows:
I. Department agrees that Owner may delay implementation of the Mitigation Measures
until after the initiation of the Proposed Development and until such time as the
Department provides written notice to Owner that those said Mitigation Measures
must be commenced.
2. Owner agrees to begin commencement of said Mitigation Measures within sixty (60)
days of issuance of said written notification by Department to Owner that Mitigation
Measures are to commence.
3. Owner agrees to ensure that Mitigation Measures comply with all applicable State
and Federal requirements [including, but not limited to, the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), if
applicable], conform to all then applicable Departmental standards, including
obtaining an encroachment permit, and may include entering into another form of
agreement for work on or adjacent to Department's property. Furthermore, Owner
agrees to ensure that those Mitigation Measures are completed to the satisfaction of
the Department.
4. Owner agrees to be fully responsible to fund 100% of all of the costs related to
implementation of Mitigation Measures.
5. Neither Department nor any officer or employee thereof is responsible for any injury,
damage or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by
Owner under or in connection with any work or authority arising under this
Agreement. It is understood and agreed that Owner shall fully defend, indemnify and
save harmless Department and all of its officers and employees from all claims, suits
or actions of every name, kind and description brought forth under, including, but not
limited to, tortious, contractual, inverse condemnation and other theories or assertions
of liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by Owner
under this Agreement.
6. Owner shall maintain in force, until completion and acceptance of the Mitigation
Measure by Department, a policy of Liability Insurance, including coverage of Bodily
Injury Liability and Property Damage Liability, naming the State of California, its
Appendix 3
Page 2 of 4
September 20, 2006
~~ e~ Owners' Association, Inc.
5200 El Camino Real, Carlsbad, California 92010-711 8
Phone: (760) 438-0333 Fax: (760) 438-1 808
Mr. Marty Montgomery, Chairperson
Planning Commission
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
RE: Robertson Ranch E.I.R.
Dear Mr. Montgomery,
On Wednesday September 20th, the Planning Commission will review this E.I.R. for the third time.
We trust that the applicant and City staff have made enough modifications to permit your approval.
In June, we wrote to remind the Commission of the many other aspects of this E.I.R. which are positive
improvements, a few of which directly involve our community, Rancho Carlsbad. The construction of a
diversionary drainage pipeline by the McMillin Company's along the north side of Cannon Road, to
mitigate the 100 year flood threat to our community is one of them. We will miss any positive benefit of
this pipeline this coming winter rainy season. Approval and for-warding this E.I.R. to City Council tonight
will we hope, ensure that this construction work will be completed for the 2007-08 season.
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
September 20, 2006
Dear Planning Commissioners,
Earlier this year, I spoke at a city Council meeting about concerns of morals, ethics and
trust. The Council appeared somewhat bewildered but one council member specifically
recognized my concerns and understood my passion as a citizen who sincerely cares
about doing the right thing. On occasion, I've asked for advice from this individual and
we've always been in agreement that taking the high road is the right thing to do.
More recently, I am deeply saddened by the actions and behaviors I've observed as they
pertain to the Robertson Ranch triangle.
In some cases there have been honest errors and inaccuracies. In other cases, and
unfortunately, I'm convinced that actions have been deliberate and that the truth has been
stretched. As a whole, I believe an avoidance has existed for two-way dialogue for many
of the tough questions and issues raised by the Colony residents.
1. A statement made as part of the Staff Report in the attachment entitled,
"Responses To Town Hall Meeting Questions" is inaccurate. Under #4, it states
"all requests for 3-party meetings ... have been accommodated." I am providing
copies of the emails from City Staff declining on two separate occasions the
Colony's request to attend 3-party meetings. Additionally, the Colony's request
to attend the meeting between the Applicant and City Staff on June 27th, only 4
business days after the previous Robertson Ranch hearing, was denied.
2. In order to present tonight, the Colony was told that the deadline for a copy of the
presentation was due by 7:30 AM, Monday September 18.
a. Colony residents were provided the last approved traffic report last
Thursday, September 14 leaving the Colony one business day for review
and analysis. Was this the right thing to do?
b. Upon repeated requests for answers to questions by Colony residents,
responses and not necessarily answers, were provided in the Planning
Commission Staff Report. The report was available to us last Friday,
September IS leaving zero business days for review and analysis. Was
this the right thing to do?
3. We've heard that one of the Planning Commissioners recently stated that they felt
the Applicant is owed a decision tonight. What about the Colony? Are we not
owed some type 2-way face-to-face dialogue to address and discuss Staff's last
minute responses before a decision is made? Is the 1-way dialogue at this hearing
the appropriate forum for this? Is this the right thing to do?
4. The 3 parties agreed that we would not come back to the Commission until we
had some type of agreement. We've asked for answers again and again, and here
we are once again for a long evening of debate. Was this the right thing to do?
The issues should have been properly debated prior to another Commission
meeting being scheduled.
I can site more examples, but I think I've cited enough to make my point for doing the
right thing. The communication and interaction of the Robertson Ranch triangle has been
limited. Email and phone communication have taken precedence over face-to-face
meetings. Response to our written communication for face-to-face communication has
been nominal. The hearings are !-dimensional for public comment, whereas the City and
the Applicant have the opportunity for rebuttal. Be that as it may, I greatly thank the
Commissioners for the past consideration of the Colony's concerns.
To summarize, I am deeply saddened by the actions and behaviors I've observed in this
emotional triangle. Before you make any decisions tonight, I ask that you remind
yourself to ask the question, "Is this the right thing to do?"
Regards,
Jill Agosti
4730 Edinburgh Dr.
Carlsbad, CA 92010
Greg Agosti
From:
To:
Cc:
Sent:
Subject:
Brian-
"Jeremy Riddle" <Jridd@ci.car1sbad.ca.us>
<bmilich@mcmillin.com>
"Barbara Kennedy" <Bkenn@ci.carlsbad.ca.us>; <gregagosti@sbcglobal.net>
Monday, June 19, 2006 9:07 AM
Re: FW: Meeting on Monday evening
"-Unfortunately, I will be unable to attend this follow-up community
"1\-meeting due to evening family commitments.
The City's position on open connectivity to Glasgow and Edinburgh
Page 1 of2
remains consistent. We support the original Master Plan connections. ~
The second revised focused traffic study still shows the roads are
anticipated to operate within City Standards. fkl--~ ~,~ 31 r-1-
We provided City presence by attending the first evenin{meeting to ~kl~ 4
hear the Colony's concerns and relay the City's position on open . .,_., U
connectivity with extending Glasgow and Edinburgh. We also attended a
second follow-up meeting with the Fire Marshal as she explained the Fire
Departments needs with keeping these roads open with future development.
We hope this 3rd meeting with the Colony will be your opportunity to
show the conceptual circuitous road system within the West Village and
to discuss potential traffic calming measures within the Colony.
We have PC briefings to attend ( today and tomorrow). Thanks.
Jeremy L. Riddle
Associate Engineer
City of Carlsbad
Public Works-Engineering
jridd@ci._carlsbad.ca. us
>>> "Brian Milich" <bmilich@mcmillin.com> 06/19/06 8:01 AM >>>
Can you attend and can we meet in the City's conference room?
-----Original Message-----
9/19/2006
From: greg Agosti [mailto:gregagosti@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2006 12:04 PM
To: Brian Milich; Ken Cablay
Subject: Meeting on Monday evening
Brian/Ken,
I promised that I would get back to you by noon today and I've gotten
about 35 positive responses of people who will be attending. I know
of
a few others who have said they would like to come depending on work.
Maybe consider 40 people I also spoke to Jeremy Riddle and asked if
the
city staff wanted to attend and he was going to check. I'm not sure
if
you notified them but I thought some of the questions may be directed
m
their direction.
Thank you
Page 2 of2
9/19/2006
Page 1 of 3
Greg Agosti
From: "Marcela Escobar-Eck" <Mesco@ci.carlsbad.ca.us>
To:
Cc:
"Barbara Kennedy" <Bkenn@ci.cartsbad.ca.us>; <agostigc@songs.sce.com>
<cgallup@adelphia.net>; <demcintyre@adelphia.net>; <donwofford@adelphia.net>;
<miller65@adelphia.net>; "Bob Johnson" <Bjohn@ci.cartsbad.ca.us>; "David Hauser"
<Dhaus@ci.cartsbad.ca.us>; "Jeremy Riddle" <Jridd@ci.cartsbad.ca.us>; "Skip Hammann"
<Shamm@ci.carlsbad.ca.us>; <jmiller@ci.vista.ca.us>; <kariw8@excite.com>;
<karia@hartmannstudios.com>; <gregagosti@sbcglobal.net>; <jillagosti@sbcglobal.net>;
<RWofford@WPKT.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 2:58 PM
Subject: Re: RR Meeting with The Colony Reps -
Mr. Agosti:
It would not be appropriate for our staff to attend this meeting. We would be happy to answer any follow-up
questions you may have either by phone or at a meeting here in our offices. As we discussed on the phone, it
poses a difficult situation for us when you are looking a draft traffic study that we have not signed off on yet. It
was the Developers choice to give you that document and if you have any questions on the draft document it is
best to have their consultant explain the methodology to you.
I think you know that we do not "rubber-stamp" anything, quite the contrary we conduct a thorough and
independent review of all the projects and studies that are submitted to us. As we have expressed to you and
several of your board members and neighbors, our job is not to advocate for any project or any one solution.
We ensure that the proposals meet our Codes and standards and we make our best professional
recommendation. Our job then becomes to shepard the project through the process with our best professional
recommendation. To engage in a series of meetings and discussions outside of the Public Hearing process
would put us in an awkward position at this point I am headed to a meeting until 4:00 but would be happy to
discuss this with you further if you would like. I can be reached at (760) 602-4604.
Thank you,
Marcela
>>> <agostigc@songs.sce.com> 08/15/06 12:23 PM >>>
Barbara,
If you cannot attend Thursday's meeting, is there anyone who will attend? We think it is
important that the city staff (at least one person) attend so it at least sends a message to the
homeowners that the city is engaged in the process. We addressed this at the last
homeowners meeting and the city declined to attend that meeting. The impression is that the
developer is heading this project up and the city is rubber stamping their work. We ask that
the city reconsider their decision because we anticipate homeowners may have questions
that would best be answered by the city staff and we want to maximize the time the
homeowners and the developers are spending on this issue.
Thank you ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
GREG AGOSTI -BUYER
Tele: 949-368-8856
Fax: 949-368-8497
Pax 88856
**************************************************************
9/19/2006
Page 2 of3
"Barbara Kennedy"
<Bkenn@ci.carlsbad.ca.us>
To <jridd@ci.ca11sbad>, "Marcela Escobar-Eck"
<Mesco@ci.car1sbad.ca. us>, <bmilich@mcmillin.com>,
<kcablay@msn.com>, <pklukas@planningsystems.net>,
08/14/2006 02:15 PM <ca. us@sce.com>, <agostigc@songs.sce.com>
cc <cgallup@adelphia.net>, <demcintyre@adelphia.net>,
<donwofford@adelphia.net>, <miller65@adelphia.net>,
"Bob Johnson" <Bjohn@ci.carlsbad.ca.us>,
<jmiller@ci.vista.ca. us>, <kariw8@excite.com>,
<karia@hartmannstudios.com>,
<gregagosti@sbcglobal.net>, <jillagosti@sbcglobal.net>,
<RWofford@WPKT.com>
Subject Re: RR Meeting with The Colony Reps -
Hi Greg-
I 've been checking availability for a meeting. City Staff has some
conflicts with tomorrow afternoon so I checked a possibility for
Wednesday. McMillin team has a meeting in SD until l ate afternoon and
it would be doubtful that they could make it here by 4 :00 or even 4:30.
Jeremy is out today, so I don 't know if he would be available for a
later meeting on Wednesday (running into after-hours).
So as of right now, I can't give you an answer for a meeting. However,
Engineering staff or McMillin Team can answer any questions you may have
regarding t he traff ic study in case we can't pull a meeting together for
everyone to attend prior to Thursday.
rI will be unable to attend the meeting on Thursday due to a prior -r,. commitment.
Paul will be contacting you regarding your request for the ADT without
circuitous routing.
If you need anything else, please contact me.
Sincerely-
BK
Barbara Kennedy, AICP
Associate Planner
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314
(760) 602-4626
bkenn@ci .carlsbad.ca.us
>>> <agostigc@songs .sce.com> 08/14/06 10:16 AM>>>
Good morning Barbara,
The Colony group has been reviewing the DRAFT Traffic Report, and would
like to schedule some time this week with city staff and developer reps
9/19/2006
to
review and clarify some questions we have . If possible, could this
meeting be scheduled after 4:00 PM to accommodate some of the people
who
have to drive from Orange county or SD? We are currently meeting with
the Homeowners Thursday at 6:30pm, and would like to understand the
traffic report before then in an effort to be able to answer questions
they have on the impact of the different alternatives to our
neighborhood.
In addition, can you please provide the traffic numbers for the
master
plan with NO circuitous routing, at a density of 1 ,122 DU 's, so that we
have a basis for comparison?
We have discussed all the alternatives with the homeowners includi ng
the
back to back cul de sacs proposal which was originally proposed by
McMillin and have emphasized that this Traffic Report is only a DRAFT.
The
fi~ report will be issued shortly. We believe the Thursday meeting
could go a long way in informing the residents of the alternatives and
the
developer and the city staff can get direct feedback from the residents
concerns.
* We haven't got a response from you regarding the attendance at the
Thursday meeting. Thank you
**************************************************************
GREG AGOSTI -BUYER
Tele: 949-368-8856
Fax: 949-368-8497
Pax 88856
**************************************************************
Page 3 of3
9/19/2006
ROBERTSON RANCH TOWN HALL MEETING QUESTIONS (813112006)
City responses (in BOLD) dated 9/12/06
1. You said it was not your job to advocate any one position but present the
alternatives. So, does that mean you will give equal consideration and
present all four alternatives?
We have been told City Planners support Alternative #1 and that is why
the developer will not support the other alternatives, but the developer
does not oppose back-to-back cul-de-sac or gated communities.
a. Is it true you do not support Alternatives 3 and 4?
b. If Alternatives 3 and 4 do not violate code, why do you not support
them?
The Planning Department will be presenting three circulation alternatives
for the West Village of Robertson Ranch to the Planning Commission. Staff
met with the Colony representatives on July 11, 2006 to present these
alternatives and the Colony voiced support for Alternative 3.
Alternative 1 is the original plan showing the extensions of Glasgow and
Edinburgh, and a signalized intersection at El Camino Real (ECR) and "Z"
Street (Lisa Street). A circuitous street design is used in the West Village
to reduce cut-through traffic. The applicant would be conditioned to
implement additional traffic calming within the Colony neighborhood.
Alternative 2 is the same as Alternative 1 with the addition of a right-in and
right-out at a new street (A.K.A. Tamarack Connection) on the south side of
Tamarack Avenue generally located about midway between La Portalada
Drive and Pontiac Drive.
Alternative 3 includes the Tamarack Connection with a signalized
intersection, a gated community for Robertson Ranch Planning Areas 9
and 10 (bordering Edinburgh) and a gated emergency access at Glasgow.
Although all three alternatives meet City standards, there are pros and
cons to each of the alternatives. When Staff and the Colony met on July
11, 2006 to discuss the alternatives, ground rules where set which clearly
stated that staff would not present any alternative that does not comply
with City standards. The back-to-back cul-de-sac (Colony Alternative 4)
does not comply with standards for 25 or less units on a cul-de-sac.
Alternative 3 is not fully supported by staff because the gated access to
PA's 9 and 10 and emergency access gates at Glasgow Drive may impede
access during an emergency response or evacuation. Gated communities,
when approved, are generally set apart from the rest of a development
when there are no opportunities to provide connectivity between
neighborhoods. The extensions of Glasgow Drive and Edinburgh Drive
A'ff~11
ROBERTSON RANCH TOWN HALL MEETING QUESTIONS (813112006)
City responses (in BOLD) dated 9112/06
have been envisioned since the Colony subdivision was approved and
these road extensions would provide convenient access for the Colony
residents to drive to the future neighborhood commercial area and daycare
in the West Village. Furthermore, the installation of a traffic signal at the
Tamarack Connection complicates the approach to the Tamarack
AvenuelECR intersection. Traffic congestion at this intersection has been
identified as a concern of the Colony residents.
Staff will be presenting the three alternatives and with a recommendation
of approval for Alternatives 1 or 2. However the ultimate decision lies with
the Planning Commission and City Council.
2. Safety vs. Access -How does one put a percentage figure on the
increased risk to kids, pedestrians and pets in a small residential
neighborhood of 174 homes that will be impacted by traffic of over 1,000
homes?
The issue of safety is a primary concern to staff and the proposals have
been developed to reduce. both the speed and the volume of traffic in the
residential neighborhoods. Additionally, if traffic calming is incorporated
into the Colony subdivision, this will further reduce traffic speed and cut-
through traffic. Staff is also concerned about safety as it relates to
emergency response requirements for safety personnel. Providing
multiple unobstructed points of access between neighborhoods improves
emergency response times.
3. We've heard rumors to the effect that the application may be withdrawn or
denied by the Planning Commission due to the Colony's efforts. We have
a vested interest, put forth numerous efforts, and we'd like to see
resolution now rather than all of us go through this exercise again with a
different application for the same property. Any comments?
Staff has heard no rumors to that effect. If the project is denied by the
Planning Commission, it would still go forward to the City Council for a
final decision.
4. In attempts for resolution, we do not understand the City's position as to
why they believe it is inappropriate for all 3 parties (City staff, Colony &
Developer) to discuss the issues at one time. In the past, when we've met
with just one entity, we've observed conflicting explanations when the
other isn't there to validate them. The exchange of information and
progress toward resolution would be more effective, as well as accurate,
since clarifications could be made immediately rather than later.
ROBERTSON RANCH TOWN HALL MEETING QUESTIONS (8/31/2006)
City responses (in BOLD) dated 9/12/06
Staff and the developer have had a number of meetings which included the
Colony Representatives. Staff is available to discuss the project or answer
any questions with any small group or individual. All e-mail requests for
information have been answered. All requests for 3-party meetings with
the Colony Representatives have been accommodated. Meetings where
the entire neighborhood attends are more appropriately conducted within
the context of a public hearing.
5. Development -Prop E -1986 ''The Plan ... also resulted in a vision for
ensuring that development would pay for the impact of new housing on the
community," Carlsbad Community Services Guide, Fall 2006, page 2. The
new housing of Robertson Ranch impacts the Colony neighborhood by
increasing the risk of safety to residents and decreasing the integrity of an
established neighborhood. How would you determine the price that is
paid when a life is lost because of an unfortunate and even innocent traffic
accident? Is any price acceptable?
The Robertson Ranch development will pay for the impact created by the
proposed new housing and non-residential development. As a result, the
improvements required by the developers of Robertson Ranch will provide
an overall public benefit which would include the following:
• An 84" storm drain line would be constructed to reduce flooding in
Rancho Carlsbad.
• Cannon Road and College Boulevard would be widened to the full-
width improvements of two-lanes in each direction which would
increase capacity and reduce traffic congestion on these major
arterials.
• El Camino Real (ECR) would be widened to the full-width
improvements of three lanes in each direction which would increase
capacity and reduce traffic congestion on this prime arterial.
• Turn lanes and traffic signals will be installed as part of the overall
street improvements. This would open up opportunities for future
synchronizing of traffic signals on ECR. Many of the traffic
constraints are due to ECR not being at full capacity.
• The developers would be required to dedicate 7.97 acres of park land
for the construction of three new full-size soccer fields for the
community.
• Over 140 acres of open space would be preserved with an
endowment for long-term management and maintenance of the
preserve area.
ROBERTSON RANCH TOWN HALL MEETING QUESTIONS (813112006)
City responses (in BOLD) dated 9/12/06
• A portion of the City-Wide Trails network would be installed along
Cannon Road and College Boulevard with additional City-wide and
community trails throughout the Robertson Ranch development.
• High density housing at 20 dulac would be provided to help meet the
City's Housing Element goals for Certification of the City's Housing
Element. Without certification of the Housing Element, the City
could lose transportation funding, state funding such as the work
force housing grant, and ultimately lose the authority to grant all
building permits, including permits for residential additions.
• A Village Commercial Center and Community Facilities site for day
care and other community uses would be provided to serve the
needs of local residents.
6. Is revenue from the commercial center the driving force behind Glasgow
and Edinburgh being through streets? We prefer to shop in Carlsbad to
Oceanside, but prefer safety to convenience. We are willing use
Tamarack & El Camino Real to get to the commercial center if by car.
Revenue from the Commercial Center is not the driving force behind the
extensions of Glasgow and Edinburgh. When the Colony subdivision was
approved in the late 70's, the roads were planned to be extensions to
provide access to the Robertson Ranch lands. There are no records
indicating that Glasgow or Edinburgh were to ultimately be designed as
cul-de-sacs.
Under the City's Growth Management Plan, 1,122 dwelling units were
anticipated to be developed on the Robertson Ranch property. That is the
number of units proposed currently. There have never been any
assumptions or guarantees as to the number of units that would have
access through the Colony, except for assuring that the ADT threshold of
2,000 trips per day for a local street is not exceeded. The three alternatives
all result in an ADT of less than 2,000 trips per day on Glasgow and
Edinburgh.
7. The commercial center has been pitched to us as an upper class shopping
area. Yet at the same time, we've heard about comments from private
meetings that the NE quadrant is one of the areas for planned for lower
and middle-income development. This is supported when looking at the
density levels for Robertson Ranch.
The City can not condition a specific business to be located within a
commercial center. The developer of the West Village may have more
information regarding businesses that have expressed an interest in
locating within the commercial area.
ROBERTSON RANCH TOWN HALL MEETING QUESTIONS (8/31/2006)
City responses (in BOLD) dated 9/12/06
A range of densities are proposed for Robertson Ranch and range from
large lot (10,000 and 7,500 sf min. lot) to small lot (5,000 and 6,000 sf min.
lot) and include multi-family development, detached condominiums, and
senior housing. The project provides a mix of housing types at a range of
densities to serve all members of the community and includes 15% of the
units to be "income restricted" affordable housing as required by the City's
lnclusionary Housing Ordinance. This mix of housing types is similar to
existing development within the northeast quadrant.
8. If the General Plan is basically the City's contract or promise to residents,
why does the web-site still indicate Robertson Ranch as RLM on the Land
Use Map?
A General Plan Amendment (GPA) is required to implement the Robertson
Ranch Master Plan. The GPA has not received approval and therefore, the
map has not been updated.
The City's Habitat Management Plan identifies the site as an important
component of the city's overall open space preserve system and the
project has been designed to preserve approximately 140 acres of open
space on site, including riparian habitat and Coastal Sage Scrub habitat.
Because over 35% of the total land area is required to be preserved as
open space, the City's policies allow a "clustering" of the project's
allowable densities within the areas proposed for development. This
clustering of densities results in the need for a General Plan Amendment to
reflect the various residential densities, open space preserve areas, and
non-residential land uses.
9. Validity and Reliability of Data -Average Daily Traffic (ADT) of Glasgow
and Edinburgh has consistently changed.with each traffic study.
a. If traffic studies are scientific proven methods, why have they been
so erratic?
The numbers between the different studies are not erratic. The first traffic
report used a simplified assumption to show potential traffic impact on the
Colony streets. The second report included expanded criteria to calculate
the different types of trips and expressed a "worst case" scenario that may
be experienced by the Colony. However, this report did not take into
account the affects of circuitous routing. The recent report being brought
forward now incorporates this. trip reduction. The updated report now
provides traffic numbers for the three access alternatives being presented
by staff. They also include a level of detail that addresses potential trips
from different internal and external sources.
ROBERTSON RANCH TOWN HALL MEETING QUESTIONS (813112006)
City responses (in BOLD) dated 9/12/06
b. Why have we been able to identify obvious errors when the
Applicant & City have not?
The reports are prepared by professionals and are reviewed by the City for
consistency. We appreciate the inconsistencies that you have raised. With
your input, the Developer's Engineer has evaluated the changes and
verified that the inconsistencies were minor and did not affect the results
or findings of the studies.
c. What contingencies can be guaranteed if traffic numbers are
significantly wrong?
Given the findings of the updated traffic report and the relative capacities
of the roadways within the Colony, staff believes the reports are accurate in
their findings.
10. Traffic Study -For the second traffic study, the final version was not
issued until June 15, which was 6 days prior to the June 21 Planning
Commission hearing. This didn't give the Colony residents reasonable
time to analyze and validate without mad scrambling. We have voiced our
concerns for reasonable review time periods. Keeping in mind that we
work full-time jobs and our efforts on Robertson Ranch have become 2"d
jobs, what does the City believe is a reasonable time frame for the public
to review?
Staff does not encourage providing draft technical studies for review until
they are considered final. To the extent we can, we will provide you copies
of the final studies when they are deemed technically correct.
11. Gates -Gate failure statements by City Fire personnel cannot be
validated by any documentation and we have many expert parties,
including Carlsbad's own Fire personnel, who say the gate problems are
unfounded. It's been indicated that gates do slow down emergency
vehicles, but only by 1-2 minutes. Why do you think the City of Carlsbad
logic is so different from other fire personnel and the other 8,999 cities that
use gates successfully?
Expert testimonials and consultation indicate very few problems with
gates.
a. Greg Dahlem, Battalion Chief, Baltimore Fire Dept.
b. Ran Runnestrand -Battalion Chief
c. Ralph Davis -Captain, Corona Fire Department
d. Greg Largent -Paramedic, Los Angeles County Dept.
e. Carlsbad Fire Dept. -Engineer
ROBERTSON RANCH TOWN HALL MEETING QUESTIONS (813112006)
City responses (in BOLD) dated 9/12/06
Knox Company (Knox-Box Rapid Entry System) -Western Acct. Mgr.,
Marlene Briones
a. Installed in over 9,000 fire departments nationwide
b. US Military uses Knox Box system worldwide (including Camp
Pendleton and Miramar)
c. Carlsbad is a long-time Knox Box user
d. Carlsbad has a great Knox Box program and a wonderful
relationship with Knox Box
e. No Equipment failures have ever been reported to Knox Box by
Carlsbad
f. Gate failures are usually due to dust or dirt on the contact switch -
and easily fixed by spraying canned compressed air or gum out for
heavier build up
When the Carlsbad Fire Department evaluates a proposed development,
the focus of that review is on access for emergency vehicles. A Plan
review takes into consideration the location of the gate, the number of
occupancies isolated by the gate, whether the gate is for routine use or
emergency access use only and its impact on the overall emergency
response City-wide. Gates pose a physical barrier that slow Fire
Department responses and because of this barrier-effect, the Fire
Department does not support gates in new developments. The Carlsbad
Fire Department is not in disagreement with the Robertson Ranch "expert
testimonials and consultations," which indicated that there are very few
gate-related problems and concurs with the statement that gates do slow
down emergency vehicles responses by approximately one (1) to two (2)
minutes. Although a rare occurrence, gates, like any other mechanical
device, do experience failures and clearly slow emergency vehicle
responses. "It is the responsibility of the owner to maintain, in a
serviceable condition, at all times, all required or approved devices,
including gates."
Gates are but one of many factors that are evaluated and prioritized
throughout the City's development process.
12. Carlsbad has 161 gated communities, but no gate policy-specifically a
maintenance policy. If this is something the mayor has been concerned
with since his ride along 3 years ago, why has the City gone 3 years
without a policy? Because a policy does not exist, means that a policy
should be created and not denying gates where it is prudent to do so no
matter where in Carlsbad.
In addition, PA 1 of Robertson Ranch may be planned to be gated, further
supporting application of gates where appropriate.
ROBERTSON RANCH TOWN HALL MEETING QUESTIONS (8/31/2006)
City responses (in BOLD) dated 9/12/06
Carlsbad has 161 gates, not 161 communities with gates. The majority of
those gates serve either apartment complexes, individual residences or
commercial properties. There are approximately 15 gated communities
serving single family detached homes. There are 29 condominium
communities with gated entries.
The Carlsbad Fire Department conducted a study and determined there
were six (6) separate gate-entry related incidents in the City of Carlsbad
during a two (2) year period. When an emergency responder reports a
gate-entry incident, the Fire Prevention Bureau policy is to contact the gate
owner, identify the gate-related problem and then confirm that the problem
has been repaired. The Carlsbad Fire Department is unaware of any
significant gate-related response delays or any documented negative
patient outcomes associated with gate-delayed responses. The Carlsbad
Fire Department does not support gates because even though to date no
significant failure has resulted, the potential still exists for an increase in
emergency response time caused by a gate malfunction that results in a
negative outcome.
Gated communities have been approved in certain circumstances.
Generally, a gated community can be supported when it is isolated from
other neighborhoods and there are no opportunities to provide
interconnected streets between neighborhoods. PA 1 is proposed as an
optional gated community since this neighborhood is isolated from all
other development areas and there are no opportunities for neighborhood
connections.
13. Morning and evening rush hours will be disastrous for our homeowners
who will leave at approximately the same time in attempting to exit their
garages and driveways to go to their places of business. If a school is
built, the streets will be annoyingly dangerous with the extra cars for
pickup and drop off. Just note the areas around the schools. As I
mentioned at the meeting, some cars are parked on the street on a
continuing basis. At the same time, landscapers need to park on the
street, as well as huge delivery vans and FedEx vans.
WORST CASE SCENARIO: What if cars/vans are parked on opposite
sides of the street at the same time that the W & E Village traffic is coming
through? Someone would have to back up!
This all reminds me of the agony the homeowners/tenants on Tamarack
must go through as they attempt to leave their driveways with oncoming
traffic. (Fortunately, at least we do not have curving streets.)
The roadways on Glasgow and Edinburgh were constructed at Collector
Street widths of 40 feet curb-to-curb rather than Local Street widths of 34
ROBERTSON RANCH TOWN HALL MEETING QUESTIONS (813112006)
City responses (in BOLD) dated 9/12/06
feet curb-to-curb. In either case, both Local and Collector Streets are
designed to accommodate parked vehicles on both sides of the street and
one lane of traffic in each direction. If traffic calming measures are
incorporated into the Colony, it will reduce the speed of traffic, thereby
resulting in increased traffic safety.
14. Roundabouts -I can picture them but have never been on one. It almost
sounds as through one at Glasgow and Edinburgh might work to reduce
crashes, since each car would have to adhere to its tum. Right now, you
know how awful it is, with Edinburgh curving in the distance and no
visibility in sight. Traffic is maddeningly fast on Edinburgh, even though I
brought up the subject at our first HOA meeting in the park. Our
homeowners are aware of it, but some still don't care. Maybe they will
listen to you if you pitch the idea of driving slowly at the intersection.
I personally think it is VICIOUS AND CRUEL for the Council not to grant
our wish. I also have a dreadful opinion of Mr. Brian. He must be getting
something out of his not going along with us on our wish not to have traffic
on the two streets. Why would it matter to him personally if we blocked off
the entrances? He is still earning big money with the new development.
Why is the Council so evil about it? What is their possible reason not to
grant out wish, which is purely to keep the children and pets safe and
eliminate heavy traffic in a family-oriented, gentle neighborhood?
When the Colony originally developed, Glasgow Drive and Edinburgh Drive
were developed at the southern boundary with the intent to be extended.
Roadway connectivity was incorporated into the Colony at this time. The
Colony residents have grown accustom to an "interim condition" where the
dead end "Future Extensions" of Glasgow and Edinburgh essentially
function as a cul-de-sac with no through traffic. With the West Village
development, the connections of Glasgow and Edinburgh would not
increase traffic in the Colony to a level that is higher than is expected for
residential streets.
15. Can you describe how the connection between Glasgow and the RR
extension will look? There is a huge hill currently at the end of Glasgow.
a. How much of the hill will be removed?
b. Will the road go uphill for a while?
c. How will the protected area look when completed?
An approximate 250 ft. length of road (Glasgow) will connect the Robertson
Ranch (RR) residential planning areas with the Colony. When traveling
southbound on Glasgow into RR, the street will continue to head gradually
downhill at approximately the same grade as is presently on the street in
ROBERTSON RANCH TOWN HALL MEETING QUESTIONS (813112006)
City responses (in BOLD) dated 9/12/06
the Colony. The street will level out by the time that it "T's" into the
residential street in PA 5.
In order for the Glasgow extension to meet existing grade at the existing
"stub", it will be necessary to excavate the existing slope at the stub for the
roadway extension. This excavation will create a 2:1 cut slope on both
sides of the road. These slopes will be up to 15 feet high (right at the RR
boundary) and will reduce to about zero feet by the time the roadway length
meets the PA 5 street. The slopes will be planted with Costal Sage Scrub
(CSS) in order to create an improved open space preserve connection with
the open space corridors on each side. Existing agricultural areas on
either side of the road will be restored with CSS and will be maintained as
open space also.
Due to the excavation needed to meet grade at the RR boundary,
southbound motorists will not have a distant view until about half the way
down the roadway, and then the side slopes reduce to a height to where
motorists should have an expansive view of Robertson Ranch, Carlsbad
and probably the ocean. The nearest home in this area will be some 300
feet away from the nearest Colony home.
16. What proposed traffic calming methods is the City planning to suggest be
installed in The Colony? This is an established neighborhood and unlike
Bressi Ranch, the garages are located in the front of the house and there
are no alleyways. Retrofitting an established neighborhood with bulb outs
may not be ascetically pleasing as opposed to what could be incorporated
in a new neighborhood.
Specific traffic-calming features have not been identified for the Colony.
As currently proposed, the design of traffic calming features would occur
in conjunction with the submittal of the First Tentative Map for the West
Village. The developer of the West Village would coordinate with the
Colony HOA or it's designated representatives to determine what methods
of traffic calming are acceptable to the residents according to the
procedures in the City's Traffic Management Program. Any approved
traffic calming measures would be designed and secured by the developer
prior to the recordation of the First Final Map within the West Village.
Traffic calming measures would need to be installed prior to the extensions
of Glasgow Drive and Edinburgh Drive. A range of traffic-calming options
are described in the Traffic Management Program and include bulb-outs,
chicanes, chokers, stop signs, traffic circles, etc. For more information, a
copy of the Traffic Management Program can be obtained through the
City's Traffic Engineering Division.
17. Why can't the corner of Glasgow and Edinburgh be considered changing.
There have been numerous accidents although the police department
ROBERTSON RANCH TOWN HALL MEETING QUESTIONS (813112006)
City responses (in BOLD) dated 9112/06
shows only one in two years. That was because the police had to file a
report. Other accidents have only resulted in insurance exchange
information but they are accidents none the less. Why not consider
making the entrance at Edinburgh and Tamarack a hammerhead cul-de-
sac, use the HOA park for a new entrance. The city could acquire the
property by eminent domain and create a new entrance there. That would
result in a 3-way stop "T" intersection where people going to the park or
who live near the park would tum left and The colony residents would tum
right. Traffic coming from the park area would tum right at this new
entrance and would reduce traffic and accidents in The Colony.
Revisions to the corner of Glasgow and Edinburgh can be considered if
supported by a majority of the Colony residents. Please refer to the
previous answer for more information.
18. Why can't the Planning Department indicate to the Planning
Commissioners their "preferred" choice of plans for the RR development
BUT indicate that the other choices all meet city codes and policy
requirements? There is no ban on gates in the city. Only Mayor Lewis
doesn't like them, but they are not against the law. Let the Planning
Commissioners determine what is their best choice. With the road access
to Tamarack, the fire department cannot now say they like one route into
The Colony. Karen Voudrei/ said in the July 11th, meeting that as long as
the fire department got a second access on Tamarack, they would not
have a problem with safety access into the RR development through The
Colony. If so, the other alternatives then should have no opposition from
the Fire Department. In actuality, the less circuitous routing can then be
used resulting in faster response time.
That is exactly what the Planning Department will be presenting. The three
alternatives described in the response to Question #1 do not violate City
standards. Staff will be presenting the pros and cons of the three
alternatives with a recommendation for Alternative 1 or 2. The only
alternative NOT supported is the back-to-back cul-de-sacs (Colony
Alternative 4).
19. Does the city need to go through the notification process again if the
Tamarack access is approved? Describe all the processes required to
meet legal city notification policy.
The next application for the West Village is anticipated to be the Master
Tentative Map which will divide the West Village into the various planning
areas and allow for mass grading of the site together with the required
infrastructure improvements.
ROBERTSON RANCH TOWN HALL MEETING QUESTIONS (8/31/2006)
City responses (in BOLD) dated 9/12/06
When an application is determined to be complete, a Site Notification Sign
is posted at the site identifying an "APPLICATION IN PROCESS" together
with a brief description and contact information. Additionally, under the
City's new procedures for Early Notification of Infill Development, notices
would be mailed to all property owners within 600' of the project site.
A minimum of 10-days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing, a
Notice of Public Hearing is published in the local newspaper and public
hearing notices are sent to Public Agencies, property owners within 600' of
the site, and to any interested parties who request notification. The Site
Notification Signs are removed and replaced with "NOTICE OF PUBLC
HEARING" signs.
If a project also requires approval by the City Council, a 10-day notice is
provided in the same manner as described above.
Additionally, if Circulation Alternatives 1 or 2 are selected, the Colony
would need to be involved in the design of traffic calming features within
the Colony neighborhood. It would be necessary for the developer of the
West Village to coordinate with the Colony HOA in conjunction with review
of Master Tentative Map for the West Village as outlined in the answer to
Question #16.
Planning Commission Minutes
Minutes of:
Time of Meeting:
Date of Meeting:
Place of Meeting:
CALL TO ORDER
May 31, 2006
PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
6:00 P.M.
May 31, 2006
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Planning Commission Chairperson Montgomery called the Special Meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Commissioner Cardosa led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL
Page 1
Present: Chairperson Montgomery, Commissioners Baker, Cardosa, Dominguez, Heineman,
Segall, and Whitton
Absent: None
Staff Present: Marcela Escobar-Eck, Planning Director
Don Neu, Assistant Planning Director
Jane Mobaldi, Assistant City Attorney
Gary Barberio, Principal Planner
Barbara Kennedy, Associate Planner
Jeremy Riddle, Associate Engineer
Bob Johnson, Deputy City Engineer
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
None.
Chairperson Montgomery directed everyone's attention to the slide on the screen to review the
procedures the Commission would be following for that evening's Public Hearing.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA
None.
PUBLIC HEARING
Chairperson Montgomery opened the Public Hearing and asked Assistant Planning Director Don Neu to
introduce the item.
1. EIR 03-03/MP 02-03/GPA 02-04/LFMP 14(Bl/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.
Planning Commission Minutes May 31, 2006 Page 2
Mr. Neu introduced Agenda Item 1 and stated Associate Planner Barbara Kennedy would make the Staff
presentation.
Chairperson Montgomery opened the Public Hearing for Item 1.
Barbara Kennedy gave a presentation and stated she would be available to answer questions.
Staff introduced Tim Gnibus with BRG Consulting, who is an Environmental Consultant hired by the City.
She stated he would be available to answer any questions related to the EIR.
Chairperson Montgomery asked if there were any questions of Staff.
Commissioner Segall asked if the project will allow dedicated left-turn lanes into the project entry points
on Cannon Road. He also asked if there were only three project access points to the West Village
development. Project Engineer Jeremy Riddle replied yes to both questions. Commissioner Segall
inquired if the traffic calming devices for the project are to inhibit cut-through traffic. Mr. Riddle stated that
the Master Plan is interfacing with Edinburgh Drive and Glasgow Drive and includes traffic calming
measures, which will slow traffic and inhibit cut-through traffic. In addition, Mr. Riddle stated that further
design methods are proposed to make circuitous routes through the development planning areas in order
to avoid direct cut-through traffic. Commissioner Segall asked if the major access point to the project will
be at El Camino Real and Lisa Street. Mr. Riddle replied yes. Commissioner Segall stated there is no
access to the East Village from College. Mr. Riddle concurred.
Commissioner Segall asked Ms. Kennedy if the allocation of excess dwelling units is at the sole discretion
of the City Council and if it is intended for the Planning Commission to make a recommendation about the
growth control point going over the point by 400 units with the City Council making the final decision. Ms.
Kennedy replied yes. Commissioner Segall asked if there were other projects in the city which had
exceeded the growth control point. Ms. Kennedy staled Bressi Ranch is the most recent Master Plan
development to exceed the growth control point. Mr. Neu stated the Bressi Ranch Master Plan had a
State Affordable housing density bonus applied which resulted in exceeding the growth control point by
approximately 100 units.
Chairperson Montgomery asked Mr. Riddle to describe the circulation and the connections of the entire
project for the public.
Mr. Riddle explained how Planning Area 1 has two points of ingress and egress at Tamarack Avenue and
Kelly Drive. Planning Area 2 is the recreational vehicle (RV) storage site and has a dedicated connection
to Tamarack Avenue. There are no proposed signaled access points along Tamarack Avenue. Going to
the north, along the boundary of the project, there are two rear entry point connections at Edinburgh Drive
and Glasgow Drive to the West Village project. There is a connection point along El Camino Real across
from Lisa Street with a proposed signal including left turn lanes. East Village will have access points
primarily along Cannon Road. Planning Area 22 will have a point of access across from Street "A"
serviced via a signalized intersection. East of Planning Area 22 will have access to the signalized
intersection. To the north will be the two primary entry points, Streets "A" & "O," for the East Village
development with no additional proposed entry points. Along the top of the East Village, there is a
SDG&E unpaved access road serving SDG&E's need to service the towers.
Chairperson Montgomery asked Mr. Riddle to describe the future improvements of Cannon and College.
Mr. Riddle explained how the East Village is required to provide full width arterial widening for both
College and Cannon along the frontage of the entire development. The intersection will be widened to
necessitate the two lanes that will be available in both directions.
Commissioner Whitton asked Mr. Riddle to describe how the road will go through the West Village from El
Camino and connect with both Edinburgh and Glasgow. Mr. Riddle stated there is proposed traffic
calming measures on Street "Z". The roads will be extended to serve the needs of the individual planning
areas. The alignment is not complete and has been left open for further development when the tentative
maps are submitted for final approval.
Planning Commission Minutes May 31, 2006 Page 3
Chairperson Montgomery asked Mr. Riddle if the tentative map will come before the Planning
Commission so they can ensure the streets are designed to avoid cut-through traffic since Edinburgh and
Glasgow currently experience little traffic.
Commissioner Heineman asked what type of traffic calming measures will be implemented in the project.
Mr. Riddle stated that since the Master Plan does indicate traffic calming measures will be implemented
within these planning areas, all traffic calming measures are available for use and will be implemented as
the developer proceeds into the formal design process.
Commissioner Baker asked if the Master Plan conditioned the West Village to mitigate existing traffic
conditions on Glasgow and Edinburgh. Mr. Riddle replied no. Commissioner Baker asked about existing
traffic conditions at the intersections of Tamarack and El Camino Real and whether there will be 2 left-
turn lanes turning south onto El Camino Real at Tamarack to mitigate the existing traffic problem. Mr.
Riddle replied no. The traffic study did not outline this as a required implementation measure of the
project. Commissioner Baker asked if it is possible to create two left-turn lanes at this intersection. Mr.
Riddle replied that it was doubtful.
Commissioner Baker asked what our response should be to the Department of Transportation letter with
regards to the Tamarack Avenue/1-5 on-ramp potentially failing. Mr. Riddle indicated there has been
verbal communication already with the Department of Transportation to discuss this issue. He
recommended responding to the Department of Transportation in writing outlining our position. We are
willing to have projects participate but only when a program has been set up that identifies how
development projects participate in the method.
Commissioner Baker asked Mr. Riddle what our response should be to the increased traffic on El Camino
Real and the common occurrence of red lights on this street. Mr. Riddle deferred this question to the
Deputy Traffic Engineer, Bob Johnson. Mr. Johnson stated there are challenges to synchronizing the
signals on El Camino Real with the current conditions; they are in the process of updating the
coordination so they will get improved progression along El Camino Real. Some of the constraints are
due to El Camino Real not being at full-lane capacity. Eventually, the signal coordination will work much
more efficiently than the current conditions.
Commissioner Baker asked if there can be two left-turn lanes on Tamarack to alleviate the conditions at
2:30 PM and then again at the end of the day. Mr. Johnson stated the coordination is challenging due to
the sudden influx of school traffic. Perhaps a split-phase operation would be a better alternative to
operate this signal but is not desirable due to the additional delay.
Chairperson Montgomery asked Mr. Johnson to define "split-phase" traffic signals. Mr. Johnson
explained split-phase traffic signals allow traffic from the side street to go one direction while the other
road intersection gets a green with the opposite road intersection having a red. A good example of this
type of signal in the vicinity, Mr. Johnson explained, is the intersection of El Camino Real and Hosp Way.
Chairperson Montgomery asked Mr. Johnson if additional dedication along El Camino Real and
Tamarack, even though the traffic report stated it is not necessary, would exacerbate the situation where
there is currently so much frustration. Mr. Johnson stated part of the consideration for alignment on both
sides of the street in order to achieve the intended result and not only by dedicating additional lanes.
Commissioner Cardosa asked Mr. Riddle to describe the scope of work which will take place along El
Camino Real during the West Village processing. Mr. Riddle stated how the developer will conduct full
width widening improvements including three lanes north-bound and three lanes south-bound from
Tamarack to Cannon. This improvement scheme will include full median landscaping along with
sidewalks and street lights.
Commissioner Cardosa asked if the City has the ability to complete the work during non-peak hours. Mr.
Riddle stated work during off hours will be considered but the question needs to be routed through the
traffic department. Mr. Johnson stated typically, the contractor will install cabling along the edge of the
road to provide delineation between traffic and construction which eliminates the need to conduct work in
the evening. We will look at what will work best in order to safely complete the work.
Planning Commission Minutes May 31, 2006 Page 4
Commissioner Dominguez stated that he disagrees with the 11 percent 1-5 traffic impact statistic provided
by the El R for 1-5 access at Cannon and thinks it will eventually add to a vortex of other sources of traffic.
Chairperson Montgomery concurs and asked Mr. Riddle to comment on why the project specifies
Tamarack and Carlsbad Village Drive as the main access points when Cannon will see the majority of
increased traffic. Chairperson Montgomery asked if the upgrades to the Cannon Road interchange was
updated to handle the increase in traffic. Mr. Johnson speculated the reason they do not mention
Cannon Road is due to the recent reconstruction and the impending necessary upgrade for the Tamarack
and Carlsbad Village Drive intersections. Commissioner Dominguez stated it would be important to
outline where the increased traffic will be directed in the fair share analysis due to the funds Cal Trans
and the State of California will be requesting for this project.
Commissioner Segall asked Mr. Johnson to address the letter from the City of Oceanside addressing the
concern at College and Plaza, College and Vista Way, and College and Lake field-intersections. Mr.
Johnson stated John Amberson, from the City of Oceanside, was in the audience and available to answer
questions regarding that issue. Commissioner Segall stated he will yield until Mr. Amberson is speaking.
Commissioner Baker asked about the date of complete of Reach A at College Boulevard which will help
disperse a portion of the traffic from this project. Mr. Johnson stated there is not an exact date for the
completion of this developer road but he hopes the road will be open to traffic in about two to three years'
time, however, it could take as long as five years.
Commissioner Baker asked if the later phase of the West Village and the subsequent improvements on El
Camino Real will cause problems if the East Village development is complete. Mr. Johnson stated if the
West Village development was not proceeding in an expeditious manner and not meeting the timelines,
the City would have to perform the CIP project and complete development. Commissioner Baker asked
what conditions would trigger the City to put this in the CIP. Mr. Johnson stated the annual traffic
monitoring program would show if the situation is meeting or exceeding the level of service on our
thresholds for growth management and would prompt the City to address the matter.
Commissioner Cardosa asked Mr. Riddle to describe in detail the construction and capacity of the new
drain line to the north side of Cannon. Mr. Riddle described the new drain line as an 84-inch RCP storm
drain proposed along the north side of Cannon Road which will be located just outside of the right of way
along a meandering sidewalk. The storm drain is designed to carry approximately 500 CFS which will
shift the water out of the creek channel along Rancho Carlsbad. Commissioner Cardosa asked how the
capacity compares to the needs of the 1 DO-year flood environment. Mr. Riddle explained how the
developer must perform a technical analysis when proposing an 84-inch storm drain since they are also
proposing to grade within the existing 100-year flood plain to insure they do not lift or elevate the flood
plain in order to not affect the Rancho Carlsbad residents. If the project is approved, they are prepared to
process an application with FEMA to modify the flood plains and that Planning Area 22 would be out of
the flood plains.
Commissioner Heinemen asked if the 84-inch storm drain would improve the 100-year flood. Mr. Riddle
stated the 84" storm drain is not intended to carry the entire 100-year flood from the creek but is intended
to shift approximately 500 CFS out of the channel. The channel currently experiences approximately
1,500 CFS of flows through the creek. They are taking 500 CFS out of the channel and shifting it into the
storm drain. There will still be 1 DO-year flood events experienced within the creek. Commissioner
Heineman stated this process is an improvement yet not a solution. Mr. Riddle concurred.
Chairperson Montgomery asked Mr. Riddle to describe the comprehensive improvements occurring
between Lake Calavera Dam and the detention base and what the final improvement mean to the
Rancho Carlsbad area. Mr. Riddle stated to be clear, the 84-inch storm drain and the development of the
Robertson Ranch do not represent the ultimate fix. There are still a few things such as the dam project,
the basin BJ, and regional features which have not been implemented. The 84-inch storm drain is only
one element. The basin BJB, located in Planning Area 23E, is a regional basin meant to detain water into
slow flood flows. The two other basins, the Faraday and the Melrose basins, are also installed and
providing benefit. The College and Cannon basin BJ is not constructed at this point and is a condition of
the Cantarini development and will be constructed as part of that project. Chairperson Montgomery
asked if the BJB will be constructed as part of this project. Mr. Riddle stated this basin is presently
constructed, functional and completed as Calavera Phase 2. Mr. Riddle stated there are still final
improvements to be made at the choke point of El Camino Real. Dredging work was recently completed
Planning Commission Minutes May 31, 2006 Page 5
but did not represent the final improvement. Chairperson Montgomery asked if all four quadrants of this
intersection are right in the middle of the choke point and if the drainage capacity is part of the solution.
Mr. Riddle replied yes it is part of the solution.
Commissioner Segall asked if there is a public trail that connects Planning Area 11 with 12. Ms. Kennedy
stated Planning Area 12 does connect to planning area 13 and there are some trail connections to
Planning Area 12 so there is direct access for residents going from the park to the commercial area.
Commissioner Segall referred to the SDG&E easement being part of the Habitat Management Plan, and
if this area will be part of the habitat corridor. Ms. Kennedy stated the location trails within the corridor will
be on the existing SDG&E access roads and the existing trail roads which will cause no further impact to
the habitat or wildlife. Ms. Kennedy stated much of the habitat corridor will need to be re-vegetated.
Commissioner Segall asked about the acreage allocated for the use of community facilities and if it is
spacious enough for the community facility to be developed. Ms. Kennedy stated the community facilities
are usually the final sites to be developed and gave examples where sites are sometimes developed as
much as 8 years later. Ms. Kennedy stated all land set aside for the community facilities purpose should
be usable.
Commissioner Baker asked if the community facility of 175,000 square feet is located in a commercial
space and how we ensure this space will remain allocated as community facility space. Ms. Kennedy
stated facility use should be monitored during the building permit process.
Commissioner Baker asked if it is possible to require a percentage of the high-density units to be for-sale
units as opposed to rental units. Ms. Kennedy replied yes it is possible, but to keep in mind this
requirement would not prohibit owners to use the units as rentals. Commissioner Baker concurred but
stated there would at least be the opportunity for citizens to own the space.
Commissioner Baker asked if the 56 moderate-income units will be restricted in some way. Ms. Kennedy
stated yes, the units will be income qualified.
Commissioner Dominguez asked if the income-qualified units will be under contract. Ms. Kennedy stated
the units would be subject to the Affordable Housing Agreement. Commissioner Dominguez asked if the
moderate-income units will be income qualified as well. Ms. Kennedy replied yes.
Commissioner Dominguez asked if the affordable housing units are 49 percent of the total housing scope
of the Master Plan. Ms. Kennedy stated the affordable units are located within the high-density multi-
family sites which are about 49 percent.
Commissioner Baker stated that high-density units do not necessarily represent affordable housing units.
Ms. Kennedy stated the project includes the required 15 percent inclusionary housing requirement for the
City and also the additional requirement for the moderate rate housing which is the 56 units. The 15
percent puts the Master Plan at just over 200 units for the affordable income qualified units.
Commissioner Dominguez asked for the total for each of the high-density unit categories. Ms. Kennedy
stated the East Village and West Village will have slightly over 200 low-income housing units. The West
Village is required to provide the 56 moderate rate units.
Chairperson Montgomery asked if the applicant would like to make a presentation.
Applicant, Brian Milich, Senior Vice President, Corky McMillin Companies, San Diego thanked the
commission and gave a presentation. The applicant stated he would be available to answer any
questions.
Chairperson Montgomery thanked the applicant for his presentation and asked if there were any
questions of the applicant.
Commissioner Baker asked to what extent the 56 moderate priced units are being subsidized and if the
term higher-density mean affordability. The applicant stated the 56 moderate rate units will be sold below
the market and quite possibly at a loss. This will result in the units being more affordable. The remaining
high-density RH homes will be sold at market rate but due to the nature of the product, will still make the
Planning Commission Minutes May 31, 2006 Page 6
space more affordable. Commissioner Baker would like reasonable confidence that the high-density units
will result in more affordability and since half of the project comprises of the high-density RH Zone, she
asked if the plan will have for-sale units or rental units. The applicant stated the Master Plan is written to
give flexibility in this area. A portion of the areas will be for-sale units and a portion will be rental. The
units which meet the 15 percent requirement of the city will most likely be rental units. The Robertson
Family is interested in building apartments in the neighborhood next to the commercial center. There are
at least two of the remaining three areas that may be for-sale units, but the determination has not been
made. The applicant stated again that due to the type of product, the units will clearly be more affordable.
Commissioner Heineman asked how many low-income units per acre the state requires. The applicant
stated he believes the requirement is 20 units per acre.
Commissioner Dominguez disclosed ex-parte communication with the applicant, the Agosti's and others
regarding this project.
Commissioner Dominguez stated he is significantly in disagreement with the alteration in Planning Area
11 and asked if there is any way we could mitigate the substantial grading that needs to take place to
accommodate the commercial development proposed for that area. The applicant stated this site is
challenging. They have attempted to be sensitive to this area by creating a 100-foot buffer but feel there
is not much more that could be done without jeopardizing the effectiveness of the commercial site.
Commissioner Dominguez asked if there will be substantial elevation difference from "Z" Street to
Planning Area 7. The applicant stated there will not be a substantial elevation difference perhaps a 10 to
15 foot differential.
Commissioner Dominguez asked how much of the remaining 100 feet for corridor preservation will be
used for the El Camino widening. Ms. Kennedy stated there will be 100-foot building set back with a
landscape buffer of 50 feet.
Commissioner Segall asked the applicant to describe what the look will be upon completion. The
applicant stated there will be a crib wall, 50 feet landscaping, and 50 foot set back. Ms. Kennedy stated
the wall will have a cliff-like look in order to blend in. The wall will keep the cliff secure and will not erode
with adverse weather conditions. The wall will be 20 to 30 feet high.
Commissioner Segall asked what the involvement McMillin will have with the West Village. The applicant
stated McMillin will Master Plan the entire property even though the Robertson Ranch will be developing
the West Village. The builder for the West Village is not determined at this time and may in fact be the
McMillin Company.
Chairperson Montgomery asked if there were any more questions of the applicant.
RECESS
Chairperson Montgomery called for a 10-minute recess at 8:03 P.M.
MEETING CALLED TO ORDER
Chairperson Montgomery called the meeting back to order at 8:20 P.M.
Chairperson Montgomery reconvened the hearing and asked if any members of the public wished to
speak on the item.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY
Kari Atherton, Carlsbad; Robin A. Wofford, Carlsbad; Christine Gallup, Carlsbad; Greg Agosti, Carlsbad;
and Kenneth Miller, Carlsbad, gave a group presentation stating the opposition to the density levels and
the subsequent issues they feel will develop such as, but not limited to, traffic congestion, safety,
increased crime, and reduced property values. Ms. Wofford spoke of the existing traffic congestion and
the traffic study conducted in October of 2005, which she feels is significantly flawed. Ms. Wofford is
requesting an updated traffic study which represents a realistic view of the neighborhood. Ms. Gallup
Planning Commission Minutes May 31, 2006 Page 7
gave a presentation about the Carlsbad community and stated the community is a habitat that should be
preserved. Ms. Gallup stated the increased traffic is not a responsible safety decision. Mr. Agosti spoke
about the significant concerns in the EIR and his opposition of the 41 percent density increase. Mr.
Agosti also stated his dissatisfaction in the timing of the Public Notice, and that feeling ample time was
not provided to citizens. Mr. Miller passed his time on to other members.
Bill Arnold, Carlsbad, is the President of Rancho Carlsbad Home Owners Association. He expressed his
gratitude to Brian Milich and the McMillin Company for their ongoing response to specific issues of the
Rancho Carlsbad HOA. Mr. Arnold supports the EIR and the Master Plan for the Robertson Ranch
project and found nothing to oppose. Further, they requested staff add a development standards
condition to the approval relating to PA22 which generally would provide consideration of the line of sight
from Rancho Carlsbad, noise, lighting, hours of operation and preservation, to the extent possible, of
topography and mature trees.
Commissioner Segall asked Mr. Arnold what he meant by the term line of sight. Mr. Arnold replied he
referred to aesthetics and would prefer not to see the development taking place.
Chairperson Montgomery asked Mr. Arnold if he had an issue with the flat parcel adjacent to the creek
where any structure will be visible and if Mr. Arnold was concerned with the fire station as well. Mr.
Arnold replied no.
Kasey Cinciarelli, Carlsbad, stated she opposed the project due to the existing overcrowding of schools
and increased traffic. Ms. Cinciarelli felt development efforts should be made toward a new high school
which would result in improving the overall quality of education.
Chairperson Montgomery read a public opinion from Susan Pynes, Carlsbad; Ms. Pynes' opinion stated
"400 extra units? "Where will these kids go to school?"
Barbara Peters, Carlsbad, stated she opposed the removal of the traffic barrier on Edinburgh. Ms. Peters
felt the traffic study is inaccurate and removing the barrier will increase the traffic and compromise safety.
If Edinburgh is opened, Ms. Peters stated the intersection should be blocked off at Glasgow to avoid cut
through traffic and Pontiac, rather than Edinburgh, should be a through street.
Gary L. Smith, Carlsbad, stated he opposed the project due to the high density. Mr. Smith felt if the
residents, when purchasing their homes, were informed of the future road extension on Edinburgh going
through to El Camino Real, they would not have purchased their homes. Mr. Smith feels the
neighborhood is already over-burdened with speeding traffic.
Crystal Covert, Carlsbad, is representing the Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce. Ms. Covert read a letter
from Ted Owen, CEO Chamber of Commerce, stating the COC's support of the Robertson Ranch Project.
The Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce feels that the Gorky McMillin Company demonstrated a
commitment to the quality of life in the community and felt they will enhance the City of Carlsbad by
offering limitless opportunities to all of the citizens of Carlsbad.
John Amberson, Oceanside, City of Oceanside Public Works Department Transportation Planner spoke
on behalf of the City of Oceanside felt the traffic study is inadequate and not appropriate for Oceanside.
They requested the project mitigate their impacts or at a minimum meet with the city staff to further
discuss.
Commissioner Baker asked Mr. Amberson if the City of Oceanside extracted mitigation from the applicant
during the McMillin Quarry Creek project. Mr. Amberson answered yes, there were some significant
improvements.
Commissioner Segall asked Mr. Amberson to describe the meaning of the term "4-seconds." Mr.
Amberson explained the term is in reference to a total intersection time delay of 4 seconds.
Chairperson Montgomery asked Mr. Amberson what specifically the City of Oceanside is asking McMillin
to provide. Mr. Amberson stated they are open to a number of options. They would like to work with
McMillin to arrive at a plausible solution. Their own studies do not indicate the need to widen College
Boulevard, Plaza or Vista Way.
Planning Commission Minutes May 31, 2006 Page 8
Chairperson Montgomery stated the Cities of Carlsbad and Oceanside will both experience cut-through
traffic.
Commissioner Dominguez asked Mr. Amberson if he received a response to his initial inquiry with the
City of Carlsbad Planning Department in November 2005. Mr. Amberson said he did receive a response
on May 12, 2006.
Commissioner Whitton asked Mr. Amberson if the City of Oceanside will need to conduct improvements
due to the modernization of the hospital and nearby housing projects. Mr. Amberson stated the
improvements that will occur due to the modernization project are the improvements they are referencing.
Chairperson Montgomery thanked Mr. Amberson for directing their attention to the differences in the City
of Carlsbad and Oceanside traffic studies.
Diana Aaron, Carlsbad, Executive Director of the Carlsbad Educational Foundation but speaking as a
private citizen; expressed her support for the Robertson Ranch Project. Ms. Aaron felt the Corky McMillin
Company has historically been a good community partner.
Commissioner Baker disclosed her position as President of the Carlsbad Educational Foundation and
stated she had no knowledge of Diana Aaron's attendance at tonight's meeting where Diana is speaking
as a private citizen.
Arthur J. Serrin, Carlsbad, advocated more facilities for seniors at a true low income level. Mr. Serrin
stated that 20% of the citizens of Carlsbad are seniors and need to be considered.
Tom King, Carlsbad, stated Corky McMillin makes a great product but felt the primary issue is the high
density and the lack of ingress/egress access points in addition to the increased traffic at Cannon and El
Camino Real. Mr. King would like the density level decreased.
James Whittaker, Carlsbad, stated his concerns with the high density and increased traffic. Mr. Whittaker
would like to know where the roads and traffic calming will be in the project and how the traffic calming
will work.
Patrick Casinelli, Carlsbad, President of the Boys and Girls Club, spoke on behalf of the Corky McMillin
Company and felt the company is invaluable to the City of Carlsbad. He stated this plan will benefit all
Carlsbad citizens.
Ron Sipiora, Carlsbad, Executive Director of The Boys and Girls Club, spoke on behalf of the Corky
McMillin Company. The Boys and Girls Club would not be able to offer the programs to the City of
Carlsbad without community partners like Corky McMillin.
Thomas J. Dempsey, Oceanside, felt the developer should contribute to the Oceanside traffic signal
program.
Knut Madden, Carlsbad, Board of Directors of the Calavera Hills Community, but speaking as a private
citizen, supported his neighbors who previously addressed the issues of high density. Mr. Madden
pointed out the previously mentioned signs in the neighborhood were erected after the purchase of their
homes. Mr. Madden would like to know why access is limited to one outlet to a primary street. He asked
if an access point in a different location would help both communities.
Joan Hayashi, Carlsbad, stated her concern for the increased traffic surrounding the neighborhood
schools including the schools west of El Camino Real.
Elisa Williamson, Carlsbad, a school board member but speaking as a private citizen, stated her concern
for the affect the additional 400 housing units will have on the current school boundaries. Ms. Williamson
requested in the future, before approving an increase or decrease in project units, a formal notice be
provided to the local school district in order to allow the district an opportunity to study and respond to the
change. Commissioner Baker stated she recently had contact with the superintendent to ensure they felt
comfortable with releasing the school site and of the additional units. Ms. Williamson felt a more formal
Planning Commission Minutes May 31, 2006 Page 9
process would be beneficial since the school board is held accountable to the public. Commissioner
Segall stated all projects have relevant information available to the school district but is not sure if the
information is getting to the district. Commissioner Segall suggested Ms. Williamson be the vehicle to
process relevant information to the school district to keep them informed of the city's anticipation of
student generation figures. Chairperson Montgomery asked if the district would need the elementary
school site if the density was not there. Ms. Williamson said she cannot answer that question on behalf of
the board. As a private citizen speaking, she does not feel 200 students would necessitate a school site.
Commissioner Segall thanked Ms. Williamson for her knowledge of the school board system and for
attending the meeting. Commissioner Segall asked Ms. Williamson where she thought the students
would go from this development. Ms. Williamson stated most students will go to Hope since Hope is not
over-crowded. Ms. Williamson also stated the school board tries whenever possible to have children
attend their neighborhood school.
Robert Virgadamo, Carlsbad, stated his concern with the speeding traffic approaching down Edinburgh to
El Camino Real and the level of risk this will present for the local children.
David Stoffel, Carlsbad, stated how the citizens of Carlsbad rely on the Planning Commission to make
responsible decisions regarding the development. In addition, Mr. Stoffel referenced the traffic calming
devices, specifically the traffic circles, which in his opinion will not work at the intersection of Glasgow and
Edinburgh Drive.
Chairperson Montgomery stated no proposed traffic calming devices are planned for outside the project.
Mr. Riddle concurred.
MOTION
ACTION:
VOTE:
AYES:
NOES:
RECESS
Motion by Commission Baker and duly seconded, to continue the meeting past
10:00 p.m.
7-0
Chairperson Montgomery, Commissioners Whitton, Segall, Heineman,
Dominguez, Cardosa, Baker
None
Chairperson Montgomery called for a 5-minute recess at 10:07 P.M.
MEETING CALLED TO ORDER
Chairperson Montgomery reconvened the meeting at 10:17 P.M.
Chairperson Montgomery asked if there were any other members of the public who wished to speak on
the item. Seeing none, he closed Public Testimony and asked the applicant if he would like to respond to
the Public Testimony.
Mr. Milich, the applicant, stated that as hard as they tried, they did fail in some degree in their community
outreach. They spent a lot of time with Preserve Calavera and Rancho Carlsbad because they were
vocal and had known issues. Mr. Milich said once they learned of the Colony's issues, they met with
them immediately.
The applicant felt there is one main issue and that is a neighborhood issue and the connection of streets
Edinburgh and Glasgow. A road to Tamarack, as an alternative, is not an option due to the very steep
slope which would not meet the City's traffic standards. In addition, part of the slope is designated as
open space. The applicant stated the only alternative would be to permanently keep the neighborhood
connections from going through. The applicant does not know if this option is viable. The applicant
stated the traffic will increase if the connections are made and this haws always been contemplated.
The applicant stated the project is not exceeding the growth management point and in fact the areas are
under built. They have been asked to shift the density. They are not adding units to the project.
Planning Commission Minutes May 31, 2006 Page 10
The applicant stated he will continue to offer traffic calming measures off-site into the Colony. He stated
they are willing to consider any and all traffic calming ideas.
Again, the applicant stated he feels there is not a density issue. The information in their plans is directly
from the school district. The applicant stated the school district has relinquished the school site after the
applicant saved it for 4 years. The applicant felt this would be a good area for the multi-family units.
The applicant felt this is a good project and requested the project be moved on to city council tonight.
The applicant suggested possibly moving the project on to City Council with a request to review the
density allocation and then they can make a decision as to whether it is correct.
Chairperson Montgomery asked Ms. Kennedy to direct comments toward the Public Testimony to help
clarify information for the public.
Ms. Kennedy pointed out that since there is a large portion of the area preserved for open space the
allowable density is consolidated in the developable areas. One of the areas of increased density is the
high-density sites.
Ms. Kennedy clarified Planning Area 1 is not a high-density area but rather a medium density area.
Ms. Kennedy clarified the affordable housing percentage of 15 percent will be satisfied by the East and
West Village separately.
Ms. Kennedy stated the schools are notified of all projects and are completely aware of the additional
density.
Mr. Riddle referred to Mr. Amberson's public testimony and the improvements needed outside the
boundary. Mr. Riddle clarified in the EIR that Robertson Ranch is required to pay their fair share
obligations in order to mitigate the impacts of this project. The City of Oceanside is required to identify
their capital improvement project.
Mr. Riddle referred to comments regarding inaccurate traffic studies and how the information does not
include school trip destinations. Mr. Riddle explained how the study does not go into such specific detail
and understood the concerns. Staff is willing to look into this further.
Chairperson Montgomery asked Assistant City Attorney, Ms. Mobaldi to speak regarding the legal issues
of this project.
Ms. Mobaldi stated CEQA does recognize that impacts identified outside the jurisdiction should be
mitigated. In order for mitigation to be implemented, there has to be a program in place by the impacted
jurisdiction authorizing the mitigation in addition to a way to manage fair share contributions.
Ms. Mobaldi stated the developer is not asking for a State authorized density bonus but is required to
fulfill the 15% inclusionary housing requirement.
Ms. Mobaldi stated the City cannot prohibit developers from providing more than the 15% inclusionary
housing requirement.
With regard to Notice, Ms. Mobaldi clarified California State Government Code and the Carlsbad
Municipal Code set forth the notice requirement, which is 10 days prior to the hearing, and ii appears that
the citizens were notified within the required time.
Commissioner Dominguez asked the City Attorney's office if there is a contract that will hold that
affordability index for the 56 moderate housing units. Mr. Neu stated the units are required to remain
affordable and when sold the units will need to remain affordable for 16 years. After that time, if the units
were sold there is a sharing of equity with the city portion of equity going into the city's housing trust fund
which goes into affordable projects.
Planning Commission Minutes May 31, 2006 Page 11
Commissioner Whitton asked about the possibility of closing Edinburgh Drive and Glasgow Drive with
emergency gates used for emergency use only. Mr. Whitton asked for Mr. Riddle's comments. Mr.
Riddle felt this would take us back to the drawing board. It would need to be re-looked at to see if the
units would be properly served and to see what changes there would be in the development scheme.
Commissioner Segall asked if the intersection of El Camino Real and Kelly will be a signalized
intersection going into Planning Area 1 and if La Portalada will be an uncontrolled stop. Mr. Riddle
replied yes but since there have not been formal design plans, it is undetermined if the uncontrolled stop
will have a left hand turn lane.
Commissioner Dominguez asked if there were alternatives for circulation during the lay out phase of the
Master Plan. Ms. Kennedy replied the preserve areas drove the development plan and the access points.
Chairperson Montgomery asked if the commission saw fit to think the East and West Village should be
connected so both villages would have three access points between Cannon and El Camino, would we
be able to provide some type of statement in writing of concerns or considerations to allow something like
that. Staff replies again the issue is based on the impacts to the habitat corridor in addition to the impacts
to the neighborhood to the north. It would be difficult due to the concerns of the citizens in both camps.
Ms. Kennedy stated she is not sure how it would play out with the habitat management plan but the
process would be lengthy. Chairperson Montgomery stated they have to consider the pressures and
feelings and thoughts of families that go beyond how they view the site. Ms. Kennedy agreed, and stated
perhaps the people who were involved in the original negotiations can provide some insight.
Chairperson Montgomery asked if there are any other questions of staff, seeing none.
DISCUSSION
Commissioner Whitton's stated his concern for the increased traffic and felt if handled the traffic issues,
the density issues will go away.
Commissioner Segall stated his concern with the ingress/egress of the West Village. Commissioner
Segall does not support removing the barriers on Edinburgh and Glasgow, however, if the barriers are not
removed, there will be only one point of ingress and egress which is unacceptable. Commissioner Segall
felt the 2 points of ingress and egress in the East Village is not adequate. In addition, he is concerned
with the amount of density and going over the growth point by 400 units, the overall impact of traffic, the
accuracy of the traffic study, the mitigation for traffic, the lack of community outreach to an established
community that should have been informed of the gravity of this situation prior to 15 days ago.
Commissioner Segall stated he cannot support the project the way it is.
Commissioner Heineman agreed to some extent with Commissioner Segal but felt there are mitigating
circumstances that are being ignored. The 40% open space surrounds much of the border of the project.
Commissioner Heineman states roads should not go over open space to get exits. Commissioner
Heineman stated the high density supports the State's recommendation which encourages increases in
density. Commissioner Heineman felts the project will work even though there will be an increase in
traffic.
Commissioner Dominguez stated his agreement with Commissioner Segall's view. He felts the density
issue can be worked out but would like traffic circulation issues to be addressed and improved.
Commissioner Cardosa stated he is not bothered by the density as much and commends the open space
portion of the project but suggested more work be done to add an access point and reduce the impact of
the removal of the barriers. Mr. Cardosa commends the City and McMillin Companies on the tremendous
job developing the project.
Commissioner Baker stated there are many things she liked about the project such as the trails and the
open space, the concept of the round-a-bouts, the dense areas situated close to the main arterials, the
housing in the village center with attractive wood work, etc. However, since the circulation roads are not
designed yet, it is difficult to make a decision since we cannot judge the amount of increase of traffic.
She agreed with Commissioner Whitton's comment and felt that the issue is a traffic and circulation
Planning Commission Minutes May 31, 2006 Page 12
problem, not a density problem. Commissioner Baker stated she is very familiar with this area but felt
before moving forward, we need to figure how to handle the circulation and the traffic.
Chairperson Montgomery stated as a citizen of Carlsbad, he loved driving by the parcel, viewing the
agriculture and the growing fields and loves the openness of the area. However, he stated the owner of
the property has his property rights as we all do. He felt the Robertson Ranch project is going toward a
design that we can all agree on but there are serious deficiencies. He stated we do need shopping center
facilities along the corridor. Chairperson Montgomery felt a key hub would have been the elementary
school but we do not have any determination about the school. He stated how there is a need to provide
high-density projects. He stated the project is planned appropriately and liked how the houses are
walking distance to the parks and trails. He stated his main concern is the impact of the development
going northward to access the school sites through Glasgow and Edinburgh. He felt additional
connectivity and access points are needed. Chairperson Montgomery stated the project is well planned
but we need keep traffic at a minimum.
Chairperson Montgomery stated it appears there is a majority to send this back for further work.
Assistant City Attorney, Jane Mobaldi stated due to planning amendments involved, a vote of four is
needed for recommendation of approval.
The applicant, Mr. Milich stated he is glad to meet with staff, his team and speak with the Colony
residents. The applicant stated he would like to come back to the Commission, due to the importance of
the project to the city. The applicant stated he will do his best to work on all the issues raised. He will
look into additional connections and minimizing the impacts to some of the neighbors. He will work with
staff on more design work on the West Village to provide a better idea of what the project will look like.
Mr. Milich requested a continuance.
Chairperson Montgomery requested the applicant to make direct contact with the school district again.
The applicant agreed.
Commissioner Whitton asked the applicant if it is possible to get a conceptual idea of how circulation
would work in the West Village. Commissioner Whitton commends McMillin Companies on what a great
job they and the city have done especially given the hardline of habitat management problems and open
space dedication. Commissioner Whitton stated there are far more good things about this project than
bad.
Commissioner Baker agreed with Commissioner Whitton. She felt there are many good things about the
project.
Chairperson Montgomery stated the dates available for continuance are June 21st, and July 5th
Commissioner Dominguez suggested we hear the applicant as the last item at the meeting on June 21st.
Commissioner Segall felt June 21st, is too soon for the applicant to gather the appropriate information.
Assistant Planning Director, Mr. Neu, stated we can put the item on June 21st. The policy stated if a
continued item is added to an agenda, the item is heard first. There are 5 items on the agenda for the
June 21st, meeting. Mr. Neu stated the main issue is, as Commissioner Segall stated, whether this is an
adequate amount of time for the issues to be considered and brought back by the applicant.
Commissioner Segall stated he feels it is not enough time.
Chairperson Montgomery asked the public if they would show their preference, by raising their hands,
their preference of either June 21st, or July 5th.
The applicant suggested we add the item to the agenda on June 21st.
Chairperson Montgomery stated the expectation for the applicant to meet with the Colony residents
Planning Commission Minutes May 31, 2006 Page 13
MOTION
ACTION: Motion by Commission Baker and duly seconded, to continue this item to June
21, 2006.
VOTE:
AYES:
NOES:
7-0
Chairperson Montgomery, Commissioners Baker, Cardosa, Dominguez, Segall,
Heineman, and Whitton
None
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS
Commissioner Heineman commended Barbara Kennedy and Jeremy Riddle for doing a great job on this
project.
Commissioner Dominguez stated the Citizens Committee to Study the Flower Fields and the Strawberry
Fields has had their second meeting and looks as if the committee will be productive.
Commissioner Baker commended the planning commission on a job well done tonight.
Chairperson Montgomery stated he is not entirely sure if the June 21st continuance date will give the
applicant enough time.
PLANNING DIRECTOR COMMENTS
None.
CITY ATTORNEY COMMENTS
None.
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION
By proper motion, the special meeting of the Planning Commission of May 31, 2006, was adjourned at
11:17PM.
DON NEU
Assistant Planning Director
Barbara Safarik
Minutes Clerk
Planning Commission Minutes June 21, 2006 Page 5
Commissioner Segall stated he felt the colors do need to be toned down and also suggested the Planning
Commission be consistent with similar projects in the future.
Chairperson Montgomery asked if there were any members of the public who wished to speak on the
item. Seeing none, he opened and closed Public Testimony.
MOTION
ACTION:
VOTE:
AYES:
NOES:
Motion by Commissioner Baker, and duly seconded, the Planning Commission
adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 6121 approving Conditional Use
Permit CUP 05-31 based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained
therein with the understanding that the color scheme and the architectural details
be reworked to the satisfaction of the Planning Director in order to be more
compatible with the homes and other development in the surrounding area.
7-0
Chairperson Montgomery, Commissioners Whitton, Segall, Heineman,
Dominguez, Cardosa, and Baker
None
Chairperson Montgomery asked Mr. Neu to introduce the next item.
1. EIR 03-03/MP 02-03/GPA 02-04/LFMP 14{Bl/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.
Mr. Neu introduced Agenda Item 1 and stated Associate Planner Barbara Kennedy, assisted by
Associate Engineer Jeremy Riddle, would make the Staff presentation.
Commissioners Cardosa, Dominguez, and Baker disclosed they each had a brief conversation with
Mr. Milich and subsequently received follow-up correspondence from Mr. Milich at their home.
Chairperson Montgomery disclosed he had a brief conversation with Mr. Milich and Mr. Agosti and
received a written follow-up communication.
Chairperson Montgomery opened the Public Hearing for Item 1.
Barbara Kennedy and Jeremy Riddle conducted the Staff presentation and stated they would be available
to answer questions.
Chairperson Montgomery as.ked if there were any questions of Staff.
Commissioner Segall referred to the intersections in Oceanside, which he stated would fail with or without
the Robertson Ranch project, and asked if the City of Oceanside had a program in place where the
developer was obligated to contribute toward improving the intersections. Mr. Riddle replied no but if the
City of Oceanside developed a program showing the necessary improvements, the developer would be
obligated to fair share contributions.
Planning Commission Minutes June 21, 2006 Page 6
Commissioner Segall asked if the City of Oceanside's program had to be in place before the project was
approved in order to have the developer obligated to fair share contributions. Mr. Riddle stated that the
condition was included as a mitigation measure of the Robertson Ranch project and remains open with
no deadline of termination. Commissioner Segall asked in the event the project was not completed for
several years and traffic conditions decline, can the City of Oceanside require the developer to do more
mitigation than was presently required. Mr. Riddle stated that there was some basic information in the
mitigation monitoring report which showed lane widening improvements were needed and the City was
asking the City of Oceanside to develop a program for necessary improvements.
Commissioner Heineman asked if there was no program in place to improve the Oceanside intersections
and costs cannot be determined at this time for the developer's fair share obligation, would the
developer's costs escalate if the program was not developed for many years. Mr. Riddle replied yes.
Commissioner Dominguez asked if the City of Carlsbad was prepared with a fair share formula for the
surrounding cities of Vista and Encinitas. Assistant City Attorney Jane Mobaldi stated the issue was that
mitigation had to be feasible in order to be imposed and had to be capable of being implemented. She
also stated the City of Carlsbad does not have the authority to implement mitigation which was outside of
the jurisdiction, which was why a program must be in place to show the necessary improvements and
developer contributions.
Commissioner Dominguez asked how the developer would participate in undetermined improvements.
Ms. Mobaldi stated he would not be obligated to contribute unless there was a program in place.
Commissioner Segall asked Ms. Mobaldi to clarify if there would be future mitigation. Ms. Mobaldi stated
the City did not know if the City of Oceanside would develop a program identifying the mitigation
measures.
Commissioner Heineman asked if Mr. Riddle felt confident in the current traffic studies. Mr. Riddle stated
the studies were accurate and valid.
Commissioner Whitton commented it was not feasible to arrive at a solution for the necessary
improvements required for intersections outside of the Robertson Ranch project since they were outside
the City's jurisdiction.
Commissioner Cardosa asked if the mitigation for traffic calming measures in the Colony provided by the
developer was specified to a certain dollar amount. Ms. Kennedy replied no. Commissioner Cardosa
stated in all fairness to the developer, there should be a determined monetary amount. Ms. Kennedy
replied yes, the developer would appreciate a determined monetary amount.
Commissioner Cardosa asked if the traffic study was completed on a maximum use basis to development
yields. Mr. Riddle replied yes. Commissioner Cardosa asked what the failure rate would be. Mr. Riddle
replied anything over 2000 ADT was considered a failure.
Commissioner Cardosa stated he felt there should be a time frame determined for the mitigation of the
intersections outside the Robertson Ranch project in order to be fair to the applicant. Ms. Mobaldi stated
she misspoke earlier and stated the mitigation procedures were required to be implemented by the time
of issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy.
Commissioner Whitton asked if the developer was obligated to contribute to the mitigation efforts for the
intersections outside the jurisdiction after the first Certificate of Occupancy was issued. Ms. Mobaldi
replied no.
Commissioner Baker asked Mr. Riddle to clarify his earlier reference to the east-bound left-turn lane on to
El Camino Real. Mr. Riddle replied he misspoke and that he was referencing the west-bound left-turn
lanes on El Camino Real.
Commissioner Baker asked what practical impacts would occur if the Commission required adding two
left-turn lanes. Mr. Riddle stated a 10-to-12-foot dedication would be necessary to accommodate an
additional lane at the north side of Planning Area 1 and a certain amount of square footage would be
removed from Planning Area 1.
Planning Commission Minutes June 21, 2006 Page 7
Commissioner Baker referenced the potential new road cutting through Planning Area 2 and asked about
the location of the 65-foot slope, if plant or crib walls would be used, and if the new road would increase
the site grading. Mr. Riddle stated the road would connect into Planning Area 2 where the RV Storage
site was proposed and extend into the Robertson Ranch West Village, at a point between the existing
slope and Tamarack Avenue there would be an approximate slope of 65 feet, there would be planting and
crib walls, and the site grading would be increased.
Commissioner Baker asked what practical impacts would occur if the project was approved without
knowing if the school would use the land. Ms. Kennedy stated an alternative use for the school site was a
land extension of the park or in the event the Parks Department did not want the additional space, the
land would be reserved for a potential multi-family development.
Commissioner Dominguez referenced the proposed site which would cross over into Tamarack Avenue
and asked what type of mitigation measures would compensate for the use of the habitat management
corridor. Ms. Kennedy stated at this time they do not know all of the impacts, but an additional
environmental review would be conducted and could result in a modification of the mitigation measures.
Commissioner Whitton asked if the intersection of La Portalada and Tamarack would be an unlighted
intersection and if La Portalada would cross over to Robertson Ranch. Mr. Riddle replied no to both
questions. Commissioner Whitton stated he did not see the benefit of putting a road through Planning
Area 2.
Chairperson Montgomery asked why cut-through traffic would occur through Robertson Ranch once El
Camino Real was improved. Mr. Riddle explained cut-through traffic would be generated from the
commercial site and in the event of a traffic-related issue on El Camino Real.
Commissioner Dominguez stated full deployment of traffic calming measures would make the route
undesirable to cut-through traffic.
Commissioner Segall stated the benefit of the proposed road through Planning Area 2 would be to lessen
traffic on Glasgow and Edinburgh Roads and to provide an additional emergency ingress and egress.
Chairperson Montgomery asked Mr. Riddle to explain the reasons behind the significant difference in the
two traffic study reports. Mr. Riddle stated the 6 percent number taken directly from the EIR referenced
the traffic generated from the entire project on Edinburgh and Glasgow Road, the 20 percent number
referenced traffic generated only from the West Village. Mr. Riddle explained the ADT number of 300
was the original number based on the streets in the current condition and the increased number was
considering the projected ADT generated from the West Village and the Colony residents. Mr. Riddle
stated the 1900 ADT was based on an updated report but there were no changes on the baseline based
on existing conditions.
Chairperson Montgomery asked if the updated baseline numbers are what brought up the numbers to the
capacity line. Mr. Riddle replied yes.
Commissioner Segall asked if Glasgow Road was at 101 percent, would the rate be considered a failure
and if the circuitous routing system was considered when arriving at this percentage. Mr. Riddle replied
yes, 101 percent would be designated as a failure and no, the current project percentage of 99 percent
does not contemplate the impact of circuitous routes. Commissioner Segall asked if Mr. Riddle knew how
much the percentage would drop if circuitous routing was employed. Mr. Riddle stated the traffic
consultant who prepared the report would need to address the impacts.
Commissioner Segall asked what mitigations would have to occur if the road failed. Mr. Riddle replied the
City of Carlsbad would work with the community to arrive at additional measures in order to reduce traffic.
Mr. Riddle stated the numbers used in the traffic study were extremely conservative and contributed to
the percentage rising to 99 percent.
Chairperson Montgomery asked if there were any more questions of Staff; seeing none, Chairperson
Montgomery introduced the applicant.
Planning Commission Minutes June 21, 2006 Page 8
The applicant, Brian Milich, Senior Vice President, Gorky McMillin Companies, San Diego, thanked the
Commission and gave a presentation. The applicant stated he would be available to answer any
questions.
Chairperson Montgomery thanked the applicant and asked if the Planning Commission had questions of
the applicant.
Commissioner Dominguez asked why the cul-de-sac solutions were so limited and what the City's main
opposition was to this type of solution. The applicant explained cul-de-sacs could be used for no more
than 25 units and stated the City's main opposition to cul-de-sacs was emergency access.
Commissioner Baker asked how many units would be on the cul-de-sac off Glasgow Road. The applicant
replied 25 units.
Commissioner Baker asked if the applicant would have an objection to moving the trails on El Camino
Real and Cannon Road farther away from the street. The applicant replied no.
Chairperson Montgomery referenced the one-way street and asked if one-way streets significantly
reduced the traffic and provided an emergency access. The applicant stated yes, this would result in a
significant reduction in traffic.
Chairperson Montgomery stated emergency ingress and egress was the main concern.
Chairperson Montgomery asked what opposition the applicant received from the City to the one-way
streets. The applicant stated he thought the City felt the one-way streets were difficult to enforce, difficult
to determine the starting and ending points, and could be hazardous.
Commissioner Heineman asked the applicant if he consulted with Deputy City Engineer Bob Johnson.
The applicant replied yes, Mr. Johnson had been very involved.
Chairperson Montgomery asked if there were any more questions of the applicant.
RECESS
Chairperson Montgomery closed the Public Hearing on Item 1 and recessed the meeting for a 5-to
10-minute break at 8:12 p.m.
MEETING CALLED TO ORDER
Chairperson Montgomery reconvened the meeting at 8:32 p.m. and opened Public Testimony.
Bill Countreman, 4781 Edinburgh Drive, Carlsbad, stated his group found a solution which would satisfy
the applicant, the City, and the Colony. Mr. Countreman stated the key issue was the traffic.
Mr. Countreman introduced the next public speaker, Robin Wofford.
Robin Wofford, 4757 Edinburgh Drive, Carlsbad, stated her concern with the accuracy of the traffic study.
Kari Atherton, 4781 Brookwood Court, Carlsbad, stated her main issue was density which was separate
from the issue of traffic. Ms. Atherton requested the Commission look at the density and keep the
numbers in line with the numbers after the city analysis. Ms. Atherton stated the future road extension
signs were not clear.
Greg Agosti, 4730 Edinburgh Drive, Carlsbad, supported connecting the East and West Village which
would eliminate access to Edinburgh and Glasgow. Mr. Agosti supported back to back cul-de-sacs.
Stacy Baker, 4754 Gateshead Road, Carlsbad, requested the Planning Commission to consider the
community as a whole and consider the people affected by the proposed changes to the neighborhood.
Planning Commission Minutes June 21, 2006 Page 9
Samuel E. Countreman, 4781 Edinburgh Drive, Carlsbad, stated he did not support the increased traffic
and density.
David Wells, 4775 Gateshead Road, Carlsbad, stated his concern for the increase in density and asked
the Planning Commission to consider the safety and well being of the people affected by the increased
density.
Gary Smith, 2729 Glasgow Drive, Carlsbad, stated the Calavera Hills HOA was not noticed and should
have been since they were landowners within the 600-foot radius of the project.
Commissioner Segall asked Mr. Smith if he was referring to the orange signs at Glasgow and Edinburgh
Roads, if there were signs posted now and for how long. Mr. Smith replied yes, he was referring to those
signs, yes they were posted but he did not know how long they have been posted.
Knut Madden, 2705 Glasgow Drive, Carlsbad, stated he did not support extending Glasgow and
Edinburgh Roads.
David McIntyre, 4777 Edinburgh Drive, Carlsbad, stated his concern was with the noise increase
generated by the additional traffic and the lack of disclosure in the EIR.
David Stoffel, 4705 Edinburgh Drive, Carlsbad, stated he did not support the increase in traffic.
Joan Hayashi, 4798 Neblina Drive, Carlsbad, stated she did not support the increased density and felt an
error margin should be considered in the traffic study.
David Rouse, 4801 Gateshead Road, Carlsbad, stated one issue that had not been referenced was the
potential safety issue of the additional traffic.
Gregory Jackson, 3638 Terrace Place, Carlsbad, stated he supported alternatives to the extension of
Edinburgh and Glasgow Roads.
Christine Gallup, 4799 Gateshead Road, Carlsbad, stated she felt the Commission was giving more
concern to the color palette for the Fuel Station of Bressi Ranch than to the safety of her children.
Michael Zimmerman, 2740 Glasgow Drive, Carlsbad, supported the proposed additional ingress and
egress road to Tamarack Avenue and did not support extending Glasgow and Edinburgh Roads.
Ted Gallup, 4799 Gateshead Road, Carlsbad, supported the back-to-back cul-de-sacs.
Chairperson Montgomery thanked the public speakers commended the children in attendance on their
good behavior.
Chairperson Montgomery closed Public Testimony and asked the applicant if he would like to respond.
The applicant stated the developer would work on traffic calming and aggressive traffic mitigation inside
and outside the Colony. The applicant stated the student generation rates were utilized by the City and
provided to them approximately one-year prior by the Carlsbad Unified School District. The applicant
stated some numbers in the traffic study reports were provided by the City, not SANDAG. The applicant
stated with regards to the noise impact, the project had met all CEQA guidelines. The applicant
requested the Planning Commission consider that other than the traffic and the connection of two streets,
this project was a very good project, a great master plan, met all City standards, and the density was well
within the City's growth management plan.
Chairperson Montgomery thanked the applicant and introduced the Deputy Fire Marshal, Gregory Ryan.
Commissioner Segall asked Mr. Ryan to describe why ingress and egress access from the Colony into
the backside of the West Village was so critical. Deputy Fire Marshal Ryan stated his position was not to
determine the routes used by the responding emergency units but rather to ensure two points of access
be available for emergency service to the project and within the Village.
Planning Commission Minutes June 21, 2006 Page 10
Commissioner Segall asked if the response time would be impacted if there was access from Planning
Area 3 to Tamarack. Deputy Fire Marshal Ryan stated he would have to discuss this option with the
engineering staff.
Commissioner Segall asked what the Fire Department's position was on circuitous routes through the
project and if the emergency response units would be challenged while maneuvering through circuitous
routes. Deputy Fire Marshal Ryan stated the Fire Department did not take a position on the circuitous
routes other than to support the City staff.
Commissioner Segall asked Mr. Ryan if gate access for emergency ingress and egress would be
acceptable if Edinburgh and Glasgow Roads were developed into cul-de-sacs. Mr. Ryan stated in his
experience, emergency access gates were not properly maintained and often inoperable.
Commissioner Segall asked if the Fire Department would be satisfied with two emergency access gates
and one access point from Planning Area 3 to Tamarack Avenue. Mr. Ryan stated again the gates were
only as good as their maintenance program and were discouraged when considering community safety.
Commissioner Whitton asked if a regular gate inspection could be conducted by the HOA. Mr. Ryan
stated there were practical difficulties with an HOA conducting testing on a gate which they would not
have a key to. Commissioner Whitton asked if the Fire Department could schedule a regular time to
inspect the gates with the HOA.
Commissioner Baker asked how severe problems had been in the past when the emergency gates were
inoperable. Mr. Ryan stated problems in the past had not resulted in loss of life or property loss,
however, he had extensive experience with this type of gate failing and every second counts when
responding to an emergency.
Commissioner Baker asked what lessons were learned from the Harmony Grove fire. Commissioner
Baker stated the long-term goal was to ensure community safety. Mr. Ryan stated since 1996, the Mayor
no longer wanted developments to have only one ingress and egress point.
Mike McFadden, Battalion Fire Chief, Carlsbad Fire Department referred to the Harmony Grove fires and
the traffic impacts. Mr. McFadden explained that multiple access points, through streets and traffic
calming are all ideal for emergency response in a neighborhood and any type of barricade could
potentially cause problems. Mr. McFadden stated his experience was also that the emergency access
gates were often inoperable.
Commissioner Baker asked if the considerable open space in the project added more potential fire
danger. Mr. McFadden replied yes.
Commissioner Segall referred to the Streets O and A where the ingress and egress points were fairly
close and asked if the Fire Department felt confident enough room was available to safely evacuate
residents in an emergency situation. Mr. McFadden replied yes the spacing was reviewed by the Fire
Department and the City Engineer.
Chairperson Montgomery asked if there were any more questions of the Deputy Fire Marshal or Battalion
Fire Chief; seeing none, Chairperson Montgomery requested a vote to extend the meeting.
MOTION
ACTION:
VOTE:
AYES:
NOES:
Motion by Commissioner Baker, and duly seconded, to extend the Planning
Commission meeting.
7-0
Chairperson Montgomery, Commissioners Baker, Cardosa, Dominguez,
Heineman, Segall, and Whitton
None
Assistant City Attorney Ms. Mobaldi stated when considering the issue of gate maintenance, the burden
of maintenance may not be appropriate for an HOA since the emergency access gates would be located
on public streets.
Planning Commission Minutes June 21, 2006 Page 11
Chairperson Montgomery asked Staff to respond to Public Testimony.
Ms. Kennedy referred to the issue of noticing. Ms. Kennedy stated Application in Process signs were
posted on May 7, 2004, at Glasgow Road, Edinburgh Road, and the two major intersections of El Camino
Real and Cannon Road; and El Camino Real and Tamarack Avenue. At the same time, Public Scoping
Meeting signs were posted for the May 18, 2004, EIR meeting. Notices were sent to all properties within
600 feet of the project, public agencies, interested parties wanting notification and the newspaper.
Subsequently, a special scoping meeting was held one week later for the Rancho Carlsbad HOA. The
combined attendance was approximately 370 persons and resulted in 250 comment letters; 13 comment
letters from the agencies and organizations, Rancho Carlsbad submitted almost 200 comment letters with
what type of issues the City should address in the EIR, 24 general comment letters from other residents
with 15 of those letters from the Colony. Ms. Kennedy stated the Staff direction when developing the
master plan was based on comments received from the 15 Colony letters.
Commissioner Baker asked if the Colony HOA was noticed. Ms. Kennedy stated the City notices all
property owners within the 600-foot radius and if the HOA was a property owner within this area, the HOA
should have been noticed. Ms. Kennedy stated the applicant prepares the labels and she would review
the mailing addresses to see if the HOA was noticed.
Ms. Kennedy stated after the scoping meetings were conducted, notices of availability of the EIR were
distributed to public agencies, interested parties, and the newspaper; in addition numerous articles were
written and printed in the newspaper. The City received 15 comment letters from public agencies and
organizations, 84 comments from Rancho Carlsbad, 4 comments from other residents, and no comment
letters were received from the Colony residents on the EIR.
Ms. Kennedy stated notices of the public hearing for May 31, 2006, were sent to all residents within
600 feet of the area, public agencies and organizations, interested parties, printed in the newspaper and
posted at the site in four different locations.
Commissioner Segall asked if there was a public notice sign at Glasgow and Edinburgh Roads.
Ms. Kennedy replied yes, signs had been posted for 2 years.
Ms. Kennedy referred to Mr. Madden's question asking if the City had considered having only two points
of access to Robertson Ranch at Z Street and Tamarack Avenue and then gating or cul-de-sac-ing the
access points at Glasgow and Edinburgh Roads. Ms. Kennedy stated the access at Edinburgh Road
would still be required due to City policy where the development needs to provide two access points. In
addition, Staff felt the cut-through traffic should be shared between the two streets of Edinburgh and
Glasgow Roads.
Chairperson Montgomery asked Ms. Kennedy if Staff had considered a connection point at the east
portion of the project from Planning Area 9 over to Glasgow Road. Ms. Kennedy replied yes, it was
considered, but the huge canyon at the back of the residences would require a considerable amount of
grading and would result in habitat impa·cts.
Ms. Kennedy referred to the public's concern about the allocation of dwelling units compared to the Bressi
Ranch project. Ms. Kennedy stated Bressi Ranch received the same percentage of allocation of dwelling
units as Robertson Ranch was proposing.
Ms. Kennedy referred to the concern of noise impacts and stated Staff did analyze the noise impacts and
were not significant enough to be addressed in the EIR. Ms. Kennedy stated if further information was
desired, Mr. Tim Gnibus the EIR Consultant for the City was available for questions.
Commissioner Baker asked if the noise impacts within the Colony neighborhood were addressed in the
EIR as insignificant or if the noise impacts were actually not considered.
Tim Gnibus, Environmental Consultant, BRG Consulting, stated the traffic-generated noise levels were
not specifically analyzed in the EIR. Mr. Gnibus explained that since the streets are residential streets,
they were designed to carry 2000 trips per day which would result in a noise level well below the City
standard.
Planning Commission Minutes June 21, 2006 Page 12
Commissioner Baker asked if the property zoned as RLM meant the threshold was four dwelling units per
acre. Ms. Kennedy replied yes.
Commissioner Baker asked about putting a road between the East and West Villages. Ms. Kennedy
stated a road between the East and West Villages would not be supported by the wildlife agencies since
this area was a primary habitat corridor.
Commissioner Baker asked if there was a threshold which dictates at what point wildlife takes
precedence over people. Ms. Kennedy stated they cannot have a road connection between the two
villages since the City's HMP was one of the guideline documents and are the standards which the City
must follow.
Commissioner Baker asked how long Edinburgh and Glasgow Roads had been designated by the City as
residential streets. Ms. Kennedy stated the maps approved in 1976 stated the roads as future extension
residential streets. Commissioner Baker asked if this information was public information. Ms. Kennedy
replied yes.
Commissioner Baker asked why there was disparity to the student generation numbers. Ms. Kennedy
stated it was possible they were not provided the most current information by the Carlsbad Unified School
District.
Commissioner Dominguez asked Ms. Kennedy how realistic a connection to Tamarack Avenue would be.
Ms. Kennedy stated a connection was possible but there would still need to be two points of access in
Planning Areas 9 and 10.
Commissioner Dominguez asked if the connection did result in a disturbance of the existing vegetation,
would there be enough room in the master plan to revegetate elsewhere. Ms. Kennedy replied yes and·
stated Paul Klukus with Planning Systems had conducted an analysis which could provide more
information.
Chairperson Montgomery asked Mr. Riddle to comment on some of the traffic questions which were
asked by the public.
Mr. Riddle commended the public on the detail of the traffic study spreadsheets. Mr. Riddle stated the
numbers provided in the EIR are snapshots taken at different times and felt possibly the numbers
compared in the spreadsheets were comparing different snapshots.
Chairperson Montgomery asked for Commission discussion and questions of Staff.
DISCUSSION
Commissioner Whitton stated he would like to see Edinburgh and Glasgow Roads gated; supported a
connection to Tamarack Avenue in Planning Area 2; supported the project's current density; and
supported the senior citizen and multi-family housing in Planning Area 7.
Commissioner Segall commended the amount of work conducted by Staff and the applicant but stated he
cannot support the project the way it was due to the impacts to the existing neighborhood. Commissioner
Segall stated he supported the senior citizen housing in Planning Area 7; supported building the school
site with protection this parcel would convert to a park if the school site was not built; supported the
circuitous routes; supported dual left-turn lanes at Tamarack Avenue and El Camino Real; and supported
the investigation of a connection to Tamarack Avenue.
Commissioner Heineman stated his main concern was whether the circuitous routes and traffic-calming
devices would be effective and hoped more solutions would be developed.
Commissioner Dominguez stated he would support reducing the density level to the original level of
1,122; supported a connection to Tamarack Avenue; supported circuitous routes with full traffic calming
developed by the applicant and the Colony.
Planning Commission Minutes June 21, 2006 Page 13
Commissioner Cardosa thanked the due diligence of the Staff, applicant, and residents and stated he felt
the circuitous routes were a great idea but would not control the traffic in the way necessary to protect the
neighborhoods. Commissioner Cardosa supported making the community a gated community in order to
confine traffic and eliminate cross traffic; did not support access at Tamarack Avenue; supported the
density level, the senior citizen community, and the school site with protection the site would be used for
a similar use if the site was not used for a school.
Commissioner Baker thanked the Colony residents for their hard work and stated in her five years on the
Planning Commission, this was the most challenging project she had been involved in. Commissioner
Baker stated she had no desire to make the people of the Colony uncomfortable; however, she did not
support gates and cul-de-sacs; she would support reducing the density as a reasonable compromise; she
did support two left-turn lanes at El Camino Real and Tamarack Avenue; supported senior citizen housing
in Planning Area 7; and supported the school site. Commissioner Baker stated she did not know if the
circuitous routes would work and fell the proposed emergency access gates were a safety risk.
Chairperson Montgomery stated he supported reducing the density level to the original level of
1,122 units which would mean the Robertson Ranch would cut 62 units; supported the building of the
school site with the protection of this space to be used as a similar space if the school was not built;
supported the senior citizen area in Planning Area 7.
Commissioner Heineman asked if the State would allow the Commission to decrease the density.
Assistant City Attorney Jane Mobaldi stated the State did not dictate the density for this site but
encouraged increased density in all cities. Ms. Mobaldi explained in order to have the City's housing
element certified, the City of Carlsbad may have to put units somewhere else in the City.
Chairperson Montgomery stated in his opinion, he would like to take the road of the growth management
plan approved by the voters of Carlsbad in 1986, and he did not support the current proposed traffic
volume going through the Colony.
Commissioner Segall said he felt the project would not be supported the way it was presented but rather
than voting the project down, he suggested the applicant to go back and address the concerns raised.
Commissioner Heineman concurred with Commissioner Segall.
Chairperson Montgomery asked the Commissioners to speak specifically about the density issues in
order to provide a consensus to the applicant.
Commissioner Whitton stated he supported the reduction to the density level units to 1,122; he felt if the
school site was not used, the area should be used for the 200 additional units.
Commissioner Segall stated he supported the reduction in the density level units to 1,122 but would like
to keep the school site as a park if the school was not built; supported the senior citizen housing in
Planning Area 7.
Commissioner Heineman stated he concurred with Commissioner Segall.
Commissioner Dominguez stated he supported the senior housing proposal and the drop in density to
1,122 units and would like to see how this would impact the traffic study.
Commissioner Cardosa stated he would like the units capped at 1,122 units with or with out the school
site and supported the senior housing.
Commissioner Baker stated she supported the 1,122 units with the option of some of the units to be built
on the school site if a school was not built; she supported senior citizen housing.
Chairperson Montgomery asked the Commission if they would like to have Planning Area 7 specified as
senior housing only or if the Commission would allow the applicant flexibility to determine a smaller
secondary use.
Planning Commission Minutes June 21, 2006 Page 14
Commissioner Whitton stated he would like to provide some flexibility to the applicant.
Commissioner Segall stated he did not mind the flexibility as long as the community meets the needs of
walking accessibility to the commercial site.
Commissioner Heineman concurred.
Commissioner Dominguez stated he felt the primary use of the area should be senior housing but
supported the applicant planning flexibility for a secondary use. Commissioner Cardosa concurred with
Commissioner Dominguez.
Commissioner Baker stated she was okay with the concept of providing flexibility as long as consideration
was made to the goal of reducing traffic by lowering the density.
Chairperson Montgomery stated the Commission was in agreement with regard to the open spaces, the
parks, and the community facilities.
Chairperson Montgomery stated the Commission did not want the traffic numbers close to the previously
stated 95 percent.
Commissioner Baker stated it would be helpful to acquire information on previously developed
communities with circuitous routes to see if circuitous routes accomplished the intended goals.
Commissioner Whitton stated he felt circuitous routes were ideal no matter what the conditions and would
like to see Glasgow and Edinburgh Roads gated.
Chairperson Montgomery asked Commissioner Whitton what his opinion was on the connection through
planning Area 2 to Tamarack Avenue. Commissioner Whitton stated he would support this connection as
long as there was a traffic light.
Commissioner Segall stated again he would like to see two left-turn lanes west-bound on Tamarack
Avenue; would like to see the connection through Planning Area 2 through to Tamarack Avenue; and
supported reduced traffic through the Colony.
Commissioner Segall stated for the record, the East Village was fine.
Commissioner Dominguez stated he was pleased the Planning Commission arrived at a decision
regarding the density level and stated he had confidence in the circuitous routes and felt it would be
acceptable to the Colony; he supported the two left-turn lanes at Tamarack Avenue; and was in favor of
the connection through Planning Area 2.
Commissioner Cardosa stated he was in favor of the twos west-bound left-turn lanes; he was not in favor
of the connection through Planning Area 2.
Commissioner Baker stated she was not in favor of the connection through Planning Area 2 to Tamarack
Avenue and definitely not in favor of a traffic light at this point of access but also slated it was too
premature to discuss and would prefer to leave this decision to the traffic engineers.
Chairperson Montgomery stated he supported any solution which would cut down at least 50 percent of
the current proposed traffic at Edinburgh and Glasgow Roads and suggested Staff, the applicant, and the
residents try again to arrive at a solution.
Chairperson Montgomery asked the applicant to discuss his thoughts.
The applicant stated he understood this was a difficult decision but since he was under pressure to move
the project along, he would like to know when the next Planning Commission meeting date would be.
Mr. Don Neu, Assistant Planning Director, stated due to the difficulty in estimating the time involved
conducting the recommended studies; he recommended not setting a specified date.
Planning Commission Minutes June 21, 2006 Page 15
The applicant clarified the growth management plan from 1986 density level was set at 1,154 with no
school site and asked the Commission to consider 1,154 as the original amount of dwelling units. The
Planning Commission concurred.
The applicant asked if he had flexibility for the use of senior housing in Planning Area 7 or 8. Chairperson
Montgomery stated Planning Area 7 would be more ideal for the senior housing but if the applicant chose
to use Planning Area 8, he could present the project to the Commission.
The applicant referenced the road connections and stated he would provide data showing the success of
traffic-calming devices and develop a solution to drastically cut traffic on Edinburgh and Glasgow Roads.
The applicant requested a continuance.
Chairperson Montgomery commended the applicant on a great project.
Chairperson Whitton congratulated the applicant on a great project.
MOTION
ACTION:
VOTE:
AYES:
NOES:
Motion by Commissioner Baker, and duly seconded, to continue Item 1 at the
applicant's request to an uncertain date.
7-0
Chairperson Montgomery, Commissioners Whitton, Segall, Heineman,
Dominguez, Cardosa, and Baker
None
Chairperson Montgomery closed the Public Hearing for Item 1.
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS
Commissioner Dominguez thanked everyone for being present and thanked the Planning Commission for
all of their hard work.
Commissioner Baker thanked everyone for attending.
Chairperson Montgomery _thanked Commissioner Baker for her assistance.
PLANNING DIRECTOR COMMENTS
Mr. Neu slated he would provide the Commission copies of the revised architectural policy indicating the
additions and deletions as well as information as to how the policy would apply to the Cantarini/Holly
Springs project if it were a custom lot development.
CITY ATTORNEY COMMENTS
None.
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION
By proper motion, the regular meeting of the Planning Commission of June 21, 2006, was adjourned at
11:30 p.m.
Don Neu
Assistant Planning Director
Barbara Safarik
Minutes Clerk