HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 97-16; Kelly Ranch; Tentative Map (CT)The CLEMENS GROUP
P.O. Box 7134
Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067
858.756.7933
May 16, 2001
Mr. Ray Patchett tiacaxvA«^ vj\a
City Manager
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Re: KELLY RANCH - ADVOCACY FOR LEGISLATIVE ACTIONS AND
PERMIT ACTIONS TRACKING SEPARATELY
Dear Ray:
The California Coastal Commission (CCC) has indicated their strong preference
that the Carlsbad City Council approval of the Kelly Ranch legislative
implementation actions (GPA, ZCA) track separately and prior to the permit
amendment actions (CDP, HDP, SDP, PUD amendments). It would appear that
the Land Use actions have occurred consistent with this preferred process. As
presently proposed by the City however, the Implementation actions are
bundled with the development permit amendments.
The GPA and ZCA legislative actions are actions needed to "implement" the
approved LCP Suggested Modifications. The Land Use LCP Amendments have
already been approved and adopted separately in December, 2000. The CCC
indicates that the proper order of action for the LCP implementation actions is;
(a) City adoption of the legislative actions, and (b) Executive Director approval
resulting in effective certification, and that both of those occur before subsequent
(c) City approval of the development permit amendments; and (d) Coastal
Commission review of "substantial issue".
City of Carlsbad Position:
The City of Carlsbad has indicated reluctance to separate and adopt the GPA and
ZCA prior to the permit amendment package because they argue that these
actions adopt land use regulations over the affected properties that may or may
not be appropriate if the Kelly Ranch project is not subsequently approved, or for
some reason does not come to fruition. For this reason, they prefer approval of
the project at the same hearing as the legislative actions.
Kelly Land Company Response:
This argument appears to indicate that the subject GPA and ZCA actions are
only appropriate under the immediate developer's circumstances and do not
likely stand the test of being the appropriate land use regulations for the
property overall. This developer-specific zoning is a very unusual and short-
term approach to land use regulation, and will be opposed by CCC. It also
ignores the fact that in December, 2000 the City Council already approved the
LCP Land Use amendments indicated in the Suggested Modifications, which
now govern land use over the property. It would seem that the remaining
implementation actions are of lesser importance than the legislative actions
already completed.
KLC believes that the regulations (Land Use) approved by the City Council in
the December, 2000 LCP amendment, and those (Implementation) recommended
for approval by the Planning Commission on May 2,2001 are all appropriate for
the affected properties, even if the Kelly Ranch project were to be delayed or for
some reason otherwise not proceed. In addition, Sherilyn Sarb indicated
concurrence with the City's proposed Implementation wording in her letter of
May 8, 2001.
Conclusion:
KLC believes that the remaining legislative actions (the GPA and the ZCA)
should be expedited to the first available City Council hearing (May 22 or 29).
Doing so could allow for a June report by the Executive Director to the CCC for
effective certification of the LCP A and get that out of the way. The City Council
could still have its hearing on the permit amendments on June 12, with the hope
that the Coastal Commission could make its review for the "substantial issue"
determination during the July Commission meetings.
This schedule modification will both satisfy the CCC preference for order of
actions, and also allow for the project and Cannon Road to begin construction
prior to the avian nesting season vegetation clearing prohibition.
Ray, your cooperation and consideration in "unbundling" the Legislative matters
from the Kelly Ranch revisions and scheduling the legislative matters at the
earliest possible City Council meeting; with the remainder project revision
matters to be scheduled for the June 12 City Council meeting, will be very much
appreciated.
I look forward to our meeting May 21 at 11:00 A.M. to discuss this matter.
Sincerely,
D. Larry Clemens
Cc: Ron Ball
Marty Orenyak
Michael Holzmiller
Gary Wayne
Christer Westman
Stephen Smith
Christopher Neils
Tom Hageman
Paul Klukas
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
April 5, 2001
Paul Klukas
Planning Systems
1530 Faraday Avenue Suite 100
Carlsbad CA 92008
SUBJECT: CT 97-16(A) KELLY RANCH
Your application has been tentatively scheduled for a hearing by the Planning
Commission on May 2, 2001. However, for this to occur, you must submit the
additional items listed below. If the required items are not received by April 13,
2001, your project will be rescheduled for a later hearing. In the event the
scheduled hearing date is the last available date for the City to comply with the
Permit Streamlining Act, and the required items listed below have not been
submitted, the project will be scheduled for denial.
1. Please submit the following plans:
A) 10 copies of your (site plans, landscape plans, building elevation
plans, floor plans) on 24" x 36" sheets of paper, stapled in complete
sets folded into 81/2f x 11" size.
B) One 8'/2" x 11" copy of your reduced site plan, building elevation and
floor plans. These copies must be of a quality which is
photographically reproducible. Only essential data should be included
on plans.
2. As required by Section 65091 of the California Government Code, please
submit the following information needed for noticing and sign the enclosed
form:
A) 600' Owners List - a typewritten list of names and addresses of all
property owners within a 600 foot radius of the subject property,
including the applicant and/or owner. The list shall include the San
Diego County Assessor's parcel number from the latest equalized
assessment rolls.
B) 100' Occupant List - (Coastal Development Permits Only) a
typewritten list of names and addresses of all occupants within a 100
1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us
CT 97-1 6(A) - KELLY
April 5, 2001
Page 2
foot radius of the subject property, including the applicant and/or
owner.
C) Mailing Labels - two (2) separate sets of mailing labels of the property
owners within a 600 foot radius of the subject property and
occupants within a 100 foot radius of the subject property. The list
must be typed in all CAPITAL LETTERS, left justified, void of any
punctuation. For any address other than a single family residence, an
apartment or suite number must be included but the Apartment, Suite
and/or Building Number must NOT appear in the street address line.
DO NOT type assessor's parcel number on labels. DO NOT provide
addressed envelopes - PROVIDE LABELS ONLY. Acceptable fonts are:
Arial 11 pt, Arial Rounded MT Bold 9 pt, Courier 14 pt, Courier New 11 pt,
and MS Line Draw 11 pt. Sample labels are as follows:
UNACCEPTABLE UNACCEPTABLE ACCEPTABLE
Mrs. Jane Smith Mrs. Jane Smith MRS JANE SMITH
1 23 Magnolia Ave., Apt #3 123 Magnolia Ave. APT 3
Carlsbad, CA 92008 Apt. #3 123 MAGNOLIA AVE
Carlsbad, CA 92008 CARLSBAD CA 92008
D) Radius Map - a map to scale, not less than 1" = 200', showing all
lots entirely and partially within 600 feet of the exterior boundaries of
the subject property. Each of these lots should be consecutively
numbered and correspond with the property owner's list. The scale of
the map may be reduced to a scale acceptable to the Planning Director
if the required scale is impractical.
E) Fee - a fee shall be paid for covering the cost of mailing notices. Such
fee shall equal the current postage rate times the total number of
labels. Cash check (payable to the City of Carlsbad) and credit cards
are accepted.
Sincerely,
CHRISTER WESTMAN, AICP
Associate Planner
CW:mh
Attachment
77..
'RECEIVED
PROJECTDESIGN CONSULTANTS MAR 0 7 2001PLANNING • ENVIRONMENTAL • ENGINEERING • " * fcvwi
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PLANNING DEPT.
File: 1224.80
March 5, 2001
Mr. Christer Westman
CITY OF CARLSBAD
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
SUBJECT: Amended Tentative Map CT 97-16 and Site Development Plans 98-04
and 98- 18
Dear Christer,
Please accept the attached re-submittal of the above-referenced project for your review.
The following addressed the City of Carlsbad's concerns as listed in the January 18, 2001
letter addressing the first submittal of the Amended Plans:
ISSUES OF CONCERN
No. GPA 00-09/ZCA 00-06/CT 97-16(A)/CDP 97-43(A)/HDP 97-17(A)/SDP 98-04(A)/SDP
98-1 8(A)
Planning:
1 . It will be helpful to show the existing grading and lots for Village "E" on the tentative
map.
Drawings have been revised to show this information.
2. Primarily because of minimal sight distance and steep grades on "AA" Street, the day
care and recreational vehicle storage lots should be considered at other locations. Lot
1 70 may be appropriate for the uses.
We are working with City Staff to make revisions that are acceptable for this site. Lot
170 is not available due to the site design which would require the public to drive
through the apartment site. In addition, the City Parks and Recreation Department
requested ownership of lot 1 70 for additional park use.
3. There is significant grading resulting in excessive slopes at the day care and
recreational vehicle storage lots.
We have made some revisions and are adding benches per the City of Carlsbad's
standards.
LET/12248 ATM-2.DOC
701 B Street, Suite 800
San Diego, California 92101
619-235-6471 Tel
619-234-0349 Fax
Recycled
Paper
Mr. Christer Westman
March 5, 2001
Page 2
4. Provide a detail of the meandering walkway and City-wide trail segment along Cannon
Road.
We will provide this to satisfy Planning as well as Engineering concerns.
5. A redesign of the traffic signal at Faraday Avenue and Cannon Road will be required
to accommodate signalized access to lot 167.
The traffic signal has not been constructed yet. The additional re-design necessary
for lot 167 will be done when required.
Engineering:
Engineering Department staff has completed a review of the above-referenced project.
Prior to engineering staff making a determination on the project, the following engineering
issues of concern must be adequately resolved/addressed:
MASTER TENTATIVE MAP (CT 97-16A)
Grading & Drainage
1. The Pacific Soils Engineering (PSE) Geo-technical Evaluation does not include
discussion of impacts and mitigation for Cannon Road or Faraday Avenue subsurface
settlement issues. The proposed on-site slopes, for the development along Cannon
Road, may cause settlement of Cannon Road from 1" to 28". An unknown amount of
settlement along existing Faraday Avenue is also a potential. If subsurface settlement
occurs, Cannon Road and Faraday Avenue, and the utilities therein, will be negatively
impacted. These issues must be addressed in the PSE report, for both Cannon Road
and Faraday Avenue. Therefore, at a minimum, the following information/analysis
must be included in the report:
a. Impacts and mitigation discussion for on-site slope encroachment to
proposed Cannon Road, including the "influence zone."
b. Impacts and mitigation discussion for on-site slope encroachment to
existing Faraday Avenue (additional borings?), including the "influence
zone."
c. Cross-section of Cannon Road and on-site slopes, including the "influence
zone."
d. Cross-section of existing Faraday Avenue and on-site slopes, including the
"influence zone."
LE1M2248ATM-2.DOC
Mr. Christer Westman
March 5, 2001
Page 3
Please be advised, Kelly Land Company (KLC) must pull a grading permit and Coastal
Development Permit by July 2001, and incorporate a 20' surcharge with wick drains
for subsurface settlement of Cannon Road to occur, or, redesign the Core Area
adjacent to Cannon Road so that there are no structural impacts to Cannon Road (i.e.,
pull the on-site slopes back so that they do not influence Cannon Road). Since
Faraday Avenue exists, all proposed on-site slopes adjacent to Faraday Avenue must
be pulled back. If PSE determines that settlement of Faraday Avenue will not occur,
because of the proposed on-site slopes adjacent to Faraday Avenue, then discussion
of the currently proposed design can be pursued then. Please be advised, this is a
major staff issue of concern.
Pacific Soils and PDC will provide requested data and work with City Staff to resolve
the settlement issue.
2. Please change all storm drain outfall energy dissipaters, that do not have direct
access for maintenance purposes, to San Diego Regional Standard Drawing
(SDRSD) D-41 (instead of D-40), typical. (See Master Tentative Map Amendment
<MTMA> sheet 4.)
Done.
3. How is the slope brow ditch outfall, along proposed Lots 11-28 (MTMA sheet 4), going
to be handled? The brow ditch should tie into the proposed storm drain, or have a
SDRSD D-41 end treatment. Please revise.
Per discussion with City Staff, we will revise the brow ditches to have lots 11-20 drain
into a type F catch basin which will connect to the D-41. Lots 20-26 will still drain into
a brow ditch with riprap at the outlet as shown on the plan.
4. Benches with drainage facilities must be provided for the proposed 80' slope at Lots
161 & 162 (RV/Daycare lots).
The slopes have been reduced to eliminate the need for benches. Brow ditches are
designed to follow the daylight line and prevent future erosion to the proposed slopes.
5. Indicate how National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) criteria will be
met. This could include, but not be limited to, doing one or a combination of the
following: directing surface run-off through vegetated swales prior to discharge to a
storm drain or the public right of way, constructing a gravel/sand/filter system,
constructing de-pollutant basins, etc. Please be advised, pre and post construction
Storm Water Prevention Plans (SWPP) will be required as part of the grading plan
review.
Our current design directs runoff to three detention basins that are designed to detain
the 10-year runoff consistent with Coastal Commission guidelines. In addition, we will
LETM2248ATM-2.DOC
Mr, Christer Westman
March 5, 2001
Page 4
design the detention basin within Lot 164 to detain twice as much inflow as required
due to the Coastal Staff's request to leave the existing vegetation within this basin in
place. As a result, this basin will not be maintained. Our over design of the basin
should allow for adequate detention consistent with the project requirements.
The basin within Lot 82 has an outlet pipe invert that restricts the depth within the
detention basin. In addition, this also affects the inverts of the pipes directing the flow
from Kelly E and Kelly Core. Furthermore, we have redirected the much of the runoff
from Kelly Core into the basin within Lot E. As a result, this basin too will over-detain
the required amount for the project.
During construction, desilting basins and other erosion control measures will be
employed consistent with Best Management Practices and the projects Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Program. Post construction methods may include fossil filter
inserts for storm drain inlets in the apartment areas along with directing runoff through
vegetated areas where feasible.
In conclusion, due to the over-detaining design of two out of the three project
detention basins and implementation of post-construction NPDES facilities, this
project should meet the required water quality standards. The drainage report will
address these concerns and will be submitted separately.
6. A Hydrology Report was not submitted with the MTMA. Have drainage patterns been
revised from the previously approved MTM? It looks like there is a proposed storm
drain from 'AA' Street that drains to the existing basin adjacent to Kelly Village 'E?' If
this area turns out to be the ultimate location of the Agua Hedionda sewer pump
station, does the pump station, and access to it, encroach into this basin, and if so,
what impact does that have on the basins capacity?
We have updated the drainage report and will be submitted within the week. The
drainage patterns have been revised to make use the existing basin south of
Hemmingway Drive. The flows going into the existing basin adjacent to Kelly Village
'E' have been significantly reduced from the previously approved TM.
7. Please adequately define the existing and proposed 100-Year flood line (MTMA sheet
3).
The drawings have been revised to show the existing and proposed 100-year flood
line.
LETU2248ATM-2.DOC
Mr. Christer Westman
March 5, 2001
PageS
Traffic & Transportation
1. Please show the proposed intersections at Lots 165, 168 and 169, with 'AA' and 'BB'
Streets.
The drawings have been revised to show the requested intersections.
2. Staff does not see how Caltrans Corner Sight Distance sight lines can be met for the
proposed RV Lot/Daycare access, in its proposed location. Therefore, as previously
requested by the City's Traffic Engineering staff (in the engineering preliminary review
of this revised design), please relocate this access to the northerly end of Lot 162.
Additionally, maximum grade through intersections is 8%. The proposed gradient is
being shown at 11 to 12%. Please be advised, this is a major staff issue of concern
We are working with City Staff to make revisions that are acceptable for this site.
3. Are gates going to be proposed for the RV Lot? If so, please show them, and, show
adequate queuing and an adequate turning/maneuvering area.
A gate will be shown to the RV site as well as an adequate turning/maneuvering area.
4. A meandering walkway is being shown along Cannon Road. Is this what is shown on
the Cannon Road improvement plans? This type of walkway may be acceptable, but it
must correspond with the Cannon Road plans. Provide documentation that this
proposed walkway meets the Cannon Road design.
The Cannon Road plans do not show a walkway on the south side of Cannon Road.
The proposed walkway design will be done on the Improvement Plans during Final
Engineering. A detail of the meandering walkway has been added to Sheet 3.
5. On sheet 3 of the MTMA, please revise "Detail A" to show 25' setbacks from the curb
returns (in accordance with City Standards), and add the following to the note:
... and City Standards."
The detail has been modified to follow the City Standards.
6. Please label 'AA' Street as Hemingway Drive, in text (see MTMA sheet 3) and plan
view (all other applicable sheets).
All the streets names have been revised to reflect the Approved Street Names.
7. Please show a raised median on Cannon Road at the 'AA' Street (Hemingway Drive)
intersection.
As discussed, we are proposing a full intersection at this location. A Traffic Study has
been included with this submittal to support a Traffic Signal at this location.
LE1M2248ATM-2.DOC
Mr. Christer Westman
March 5, 2001
Page 6
8. Please change the proposed 150' radius on 'HH' Street, west of 'C' Street, to a 200'
radius, in accordance with City Standards. Please be advised, this is a major staff
issue of concern.
The centerline radius was originally approved by City staff during our Tentative Map
processing two years ago. The reason for the reduced radius was to minimize the
impacts to sensitive habitat due to road grading. In addition, the intersection of Twain
Avenue is located close by and would preclude traffic from attaining the design speed
of the road. Furthermore, the City's design guidelines for Hillside Streets allow for a
reduction in the centerline radius provided that the road surface has a "skid resistant
top course overlay."
9. Staff still has concern regarding meeting Caltrans Corner Sight Distance sight lines
throughout the project. The sight line profiles shown on MTMA sheet 9, are shown
using Caltrans Passing Sight Distance criteria (i.e., 3.5' eye/vehicle height & 4.5'
object height). Stopping Sight Distance criteria should be used (i.e., 3.5' eye/vehicle
height & 0.5' object height). Please verify and revise. Please be advised, this is a
major staff issue of concern.
City of Carlsbad and Caltrans Sight Distance Criteria have been met. See City
Standards for Design and Construction of Public Works Improvements Intersection
Sight Distance (pg. 8) and Caltrans Topic 405 of the Highway Design Manual.
10. As a reminder, the Core Area MTMA will have a Condition of Approval attached to it to
complete the project's frontage improvements along El Camino Real (ECR). These
improvement plans must be submitted with the rest of the Core Area improvement
plans. Please be advised, this is a major staff issue of concern.
These plans will be processed with the Final Engineering for Kelly Core. The first
submittal will be made subsequent to the first submittal of Final Engineering. Per
discussion with City Staff the approval of the El Camino Real Improvements will not
hold up the approval of the Kelly Core Final Engineering Plans.
Sewer
1. Please be advised, that the South Agua Hedionda (SAH) sewer line alignment and
pump station have not been finalized yet, and therefore, sewer capacity may be an
issue for the Core Area until the ultimate pump station is completed. Please contact
Deputy City Engineer, Bill Piummer regarding this issue and forward documentation of
any discussions with Mr. Piummer to staff. Please be advised, this is a major staff
issue of concern
LETU2248ATM-2.DOC
Mr, Christer Westman
March 5, 2001
Page 7
Miscellaneous
1. Please submit 1" = 40' scale plans for the following locations, and show the
improvements (i.e., meandering sidewalk on Cannon Road, on-site sidewalks, utilities,
street light standards, fire hydrants, etc.):
a. Along Cannon Road, from 'AA' Street to Faraday Avenue, including the
entire intersections;
b. Along Faraday Avenue from 'BB' Street to Cannon Road, including the
entire intersections;
c. Along 'AA' Street, from 'BB' Street to Cannon Road, including all entire
intersections (i.e., apartment access, RV/Daycare access, etc.).
We will submit 1 "=40' scale plans for these requested areas.
APARTMENT SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN (SDP 98-04A)
Traffic & Transportation
1. Show Caltrans Corner Sight Distance sight lines for all intersections on the Preliminary
Landscape Plans, in accordance with the MTM(A).
The drawings have been revised to show the requested Caltrans Sight Distance Lines.
2. Staff does not see how Caltrans Corner Sight Distance sight lines can be met for the
proposed RV Lot/Daycare access, in its proposed location. Therefore, as previously
requested by the City's Traffic engineering staff (in the engineering preliminary review
of this revised design), please relocate this access to the northerly end of Lot 162.
Additionally, maximum grade through intersections is 8%. The proposed gradient is
being shown at 11 to 12%. (Same issue as MTMA.)
We are working with City Staff to make revisions that are acceptable for this site. Site
line profiles and intersection grades will be provided.
3. Are gates going to be proposed for the RV Lot? If so, please show them, and, show
adequate queuing and an adequate turning/maneuvering area. (Same issue as
MTMA.)
A gate will be shown to the RV site as well as an adequate turning/maneuvering area.
4. Staff still has concern regarding meeting Caltrans Corner Sight Distance sight lines
throughout the project. The sight line profiles shown on MTMA sheet 9, are shown
using Caltrans Passing Sight Distance criteria (i.e., 3.5' eye/vehicle height & 4.5'
LETM2248ATM-2.DOC
Mr. Christer Westman
March 5, 2001
PageS
object height). Stopping Sight Distance criteria should be used (i.e., 3.5' eye/vehicle
height & 0.5' object height). Please verify and revise. (Same issue as MTMA.)
City of Carlsbad and Caltrans Sight Distance Criteria have been met. See City
Standards for Design and Construction of Public Works Improvements Intersection
Sight Distance (pg. 8) and Caltrans Topic 405 of the Highway Design Manual.
5. Please adequately show on-site concrete sidewalks on this SDPA.
Sidewalks have been spot hatched.
Sewer
1. Please identify sewer lines 'A' & 'C' on sheet 7 of the SDPA.
The drawings have been revised to identify the requested sewer lines.
Grading & Drainage
1. Please show failsafe overflows at sump conditions (e.g. vegetated swale down slope
to inlet with tie to storm drain, or SDRSD D-25).
Per discussion with City Staff, the flow will be directed down the slopes but not
concentrated. This will be shown on the final grading plans.
2. Benches with drainage facilities must be provided for the proposed 80' slope at Lots
161 & 162 (RV/Daycare lots). (Same issue as MTMA.)
The slopes have been reduced to eliminate the need for benches. Brow ditches are
designed to follow the daylight line and prevent future erosion to the proposed slopes.
3. Indicate how National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) criteria will be
met. This could include, but not be limited to, doing one or a combination of the
following: directing surface run-off through vegetated swales prior to discharge to a
storm drain or the public right of way, constructing a gravel/sand/filter system,
constructing de-pollutant basins, etc. Please be advised, pre and post construction
Storm Water Prevention Plans (SWPP) will be required as part of the grading plan
review. (Same issue as MTMA.)
Our current design directs runoff to three detention basins that are designed to detain
the 10-year runoff consistent with Coastal Commission guidelines. In addition, we will
design the detention basin within Lot 164 to detain twice as much inflow as required
due to the Coastal Staff's request to leave the existing vegetation within this basin in
place. As a result, this basin will not be maintained. Our over design of the basin
should allow for adequate detention consistent with the project requirements.
LETU2248ATM-2.DOC
Mr. Christer Westman
March 5, 2001
Page 9
The basin within Lot 82 has an outlet pipe invert that restricts the depth within the
detention basin. In addition, this also affects the inverts of the pipes directing the flow
from Kelly E and Kelly Core. Furthermore, we have redirected the much of the runoff
from Kelly Core into the basin within Lot E. As a result, this basin too will over-detain
the required amount for the project.
During construction, desilting basins and other erosion control measures will be
employed consistent with Best Management Practices and the projects Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Program. Post construction methods may include fossil filter
inserts for storm drain inlets in the apartment areas along with directing runoff through
vegetated areas where feasible.
In conclusion, due to the over-detaining design of two out of the three project
detention basins and implementation of post-construction NPDES facilities, this
project should meet the required water quality standards. The drainage report will
address these concerns and will be submitted separately.
4. Please clarify General Note No. 13, to actually indicate the grading quantities. Is the
45,000cy's combined balanced cut/fill (therefore 90,000cy's), or 22,500cy balanced
cut/fill, etc.? Also, provide data with how you arrived at this "estimate." Proposed
grading quantities must be better defined than this.
The note has been revised to show 45,000 CY FILL, 45,000 CY CUT, 0 CY of
IMPORT/EXPORT. The site will be mass graded per the Kelly Core Final Grading
Plans, the grading quantities shown on these plans are for finish grading required to
cut in the streets and the parking lots.
5. Please be advised, precise grading plans may be required for the proposed
apartments.
Precise Grading Plans will be provided during Final Engineering.
6. Please adequately define the existing and proposed 100-Year flood line (SDPA sheet
6). (The "existing" and "proposed" text points to the same line.)
The drawings have been revised to show the existing and proposed 100-year flood
line.
LETM2248ATM-2.DOC
Mr. Christer Westman
March 5, 2001
Page 10
SINGLE-FAMILY SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN (SDP 98-18A)
Traffic & Transportation
1. Please change the proposed 150' radius on 'HH' Street, west of 'C' Street, to a 200'
radius, in accordance with City Standards. (Same issue as MTMA.)
The centerline radius was originally approved by City staff during our Tentative Map
processing two years ago. The reason for the reduced radius was to minimize the
impacts to sensitive habitat due to road grading. In addition, the intersection of Twain
Avenue is located close by and would preclude traffic from attaining the design speed
of the road. Furthermore, the City's design guidelines for Hillside Streets allow for a
reduction in the centerline radius provided that the road surface has a "skid resistant
top course overlay
2. Please be advised, in accordance with City Standards, the top of any driveway "X"
must be located a minimum 3' away from any property line. Various proposed lots do
not meet this standard. Please revise. Additionally, please show a typical plan view (to
scale) of each type of proposed single-family dwelling unit driveway, showing that a 'P'
Vehicle can ingress/egress the various types of garage configurations.
The driveway locations will be modified to adhere to City Standards, any proposed
variance will be discussed with City Staff on a case by case basis. A detail will be
added to the cover sheet to show a 'P' vehicle as requested.
Grading & Drainage
1. Please revise General Note No. 6, and indicate grading quantities. Acceptable
grading quantities must be shown on the SDPA.
Grading is done per the Final Grading Plans for Kelly Core. This set of plans does not
propose any grading. A note will be added to the cover sheet referring to the Grading
Plans for CT 97-16 per the City Staff request.
2. Please change all storm drain outfall energy dissipaters, that do not have direct
access for maintenance purposes, to San Diego Regional Standard Drawing
(SDRSD) D-41 (instead of D-40), typical. (See SDPA sheet 3.)
The drawings have been revised to show D-41 energy dissipators at all storm drain
outfalls without access.
Redlined check prints are attached for use in making the requested revisions. These
check prints must be returned with the revised plans to facilitate continued staff review.
LETO2248ATM-2.DOC
Mr. Christer Westman
March 5, 2001
Page 11
Please call me at your earliest convenience to discuss any questions you may have
concerning this project.
Sincerely,
T
ilgore, PE
Assistant Vice President
LETM2248ATM-2.DOC
FEB-02-2000 10:41 FROM^flL COMMUNITIES, INC.TO 17604380894 P.01
URGENT
WAYNE CALLAGHAN
38 REDHA.WK, IRVINE, CA 92604
Tel: (949) 559-6200 Fax: (949) 559-6215
E-mail: calgroup@regroup.NET
URGENT
DATE: Monday, February 1,1999 4 FAX Pages, including this page
Distribution:
City of Carlsbad t
Hillman Properties
Project Design Consultants
Chrieter Westman^J
"tarry UWIln?
Dale Greenhalgh
Voice:
(760) 438-1161 x- 4388
(760) 438-1161 x- 4448
(760) 931-1190
(619) 235-6471
Fax:
(760) 431-5769
(760) 438-0894
(760) 931-7950
(619) 234-0349
Planning Area "L": Design Coordination and Project Status Memo
I. General Note:
To: Christer Westrnan - As discussed, I am in the process of retaining a Biologist to survey
Planning Area "L" and will work with the Biologist to incorporate any proposed solutions. I
have contacted or tried to contact all three Biologists and expect to select, contract with, and
set aside sufficient funds this week to start the work as soon as the Biologist can schedule
his time. Two of the Biologists reminded me that this is the period where they need to look
for host species related to the butterfly. I will keep both you and Don Rideout updated
regarding the status.
To: Larry Clemens - I would appreciate a second key to the gate to facilitate my consultants
accessing the property and avoid any potential delay that could occur with coordinating
times. The first key is marked "Do Not Duplicate".
Other than determining a point and design of access for Planning Area °L", I do not believe my
design changes will impact your portion of the project, since I am attempting to conform to
your proposed constraints adjacent to this site (which I need to be aware of)
As with the last design I delivered to the City, I will continue to forward progress copies to you
and would appreciate it if you or your design team will continue to provide me information that
impacts Planning Area "L".
II. Planning Area "L" access to Street "BB" (Previously OceanAire Drivel
Mike, I apologize for not getting the design alternatives to you immediately after our meeting on
Thursday. 1 worked a major portion of each day since then, but until this morning I kept running
into significant new design issues. A few examples included:
1) Access at the North end. Per your suggestion, I first focussed on this point of access.
a) As discussed, the following guidelines were used:
i) 10° angle at Street "BB".
ii) Reduced initial tangent at Street "BB" to 25'.
iii) An initial 35' centerline radius after the tangent.
b) The major issues included Excessive grading to generate a financial, political, and
physically feasible use of the property: For example:
i) I could not drop the road fast enough to access naturally level building areas at an
acceptable grade.
») Required to violate several design guidelines (City, CalTrans, and AASHO) to limit
intrusion into adjacent Open Space and environmentally sensitive areas. This
remained true even after reducing the radius of the curb returns, etc.
FEB-02-2000 10=42 FROM _£fll_ COMMUNITIES, INC. TO 1V604380894 P.02
2) Access at South end.
a) As discussed, the following guidelines were used:
i) Utilized a Knuckle vs. a Cul-de-sac.
ii) 30' curb returns at intersection
b) The major issues:
i) Knuckle made it awkward to reach the larger natural level building areas
ii) Design required extensive grading at the intersection.
iii) Difficult to match the grades on road for Planning Area "L" with grades on Street "BB"
iv) Difficult to design driveways accessing individual units,
v) Meeting road design guidelines required intrusion into adjacent Open Space and
environmentally sensitive areas.
3) Access at the center of the property was avoided since it required flattening the grade at
the intersection of Street UBB". This would work best for the design of Planning Area "L", but
is believed to negatively impact the design issues for Hillman's portion of the property.
HI. Potential solution, this morning;. I put aside previous ideas (prejudices) and legal
complications I focussed on design issues including impacts to adjacent Open Space.
a) The following guidelines were used:
i) See attached exhibit - Called the engineer and explained my need to work on this
issue over the weekend. He appeared uncomfortable releasing information. Given
this, I was not able to obtain or consider the Street °BB" cross section, explore his
drainage and utility concepts, nor share Planning Area °L" design constraints.
ii) Used
(1) reduced road cross section since the project's present proposal is for a private road.
(2) 50' tangent at the intersection.
(3) 30' radius for curb returns at intersection (See note i)).
(4) 30' radius for the initial curve on the inside curb return.
b) The major benefits of reducing the road's cross section as well as a reducing the radius
on the initial curve vs. a cul-de-sac or knuckle were:
i) Reduced project grading and allowed reasonable grades when accessing units.
ii) Ability to access the naturally level building areas without requiring excessive grades
or awkward design,
iii) Avoided extensive grading at the intersection, which significantly reduced the
potential for intrusion into adjacent Open Space and environmentally sensitive area,
iv) Able to more easily work with the adjacent constraint/grade of Street "BB".
v) More closely able to meet design guidelines.
IV. Additional thoughts to be explored:
1) Maintenance and reduced cross-section of Planning Area "L" road. Should Planning Area
"L" utilize private roads, it might become responsible for the portion of the road between the
existing property line and Street °BB". A few of many possible methods could include:
a) City could refuse "Offer for Dedication" and condition Planning Area "L" to accept liability
and maintenance responsibility if it proposes private roads, or
b) A recorded agreement between Hillman Properties and myself. In it the parties could
agree that this area and associated responsibilities would become part of Planning Area
"L" as part of the final step in the Planning Area "L" transfer, or
c) Hillman Properties coukl prepare an easement to Planning Area "L" for access,
construction, and maintenance purposes with an offer for dedication should the City
require such dedication.
2} Suggested construction responsibilities:
a) Rough grading of the area to be part of Street "BB" construction.
b) Only the curb returns and cross gutter to be constructed with Street "BB"
c) Planning Area "L" could be responsible for final design and construction of the entry from
the end of the curb returns to its existing property line. This may also avoid potential
delays in constructing Street "BB" associated with final design of Planning Area "L" roads.
FEB-02-2000 10=43 FROM CPL COMMUNITIES, INC. TO 176043B0B94 P.03
3) Additional need for de^n coordination between Hillman Proper^S and myself: Since I am
attempting to conform to Hillman Properties' proposed constraints adjacent to this site, it will
be helpful if I understand the infrastructure and constraints that are, or are not proposed
adjacent: to it. This will facilitate my prepare Planning Area "L" site design, or if in a holding
position to assure it will be possible to develop the property in the future. For example:
i) Potential site constraints such as the cross sections of roads and other construction
proposed adjacent to or related to Planning Area "L".
ii) Initial design concepts related to other utilities that I would need to join,
iii) Regardless of where Planning Area "L" takes vehicle access, the property drains to
the South corner where I will need to join proposed storm drain and sewer systems,
iv) For the benefit of both this and adjacent areas, I will need to understand where to divert
the water from canyon and bench subdrains as well as slope and brow ditches. Either to
this intersection, a desilting basin, or another system at the bottom of the slope in
Planning Area "D*.
v) A few of the additional issues that might be explored include:
(1) Use of common streetlights where the road within Planning area "L" is adjacent
to Street "BB". This may be important for environmental reasons.
(2) If a landscaping strip is being proposed between the Westerly curb of Street "BB"
and Planning Area "L" it may be appropriate to tie the landscaping, irrigation
systems and maintenance into Planning Area "L".
FEB-02-2000 10=43 FROM CfiL COMMUNITIES, INC.17604380894 P.04
TOTflL P.04
November 15,1999
SheaHomes
San Diego
Mr. Christer Westman
City of Carlsbad
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Re: Kelly Ranch - Village 'E' CT 96-07
Special Development Tax, Building Permit one time payment
Dear Christer:
As you are aware, Shea Homes has paid the Special Development Tax (one time payment) under protest for Phase 1
and 2. The purpose of this letter is to demonstrate why we believe the tax has been assessed incorrectly. We would
hope that the City agrees with our position and refunds the excess payment.
Our main concern is the limits of the 100-year flood inundation. On the Tentative Map CT 97-06, which was
submitted in 1997, the as-built plans for Cannon Road (DWG 25 8-3A) used to define the limits of the 100 year
flood. During processing of the Tentative Map, but prior to approval (approved date: 1/21/98), the FEMA Map was
updated on June 19, 1997 (see attached). The new FEMA Map shows significant areas subject to inundation. We
have recalculated the developable acreage based on the June 1997 FEMA Map (see attached exhibit).
It is our understanding from previous communications with the City that Section 21.53.230 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code identifies constrained lands for purposes of establishing the one time, CFD Special Development
Tax. We have recalculated the net developable area as follows:
• Village 'E' has a total of 45.0 gross acres.
The constrained areas are as follows:
• Floodways (17.1 acres) as defined by the Special Flood Hazard Area Inundated by the 100 Year Flood
as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (panel 768 of 2375) dated June 19, 1997 (Map Number
06073C0768 F) prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
• Natural Slopes with an inclination greater than 40% (2.7 acres)
• Land subject to major power transmission lines (0.2 acres)
The total net acreage is 45.0-17.1-2.7-0.2 = 25.0 Acres
The net density is 144 units / 25.0 Acres = 5.8 DU/Acres
Since this net density is above 4.0 DU/Acre the lower fee rate applies. Thank you for your time in considering our
appeal.
Sincere!
Co
DG/ra
Attachments
P:\group\land\winword\Canterbury\ChristerWestman3-ltr.doc
10721 Treena Street, Suite 200, San Diego, California 92131, tel: 858-549-3156 fax: 858-549-0112
PLANNING
SYSTEMS
LAND USE / COASTAL PLANNING
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE • LASSOO
POLICY AND PROCESSING
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION
February 22, 1999
Christer Westman
CITY OF CARLSBAD
2075 Las Palmas Dr. :
Carlsbad, CA 92009
RE:, CT 97-16; Kelly Ranch
Dear Christer:
Enclosed with this letter please find two (2) sets of the revised Kelly Ranch
"Core Area" tentative subdivision map, ONA preliminary landscape plans,
and revised Zone 8 LFMP Amendment No. 2. Since such minor changes
were requested, we are confident that this submittal should satisfy Staff's final
design concerns with the project. Upon your concurrence, we will provide as
many full sets of plans and documents as you request.
This letter is intended to provide written documentation of our response to
comments raised in your letter of February 16, 1999. The numbers
accompanying responses reference your comment numbers in the February
16 letter.
Regarding the "Core Area". Tentative Map
Administrative\ -
1. This comment references the lack of a PUD application for the Core
Area PUD. A PUD processing fee check for $7,900.00 was delivered to
i/X your office on February 17. I note that this is one day after the date of
& your letter, and therefore assume that the comment has been satisfied.
All plans (Shea Homes) are in the process. Please telephone me
immediately if any PUD application item is incomplete.
Environmental Impact Report
I: We look'forward to the results of the third party review of the EIR. It
would be truly unfortunate if at this late date, (the EIR process began
(NOP) almost eleven months ago), the third party consultant inferred
that there was a substantial adequacy issue with the document. This,
^after thorough preparation by A. D. Hinshaw & Associates, and
1530 FARADAY AVENUE • SUITE 100 • CARLSBAD, CA 92008 • (760) 931-0780 • FAX (760) 931-5744 • planningsystems@nctimes.net
Christer Westman
February 22,1999
Page 2
thorough review by both the City and Planning Systems: It is Planning
Systems' opinion that the draft document is one of the most thorough
supplemental EIR's we have ever been exposed to.
-A disadvantage inherent in third party reviews is the desire of third
party contractors to find problems (where they may not actually' exist)
in order to demonstrate how thorough a review they have conducted.
In the event that that the review results in a preliminary finding of any
significant,issues, I would appreciate the opportunity to be involved in
the discussions with the third party consultant, in order to iron out the
perceived problem in the shortest amount of. time necessary.
, /Circulation - s
1. This comment refers to Planning Staff's position that Trail segment 24
will need to be shown on the tentative map and related plans, aligned
in the 2:1 slope behind the Village J lots, within the/habitat corridor.
We have reviewed the design, cc/st and environmental remifications
of provi'ding the trail in this Staff-preferred alignment, and have
, significant practical concerns with it1. Please consider: ^
a. The-vUSF&WS and DF&G have gone on record as opposing
i human (and domestic pet) encroachment into habitat corrdiors
on the scale proposed at Trail segment 24. Assuming it will be
. permitted at all, significant mitigation for such encroachment
will be required. The Draft Supplemental EIR, on page 2.1.17,
indicates opposition to construction of this trail segment across
the 'corridor, for biological reasons.
b. In order to avoid a significant additional "take" of native
vegetation associated with provision of the trail, and avoid
grading onto adjacent properties, a "cut and export" method of
construction would be necessary, which would result in the need
, for a retaining wall, some 1800 feet in length, and up to 8 feet
high (some of the native area in the southeast is 1:1 slope
naturally). Visual and other impacts associated with this wall
{not to mention a $250",000 cost) could be significant.
Christer Westman
February 22,1999
Page 3
c. No northerly connection into the Evans Point neighborhood has
been provided. As a result, the trail is not anticipated to
ultimately provide trail connection to anywhere.
\ '
We believe we have proposed a workable alternative to the above
problems, which is to direct trail pedestrians onto the Village J street
sidewalk which parallels the habitat corridor, at minimal cost to the
environment and view. Although such a design would not provide a '
segment fully integrated into the native environment, it would
provide an alternative which more adequately balances the benefits of
trail provision, against the disadvantages of habitat destruction, as
itemized above. This alternative would also allow a finding of
consistency with the General Plan to continue to be made.
To this end, Kelly Land Company's position on Trail segment 24 is to
respectfully "agree to disagree" with Staff on this matter, and allow the
Planning Commission to fully address and resolve the disagreement
on the matter.
2. • Revised preliminary landscape plans, showing CalTrans 330-foot sight%
distance sight lines at the Village's D and G driveways is included with
this letter', as directed. Gillespie Associates' plans are provided in
conjunction with the Village I and J PUD plans, which we understand
will be scheduled for a hearing after the policy documents/tentative
map hearing. We are hopeful that the Gillespie plans are not causing
confusion with the tentative map review and will temporarily
withdraw those plans if you deem this desirable.
3. The vertical sight distance at intersection "BB/HH" has been profiled at
30 mph (33_0-feet) design speed, and has been plotted on sheet 9 of the
tentative map, as directed.
/
4. The "BB" Street/Faraday design results in a 50.3-foot distance from the
curb line to the BC of the curve at the intersection. Please refer to the
40-scale plan view attached to this letter.
5. , a 24-foot driveway for future access to Veterans Memorial Park is
shown off "BB" Street, on the tentative map as directed. This driveway
is located so that it is on City-owned property, to 'the south of Kelly
Ranch.
Christer Westman
February 22,1999
Page 4
6. A standard knuckle to access the Callahan parcel has been shown as
future improvements to be installed by others.
Sewer & Water
1. A 42-inch storm drain in the Recreational Vehicle (RV) driveway has
" been shown on sheet 3 of the tentative map, as directed.
Water & Drainage .
1. The bench along lots 120,121 and 153 has been designed as directed on
the tentative map. _ • ~ . -
Land Title & Mapping
1. All wording referencing phasing or "phase boundary" has been deleted
from the tentative map legend, as directed.
.2. Please refer to the attached letter from Pacific Soils which allows 1.5:1
slopes on interior side slopes less than 5-feet in height. It should be
noted that only two of the lefts have side slopes greater than 3-feet in
height. It is our understanding that City policy allows 1.5:1 slopes
subject to the recommendation of a soils engineer. As a result, we
have made no changes to the plan regarding this matter.
Miscellaneous ,
1. The identified Staff comment addresses the question of whether the
public facility requirements of the existing Kelly Ranch Master Plan
(MP 174) will continue to be met by the proposed project- •
By way of background, the proposed project has been long-accompanied
by the Zone 8 LFMP Amendment No. 2, which provides specific
guidance regarding the planning, funding and installation of public
infrastructure. In addition to the Planning Department, this
Amendment has been re'viewe'd by CMWD, the City Engineering, Parks
and Finance Departments. Modifications have been made as requested
by the City,. We believe that this document provides the framework for
public facility installation for Kelly Ranch.
Christer Westman
February 22,1999
Page 5
In direct response to your comments however, the folio wing-are the
specific methods in which we believe the necessary facilities will be.
provided or adequately secured. The summary is provided in the order
listed on pages 39-58-of the Master Plan. (
Circulation:
a~ Bikeways (Cannon Road) - Included in design of Cannon Road.
This improvement is .funded through the Bridge &
Thoroughfare District.
Bikeways (Park.Drive) - It was agreed at a meeting of 1/28/99
-between City representatives and representatives of Kelly Land
Company, that a condition would be prepared to articulate the
obligation of the developer to improve Park Drive; subject to
such improvements being acceptable to the Resoijrce Agencies. .
This condition has been added to the Zone 8 LFMP Amendment
No. 2 (page 14), in anticipation that the improvements will be a
subdivision condition of future Village A. This LFMP
Amendment condition will be adopted in conjunction with the
other Kelly Ranch policy documents.
* 7- Bikeways (El Camino Real) - At the 1/28/99 meeting, it was
undecided whether Kelly Land Company is responsible for
improvements to El Camino Real.
b. Pedestrian System (Adjacent to all major streets) - We anticipate
that sidewalks for the above-referenced streets will be
accommodated in the same manner as Bikeways, above. A
pedestrian trail along the south side of Cannon Road is
demonstrated on the tentative map, and will be secured through
improvement bond. All on-site streets are designed with
sidewalks, as required by City Standards, and will also be secured
through routine bonding.
c. Streets (El Camino Real) - Please see Bikeways (El Camino Real)
above. We anticipate that in whatever manner the Inkeway is
v funded and improved, the street will also be funded and -
improved.
PLANNING
SYSTEMS
Christer Westman
February 22,1999
Page 6
Streets (Cannon Road) - Cannon Road is being funded through
the City's Bridge and Thoroughfare District.
* v
Streets (Park Drive) - Please see Bikeways (Park Drive) above.
We anticipate that the future Village A approval will be subject
to a condition requiring Park Drive street and bikeway
improvements, as required in the Zone 8 LFMP Amendment.
• Streets (Kelly Drive) - The Master Plan Kelly Drive
improvements were an outgrowth of anticipated development
o^Village C, which would necessitate access via Kelly Drive. /
The present developer has no plans to develop Village G, and as
a result, we anticipate that Kelly Drive improvements are no
longer required. - , ~
s Streets (Street C) - Frost Street is presently bonded and under
construction in conjunction with approved Village E.
Streets (Streets D and E (Hillside Loop Roads) - The Kelly "Core
Area" on-site street system will be the subject of improvement
bonds,,and developer-funded construction in the same manner
as any typical on-site subdivision improvement.
Streets (Portions of Faraday Avenue to serve the "Core Area" -
Although this roadway is not listed in the Master Plan, it is
anticipated that it will be existing at the time the "Core Area" is
developed. In the event that it is not existing at that time, we
would anticipate a condition for its improvement as a final map
condition in conjunction with the Improvement Plans, bonding, c
, etc., in line with any other off-site improvement requirement.
Water and Sewer: / .
Water (Water reservoir) - CMWD has indicated that the Evans
Point water reservoir referenced in the Master Plan is no longer
needed by the District due to water master plan modifications
requiring an alternate high pressure line from El Camino Real to
the easterly edge of Village JT This preferred alternative is
referenced in the Zone 8 LFMP Amendment;No. 1 approved by
the City Council in January, 1999.
Christer Westman
February 22,1999
Page 7
Water (On-site pptable and reclaimed) - All on-site potable and
reclaimed water will be funded and installed by the developer.
Please see the LFMP Amendment No. 2.
Sewer - All on-site sewer lines will be funded and installed by
the developer. Regarding regional facilities, CMWD is funding
the SAH1, SAH2 and SAH3 lines, and the Macario Bridge pump
station, which will provide ultimate sewer routing for the "Core
Area". If these lines are not fully installed at the time the Core
Area building permits are requested, and the City Engineer
determines that adequate capacity exists within the NAHI line,
and the appropriate facilities have been installed to temporarily
direct Village E and Core Area sewage into the NAHI line,
building permits will be issued to the Core Area. We believe
'that' the prudenf route at this time would be for CMWD to
expedite the SAH lines and pump station to the degree possible.
Flood Control
Storm Drain - All on-site storm drain and desiltation basin
facilities will be funded by the developer. They will be
maintained by the private homeowner's associations, and in the
case of on the apartment site, maintained by the apartment
project owner. There is no expectation that the City is going to
be responsible to maintain on-site facilities.
In the event that the widening of Park Drive necessitates
lengthening the existing storm drain running under the road,
and "thus, constructing a new box culvert,, this would be expected
to be addressed in the same manner as Park Drive.v '
Regarding Villages "D, G mid H" '
Sewer and Water -
1. . The modification requested on sheet 7 regarding sewer line D
has been made as directed.\
i S
Mapping and Land Title
1. Again, please see the attached letter from Pacific Soils regarding
1.5:1 slopes. This slope ratio was included in the design to allow
Christer Westman
February 22,1999
Page 8
for site flexibility during final engineering. All slopes proposed
within the apartment site will be maintained by the apartment
site owner and will conform to standard engineering practices as
, it relates to public safety and practicality.
2. The word "phase" .has been deleted as directed.
We are hopeful that this is the final list of modifications and that any further
clarifications can occur through conditions of appro-val. Please feel free to
contact me if you have further questions. We anxiously await the earliest
possible Planning Commission hearing for this project.
Paul J. Klukas
Director of Planning
cc: D. L. Clemens
Russ Haley
John Luedtke
Scott Medansky
Tom JDelaney
Dale Greenhalgh
Enclosures/Attachments
PLANNING
SYSTEMS
PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC.
771$ CONVOY COURT, SAN OlESO, CALIFORNIA 92111
TELEPHONE: (613) 500-1713. FAX: (019) 560-0380
KELLY LAND COMPANY, INC.
2011 Palomar Airport Road - Suite 206
Carlsbad, CA 92009 \ August 31,1998
Work order 400607
Attention: Ms. Pam Whltcomb
Subject: Geotechnical Evaluation, 1.5:1 Side Yard Slopes,
Kelly Ranch Villages D, G and H, City Carlsbad, CA
Reference: Supplemental Geotechnical Evaluation and Grading
Plan Review, Kelly Ranch. Villages, D, F, G, H. I and
J, City of Carlsbad, CA, dated October 17,1997 by
Pacific Soils Engineering, Inc. (W. 0.400607)
Gentlemen:
Pacific Soils Engineering, Inc. (PSE) has evaluated the proposed use of 1.5:1
(horizontal to vertical) side yard slopes in Villages D, F, G, H, I and J at Kelly Ranch. In
the City of Carlsbad, California. Based on PSE's evaluation, the use of 1.5 :1 slopes
are acceptable provided the vertical lot differential does not exceed five (5) feet In
addition, block wall and wood fencing foundation elements should be deepened to
provide either five (5) feet laterally between the slope face and the bottom edge of the
footing or extend footing to the lowest adjacent pad grade.
CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS LOS ANGELES COUNTY RIVEHSWE COUNTY 80VTX (MUNOE COUMTY
TB_-(m)ZSW770 TR;tSt3)32S-727Z or 775-6771 TEL: (309) 87M1S3 TEL- (714) 7JO-2122
FAX (TH) 2294501 F»X: (714) ZZO-SSOT FAXM9Q9) V7»-1OT FAX (TU> 790-51*
Worfc Order 400607
August 31,1998
Page 2
Should you have additional questions, please contact the undersigned.
* A
Respectfully submitted,
PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC.
TCHANEY.
ngiSiering Manager
DAVID A,
Engineering Geologist
Reviewed by:
- HANSON,
VicerPresident
Dist (1) Addressee
(1) Project Design Consultants, Attn: Mr. Jim Kllgore
JAQDAM/JAH.-C003
PACIFIC SOILS ElMBlNEEnCNQ, INC.
TOTtt. P.03
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
February 16, 1999
Paul Klukas
Planning Systems
1530 Faraday Avenue Suite 100
Carlsbad CA 92008
RE: CT 97-16 - KELLY RANCH
Prior to scheduling the project for public hearing, the following issues must be resolved to staffs
satisfaction:
Regarding the Core Area Master Tentative Map
Administrative
1. An application for the Core Area Planned Unit Development (PUD) has been discussed but
no application has been submitted.
Environmental Impact Report
1. The EIR is being reviewed by the City's third party consultant. Although the review has
not been completed, we have been given an indication that there may be an adequacy
issue related to the document's referral to the 1984 Kelly Ranch EIR. We anticipate the
full review to be completed next week.
Circulation
1. Trail segment 24 will be required to be provided within the sloped areas east of Area "J".
The trail alignment may be shown conceptually on landscape plans and/or an easement
for trail purposes must be indicated on the tentative map.
2. The ONA preliminary landscape plans still need to show the CalTrans 330' sight
distance sight lines at the Village's "D & G" proposed driveways. Additionally,
Gillespie recently submitted preliminary landscape plans for Village's "I & J"; as I
informed staff at Gillespie, those plans also need to show the 330' CalTrans sight
distance sight lines at the various intersections, in accordance with the tentative map.
Again, any landscaping that encroaches into a sight line area must be deleted and only
ground cover must be shown.
3. Staff still has concern with the vertical sight distance at the "BB'V'HH" Street
intersection. Please reanalyze this sight distance using a design speed of 30mph, not
25mph. ("BB" Street will essentially function as a Collector roadway.) Additionally,
plot this sight distance on the "BB" profile on sheet 7 of 9 of the tentative map.
4. This may be an over sight, but the "BB" Street/Faraday Avenue 50' tangent is still not
2075 La Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 • (760) 438-1161 • FAX (760) 438-0894
CT 97-16 KELLY RANCH
February 16, 1999
Page 2
being measured from the prolongation of the Faraday Avenue curb line, in accordance
with City Standard 3A. It is short by approximately 10'. Please revise.
5. As discussed with PDC staff at the engineering counter on approximately 2/9/99, please
show the proposed access to the future city park off of "BB" Street.
6. As recently discussed with PDC staff, please show a standard knuckle to access Area
"L."
Sewer & Water
1. Please show the proposed 42" storm drain in the Recreational Vehicle (RV) driveway on
sheet 3 of 9 of the tentative map.
Water & Drainage
1. Again, please investigate carrying the proposed bench, along lot's 120, 121 & 153, back
to the terminus of "FF" Street to facilitate emergency fail-safe overflow measures for the
sump condition at the terminus of this cul-de-sac. Look at putting the bench at elevation
170' so that there is positive flow.
Land Title & Mapping
1. The applicant has previously indicated that phasing of the project will not take place, and
phasing lines are now not being shown; however, the language, "Phase Boundary" is still
being shown in the Legend on sheet 1 of 9. Again, as previously indicated, please delete
the word "phase" and any reference to it.
2. As previously requested, in General Note No. 6 on sheet 1 of 9, please delete the second
half of the sentence that states, "...except that interior side yard slopes less than 5 feet
high may be 1-1/2:1."
Miscellaneous
1. Section V, Public Facilities and Phasing, of the existing Kelly Ranch Master Plan (MP
174) indicates that a number of public improvements are required as Kelly Ranch
develops. These improvements must be constructed, or adequately secured, in
accordance with the MP (Existing MP Pg. 44). How is this going to be accomplished?
The following are some of the infrastructure improvements that are required:
Circulation
• "Bikeway" on Park Drive (Existing MP Pg. 39)
• Completion of Cannon Road to serve Area's "D-J" (Existing MP Pg. 45 & 57)
• Park Drive from Area "A" to Kelly Drive (Existing MP Pg.'s 46 & 56)
• Street's "D & E" (comparative "Core Area" on-site street system) (Existing MP Pg.
46)
• Portions of Faraday Avenue to serve the "Core Area" (Required to meet the Cul-de-
sac Standard for the "Core Area")
• Traffic Signal(s) (Existing MP Pg. 58)
CT 97-16 KELLY RANCH
February 16, 1999
Page 3
Water and Sewer
• Water Facilities/Reservoir and CMWD Agreement (Existing MP Pg. 49 & 58)
• Agua Hedionda Interceptor Sewer in Cannon Road (Existing MP Pg. 50)
Flood Control
• Reinforced Concrete Box at Kelly and Park Drives (Existing MP Pg. 53)
Please provide a written response describing how the above issues are going to be resolved.
Regarding Village's "D, G & H" SDP
Sewer & Water
1. Thank you for adding the notes and clarifying the proposed and future sewer facilities.
There is a mistake, however, in Note #3 on sheet 7 of 9. Please change the beginning of the
sentence to, "Construct sewer line C...," not, "Construct sewer line D..."
Mapping & Land Title
1. As previously requested, in General Note No. 8, please delete the second half of the sentence
that states, ".. .except that interior side yard slopes less than 5 feet high may be 1-1/2:1."
2. The applicant has previously indicated that phasing of the project will not take place, and
phasing lines are now not being shown; however, the language, "Phase Boundary" is still
being shown in the Legend on sheet 1 of 9. Again, as previously indicated, please delete
the word "phase" and any reference to it.
If you should have any questions, please contact me at (760) 438-1161 extension 4448.
Sincerely,
Christer Westman
Associate Planner
March 31, 1999
Mr. ChristerWestman
Planning Department
City of Carlsbad
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Re: Kelly Ranch - Villages D, G, & H( Apartment application/site plan);
Villages I, & J (application/site plan) - Public Hearing Schedule
Dear Christer:
As we have discussed, your cooperation will be appreciated in scheduling
the remaining Kelly Ranch matters, and most specifically the Villages D,G,
and H; and Villages I, and J site plans/applications as follows:
Planning Commission- May 19
City Council - July 13
If you need any additional information or assistance, please call. Your
early confirmation of these dates will be appreciated.
Thank You.
Sincerely,
D. Larry Clemens
cc: Marty Orenyak
Michael Holzmiller
Gary Wayne
Don Rideout
Russ Haley
John Luedtke
Scott Medansky
Tom Delaney
2011 PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD, SUITE 206, CARLSBAD, CA 92009 • TEL: [619] 931-1190 • FAX: [619] 931-7950
KELLY TCANCH
March 30, 1999
Mr. Raymond Patchett
City Manager
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Re: Kelly Ranch - Schedule
Dear Ray:
As you may be aware, the combined legislative matters being considered
for the approval of the Kelly Ranch and the corresponding Tentative Map
are scheduled to be heard by the Planning Commission on April 7, 1999.
Kelly Land Company has been working with the City Staff for
approximately 18 months to advance the Kelly Ranch residential project
and the resulting Cannon Road construction (from El Camino Real to
Faraday Ave.). Our goal has been to coincide bur project schedule with
the City's Capital Improvement projects for Cannon Road (West) and
Faraday Avenue, thereby completing an important link in the City's
circulation system.
The key to successfully completing the Kelly Ranch/Cannon Road
improvements (in a schedule that will coordinate with the City's
improvement projects) is to have the necessary governmental approvals
in place to allow grading to commence this summer (1999).
The following schedule outlines important target dates to help meet our
construction goals:
April 7- Planning Commission
May 11- City Council
Aug. 10- California Coastal Commission
August- Final Map recordation
August- Grading permit issued
2011 PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD, SUITE 206, CARLSBAD, CA 92009 • TEL: [619] 931-1190 « FAX: [619] 931-7950
As you can see, in order for the Coastal Commission hearing to be
scheduled at their August hearing, it is necessary for the City Council
hearing to be scheduled no later than May 11 (Coastal staff requires a 90
day review period). A delay in the Coastal hearing could potentially delay
the project and Cannon Road construction until the next grade season
(April 2000). Additionally, all schedules must coordinate with the breeding
season of the California Gnatcatcher and the Least Bell's Vireo.
With the project approval by the Planning Commission, your cooperation
will be appreciated in scheduling the City Council hearing for May 11 to
help assure a 1999 start of construction for Cannon Road.
I look forward to your early consideration of this important matter. I will
call you in the next several days to discuss the probability of scheduling
the Kelly Ranch project for the May 11 City Council meeting.
Sincerely,
D. Larry Clemens
cc: Marty Orenyak
Lloyd Hubbs
Michael Holzmiller
Gary Wayne
•uhrister Westman
Russ Haley
John Luedtke
Tom Delaney
PLANNING
SYSTEMS
LAND USE / COASTAL PLANNING
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE • LASOOU
POLICY AND PROCESSING
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION
May 1,1999
David N. Lawhead
CALIFORNIA DEFT. FISH & GAME
Environmental Services Division
4949 Viewridge Ave.
San Diego, CA 92123
RE: KELLY RANCH - DAYCARE USE
Dear David:
Thank you and the other DF&G representatives for meeting with us on
Tuesday, April 27 to discuss the details of the imminent dedication of the
Agua Hedionda Lagoon wetlands from Kelly Land Company to DF&G.
As you will recall, one issue that arose during the meeting was DF&G's
concern with the proposal to include the potential for a daycare facility on
Kelly Ranch Village F, which is also the nature center site. DF&G expressed
their opposition to the daycare use at this location, particularly since the
addition of this daycare use arose late in the entitlement process, and was not
anticipated during the 4(d) permitting process for the nature center.
The purpose of this letter is to make you aware that the developer of Kelly
Ranch has now identified another site for the daycare use, and that Village F
will not be utilized for this use. Our recent conversations with the Carlsbad
Planning Department have indicated their concurrence with transferring , the
day-care use from Village F to the alternate location, more internal to the
Kelly Ranch Core Area. We anticipate that formal approval of this move will
occur at the City Council hearing on May 11, 1999.
Any support DF&G could lend to this use transfer would be appreciated.
Sirarerely,
Paiil J. Klukas
Director of Planning
Christer Westman
D. L. Clemens
Tom Hageman
Chris Neils
1530 FARADAY AVENUE • SUITE 100 • CARLSBAD, CA 92008 • (760) 931-0780 • FAX (760) 931-5744 • planningsystems@nctimes.net
JRN-18-1933 PflClhlU bull-
PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC.
7715 CONVOY COURT. SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92111
TELEPHONE: (619) S60-1713, FAX: (619) 560-0380
KELLY LAND COMPANY, INC.
2011 Palomar Airport Road - Suite 206
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Attention:
Subject:
Reference:
January 15,1999
Work Order 400607
Mr. Larry Clements
Supplemental Geotechnical Evaluation and
Grading Plan Review, Kelly Ranch, Areas
D, F, G, H, I and J, in the City of Carlsbad, CA
Supplemental Geotechnical Evaluation and Grad-
ing Plan Review, Kelly Ranch, Villages D, F, G, H, I
and J, City of Carlsbad, CA, dated October 17,1997,
by Pacific Soils Engineering, Inc. (W.0.400607).
Gentlemen:
Pacific Soils Engineering, Inc. (PSE) has evaluated the slope stability calculations pre-
sented in the reference report. PSE has determined that the proposed fill slopes, cut
slopes and compound slopes as shown on the grading plans are surficially and grossly
stable, subject to the recommendations presented in the referenced report. Specifically,
slopes greater than thirty (30) feet do not require benches.
Respectfully submitted,
PACIFIC SOILS 5NGlkEERING, INC.
Reviewed by:
DAVID A. MURPHY, C 13 JOH
Engineering Geologist Vice
Dist: (2) Addressee (2) PDC, Attn: Maria Wurst
tLANSON,
ident
JAVODAM/JAHKR/OOM
CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS
TEL (714) 220-0770
FAX: (711) 220-9589
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
TEL: (310) 325-7272 or (213) 776-6771
FAX: (714) 220-B569
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
TEL: (909) 676-8195
FAX: (909) 676-1879
SOUTH ORANGE COUNTY
TEL:(714)730-Z122
FAX: (714) 730-5191
TOTfiL P.02
JftN-07-1993
PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC.
7715 Convoy Court, San D/ego, CA 9211J
Phone: (619)560-1713 FAX: (619)560-0380
FAX TRANSMISSION
fate: CT%*\
To:
Company:,Pbc
Phone #; far #:.
Total No. of pages including cover letter: O
/ yi ft ^^
Remarks: If/taAiflK ALlMt fljkJ'Jr if-
UMUA.
If you do not receive all pages, please call as soon as possible and ask for Kay, Stephanie or Molly*
Thank you
rn<~iri>_ -ju 11_
PACIFIC SOILO ENGINEERING, INC.
7715 CONVOY COURT, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92111
TELEPHONE: (619) 560-1713. FAX: (619) S60-03BO
KELLY LAND COMPANY, INC.
2011 Palomar Airport Road - Suite 206
Carlsbad, CA 92009 August 31, 1998
Work order 400607
Attention: Ms. Pam Whltcomb
Subject: Geotechnical Evaluation, 1.5 :1 Side Yard Slopes,
Kelly Ranch Villages D, G and H, City Carlsbad, CA
Reference: Supplemental Geotechnical Evaluation and Grading
Plan Review, Kelly Ranch, Villages, D, F, G, H, I and
J, City of Carisbad, CA, dated October 17,1997 by
Pacific Soils Engineering, Inc. (W. 0.400607)
Gentlemen:
Pacific Soils Engineering, Inc. (PSE) has evaluated the proposed use of 1.5:1
(horizontal to vertical) side yard slopes in Villages D, F, G, H, I and J at Kelly Ranch, In
the City of Carlsbad, California. Based on PSE's evaluation, the use of 1.5 :1 slopes
are acceptable provided the vertical lot differential does not exceed five (5) feet. In
addition, block wall and wood fencing foundation elements should be deepened to
provide either five (5) feet laterally between the slope face and the bottom edge of the
footing or extend footing to the lowest adjacent pad grade.
CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS LOS ANGELES COUNTY RIVERSIDE COUNTY SOUTH ORANGE COUNTY
TEL: (714) 220-0770 TEL: (213) 325-7272 or 775-6771 TEL; (909) 676-8195 TEL: (714) 730-2122
FAX; (714) 220-9589 FAX; (714) 220-9589 FAX: (909) 978-1879 FAX: (714) 730-5191
" JAN-07- 1 993 Id J =MHU11- 1 <-
Work Order 400607
August 31 ,1998
Page 2
Should you have additional questions, please contact the undersigned.r.
Respectfully submitted,
PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC,
HANEY,
ngineering Manager
DAVID A. MURPHY#E#1813
Engineering Geologist
Reviewed by:
JOMNA. HANSON,
VicerPresident
Dist: (1) Addressee
(1) Project Design Consultants, Attn: Mr, Jim Kilgore
JAC/DAM/JAH:0003
PACIFIC SOILS EIMBINEERINB, INC.
TOTflL P.03
A3UA HEDIONDA LASOON UETLAND3
OFFERED FOR DEDICATION TO CDF4S186 ACRES
I/ sooosr
, / OAYCAKE
n CENIE8
CONCEPT DAYCARE CENTER LOCATION
KELLY RANCH
Januarys, 1999
Mr. Marty Orenyak
Director of Community Development
City of Carlsbad
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, California 92009
Re: Kelly Ranch Master Tentative Map
Dear Marty:
Thank you for your letter dated December 21, 1998, in which you outlined your
Staffs' concerns over Kelly Land Company's requested recision of the 1984 Kelly
Ranch Master Plan, and its replacement with traditional zoning standards. We
are very familiar with a number of the concerns raised, including the need to
provide satisfactory assurances that Park Drive will be completed, (and that a
"proportionality" argument will not be raised in the future), and the need to
demonstrate common maintenance responsibility over trails and open space.
We are confident that these matters can be resolved through recorded
agreements between the City and the landowner, that will run with the land, in
perpetuity. We have commissioned our attorney to draft such an agreement.
However, we were certainly blind-sided by the new Staff interpretation that
recision of the 1984 Master Plan will necessitate full compliance with all new
policies relating to new master plans, even though a new master plan is not
proposed. Further, we are now told that this interpretation obligates us to
provide land uses never anticipated on Kelly Ranch, such as "community
facilities," a "daycare facility," and "a common recreational facility, available to all
residents of the area currently covered by the master plan."
During the past 26 months of discussion and processing of the Kelly Ranch
"Core Area" permits, we have been well aware of the City's displeasure with the
1984 Master Plan, and their expectations that the project be modernized into
compliance with new regulations, including Growth Management, the HMP,
General Plan open space, hillside regulations, affordable housing, PUD
regulations; and to provide Cannon Road and the other public facilities that were
required in the 1984 Master Plan. Considering the pattern of ever-increasing
Marty Orenyak
City of Carlsbad
January 8, 1999
Page Two
regulations since 1984, we were pleased that the EIR and the "issue" letters from
the City identified only technical issues such as widths of internal roadways, a
few lots penetrating too far into the habitat corridor, and trail alignments.
Contrary to your letter, at no time were we informed that a Kelly Ranch project
based upon zoning regulations, would be required to comply with not only
requirements of the Kelly Ranch Master Plan, but also with all new requirements
of a hypothetical new master plan. Although your letter indicates that this
interpretation was stated to us during initial discussions, we have thorough notes
of meetings, and have copies of all City correspondence, none of which reflect
any suggestion that all new requirements of a new master plan would be
required on the "Core Area," nor do they reference any Staff requirement for
common recreation, community facilities, nor daycare land uses.
In fact, our early meeting notes (Planning Director October 10, 1996, for
example) indicate Staffs opinion that "P-C (master plan) land is most frequently
established for the benefit of the applicant, not the City, because they wish
special development standards and product types." During early meetings, we
were informed that it was the City Planning Department's general consensus that
the existing Kelly Ranch Master Plan "did more harm than good," and that "the
choice of preparing a master plan is really up to the applicant." At no time were
we directed to provide the land uses described above. We would be happy to
share our extensive file of meeting notes and City correspondence on the project
with you if requested.
Nonetheless, we have not ignored our sense of community responsibility, and
have, as you know, contributed a "Core Area" (Village "F") planning area and a
community building to the Agua Hedionda Lagoon Foundation for use as a
community nature center. We note that this donation went unmentioned in your
letter. ~
Marty, it is unfair and inequitable at this final step in the entitlement process, for
City Staff to arbitrarily require compliance with (a) all requirements of the 1983
Master Plan, and additionally with (b) all new requirements of new master plans,
for a project that the Staff concludes does not even need a master plan. These
new requirements are particularly disturbing considering the demanding project
Marty Orenyak
City of Carlsbad
Januarys, 1999
Page Three
schedule that will ensure the timely construction of Cannon Road with the benefit
of state funds.
We are in the process of making modifications to the "Core Area" plans
consistent with the issues identified in the most recent "Issues" letter, and as
directed in our meeting of December 7, 1998. We request at this time that City
Staff reconsider the requirement of wholesale redesign of the project in order to
provide community facilities, community daycare and community recreation
areas, beyond those that are already provided in our application.
I look forward to meeting with you and your staff on January 14, 1999 at 10:00
a.m.
Sincerely,
D. Larry Clemens
Vice President
cc: Rich Rudolph
Michael Holzmiller
Gary Wayne
Christer Westman
Lloyd Hubbs
Bob Wojcik
Russ Haley
John Luedtke
Scott Medansky
Stephen Smith
Paul Klukas
Christopher Neils
Kelly\Marty199.klk
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
December 23, 1998
Larry Clemens
Kelly Land Company
2011 Palomar Airport Road, Suite 206
Carlsbad, CA 92009
SUBJECT: EIR 98-05/GPA 97-07/ZC 97-07/MP 174(A)/LCPA 97-09/LFMP 87-
08(B)/ CT 97-16/HDP 97-17/CDP 97-43/SDP 98-04/SDP 98-18/PUD
98-04 - KELLY RANCH
The following issues must be addressed before these applications can be scheduled
for a hearing.
Please contact your staff planner, Christer Westman, at (760) 438-1161, extension
4448, if you have any questions regarding Planning Issues and Mike Shirey at
extension 4388 if you have any questions regarding Engineering Issues or wish to
set up a meeting to discuss the application.
Sincerely,
MICHAEL J.THOL
Planning Director
MJH:CW:mh
c: Gary Wayne
Don Rideout
Mike Shirey
Bobbie Hoder
File Copy
Data Entry
Planning Aide
ILLER
John Luedtke
Security Capital Pacific Trust
217 Technology Drive, Suite 210
Irvine CA 92618
Russ Haley
Shea Homes Limited Partnership
10721 Treena Street, Suite 200
San Diego CA 92131
2075 La Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92OO9-1576 • (760) 438-1161 • FAX (760) 438-0894
ISSUES OF CONCERN
Planning:
EIR 98-05:
Please add discussion of deletion of the Master Plan. The discussion should
include: Public facilities exactions per a Master Plan vs. public facilities exactions on
an individual map basis and the effect of changing from Master Plan development
standards to zoning development standards. Discuss the results of leaving "A-C",
"E" and "L" as Planned Community Zoning (PC has no development standard but
requires the creation of a Master Plan for properties over 100 acres).
Discuss the net change in open space quality and acreage.
Discuss impacts caused by fire zone management.
Discuss impacts caused by Park Drive improvements.
MP 174(B):
Rescission of the master plan must include guarantees for Park Drive, El Camino
Real, and Cannon Road improvements; a community recreation facility; and, a
community service facility. These guarantees must run with the land to obligate
the existing and future master plan area owners for the improvements and their
maintenance as appropriate.
GPA 97-07:
Coordinate exhibits to illustrate that this GPA does include the entire master plan
area. This is because the refinement of the "A"/"B" boundary qualifies as an
amendment.
Change parts of "C" to OS.
Change "I" to RLM vs. keeping RM.
Change "F to OS.
2C 97-07:
Include "E" as a change to R-1.
Leave "I" as R-1.
Change "F" to OS.
ZC 97-09:
Since the "core" area EIR evaluates all of the proposed zone changes, it may be
beneficial to incorporate this application into 97-07.
CT97-16:
Off site monument signs are shown at the intersection of Faraday and Street "BB".
The required trail segments may be successfully provided within manufactured
slopes. Please review this option.
CDP 97-43:
Existing CDP "vested" per Ponder/current proposal is different and requires new
CDP.
Encroachment into 25%+ slopes limited to less than 10% of total 25%+ areas.
HDP 97-17:
The project is within the Mello II segment of the Coastal Program and therefore
subject to the "old" Hillside Ordinance and the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay
Zone.
SDP 98-04:
Where ever possible, use the preferred parking design as shown on the plan at the
carriage units.
Provide enhanced paving at key interior crossroads.
49,500 sq.ft. of common active recreation
49,500 sq.ft passive recreation [may include patios/balconies]
Carports should be located away from top-of-slopes.
Carports should be redesigned to have more architectural compatibility with the
buildings.
The rear elevation of building "D" should be enhanced.
The color scheme should include multiple hues to accentuate building forms and
planes.
The "cross" design element used on ground floor patio walls could be incorporated
elsewhere.
Full elevations of the recreational buildings must be provided. Include elements
found on the apartment structures in the recreation buildings like, rafter tails,
rounded columns, and tile accents.
A more efficient parking lot design could be developed for lot 162.
PUD 98-04 Ml:
Amend PUD to include "J". A PUD is required for reduced setbacks in "J".
Common passive recreation - 1,600 square feet for both "I" and "J".
Written justification for PUD vs. regular subdivision.
The open space lots should be consistently noted as lots 177 and 178.
Garages should be included in lot coverage calculations.
Provide dimensions for the distance between the front property line and the building
closest to the property line.
Split driveways with landscape (Pasadena driveways) are encouraged.
Establishing structural setbacks and identifying them on the plans is encouraged.
SDP 98-18 U1:
Include the garages in the lot coverage.
Less than 20 foot front yard and 10% of lot width side yard setbacks require
approval of a PUD.
Provide dimensions for the distance between the front property line and the building
closest to the property line.
Lot #73 should be increased to meet a minimum size of 7,500 square feet.
Side yard retaining walls must be stepped away from the property line by at least
two feet.
Reassess the practicality and aesthetic value of the arches on Plan elevations "B".
Some plan 1s should be proposed without the third garage space.
Include elevations of each of the floorplans with an enhanced rear 2nd story.
Explain the exterior wall locations on the plan 2, specifically at the front elevation.
Also include a vignette footprint for each plan 2 front elevation.
Redesign the entry for plan 3A to eliminate the flat element.
Better describe how the courtyard fence works on plan 1. Roof studies may be
helpful.
Engineering:
1. Staff previously requested that the applicant show CalTrans corner sight
distance sight lines for all intersections on the preliminary landscape plans. The
applicant has only shown the 25' Sight Triangle City Standard criteria. CalTrans
corner sight distance sight lines still must be shown. Additionally, due to the
substantial curvature of the proposed streets, any landscaping that encroaches
into a sight line area must be deleted and only ground cover must be shown.
(See September 24, 1998, SDP 98-04, Kelly Ranch Villages "D, G & H" Second
Issues Review italicized below.)
2. As previously requested, and in accordance with Item No. 2 above, please show
CalTrans corner sight distance sight lines at all of the proposed intersections on
the tentative map. (See September 24, 1998, SDP 98-04, Kelly Ranch Villages
"D, G & H" Second Issues Review italicized below.)
Thank you for showing the CalTrans Corner Sight Distance sight lines for the
intersections of "CC" & "O" Streets with "BB" Street, and "DD" & "T" Streets
with "AA" Street. A minimum sight distance of 330' was utilized, and in some
instances, this minimum was reduced to 275'. As we discussed at our
Tuesday, September 1, 1998, meeting with staff from PDC Engineering, the
developer and City planning and engineering staff, sight distance is a major
concern with the City (especially at intersection which are located on the inside
of curves). Therefore, at a minimum, 330' of clear sight distance must be
obtained at the above-referenced intersections. Please be advised, due to safety
concerns, this is the minimum requirement.
These sight lines were shown on the Landscape Concept Plan (LCP), as
requested. However, the sight lines are being shown as going through a number
of trees/vegetation, and a note has been placed on the plan which states that
the "plant materials...will comply with the Carlsbad Landscape Technical
Manual." As we discussed in the meeting, this note is unacceptable. The
Carlsbad Landscape Manual does not discuss sight distance requirements to the
extent that is required for a project.
This manual is for identifying plant species, plant layout, etc., for landscaping
purposes. We had discussed that a note referencing maximum vegetation and
minimum canopy heights would be placed on the plans. After reviewing the
plans, however, this determination has been revised. Basically, due to the street
design being proposed, no vegetation other than ground cover (i.e., grass) will
be permitted within these sight distance sight zones. The sight lines must be
clear...investigate "flattening" the horizontal curves in proposed "AA" Street.
(This also should help with meeting the sight distance requirements.)
3. Thank you for showing the gates at the proposed recreational vehicle (RV) lot.
Staff has made the determination that a full queuing/turnaround area does not
have to be provided. However, 30' (AASHTO RV minimum) must be provided
between the back of the sidewalk along "AA" Street and the proposed gate so
that RV's do not encroach into the sidewalk or "AA" Street when accessing the
lot while waiting for the gate to open.
4. As previously indicated, the street design/layout for this proposed project is
highly questionable. The applicant has stated that the proposed street's narrow
along various segments because of sensitive habitat located in these areas.
Narrowing segments of the various streets is potentially acceptable, as long as,
all of the proposed streets meet City Standards (i.e., 32' minimum width with
sidewalks on one side for single loaded streets, and 36' minimum width with
sidewalks on both sides for double loaded streets). Additionally, also as
previously indicated, Area's "I & J" are huge cul-de-sacs; and, the proposed 30'
private driveway as a means to meet the cul-de-sac standard is unacceptaWe.
The applicant has stated that this 30' driveway meets Hillside Street Standards.
This is incorrect. City Standard GS-1A indicates that the minimum widths for a
single loaded hillside street is 32', with curb, gutter and sidewalk. Therefore, at
a minimum, a publicly dedicated hillside street meeting the GS-1A Standard is
what will be required. Also, even if this private driveway is reconfigured into a
public street, there still may be a cul-de-sac standard deficiency with Area "I."
Possibly connect "CC" Street to this hillside street at Area "L" to mitigate any
deficiencies.
5. Thank you for deleting what appeared to be a "blocker strip" at the proposed
cul-de-sac at Area "L." It seems, however, that the wrong line was deleted.
The proposed cul-de-sac public right of way line was deleted and this still must
be shown. It is still somewhat confusing how the Area "L" frontage property
and phasing line is being treated. Revise as necessary to clearly delineate the
property and phasing line.
6. As previously requested, please indicate the following for the potential off-site
extension of proposed "C" Street:
• Any development potential in this area;
• the topography in this area; and,
• the full lot (or the developable portion of the lot with the rest of the
lot shown with "cut" lines).
7. As previously indicated, the following intersections do not meet City Standards.
Please verify and revise.
• "BB" Street/Faraday Avenue incorrect tangents;
• "AA" Street/"BB" Street incorrect tangents;
• "HH" Street/"CC" Street incorrect tangents;
• "C" Street/"E" Street incorrect tangents;
• "D" Street/"C" Street incorrect tangents; and,
• "HH" Street west of "C" Street needs tangents between the
reversing curves.
In accordance with City Standard 3A, tangent lengths are measured from the
prolongation of the curb lines, not from the centerline of the intersections.
8. Show that CalTrans vertical sight distance can be met for "AA, BB, CC, and
HH" Streets, on TM profile sheet's 6 & 7 of 7. Additionally, revise the vertical
curve information for "AA" Street so that it is legible.
Sewer & Water
1. Please be advised, staff received a copy of a letter to Mr. Jim Kilgore of Project
Design Consultants, dated August 27, 1998, from CMWD, Associate Engineer,
Randy Klaahsen, regarding the capacity for the temporary sewer facilities for
Kelly Ranch. Based on this information, only 16 more dwelling units will be able
to be served by these temporary sewer facilities after Kelly Ranch Village "E"
and the Area "D & G" apartments are served. Therefore, depending on the
timing of the proposed remaining developments within Kelly Ranch, potential
lack of sewer availability may become a major issue.
2. The following italicized issue is from the September 24, 1998, SDP 98-04, Kelly
Ranch Villages "D, G & H" Second Issues Review and is regarding the proposed
sewer lines below the slopes along the RV Lot. This is being provided for
coordination purposes:
We discussed that the sewer line is located under the slope, at our September
1, 1998, meeting, so that it can gravity drain to the temporary pump station.
There are still two outstanding issues regarding this design, however. First,
CMWD must approve the physical design. The letter that was submitted by
CMWD, Associate Engineer, Handy Klaahsen only approves the capacity of the
interim sewer facilities for this proposed project. It does not approve the design.
Therefore, this design still must be approved by CMWD.
Second the pump station has been labeled as temporary, but the sewer lines
have not been addressed. And, the proposed sewer in "AA" Street does not
connect with anything in Cannon Road. As previously requested, please
address/label exactly what is happening with the sewer facilities for this
proposed project, both interim and ultimate.
Water & Drainage
1. Please investigate carrying the proposed bench, along lot's 120, 121 & 153,
back to the terminus of "FF" Street to facilitate emergency fail-safe overflow
measures, for the sump condition at the terminus of this cul-de-sac.
2. Thank you for submitting a Preliminary Drainage Report for the core area MTM.
The applicant's response to issues indicates that the proposed detention basin
located east of lot's 14 & 15 in Area "J" has been deleted. The Preliminary
Drainage Report indicates that this detention basin will be installed.
Additionally, when the basin was proposed within the report, the only facility
discharging into it was a proposed 18" storm drain. Now a brow ditch is also
proposed to out-fall in this area. Therefore, additional concentrated surface run-
off is being proposed to be discharged into this natural drainage coarse, and the
basin to reduce the velocities has been deleted. What effect does deleting the
basin and increasing the surface discharge have on this drainage coarse? No
velocity attenuation devices or access is being proposed at this discharge point.
Please review and revise as necessary.
3. Thank you for addressing access concerns regarding the basins at Area "F" and
north of the RV Lot. Access to the existing basin within Area F is acceptable, in
accordance with the Agua Hedionda Nature Center Site Plan (SDP 98-15).
However, a discrepancy exits regarding access to the proposed basin north of
the RV Lot. The applicant has stated that access to this basin is from Cannon
Road. Access is being shown, however, from the terminus of the RV Lot cul-
de-sac. Access from the end of the cul-de-sac is acceptable; access from
Cannon Road is not. Also, please widen the proposed access to a minimum of
14'; label it as A/C access, and provide a turn-around at the end of the access
drive sufficient to accommodate work trucks.
Land Title & Mapping
1. As previously indicated, all proposed lots must have frontage on a dedicated
public street. This is still not being shown at Area "K" (Lot 176). This
requirement will be satisfied for Area "K" when the private drive is revised to
indicate a full width publicly dedicated street, in accordance with Traffic and
Transportation Item No. 4 above.
2. The applicant has indicated that phasing of the project will not take place.
However, phasing lines are still being shown on the MTM. Please remove the
"phasing lines" or rename the phasing lines within the Legend as "area
designation lines" (or something other than "Phase Boundary").
3. In General Note No. 6, please delete the second half of the sentence, that
states, "...except that interior side yard slopes less than 5 feet high may be 1-
1/2:1."
Miscellaneous
1. Thank you for providing an updated Preliminary Title Report (PR) for the Kelly
Ranch MTM property. As previously requested, the PR should address property
ownership interest for proposed Area "L," and include a boundary map for the
entire project.
2. The owner/Subdivider must sign the latest version of the MTM.
3. Section V, Public Facilities and Phasing, of the existing Kelly Ranch Master Plan
(MP 174) indicates that a number of public improvements are required as Kelly
Ranch develops. These improvements must be constructed, or adequately
secured, in accordance with the MP (Existing MP Pg. 44). How is this going to
be accomplished? The following are some of the infrastructure improvements
that are required:
Circulation
• "Bikeway" on Park Drive (Existing MP Pg. 39)
• Completion of Cannon Road to serve Area's "D-J" (Existing MP Pg. 45 &
57)
• Park Drive from Area "A" to Kelly Drive (Existing MP Pg.'s 46 & 56)
• Street's "D & E" (comparative "Core Area" on-site street system)
(Existing MP Pg. 46)
• Portions of Faraday Avenue to serve the "Core Area" (Required to meet
the Cul-de-sac Standard for the "Core Area")
• Traffic Signal(s) (Existing MP Pg. 58)
• Please be advised, that this entire project functions as one large cul-de-
sac without Cannon Road being constructed to it's full width, or having a
secondary access constructed (e.g., Cannon Road to Lego Drive or
Faraday Avenue to match existing Faraday Avenue). Please be advised, it
will be incumbent upon this project to complete these roadway
connections, if they are not already completed by others within or out of
Kelly Ranch. (Comment from September 24, 1998, SDP 98-04, Kelly
Ranch Villages "D, G & H" Second Issues Review provided for
informational purposes)
Water and Sewer
• Water Facilities/Reservoir and CMWD Agreement (Existing MP Pg. 49 &
58)
• Agua Hedionda Interceptor Sewer in Cannon Road (Existing MP Pg. 50)
Flood Control
• Reinforced Concrete Box at Kelly and Park Drives (Existing MP Pg. 53)
4. Please be advised, Associate Engineer, Steve Jantz, is reviewing the Zone 8
Local Facilities Management Plan (LFMP) amendment. Comments will be
forwarded to you under separate cover.
5. The following is a list of the Standards modifications (variances) that are being
proposed with the current design:
• CalTrans sight distance reduction from 330' minimum to 275'.
• Proposed 30' private driveway must meet public Hillside Street Standard
of 32' minimum width with curb, gutter and sidewalk.
• Incorrect tangents on a number of streets (see Traffic and Transportation
Item No. 6 above).
• Basin east of lot's 14 & 15 deleted and no velocity attenuation or access
to storm drain out-fall being proposed.
• Lot 176 (Area "K") does not front a public street.
• Some interior slopes proposed at 1-1/2:1 gradient, instead of 2:1
Standard.
Please be advised, staff cannot support these proposed Standard's
modifications.
Since many of the issues were not resolved, I am returning the first issues
review red-lined check print. The green check marks mean that the issue was
resolved. The red X's mean that it wasn't. Additionally, I've attached the
Landscape Concept Plan and MTM second check, sheet's 6 and 7 of 7. These
check prints must be returned with the project revisions to facilitate continued
staff review.
(.>if ^^
City of Carlsbad
Community Development
December 21, 1998
Mr. Larry Clemens
Kelly Land Company
201 1 Palomar Airport Road, Suite 206
Carlsbad, C A 92009
Re: Kelly Ranch Master Tentative Map
Dear Larry:
This letter is in response to your December 17, 1998 letter to Christer Westman. In that letter
you state that it is your understanding that the City is concerned that the master tentative map can
provide sufficient assurances that applicable conditions of the original master plan will continue
to be observed if the master plan were to be rescinded. Our concern, which we stated during our
initial discussions with you, is somewhat different. It is and has been our position that the Kelly
Master Plan is out of date and would need to be completely revised to reflect Growth
Management requirements, Coastal Commission approvals, current restrictions regarding
sensitive habitat, modernization of the development proposal and the current code and General
Plan requirements governing master plans. Our concern is not whether the applicable conditions
of the original master plan will continue to be observed, our concern is- if the master plan is
rescinded, how will the project guarantee all of the requirements of a revised master plan.
consistent with today's codes and General Plan.
When the decision makers are considering whether to rescind the existing master plan or to
require its comprehensive revision, we expect the City Manager, City Attorney, Planning
Commission and the City Council to have legitimate questions and concerns regarding the
following master plan requirements:
1. How will you provide an agreement that runs with the land that obligates all owners and
successors in interest to coordinate, construct and maintain the responsibilities normally
associated with master plans (e.g., public and private improvements, trails, affordable
housing, open space and conservation easements, etc.)?
2. How will solid guarantees (that meet the Nolan/Dolan test) for improvements to Park Drive
and El Camino Real along the frontage of the current master plan be provided?
3. How will a common recreational facility, available to all residents of the area currently
covered by the master plan be provided?
4. How will community facilities be provided, including a site for a daycare facility?
As examples of our concern, your letter mentions Park Drive improvements and the uncertainty
of providing these to the City's satisfaction. There is no mention of providing the necessary
2075 La Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 • (760) 438-1161 • FAX (760) 438-0894
guarantees that we discussed over a year ago as a prerequisite for staff support in rescinding the
master plan. Moreover, the matrix that you submitted does not does not address the issues
identified in numbers 1,3 and 4 above.
Once the issues identified in this letter, as well as the project related issues identified in previous
communications, have been resolved, we will be prepared to schedule the project for Planning
Commission and City Council hearings. While the project issues are specific and technical and
perhaps could be resolved separately, their resolution is secondary to the issue of providing a
functional equivalent of a revised master plan which provides the comprehensive planning and
development of a large tract of land under a single ownership or unity of control.
If you have questions or would like to discuss the matter further, please contact me.
Sincerely,
)renyak
Community Development Director
Planning Director
Assistant Planning Director
Public Works Director
Principal Engineer, Wojcik
12-11-1998 11:44AM FROM PLANNING SYSTEMS 760 9315744.P. 2
PLANNING
SYSTEMS
LAND USE / COASTAL PLANNING
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
POLICY AND PROCESSING
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION
MEMORANDUM
DATE: December 11,1998
TO: Christer Westman
FROM: Paul Klukas
SUBJECT: Kelly Ranch Village "A"
Park Drive widening matter
This memo is intended as a follow-up to my concerns regarding filling of the
Agua Hedionda wetlands for the widening of Park Drive. My concerns are as
follows:
1. I am informed that full-width widening of Park Drive along the lagoon
frontage will require filling of Army Corps' Jurisdictional Wetlands. This
filling will trigger an Army Corps Section 404 Permit. This permit may be a
"Nationwide" permit rather than an "Individual" permit, depending upon
whether the impact is less than 3 acres total (it probably is).
But regardless of the permit process, EPA regulations require the Corps to
evaluate 404 decisions according to certain .guidelines set forth in Section
404(b)(l) of the Clean Water Act. Two components of the 404 (b)(l) guidelines
will cause difficulties for this project, the required "least damaging
alternative" and "water dependency" findings.
The first of these findings require that the Corps issue a Section 404 permit
only for that approach to accomplishing the basic project objective which can
be demonstrated as being least damaging to acquatic habitats (e.g. wetlands).
The second requires the Corps to presume that if the proposed project is not
water dependent (which this isn't), a less damaging alternative exists (e.g. stay
within the uplands).
In addition to the above Section 404 guidelines, the November 15,1989
Memorandum of Understanding (MOA) between EPA and the Corps1
1 "Memorandum of Agreement Between the Environmental Protection Agency and the
Department of the Army concerning the Determination of Mitigation Under the Clean Water
Act Section 404(b)(l) Guidelines", dated November 15,1989.
1530 RA51ADAY AVENUE • SUITE 100 • CARLSBAD, CA 92008 • (760) 931-0780 • FAX (760) 931-5744 • planningsystems@nctimes.net
12-11-1998 11:45AM FROM PLANNING SYSTEMS 760 9315744 P. 3
requires the Corps to "first make a determination that potential impacts have
been avoided to the maximum extent practicable". In addition, the MOA
specifies that the Corps cannot consider mitigation as a part of the project
when determining the least environmentally damaging alternative.
In light of the fact that the above findings will be difficult to make for the road
widening, and that neither the developer nor the Gty will be able to
conclusively demonstrate that widening into the wetlands is necessary for
public health, safety and welfare (since the projected buildout ADT apparently
do not result in the need for significant widening), it is my opinion that
issuance of an Army Corps permit for wetlands filling for Park Drive will
probably not be achievable.
2. The previous, approved coastal development-permit for the Kelly
Ranch project (CDP 6-84-617) dictated (Special Condition no. 4(E)) that ,
"No grading in Area B as shown on Exhibit #2 for the
construction of Park Drive shall be permitted and the final
design of Park Drive shall be completed in a manner which
will not require grading In Area B."
Area B is identified further in the permit as the Agua Hedionda Wetlands.
As a result of this previous requirement by the Coastal Commission, I am
concerned that widening of Park Drive into the wetlands will not be able to
receive the necessary coastal permit.
As a result of these concerns, I would strongly urge the City to consider a
widening design of Park Drive which does not include filling of wetlands.
Please contact me if you wish to discuss these matters further.
cc: D. L. Clemens
.' Russ Haley
Decembers, 1998
KELLY RANCH
Mr. Lloyd Hubbs
Director of Public Works
City of Carlsbad
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, California 92009
Re: CT 97-16; Kelly Ranch "Core Area"
Engineering Standards Variance Request
Dear Lloyd:
Please consider this letter a request for a variance to City design standards to
accommodate a narrow graded width for the proposed secondary connector
street between "BB Street" and "D Street" on the Kelly "Core Area" tentative
subdivision map.
We have proposed this street as a private street, with a curb-to-curb width of 30-
feet, with no sidewalk. We believe this two-lane design, with 15-feet for each
travel lane to be adequate for the relatively insignificant amount of traffic
anticipated to use the roadway. We are informed by City Staff however, that
despite City allowance of similar secondary roadway design on other projects,
Engineering Department policy disallows private streets under the Kelly Ranch
circumstance. We have been directed to redesign the street to the minimum
public street standard, which we are told is a 40-foot width.
The subject roadway crosses a habitat corridor, identified as a high priority
preserve in the City Habitat Management Plan (HMP), in the Supplemental EIR
for the "Core Area" project, dated 8/25/98, and in correspondence from the U.S.
Fish & Wildlife Service/Department of Fish & Game, dated 11/6/98. The point of
the subject roadway crossing of this corridor is situated precisely at the corridor's
most constricted point. It is our desire to minimize the urban disturbance of this
point, as directed in the referenced documents.
The City is not the only permitting agency for the "Core Area" project. Since the
City's HMP is not yet approved, development of the project will not be allowed
without USF&WS/DF&G approval of a Section 10(A) (Habitat Conservation Plan)
permit. We are in negotiations with these agencies for approval of this permit at
this time. They have identified this constricted section of the habitat corridor as a
problem area. Expansion of the roadway width in this area is not in line with their
goals, and may be damaging not only to the "Core Area" project, but also to the
City in their ongoing HMP negotiations with the same Agencies.
Mr. Lloyd Hubbs
City of Carlsbad
December. 8, 1998
Page Two
In the City's efforts to achieve Resource Agency approvals of public
infrastructure, you have surely run into situations where what you believe to be
optimal engineering design, had to be compromised to some degree for
environmental considerations. We are now running into this same problem on
this project. In an effort to resolve this problem, it is our desire to achieve some
minor dispensation from the City regarding this secondary roadway width, so that
the integrity of the habitat corridor can be preserved to the greatest degree
feasible.
To this end, Kelly Land Company requests a standards variance for the subject
secondary roadway connection, to either;
• Allow the subject connection to be designed as a private roadway,
30 feet in width, with permanent public access easement, or
• Allow a reduction in the cross section width for a public street
roadway, to approximately 30 feet in width.
It is our conclusion that this roadway is a model case of the need to balance
conflicting priorities, and that allowance of a variance in this case is warranted.
Please contact me if you have any questions regarding our proposal.
Sincerely,
D. Larry Clemens
Vice President
cc: Don Rideout
Christer Westman
Bob Wojcik
Mike Shirey
Dale Greenhalgh
Paul Klukas
KE1XY RANCH
November 10, 1998
Mr. Christer Westman
City of Carlsbad
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, California 92009
Re: Meeting Request
CT 97-16/CDP 97-43
Kelly Ranch "Core Area"
Dear Christer:
As you know, we have now received the Draft EIR and the public comments on
the EIR. We believe that adequate information is now available for final
decisions to be made regarding the design of the"Core Area" tentative map.
To this end, we propose that a meeting between Kelly Land Company and City
Planning and Engineering Staff be held to discuss the remaining design issues
on the map. Among the issues in need of discussion are:
• Adequacy of community trail design
• Adequacy of access to Area "L"
• RV storage lot design
• Street cross-sections for streets crossing the habitat corridor
In our effort to resolve the issues on the project by December 16 as identified on
the Processing Schedule (attached), it will be necessary that this meeting
address the outstanding issues, and draw conclusions. You may be aware that
compliance with this schedule is necessary in order that the final map be
recorded in June 1999, and the Cannon Road construction contract be awarded
in order to qualify for State funding (SLTPP).
201 1 PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD, SUITE 206, CARLSBAD, CA 92009 • TEL: [619] 931-1 190 ° FAX: [619] 931-7950
Mr. Christen Westman
City of Carlsbad
November 10, 1998
Page Two
Please invite those staff members whom you feel would assist in the specific
discussions. Perhaps you, Don Rideout, Mike Shirey and Bob Wojcik would
attend. I will be supported by Dale Greenhalgh, Marina Wurst and Paul Klukas.
In order to ensure attendance by all, we propose that the meeting take place on
Tuesday, November 17 or Wednesday, November 18.
Please contact me as to the meeting time, and I will coordinate with my
representatives.
Sincerely,
Unv
D. Larry Clemens
Vice President
cc; Dale Greenhalgh
Marina Wurst
Paul Klukas
Attachment
Novembers, 1998
KELLY RANCH
NOV1998
Received |
Community
Mr. Lloyd Hubbs
Director of Public Works
City of Carlsbad
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, California 92009
Re: Kelly Ranch
Dear Lloyd:
As you are probably aware, the Cannon Road Reimbursement Agreement has
finally reached near conclusion so that staff may schedule it to be considered by
the City Council. There remains only one issue: how to assure that an award of
contract for Cannon Road - Reach 2 B will be in place by June, 1999 in order to
qualify for 100% of the state's SLTPP funds allocated for this project.
Kelly Land Company (KLC) has the same economic interest as the City in
assuring the SLTPP funds. KLC also recognizes, as the City does, that the early
completion of Cannon Road from El Camino Real to Interstate 5, will greatly
relieve the failing level of service on Palomar Airport Road (which will only be
heightened by the traffic generated by Carrlllo Ranch; Lego; and eventually
Bressi Ranch).
KLC has been processing a master tentative map for the "core" section of Kelly
Ranch for the past year and are now, with the EIR process nearly complete,
ready to embark on the finalization of the tentative map and final engineering.
With the City's recognition of an expedited processing schedule, it is clear that
an award of contract could be made by June, 1999 and a start of construction for
the last segment of Cannon Road shortly thereafter. I have enclosed for your
review, a proposed expedited processing schedule. As you can see from the
schedule, the time table allows reasonable processing turn-around times, but
does require the Planning Department's time early in the process to deal with
issue resolution. If there ever was a time when a private/public sector
cooperative effort would clearly benefit both sides .... this is it.
KLC is very willing to discuss with the City, safeguards for the City regarding
schedule deadlines and responsibility for missing the award date which affects
the SLTPP funds.
Mr. Lloyd Hubbs
City of Carlsbad
Novembers, 1998
Page Two
Lloyd, at your very earliest convenience, I would like to discuss this proposal so
we can scheduled the Reimbursement Agreement at City Council and
immediately begin the master tentative map expedited processing.
I look forward to your early response.
Sincerely,
D. Larry Clemens
Vice President
Enclosure
cc: Raymond Patchett
Marty Orenyak
KELLY RANCH UPLANDS
ANALYSIS OF PLANNING/REGULATING WITHOUT A MASTER PLAN
TYPICAL MASTER PLAN PROVISION ALTERNATIVE DOCUMENT
Location of various land uses • GPA
• Zone Change
• LFMP Amend. (Constraints)
• EIR Process
Allowable residential densities General Plan
Zoning Ordinance
Growth Management Program
Preservation habitat/wildlife corridors • EIR mitigation
• HMP consistency
• LFMP Constraints
• Master Tentative Map (MTM)
design and conditions
Specific development standards Zoning Ordinance (ref. zone
of specific planning area)
Q-Overlay Zone
On-site circulation, access points MTM (Staff review/discretion)
On-site design/elevations • EIR provisions
• Planned Development
Permits
• Site Development Plans
Location of public facilities LFMP Amendment/Update
MTM
LCP compliance Coastal Permit
Dedications/exactions • LFMP conditions
• MTM conditions
• EIR conditions
• HMP participation
Landscape and streetscape standards
Sign program/Entry statements
Community Wall/Fence program
(if desired)
Public trails
Community architectural criteria
(if desired)
Development phasing
Grading guidelines
Fire Suppression Standards
Noise Attenuation
Economic Impact Report (if desired)
• City Landscape Manual
• City Engineering Standards
Manual
• EIR provisions
• MTM conditions
• MTM conditions (if
consistency desired)
• Zoning Ordinance
• MTM conditions
• EIR mitigation
• MTM conditions (deed
restriction if necessary)
• LCP requirements
• EIR conditions /pro visions
• Coastal Permit
• EIR mitigation
• MTM conditions (deed
restriction if necessary)
• Coastal Permit
• LFMP Amendment/Update
• MTM conditions
• Grading Ordinance
• Hillside Permit
• MTM conditions
• EIR provisions
• City Landscape Manual
• EIR conditions
• EIR mitigation
• MTM conditions
• Staff discretion
PLANNING DEPARTMENT ISSUE KELLY LAND RESPONSE
Planning:
EIR 98-05:
Please add discussion of deletion of the Master
Plan. The discussion should include: Public
facilities exactions per a Master Plan vs. public
facilities exactions on an individual map basis
and the effect of changing from Master Plan
development standards to zoning development
standards. Discuss the results of leaving "A-C",
"E" and "L" as Planned Community Zoning (PC
has no development standard but requires the
creation of a Master Plan for properties over
100 acres).
Discuss the net change in open space quality
and acreage.
Discuss impacts caused by fire zone
management.
Discuss impacts caused by Park Drive
improvements.
Discussion has been added to the Final EIR,
including addition of a Master Plan vs. No
Master Plan matrix prepared by Christer. The
EIR consultant has indicated that he believes
that these are not environmental issues at all,
and are planning policy issues. They will be
included in EIR, and conclusion that no
environmental impacts result.
Determined by EIR consultant to be not
significant.
Addressed conservatively as "take" of open
space, with mitigation provided.
There had been no plan to discuss this matter in
the "Core Area" EIR. Impact data is still being
prepared. We believe this issue should be
discussed in Village "A" EIR.
MIP174B
Recission of the master plan must include
guarantees for Park Drive, El Camino Real, and
Cannon Road improvements; a community
recreation facility; and, a community service
facility. These guarantees must run with the
land to obligate the existing and future master
plan area owners for the improvements and
their maintenance as appropriate.
Guarantees can be made through execution of a
separate agreement to provide such facilities, to
run with the land.
In addition, an LFMP Amendment to Zone 8 is
proposed. The City has always felt comfortable
with enforcing LFMP conditions, even when no
comparable relationship between project and
facility improvement exists. Developer will
accept reasonable conditions on LFMP
Amendment, which are apparently enforceable.
TAB/12248-RESP.DOC
PLANNING DEPARTMENT ISSUE KELLY LAND RESPONSE
GPA 97-07:
Coordinate exhibits to illustrate that this GPA
does include the entire master plan area. This is
because the refinement of the "A"/"B"
boundary qualifies as an amendment.
Change parts of "C" to OS.
Change "I" to RLM vs. keeping RM.
Change "F" to OS.
OK. New GPA exhibit to be provided to
Christeron 12/18.
Plan to change all of "C" to OS.
OK.
OK.
ZC 97-07:
Include "E" as a change to R-l.
Leave T as R-l.
Change "F" to OS.
OK.
OK.
OK. Revised ZC exhibit to be provided to
Christeron 12/18.
ZC 97-09:
Since the "core" area EIR evaluates all of the
proposed zone changes, it may be beneficial to
incorporate this application into 97-07.
OK. We will provide letter to this effect on
12/18.
CT 97-16:
Off site monument signs are shown at the
intersection of Faraday and Street "BB".
The required trail segments may be
successfully provided within manufactured
slopes. Please review this option.
We would hope that these monument signs
could be accommodated through either (a) land
trade (so signs onsite), or (b) variance (unusual
circumstance, denied property right, findings
could be made).
Trail Segment #23 (Cannon Road trail) is
accommodated in easement adjacent to Cannon
Road.
If provided within manufactured slope, Trail
Segment #24 will result in pushing out
manufactured slope toe some 10-feet
(additional biology "take"), or require retaining
wall along entire trail segment (visual impact?),
'I—^-and result in "Sammis problem" of trail
immediately behind homes. These appear to be
more negative aspects, than positive trail
alignment.
CDP 97-43:
Existing CDP "vested" per Ponder/current
proposal is different and requires new CDP.
Encroachment into 25% + slopes limited to
New CDP has been applied for (CDP 97-43).
City to review and approve as permitting
authority for Mello II.
LCP Dual criteria encroachment for "Core
TAB/12248-RESP.DOC
PLANNING DEPARTMENT ISSUE KELLY LAND RESPONSE
less than 10% of total 25% + areas.Area" project is 6.0 acres, which is 2.0 acres
less than approved CDP 6-84-617 (original
Kelly Ranch coastal permit), so it must be
within guidelines of LCP. This is conclusion of
EIR on pg. 2.2.6.
HDP 97-17:
The project is within the Mello II segment of
the Coastal Program and therefore subject to
the "old" Hillside Ordinance and the Coastal
Resource Protection Overlay Zone.
Justification for exemptions to slope height
requirements of Hillside Ordinance (protection
of open space, small finger canyon fills) will be
provided to Christer on 12/18. Project appears
to be in full compliance with Coastal Resource
Protection Overlay Zone.
SDP 98-04:
Wherever possible, use the preferred parking
design as shown on the plan at the carriage
units.
Provide enhanced paving at key interior
crossroads.
49,500 sq.ft. of common active recreation
49,500 sq.ft passive recreation [may include
patios^alconies].
Carports should be located away from
top-of-slopes.
Carports should be redesigned to have more
architectural compatibility with the buildings.
The rear elevation of building "D" should be
enhanced.
The color scheme should include multiple hues
to accentuate building forms and planes.
The "cross" design element used on ground
floor patio walls could be incorporated
elsewhere.
Full elevations of the recreational buildings
must be provided. Include elements found on
the apartment structures in the recreation
buildings like, rafter tails, rounded columns,
and tile accents.
A more efficient parking lot design could be
developed for lot 162.
TAB/12248-RESP.DOC
PLANNING DEPARTMENT ISSUE KELLY LAND RESPONSE
PUD 98-04 [I]
1. Amend PUD to include "7". A PUD is
required for reduced setbacks in "J".
2. Common passive recreation -1,600 square
feet for both "I" and "J".
3. Written justification for PUD vs. regular
subdivision.
4. The open space lots should be consistently
noted as lots 177 and 178.
5. Garages should be included in lot coverage
calculations.
6. Provide dimensions for the distance
between the front property line and the
building closest to the property line.
7. Split driveways with landscape (Pasadena
driveways) are encouraged.
8. Establishing structural setbacks and
identifying them on the plans is encouraged.
1. Planning Systems (PS) to amend the PUD
to include Village "J".
2. Have provides 100 SF per lots in both I
and J.
3. PS to submit written justification.
4. Project Design Consultants (PDC).
5. Done.
6. Done.
7. As we discussed, we do not have the same
condition at Village "E" where we have
double driveways. Only the Plan 3 at
Village "I" has a front facing 3-car garage. I
think the "Pasadena" driveways may be
more problematic than beneficial.
8. PS to coordinate this. Christer is looking
for some setback guidelines for rear decks,
etc. Please forward me a copy for my
review.
SDP 98-18 [J1
9. Include the garages in the lot coverage.
10. Less than 20 foot front yard and 10% of lot
width side yard setbacks require approval of
a PUD.
11. Provide dimensions for the distance
between the front property line and the
building closest to the property line.
12. Lot #73 should be increased to meet a
minimum size of 7,500 square feet.
13. Side yard retaining walls must be stepped
away from the property line by at least two
feet.
14. Reassess the practicality and aesthetic value
of the arches on Plan elevations "B".
15. Some plans should be proposed without the
third garage space.
16. Include elevations of each of the floorplans
with an enhanced rear 2nd story.
17. Explain the exterior wall locations on the
plan 2, specifically at the front elevation.
18. Also include a vignette footprint for each
plan 2 front elevation.
19. Redesign the entry for plan 3 A to eliminate
9. Done.
10. OK.
11. Done.
12. Done.
13. Done.
14. Arches have been modified per Christer's
request.
15. Plan 1's have an option where the 3rd car
side-loaded garage can be converted into
livable space. The plan will probably be
modeled this way, but we do not want to
automatically restrict any units. In general,
this market demands 3-car garages (or at
least the option). Again, since the 3rd car
space is side-loaded, only a 2-car garage
door fronts the street.
16. We didn't make many changes to further
enhance the rear elevation. They already
have significant movement. We did,
however, add optional rear decks, which
adds variety.
17. Done.
18. Done.
19. Done.
TAB/12248-RESP.DOC
PLANNING DEPARTMENT ISSUE KELLY LAND RESPONSE
the flat element.
20. Better describe how the courtyard fence
works on plan 1 . Roof studies may be
helpful.
20. Done. Roof studies are provided.
Engineering;
1. Staff previously requested that the applicant
show CalTrans corner sight distance sight
lines for all intersections on the preliminary
landscape plans. The applicant has only
shown the 25' Sight Triangle City Standard
criteria. CalTrans corner sight distance sight
lines still must be shown. Additionally, due
to the substantial curvature of the proposed
streets, any landscaping that encroaches
into a sight line area must be deleted and
only ground cover must be shown. (See
September 24, 1998, SDP 98-04, Kelly
Ranch Villages "D, G & H" Second Issues
Review italicized below.)
Caltrans corner sight distance of 330 feet
have been shown on the Tentative Map.
The sight line and landscaping
requirements have been given to the
landscape architect (ONA).
2. As previously requested, and in accordance
with Item No. 2 above, please show
CalTrans corner sight distance sight lines at
all of the proposed intersections on the
tentative map. (See September 24, 1998,
SDP 98-04, Kelly Ranch Villages "D, G &
H" Second Issues Review italicized below.)
Caltrans corner sight lines of 330 feet have
been shown at all intersections on
Tentative Map. This information has been
forwarded to ONA.
Thank you for showing the CalTrans
Comer Sight Distance sight lines for the
intersections of "CC" & "O1 Streets with
"BE" Street, and "DD" & "T" Streets with
"AAff Street. A minimum sight distance of
330' was utilized, and in some instances,
this minimum was reduced to 275'. As we
discussed at our Tuesday, September 1,
1998, meeting with staff from PDC
Engineering, the developer and City
planning and engineering staff, sight
distance is a major concern with the City
(especially at intersections which are
located on the inside of curves). Therefore,
at a minimum, 330' of clear sight distance
must be obtained at the above-referenced
intersections. Please be advised, due to
TAB/12248-RESP.DOC
PLANNING DEPARTMENT ISSUE KELLY LAND RESPONSE
safety concerns, this is the minimum
requirement.
These sight lines were shown on the
Landscape Concept Plan [LCP1, as
requested However, the sight lines are
being shown as going through a number of
trees/vegetation, and a note has been
placed on the plan which states that the
"plant materials ... will comply with the
Carlsbad Landscape Technical Manual."
As we discussed in the meeting, this note is
unacceptable. The Carlsbad Landscape
Manual does not discuss sight distance
requirements to the extent that is required
for a project.
This manual is for identifying plant
species, plant layout, etc., for landscaping
purposes. We had discussed that a note
referencing maximum vegetation and
minimum canopy heights would be placed
on the plans. After reviewing the plans,
however, this determination has been
revised. Basically, due to the street design
being proposed, no vegetation other than
ground cover(i. e., grass) will be permitted
within these sight distance sight zones. The
sight lines must be clear.. investigate
"flattening" the horizontal curves in
proposed "AA" Street. (This also should
help with meeting the sight distance
requirements.)
3. Thank you for showing the gates at the
proposed recreational vehicle (RV) lot. Staff
has made the determination that a foil
queuing/turnaround area does not have to be
provided. However, 30' (AASHTO RV
minimum) must be provided between the
back of the sidewalk along "AA" Street and
the proposed gate so that RV's do not
encroach into the sidewalk or "AA" Street
when accessing the lot while waiting for the
gate to open.
3. Gate was moved back to provide 30 feet
between back of sidewalk and gate.
4. As previously indicated, the street
design/layout for this proposed project is
4. The private driveway has been modified to
reflect the attached modified Hillside Street
TAB/I2248-RESP.DOC
PLANNING DEPARTMENT ISSUE KELLY LAND RESPONSE
highly questionable. The applicant has
stated that the proposed street's narrow
along various segments because of sensitive
habitat located in these areas. Narrowing
segments of the various streets is potentially
acceptable, as long as, all of the proposed
streets meet City Standards (i.e., 32'
minimum width with sidewalks on one side
for single loaded streets, and 36' minimum
width with sidewalks on both sides for
double loaded streets). Additionally, also as
previously indicated, Area's "I & J" are huge
cul-de-sacs; and, the proposed 30' private
driveway as a means to meet the cul-de-sac
standard is unacceptable. The applicant has
stated that this 30" driveway meets Hillside
Street Standards. This is incorrect. City
Standard GS-1A indicates that the minimum
widths for a single loaded hillside street is
32', with curb, gutter and sidewalk.
Therefore, at a minimum, a publicly
dedicated hillside street meeting the GS-1A
Standard is what will be required. Also,
even if this private driveway is reconfigured
into a public street, there still may be a
cul-de-sac standard deficiency with Area
"I". Possibly connect "CC" Street to this
hillside street at Area "L" to mitigate any
deficiencies.
Standard faxed to us from Mike Shirey of
the City of Carlsbad. "AA" Street now
starts at Cannon Road and continues to
"C" Street in Village "J". In addition, "CC"
Street connects to "AA" Street with a
T-intersection..
5. Thank you for deleting what appeared to be
a "blocker strip" at the proposed cul-de-sac
at Area "L" It seems, however, that the
wrong line was deleted. The proposed
cul-de-sac public right of way line was
deleted and this still must be shown. It is
still somewhat confusing how the Area "L"
frontage property and phasing line Is being
treated. Revise as necessary to clearly
delineate the property and phasing line.
5. Blocker strip was eliminated since "AA"
Street is now a public street and fronts
Area "L".
6. As previously requested, please indicate the
following for the potential off-site
extension of proposed "C" Street:
• Any development potential in this area;
• the topography in this area; and,
6. Added existing topography and property
line to the TM. We are not the developers
or the developers representative for this
property and therefore cannot speculate on
future development.
TAB/I2248-RESP.DOC
PLANNING DEPARTMENT ISSUE KELLY LAND RESPONSE
the full lot (or the developable portion
of the lot with the rest of the lot shown
with "cut- lines).
7. As previously indicated, the following
intersections do not meet City Standards.
Please verify and revise.
• "BB" Street/Faraday Avenue incorrect
tangents;
• "AA"- Street/"BB" Street incorrect
tangents;
• "HH" Street/"CC" Street incorrect
tangents;
• "C" Street/ "E" Street incorrect
tangents;
• "D" Street/"C" Street incorrect
tangents; and,
• "HH" Street west of "C" Street needs
tangents between the reversing curves.
In accordance with City Standard 3 A,
tangent lengths are measured from the
prolongation of the curb lines, not from the
centerline of the intersections.
7. All of these intersections have been
modified to reflect 50-foot tangent lengths.
There are 50-foot tangents between the
curves. 'HH' Street is a Hillside Street.
Show that CalTrans vertical sight distance
can be met for "AA, BB, CC, and HH"
Streets, on TM profile sheet's 6 & 7 of 7.
Additionally, revise the vertical curve
information for "AA" Street so that it is
legible.
Done. All streets meet the minimum sight
distance of 150-feet for local streets or
125-foot minimum for Hillside Streets,
(calc's to be submitted with Tentative
Map.)
Sewer & Water
1. Please be advised, staff received a copy of a
letter to Mr. Jim Kilgore of Project Design
Consultants, dated August 27, 1998, from
CMWD, Associate Engineer, Randy
Klaahsen, regarding the capacity for the
temporary sewer facilities for Kelly Ranch.
Based on this information, only 16 more
dwelling units will be able to be served by
these temporary sewer facilities after Kelly
Ranch Village "E" and the Area "D & G"
apartments are served. Therefore,
depending on the timing of the proposed
remaining developments within Kelly
TAB/12248-RESP.DOC
PLANNING DEPARTMENT ISSUE
Ranch, potential lack of sewer availability
may become a major issue.
2. The following italicized issue is from the
September 24, 1998, SDP 98-04, Kelly
Ranch Villages "D, G & H" Second Issues
Review and is regarding the proposed
sewer lines below the slopes along the RV
Lot. This is being provided for coordination
purposes:
We discussed that the sewer line is located
under the slope, at our September 1, 1998,
meeting, so that it can gravity drain to the
temporary pump station. There are still two
outstanding issues regarding this design,
however. First, CMWD must approve the
physical design. The letter that was
submitted by CMWD, Associate Engineer,
Randy Klaahsen only approves the capacity
of the interim sewer facilities for this
proposed project, ft does not approve the
design. Therefore, this design still must be
approved by CMWD.
Second the pump station has been labeled
as temporary, but the sewer lines have not
been addressed. And, the proposed sewer
in "AA" Street does not connect with
anything in Cannon Road. As previously
requested, please address/label exactly
what is happening with the sewer facilities
for this proposed project, both interim and
ultimate.
Water & Drainage
1. Please investigate carrying the proposed
bench, along lot's 120, 121 & 153, back to
the terminus of "FF" Street to facilitate
emergency fail-safe overflow measures, for
the sump condition at the terminus of this
cul-de-sac.
2. Thank you for submitting a Preliminary
Drainage Report for the core area MTM.
The applicant's response to issues indicates
that the proposed detention basin located
east of lot's 14 & 15 in Area "J" has been
KELLY LAND RESPONSE
2. See attached letters for CMWD approval
of the preliminary layout of the temporary
sewer lines.
1 . Vegetated swale and bench are being
proposed.
2. Modified Preliminary Drainage Report and
added Preliminary Drainage Report for
Area "J" which provides for energy
dissipation at outfall and for the elimination
of the proposed detention basin. Per
TAB/12248-RESP.DOC
PLANNING DEPARTMENT ISSUE KELLY LAND RESPONSE
deleted. The Preliminary Drainage Report
indicates that this detention basin will be
installed. Additionally, when the basin was
proposed within the report, the only facility
discharging into it was a proposed 18"
storm drain. Now a brow ditch is also
proposed to out-fall in this area. Therefore,
additional concentrated surface runoff is
being proposed to be discharged into this
natural drainage course, and the basin to
reduce the velocities has been deleted. What
effect does deleting the basin and increasing
the surface discharge have on this drainage
coarse? No velocity attenuation devices or
access is being proposed at this discharge
point. Please review and revise as
necessary.
meeting with the City of Carlsbad on
January 21, 1999, access does not need to
be provided.
3. Thank you for addressing access concerns
regarding the basins at Area "F" and north
of the RV Lot. Access to the existing basin
within Area "F" is acceptable, in accordance
with the Agua Hedionda Nature Center Site
Plan (SDP 98-15). However, a discrepancy
exits regarding access to the proposed basin
north of the RV Lot. The applicant has
stated that access to this basin is from
Cannon Road. Access is being shown,
however, from the terminus of the RV Lot
cul-de-sac. Access from the and of the
cul-de-sac is acceptable; access from
Cannon Road is not. Also, please widen the
proposed access to a minimum of 14"; label
it as A/C access, and provide a turn-around
at the end of the access drive sufficient to
accommodate work trucks.
Access to basin north of RV lot was
approved with Kelly Ranch Village "E"
Improvement plans. A 14-foot access road
would greatly impact open space.
Therefore, the existing 10-foot access road
has served as an access for many years and
is driveable.
TAB/12248-RESP.DOC
PLANNING DEPARTMENT ISSUE KELLY LAND RESPONSE
Land Title & Mapping
1. As previously indicated, all proposed lots
must have frontage on a dedicated public
street. This is still not being shown at Area
"K" (Lot 176). This requirement will be
satisfied for Area "KK" when the private
drive is revised to indicate a full width
publicly dedicated street, in accordance
with Traffic and Transportation Item No. 4
above.
Private drive has been modified per City
request.
2. The applicant has indicated that phasing of
the project will not take place. However,
phasing lines are still being shown on the
MTM. Please remove the "phasing lines" or
rename the phasing lines within the Legend
as "area designation lines" (or something
other than "Phase Boundary").
2. Done.
3. In General Note No. 6, please delete the
second half of the sentence, that states,
"...except that interior side yard slopes less
then 5 feet high may be 1-1/2:1. "
Pacific Soils has provided a letter stating
interior slopes less than 5-foot may be
1.5:1. Mike Shirey stated that a letter from
the soils engineer would be adequate to
comply with this requirements.
Miscellaneous
1. Thank you for providing an updated
Preliminary Title Report (PR) for the Kelly
Ranch MTM property. As previously
requested, the PR should address property
ownership interest for proposed Area "L,"
and include a boundary map for the entire
project.
2. The owner/Subdivider must sign the latest
version of the MTM.
Section V, Public Facilities and Phasing, of
the existing Kelly Ranch Master Plan (MP
174) indicates that a number of public
improvements are required as Kelly Ranch
develops. These improvements must be
constructed, or adequately secured, in
accordance with the MP (Existing MP Pg.
44). How is this going to be accomplished?
The following are some of the infrastructure
improvements that are required:
Circulation
2. Done.
TAB/I2248-RESP.DOC
PLANNING DEPARTMENT ISSUE KELLY LAND RESPONSE
• "Bikeway" on Park Drive (Existing MP
Pg. 39)
• Completion of Cannon Road to serve
Area's "D-J" (Existing MP Pg. 45 & 57)
• Park Drive from Area "A" to Kelly
Drive (Existing MP Pg.'s 46 & 56)
• Street's "D & E" (comparative "Core
Area" on-site street system) (Existing
MP Pg. 46)
• Portions of Faraday Avenue to serve the
"Core Area" (Required to meet the
Cul-de-sac Standard for the "Core
Area")
• Traffic Signal(s) (Existing MP Pg. 58)
• Please be advised, that this entire
project functions as one large cul-de-
sac without Cannon Road being
constructed to its full width, or having
a secondary access constructed (e.g.,
Cannon Road to Lego Drive or
Faraday Avenue to match existing
Faraday Avenue). Please be advised, it
will be incumbent upon this project to
complete these roadway connections, if
they are not already completed by
others within or out of Kelly Ranch.
(Comment from September 24, 1998,
SDP 98-04, Kelly Ranch Villages "D, G
& H" Second Issues Review provided
for informational purposes)
Water and Sewer
• Water Facilities/Reservoir and CMWD
Agreement (Existing MP Pg. 49 & 58)
• Agua Hedionda Interceptor Sewer in
Cannon Road (Existing MP Pg. 50)
Flood Control
• Reinforced Concrete Box at Kelly and
Park Drives (Existing MP Pg. 53)
TAB/12248-RESP.DOC
PLANNING DEPARTMENT ISSUE KELLY LAND RESPONSE
Please be advised, Associate Engineer,
Steve Jantz, is reviewing the Zone 8 Local
Facilities Management Plan (LFMP)
amendment. Comments will be forwarded
to you under separate cover.
5. The following is a list of the Standards
modifications (variances) that are being
proposed with the current design:
• CalTrans sight distance reduction from 330'
minimum to 275".
• Proposed 30' private driveway must meet
public Hillside Street Standard of 32'
minimum width with curb, gutter and
sidewalk.
• Incorrect tangents on a number of streets
(see Traffic and Transportation Item No. 6
above).
• Basin east of lot's 14 & 15 deleted and no
velocity attenuation or access to storm
drain out-fall being proposed.
• Lot 176 (Area "K") does not front a public
street.
• Some interior slopes proposed at 1-1/2:1
gradient, instead of 2:1 Standard.
Please be advised, staff cannot support
these proposed Standard's modifications.
• 330-foot sigh distance have been provided.
• Private driveway modified.
Tangents corrected.
• See Preliminary Drainage Report for Area
II Til
• Fronts on "AA" Street.
• See attached letter from soils engineer.
6. Since many of the issues were not resolved,
I am returning the first issues review
red-lined check print. The green check
marks mean that the issue was resolved.
The red X's mean that it wasn't.
Additionally, I've attached the Landscape
Concept Plan and MTM second check,
sheet's 6 and 7 of 7. These check prints
must be returned with the project revisions
to facilitate continued staff review.
TAB/12248-RESP.DOC
^^
City of Carlsbad
Community Development
June 11,1998
Larry Clemens
Hillman Properties
2011 Palomar Airport Road
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
KELLY RANCH AFFORDABLE HOUSING AGREEMENT
Dear Larry:
This letter is in response to recent discussions and correspondence regarding the affordable housing
obligation for the Kelly Ranch Project. The issues raised to date were discussed in detail by the
Affordable Housing Policy (Staff) Team at our June 8, 1998 meeting.
Over the past several months, we have discussed many of the project issues several times. While
we have made significant progress towards reaching an agreement, the Policy Team does not feel
that further meetings or discussions will result in a mutual agreement. Therefore, the responses
below represent the final recommendations that staff will make to the Housing Commission and
City Council. If you do not concur with staff's positions, you may raise your objections with the
respective decision-making bodies (Housing Commission or City Council) at the appropriate
meetings.
The final negotiations have focused on the following two issues: 1) additional security for the early
release of Village E (prior to Site Development Plan approval) and, 2) the timing/phasing for
construction of both the affordable housing project and the market rate units for the Kelly Ranch
Project. The Policy Team's recommendations on these two issues are set forth below.
Security for Village E
As has been discussed on several occasions, both staff and the developer have agreed in concept
that upon the execution of an Affordable Housing Agreement and the provision of additional
security by the developer, Village E will be permitted to record final maps and commence with the
construction of 144 market rate single family homes. To date, we have disagreed on the dollar
amount of the security deposit and the number of Villages within the proposed mixed income
apartment project (D, G and/or H) to be deed-restricted. Following are staff's final proposals as
related to these issues:
1. The developer shall deed-restrict Village D, and make a cash deposit, or provide a letter
of credit, in the amount of $700,000; or
2. The developer shall deed-restrict Villages D, G and H, and make a cash deposit ,or
provide a letter of credit, in the amount of $220,000.
2O75 La Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92OO9-1576 • (76O) 438-1161 • FAX (760) 438-0894
L. Clemens
June 11, 1998
Page 2
In either of the above options, the security (land and cash/letter of credit) shall be released upon
final approval of the Site Development Plan for the Mixed income Combined Affordable Housing
Apartment Project by the City Council. In order to make the necessary revisions to the draft
Affordable Housing Agreement, staff will need to know which of the above options you will select
to provide the required security.
It is important to note that should the Site Development Plan for the affordable project in Kelly
Ranch not be approved and the security is accepted, the City will be obligated to provide only the
required number of affordable housing units (22) for Village E. It will be the City's sole discretion
as to the timing, location and product type of said units.
The Housing Policy Team discussed your concern that there should be a date within the agreement
as to how much time you will be given to obtain approval of a site development plan for the
affordable housing project before the City will take action to retain the security deposit and take
ownership of the deed-restricted property(ties). Since the goal of the City is to have the developer
be responsible for the construction of affordable housing units, the Policy Team is willing to give
you as long as you require to obtain approval of a Site Development Plan for the affordable housing
project. However, if you wish to have a date within the agreement, we are willing to support the
date you proposed of July 1, 2000 with the understanding that it will remain at the sole discretion
of the City as to whether or not to take the deposit and ownership of the property(ties) and assume
responsibility for constructing the units after the subject date. In other words, the City is not
required to accept responsibility for constructing the subject affordable housing units as of the July
1, 2000 date. The City may choose to simply extend the deadline and require the developer to
continue efforts to obtain approval of a Site Development Plan.
Construction Phasing
The following comments are provided on the phasing of construction between the affordable
housing and the market rate units:
1. First Release of Building Permits: Upon recordation of the Affordable Housing Agreement
against all applicable properties within Kelly Ranch, building permits may be issued for 144
market rate units (16% of the total housing units within the project).
2. Second Release of Building Permits: Upon formal approval of the Site Development Plan by
the City Council for the Affordable Housing Project (132 units) and completion of the grading
for Villages D, G and H, building permits for 110 market rate single family and/or multi-family
units (13%) and 132 building permits for affordable units within the apartment project (15%)
may be issued. For purposes of this agreement, completion of grading shall mean that Villages
D, G and H shall be graded, inspected and approved by the City. Also, at this milestone, the
developer will be required to post signs, acceptable to the City, that state an apartment project
will be built within the three villages. Building permits for the clubhouse within the apartment
project may also be issued at this stage.
3. Third Release of Building Permits: Upon inspection and approval by the City of the completed
building foundations for 132 affordable apartment units, building permits for an additional 346
market rate units may be issued (40% of total housing units within project).
L. Clemens
June 11, 1998
Page 3
4. Final Release of Building Permits: Upon final Certificate of Occupancy for at least 132 rental
units and rent restrictions at the affordable rates, the final building permits for 145 additional
market rate units may be issued (16% of total housing units within project).
As an additional note, the above phasing for release of building permits is based on a projected
total of 877 housing units within Kelly Ranch. If the total number of units is decreased (or
increased), the number of building permits released shall be reduced (or increased) according to the
percentages noted above. The above phasing plan and related percentages are outlined in the
attached chartjor further clarity.
Site Development Plan
As mentioned m previous conversations and correspondence, in order for staff to forward the Kelly
Ranch Affordable Housing Project to the Housing Commission for a recommendation and
ultimately to the City Council for approval, an affordable housing agreement and staff supportable
site development plan are required. The affordable housing agreement will be redrafted by city
staff to include the security and building permit phasing plan noted above, as recommended by the
Housing Policy Team. As a result, the Affordable Housing Agreement will be ready to move
forward for consideration. The Site Development Plan, however, has still not received support from
the Housing Policy Team. Consequently, it is not ready to move forward. The Housing Policy
Team remains concerned that the density for the apartment site is too high at 495 units. There will
need to be a substantial reduction in the number of units in order to obtain staff support. Also, there
are other design and land use issues which represent a problem in terms of staff support. A more
detailed letter outlining staff's concerns regarding the site development plan will be forwarded to
you at a later date. In the meantime, it is important to note that unless the issues related to the site
development plan can be resolved within the next couple of weeks, it is very unlikely that this
project will be presented to the Housing Commission on July 9, 1998 for consideration.
If you have any questions about this letter, please contact my office at (760) 438-1161 X4200.
Sincerely,
Community Development Director
c: Christopher Neils, Attorney
City Manager
City Attorney
Deputy City Attorney
Finance Director
Administrative Services Director
Housing and Redevelopment Director
Planning Director v/"
Management Analyst-C. Ruiz
L. Clemens
June 11,1998
Page 4
KELLY RANCH - BUILDING PERMIT PHASING PLAN
Action Required/
Phasing
# of Building
Permits & Type
Released
% of Total
Permits
Project
for
Comments
Receive Approval of Affordable
Hsg. Agreement by City Council
& provide agreed upon security
for 22 affordable housing units for
Village E.
144
market rate
building permits
16%
Allowed to proceed without
formally approved Site
Development Plan for
affordable project. SDP,
however, must be deemed
supportable by Staff.
Site Development Plan approved
by City Council for Affordable
Housing Project (132 units).
Villages D, G & H must be
graded. In addition, one or more
signs must be installed on the site,
which are acceptable to the City,
to identify the future apartment
project.
All building permits issued and
foundations complete, inspected
and approved for 132 apartment
units.
110
market rate
building permits
(SF and/or MF)
and
132 affordable
building permits
within mixed
income MP
project
and
Building Permits
for clubhouse in
MF project
13%
and
15%
At this point, the total market
rate permits allowed to be
issued would be 254 or 29% of
the total number of units
projected; these permits can be
used to construct single family
or multi-family units at the
discretion of the developer/
builder. The total # of building
permits for housing, including
the affordable, would be 386
or 44% of the total # of housing
units projected (877 units).
346
market rate
building permits
40%
At this point, there could be a
total of 600 market rate units
under construction which
represents 68% of the total # of
units w/in the project. These
units will be a combination of
single family and multi-family.
The multi-family rental project
is a mixed income (495 units)
project which includes 132
affordable units.
Final Certificate of Occupancy
must be issued for at least 132
rental units and rent restricted at
the affordable rates.
145
market rate
building permits
17%
The first 132 rental units must
be . designated for affordable
housing purposes. As other
units receive final C of O, the
132 units with rent restrictions
may be disbursed more evenly
w/in the project.
City of Carlsbad
Public Works — Engineering
April 22, 1998
Lucia Sippel
1287 VeraCruz
Oceanside, CA 92056
KELLY RANCH ACCESS
Staff is in receipt of your letter to the Public Works Director/City Engineer, dated
March 23, 1998. Please accept staffs apologies for taking sometime to respond
to your concerns.
Staff is in the process of reviewing the Kelly Ranch Master Tentative Map (MTM)
and have been waiting for Kelly Land Company to resubmit for a second review
to determine the street configuration. Kelly Land Company still has not
resubmitted, so it is somewhat difficult to address your concern until they do so.
In any event, staff has requested that the street which accesses your private
driveway be increased in width to meet the City's Cul-de-sac Standard. As
currently designed, the proposed street is too narrow.
Staff will continue to work with Kelly Land Company to create as sensitive a
design as possible and still meet the City Standards.
If you have any additional questions, please contact me at 760/438-1161,
extension 4388.
MICHAEL J. SHIREYI
Associate Engineer- Land Development
c: Public Works Director/City Engineer
Principal Civil Engineer - Land Development
Associate Planner - C. Westman
2075 Las Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 • (760) 438-1161 • FAX (760) 431-5769
afrlsbad
March 31, 1998
Pam Whitcomb
KELLY RANCH
2011 Palomar Airport Rd., suite 206
Carlsbad, CA 92009
LAND DEED SWAP
Kelly Ranch I Veteran's Memorial Park
In your 2/25/98 letter to me, you requested a hearing before the Parks and Recreation Commission as
soon as possible. Although we are interested in the land swap concept, there are some issues to work
out and additional information needed prior to bringing this before the Commission.
1. Preliminary Site Design:
We need to know the preliminary planning concepts for the project immediately adjacent to "BB
Street". The reason is that we may need to access the future park site from BB Street.
2. Revised Exhibit:
A portion of the land we would be receiving in the swap is undevelopable slopes with habitat on
them. We will require the entire swap to be essentially flat, developable land.
I will need this information by April 8, 1998 in order to meet the April 20th P&R Commission
meeting (or 5/6 for the 5/18 meeting). I would be happy to meet with you to go over any questions
you might have.
Mark Steyaert
Park Development Coordinator
c: Recreation and Park Planning Manager
Principal Engineer, Bob Wojcik
Associate Engineer, Mike Shirey
Associate Planner, Chnster Westman
1200 Cartebad Villafl* Drive • CarKbed, CA 92006-1989 » (619) 434-2625 • FAX (619) 434-7185
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
February 24, 1998
Pam Whitcomb
Kelly Land Company, Inc.
2011 Palomar Airport Road Suite 206
Carlsbad, CA. 92009
SUBJECT: GPA 97-07/ZC 97-07/LCPA 97-09/LFMP 8(A)/CT 97-16/HDP 97-17/CDP 97-
43 KELLY RANCH
Thank you for applying for Land Use Permits in the City of Carlsbad. The Planning
Department has reviewed your development applications nos. GPA 97-07/ZC 97-07/LCPA
97-09/LFMP 8(A)/CT 97-16/HDP 97-17/CDP 97-43, as to their completeness for
processing.
The items requested from you earlier to make your applications complete have been
received and reviewed by the Planning Department. It has been determined that the
application is now complete for processing. Initial processing of your application has
already begun, the technical acceptance date is January 18, 1998.
Please note that although the application is now considered complete, there are issues that
must be resolved prior to scheduling the project for public hearing. In addition, the City
may request, in the course of processing the application, that you clarify, amplify, correct,
or otherwise, supplement the basic information required for the application.
Please contact your staff planner, Christer Westman, at (760) 438-1161, extension 4448
with questions regarding Planning Comments and Mike Shirey at extension 4388, if you
have any questions regarding Engineering comments or wish to set up a meeting to discuss
the application.
Sincerely,
MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER
Planning Director
MJH:CW:mh
c: Gary Wayne
Don Rideout
Mike Shirey
Bobbie Hoder
File Copy
Data Entry
Planning Aide
2075 Las Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 - (760) 438-1161 • FAX (760) 438-0894
ISSUES OF CONCERN
No. GPA 97-07/ZC 97-07/LCPA 97-09/LFMP 8(A)/CT 97-16/HDP 97-17/CDP 97-43 KELLY RANCH
Planning:
1. As we have previously discussed, a focused Environmental Impact Report must be
prepared in order to sufficiently analyze the potential environmental effects of the
proposed development.
2. The scale of the tentative map is too small to be able to sufficiently review for
design. The map should be submitted at 40 scale.
3. The project must include onsite housing for lower income households approved by a
Site Development Plan.
4. Minimum lot size within an R-1 zone is 7,500 square feet and minimum lot width is
60 feet. Staff's preference is to adhere to these standards if the site is designated
as R-1. (See area I.) Provide information on average and minimum and maximum lot
sizes.
5. Areas of manufactured slopes adjacent to street HH should be sculpted to more
closely match the natural grades.
6. Indicate areas of cut and fill on the tentative map.
7. The delineation between proposed land uses must be more closely defined.
8. Regarding the Zone Change, a "Q" overlay is suggested to be used which would
require subsequent Site Development Plans for the review of buildings and building
placement.
9. A portion of the project spills onto adjacent City property. Some arrangement must
be made with the City to include this piece within the development.
10. Access points should be designated for lots 162, and 165 through 171.
11. A landscape theme should be developed for streets AA, BB, and HH.
1 2. Area "L" must be provided with access to a public road and must also be designated
for land use designations within the scope of the General Plan Amendment, Zone
Change and Local Coastal Program Amendment.
13. Those sections of Citywide trail segments 23 and 24 must be incorporated into the
project. Provide greater detail regarding the trail adjacent to Cannon Road. In
addition, .a trail which loops around the development should be discussed.
14. Repeal of the Master Plan must be done through a Master Plan Amendment.
15. Details of the, recreational vehicle storage lot should be provided which include
screening, security measures and access.
Engineering:
Traffic and Transportation:
1. Please show access to Lot's 162, 165, 166-171, 173, 175 and 179. Show sight
distance sight lines for these accesses in accordance with CalTrans corner sight
distance criteria.
2. Show CalTrans corner sight distance sight lines for all intersections, including the lots
mentioned above, on the preliminary landscape plans.
3. Please be advised, due to the 1" = 100' scale, the sight distance sight lines which are
being shown on the tentative map were unable to be reviewed. At a minimum, and in
accordance with above, all sight lines must meet CalTrans corner sight distance criteria.
However, minimum design speeds should not always be used. If, using good
engineering judgement, a street has the potential to facilitate a greater speed than the
minimum design speed, then show sight distance sight lines at the greater speed.
4. Thank you for showing the gates at the proposed recreational vehicle (RV) lot.
However, as previously requested, the following additional items must also be shown:
• A queuing/turnaround area must be provided between the proposed gate and
"AA" Street;
• the cul-de-sac bulb should have tangent sections before the "curb return"
radii to facilitate RV turning maneuvers;
• the cul-de-sac bulb radius must be increased to a minimum of 42', per
AASHTO motor home (MH) specifications; and,
• also show the RV lot at a minimum 1" = 40' scale.
5. Please be advised, the street design/layout of this project is highly questionable. For
example "AA" Street narrows from a 60' right of way (ROW}/40' curb to curb (CTC) to
a 46' ROW/32' CTC; while "BB" Street is proposed as a continuous 60' ROW/40' CTC.
The same happens for "HH" Street intersecting "C" Street. The street configuration
should go from wider to narrower streets consistently, i.e. Collector Streets, to Local
Streets and ultimately to Cul-de-sacs. Additionally, Area's "H, I & J" are huge cul-de-
sacs that do not meet City Standards. The proposed private driveway as a means to
meet the cul-'de-sac standard is unacceptable. At a minimum, a full width publicly
dedicated street, with sidewalks, must be used to meet the standard. Also, even if this
private driveway is reconfigured into a public street, there is still a cul-de-sac standard
deficiency with Area "I."
Therefore, in accordance with the above, the entire street system must be reanalyzed
to meet the City's Cul-de-sac standard and have a more natural street system which
declines in width as the streets progress further into the project.
6. The following*eul-de-sac bulbs do not look like they meet City Standards. Please verify
and revise.
• "BB" Street at Area "L";
• "C" Street at lot's 9-11.
7. The following intersections do not look like they meet City Standards. Please verify and
revise.
• "BB" Street/Faraday Avenue seems skewed;
• "BB" Street/"HH" Street seems skewed;
• Faraday Avenue/Cannon Road seems skewed;
• "AA" Street/"BB" Street seems to need a tangent section;
• "C" Street/"E" Street seems to need a tangent section;
• "D" Street/"C" Street seems to need a tangent section; and,
• "HH" Street west of "C" Street seems to have some reversing curves
without any tangents between them.
8. "AA" Street must have sidewalk on both sides of the street for the entire length of the
street.
9. Thank you for showing the potential off-site extension of proposed "C" Street. As
previously requested, however, please also indicate the following:
• Any development plans/potential in this area;
• the topography in this area; and,
• the full lot (or the developable portion of the lot with the rest of the lot
shown with "cut" lines).
10.A meandering walkway is being shown on the preliminary landscape plans, along
Cannon Road. Is this what is being shown on the Cannon Road improvement plans?
This type of walkway may be acceptable, but it must correspond with the Cannon Road
plans.
Sewer:
1. Please show a minimum 20' wide public sewer & drainage easement from the terminus
of the "FF" Street right of way down the slope to the "BB" Street right of way. (This
should be 20' wide because the storm drain at the terminus of "FF " Street should be
placed within this easement.) (See Water & Drainage Issue Item 1.)
2. Please change the "private" sewer easement to "public" at lot's 165, 168, 169 & 170,
and increase the width of the easement to a minimum width of 20' (20' is required
between structures; so since no development has been proposed yet, it would be better
to get the 20' width now to avoid deficiencies in the future).
3. Please indicate inlet elevations for the proposed sewer line within "C" Street, from the
terminus of "C" Street to the intersection of "C" Street with "D" Street.
4. The Carlsbad Municipal Water District (CMWD) previously approved a temporary lift
station and force main to provide sewer service to Kelly Ranch Village "E". Their
approval, however, did not include the core area MTM. This MTM also proposes to
utilize this force main to pump sewerage back to El Camino Real (ECR). This must be
approved by the CMWD District Engineer and be reflected and approved in the Zone 8
Local Facilities Management Plan (LFMP) amendment. Provide documentation from
CMWD District Engineer, Bill Plummer (regarding CMWD requirements) and City Land
Development Associate Engineer, Steve Jantz (regarding the LFMP amendment).
Water & Drainage:
1. Please relocate the proposed storm drain at the terminus of "FF" Street so that it does
not angle down the slope. Place this storm drain within the 20' sewer & drainage
easement. (See Sewer Issue Item 1.) Additionally, since the terminus of this cul-de-sac
is in a sump condition, emergency fail-safe overflow measures must be indicated for the
slope.
2. Please place the proposed water line at the terminus of "CC" Street, between lot's 96
& 97, within a 15' public water easement.
3. Submit a Hydrology report for the core area MTM.
4. Address National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) criteria within the
proposed RV lot. This can be accomplished by one or more of the following: directing
surface run-off through vegetated swales, directing surface run-off to a de-pollutant
basin, etc.
5. Please show all weather accesses to the various proposed detention basins.
Soils & Grading:
1. Show the Cannon Road borrow site which is located in Area "G". Also, indicate the
proposed borrow quantity (60,000 to 160,000cy) under "General Note" 11. (Reference
O'Day Consultants borrow plan 333-2G.)
2. City Standards require benches in manufactured slopes which are greater than 30' in
height. Therefore, please indicate benches, with appropriate drainage facilities, for the
slopes at Area's "G & H", and lot's 176 & 178.
Land Title & Mapping:
1. All proposed lots must have frontage on a dedicated public street. This is not being
proposed for Area's "K & L." This requirement will be satisfied for Area "K" when the
private drive is revised to indicate a full width publicly dedicated street. To meet this
requirement for Area "L", delete the proposed property line ("blocker strip") at the "BB"
Street cul-de-sac bulb.
2. Please indicate the phasing on the MTM (with phasing lines and numbers). City Code
requires that the proposed lots in phase number 1 begin with number 1 and be
consecutively numbered for subsequent phases.
3. Please show the location of the potential land trade in the vicinity of Cannon Road and
Faraday Avenue. Define the limits and indicate the acreage's of the two areas.
4. The Land Use table, on sheet 2 of 7, indicates that the land use for lot 161 is multi-
family (MF). The MTM shows this lot as the RV lot. Please explain/revise.
Miscellaneous:
1. Please add the following application numbers to the tentative map: CT 97-16, CDP 97-
43, HDP 97-17.
2. Please provide staff with a copy of the signed land use application(s) for the Kelly
Ranch MTM property.
3. Please provide the Preliminary Title Report (PR) for the Kelly Ranch MTM property (PR
1156759-15, dated July 25, 1997). The PR should address property ownership
interest for proposed Area "L"; and include a boundary map for the entire project.
4. Attached is a red-lined check print. This check print must be returned with the project
revisions to facilitate continued staff review.
PLANNING
SYSTEMS
LAND USE/COASTAL PLANNING
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE • CA #2538
POLICY AND PROCESSING
COMPUTER-AIDED SYSTEMS
February 17,1998
Mr. Christer Westman
CITY OF CARLSBAD
Planning Department
2075 Las Palmas Dr.
Carlsbad, CA 92009
RE: CT 97-16 - Kelly Ranch Core Area
Dear Christer:
I have discussed with Kelly Land Company the two available options
regarding preparation and processing of the Suplemental EIR for the above-
referenced project. They have opted for the program in which Kelly Land
contracts directly with Planning Systems to manage a contract for EIR
preparation by an outside environmental firm chosen from the approved
City list. Kelly Land also understands that this process involves their
additional funding of a third party review consultant, chosen by the City.
Kelly Land is hopeful that this third party review consultant, can be contracted
prior to the completion of the draft EIR, in order to allow timely transition
into the third party review, and avoid unnecessary delays in the process.
We anticipate contracting with an environmental consultant by late this
week, and beginning the analysis immediately. A draft of the Supplemental
EIR should be available for third party review by mid-April.
I will keep you abreast of the CEQA process as it progresses.
Sincerely,
3aul J. KluMa* V
Director of Planning
cc Michael Holzmiller
Gary Wayne
D. L. Clemens
Tom Hageman
2111 PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD • SUITE 100 • CARLSBAD, CA 92009 • (619) 931-0780 • FAX (619) 931-5744
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
February 12, 1998
Paul Klukas/Planning Systems
Suite 100
2111 Palomar Airport Road
Carlsbad, CA 92009
RE: CT 97-16 Kelly Ranch Environmental Impact Report
Dear Paul:
Your request regarding the preparation of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for
the Kelly Ranch project was reviewed by the Planning Director and Assistant Planning
Director. The determination is that if the applicant wishes to pursue the development of
an EIR, the applicant will be required to fund a City contract with a third party review
consultant.
The third party review consultant will be an extension of City staff and will be
responsible for the review of the EIR for compliance with CEQA and will also serve as
an unbiased expert with regard to adequacy of the environmental review and proposed
mitigation.
It is conceivable that the third party consultant could be contracted prior to the
completion of a draft EIR and would therefore not impact any potential time savings
regarding the preparation of the EIR.
Otherwise, the standard City procedure for the preparation of an EIR will be used.
Should you have any questions, please contact me at (760) 438-1161 extension 4448.
Sincerely,
CHRISTER WESTMAN
Associate Planner
CW:mh
2075 Las Paimas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 - (760) 438-1161 - FAX (760) 438-0894
RECEIVED
DEC 1 8 1987
KEULY RANCH
December 17, 1997
Christer Westman
City of Carlsbad
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Re: Kelly Ranch - GPA 97-07 / ZC 97-07 / LCPA 97-09 / LFMP 8A / CT 97-16 / HDP 97-177
CDP 97-43
Dear Christer:
The following addresses the City's Incomplete Application Letter dated November 6, 1997 for
the above referenced. (A copy of the letter is enclosed).
Planning:
1. The proposed land use designations (General Plan, Zoning, and Local Coastal Program)
/j should be more clearly mapped. With the use of the Geographic Information System
1 (GIS), land uses can be described along property lines and along significant topographic
features.
Response: GZS exhibits are enclosed.
2. Documentation must be submitted which identifies that Larry Clemens can sign for and
bind the Kelly Land Company into the Public Facilities Fee Agreement.
../ Response: Documentation is enclosed which identifies Larry Clemens as an authorized
signer for Kelly Land Company.
3. The disclosure statement states that no individual owns more than 10% of the shares in the
Kelly Land Company Limited Liability Corporation. Please verify this statement.
v^
Response: Verification of Ownership is enclosed.
4. Constraints information should be included on Village "L".
Response: Village "L " is not apart and not a subject of this application.
2011 PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD, SUITE 206, CARLSBAD, CA 92009 • TEL: [619] 931 -1190 • FAX: [619] 931 -7950
Christer Westman
December 17, 1997
Page 2
5. An "official" action must be taken to repeal the Kelly Ranch Master Plan. However, staff
has not yet determined the appropriate vehicle to take the action forward to the City
Council.
Response: We are advised that the repeal of the Master Plan can be accomplished through
a resolution of approval of a Master Plan Amendment, approved in conjunction with the
proposed zone change for the property.
Engineering:
1. As part of the Zone 8 Local Facilities Management Plan (LFMP) amendment submittal
package, the actual amended document should have been submitted for staff review.
Therefore, please submit an amended document utilizing strike-out/shading format (or
some other applicable designation) showing the proposed revisions to the original Zone 8
LFMP. All revisions must be based on applicable studies/reports. If any section of the
current LFMP is not being revised, submit a valid explanation why the section does not
need revision.
Response: The Engineering Department is reconsidering the need for strike-out pages. It
is our opinion that the strike-out effort would not be a productive method of analyzing and
concluding on LFMP condition revisions.
2. On the master tentative map (MTM), please show the distance between all intersections.
Response: Done. Ten (10) copies of the revised MTM are enclosed.
3. On the MTM, at the proposed recreational vehicle storage lot, please show any proposed
gates and fencing. Additionally, a turnaround area must be provided between any proposed
gates and "AA" Street.
Response: Done.
4. Please show an off-site feasible extension of proposed "C" Street, and indicate any
development plans/potential in this area. Show a minimum of 200' beyond the property
line to demonstrate the feasibility of a future street extension.
Response: Done.
5. Please clearly show and label the 100 year flood line for pre and post development along
Cannon Road and at any village which is within or adjacent to a Federal Emergency
Management Association (FEMA) flood plain.
Response: Done.
Christer Westman
December 17, 1997
Page 3
In addition, I am enclosing five (5) sets of the Landscape Concept Plan, two (2) copies the Soils
Reports, and a copy of the School District Mitigation Agreement.
All items have been addressed pursuant to the City's Incomplete Application Letter dated
November 6, 1997. Therefore, we request you provide us with confirmation that the above
application is complete. We are available to meet to discuss any issues the City may have.
Please feel free to contact me at 931-1190, ext. Ill, should you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Community Services Manager
PW/lw
cc: D.L. Clemens
Dale Greenhalgh
Paul Klukas
applictn.doc
CUty of
Planning Department
Novembers, 1997
Kelly Land Company
2011 Palomar Airport Road Suite 206
Carlsbad, CA. 92009
SUBJECT: GPA 97-07/ZC 97-07/LCPA 97-09/LFMP 8(A)/CT 97-16/HDP 97-17/CDP 97-43
KELLY RANCH
Thank you for applying for Land Use Permits in the City of Carlsbad. The Planning Department
has reviewed your development applications no. GPA 97-07/ZC 97-07/LCPA 97-09/LFMP
8(A)/CT 97-16/HDP 97-17/CDP 97-43, as to their completeness for processing.
The applications are incomplete, as submitted. Attached are two lists. The first list is
information which must be submitted to complete your application. No processing of your
application can occur until the application is determined to be complete. All list items must be
submitted simultaneously and a copy of this list must be included with your submittals.
The second list is issues of concern to staff. When all required materials are submitted the City
has 30 days to make a determination of completeness. If the application is determined to be
complete, processing for a decision on the application will be initiated. In addition, please note
that you have six months from the date the application was initially filed, October 6, 1997, to
either resubmit the application or submit the required information. Failure to resubmit the
application or to submit the materials necessary to determine your application complete shall be
deemed to constitute withdrawal of the application. If an application is withdrawn or deemed
withdrawn, a new application must be submitted.
Please contact your staff planner, Christer Westman, at (760) 438-1161, extension 4448 or
your staff Engineer Mike Shirey at extension 4388, if you have any questions or wish to set up a
meeting to discuss the application.
Sincerely
MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER
Planning Director
MJH:CW:kr
c: Gary Wayne
Adrienne Landers
Mike Shirey
Bobbie Hoder
File Copy
Data Entry
Planning Aide
2075 Las Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 920O9-1 576 • (619) 438-1161- FAX (G1 9) 438-0894
LIST OF ITEMS NEEDED
TO COMPLETE THE APPLICATION
No. GPA 97-07/ZC 97-07/LCPA 97-09/LFMP 8(A)/CT 97-16/HDP 97-17/CDP 97-43
Planning:
1. The proposed land use designations (General Plan, Zoning, and Local Coastal
Program) should be more clearly mapped. With the use of the Geographic
Information System (GIS), land uses can be described along property lines and
along significant topographic features.
\/2. Documentation must be submitted which identifies that Larry Clemens can sign
for and bind the Kelly Land Company into the Public Facilities Fee Agreement.
3. The disclosure statement states that no individual owns more than 10% of the
shares in the Kelly Land Company Limited Liability Corporation. Please verify
this statement.
4. Constraints information should be included on Village "L".
5. An "official" action must be taken to repeal the Kelly Ranch Master Plan.
However, staff has not yet determined the appropriate vehicle to take the action
forward to the City Council.
Engineering:
1. As part of the Zone 8 Local Facilities Management Plan (LFMP) amendment
submittal package, the actual amended document should have been
submitted for staff review. Therefore, please submit an amended document
utilizing strike-out/shading format (or some other applicable designation)
showing the proposed revisions to the original Zone 8 LFMP. All revisions
must be based on applicable studies/reports. If any section of the current
LFMP is not being revised, submit a valid explanation why the section does
not need revision.
2. On the master tentative map (MTM), please show the distance between all
intersections.
3. On the MTM, at the proposed recreational vehicle storage lot, please show
any proposed gates and fencing. Additionally, a turnaround area must be
provided between any proposed gate and "AA" Street.
4. Please show an off-site feasible extension of proposed "C" Street, and
indicate any development plans/potential in this area. Show a minimum of
200' beyond the property line to demonstrate the feasibility of a future street
extension.
x Please clearly show and label the 100 year flood line for pre and post
fc development along Cannon Road and at any village which is within or
adjacent to a Federal Emergency Management Association'(FEMA) flood
plain.
ISSUES OF CONCERN
Planning:
1. There seems to be inconsistency in the Local Coastal Program Amendment text.
The text refers to both P-C zoning and the master plan, however, the application
includes the elimination of both.
2. Although completely surrounded by the remainder of the tentative map, Village
"L" seems to be excluded with regards to information, as a lot of the tentative
map with access to a public road and regarding the proposed land use changes.
Village "L" should be included as a lot in the review of the tentative map.
3. Open Space and Conservation Resource Management Plan shows City Trail
Segments 20 on the north side of the Lagoon and 28, 23, and 24 in the "Cofe"
area^he project should be designed to include these trail segments.
Engineering:
1. Engineering issues to follow under separate cover.
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
KELLY RANCH
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
October 1,1997
Christer Westman
City of Carlsbad
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Pam Whitcomb
Hillman Properties West., Inc.
2011 Palomar Airport Road
Suite 206
Carlsbad, CA 92009
SUBJECT: Kelly Ranch
WE ARE SENDING: _X Enclosed .Under Separate Cover
VIA:Mail
Messenger
Pick-Up
FEDEX
FOR:Your Use
Your Review/Comment
Your Files
Your Request
Your Approval
DESCRIPTION: 1.) Kelly Ranch submittal package
REMARKS: See attached list of application items being submitted.
SIGNED: Pam Whitco:
CC: Curt Noland w/o enclosures
Dale Greenhalgh w/o enclosures
Kevin Hampton w/enclosures
2011 PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD, SUITE 206, CARLSBAD, CA 92009 • TEL: [619] 931-1190 • FAX: [619] 931-7950
Kelly Ranch
Submittal Package
October 1,1997
Application: Master Tentative Map; General Plan Amendment; Zone Change; LCP Amendment;
Coastal Development Permit; Hillside Development Permit; and Zone 8 Facilities
Management Plan Amendment
Quantity Description
1 Check - City Processing Fees
1 Application
10 Master Tentative Map/Site Plan
1 Constraints Map
1 Reduced Site Plan
1 Location Map
1 Environmental Impact Assessment
2 Public Facility Agreement
1 Disclosure Statement
3 Preliminary Title Reports
1 School District Letter
1 Waiver Time Limits - Tentative Parcel Map
2 Traffic Impact Analysis
1 Noise Study
2 Preliminary Soils Reports
1 Hydrology Map
1 Photos of property
1 Notice of Time Limits - Discretionary Application
1 Project Description/Explanation Sheet
1 Proposed Sign Program
1 500 scale map showing requested General Plan
1 Biological Information
1 Modified LCP Documentation
5 Slope Analysis Map
5 Slope Profiles
1 Grading Volume Analysis/Exemption Areas
4 Zone 8 Local Facilities Management Plan Amendment