HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-03-10; City Council; 14586; Kelly Ranch Village E CT 96-07/PUD 97-04/HDP 96-13/CDP 96-13H
tlTY OF CARLSBAD - A&i4 BILL
AB# /35-n’
MTG. 3/10/98
DEPT. PLN ?k
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
TITLE:
., KELLY RQNCH VILLAGE “E”
CT 96-07/PUD 97-04IHDP 96-13/GDP 96-13
CITY MGR
That the City Council ADOPT Resolution 78-6 p , APPROVING a Mitigated Negative
Declaration and addendum, Tentative Tract Map - CT 96-07, Planned Unit Development -
PUD 97-04, Hillside Development Permit - HDP 96-13 and Coastal Development Permit -
CDP 96-13 for the Kelly Ranch Village “E” as recommended for approval by the Planning
Commission.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
The Planning Commission heard the request by the Kelly Land Company for the approval of
Village “E” at its regularly scheduled public hearing on January 21, 1998. The Commission
unanimously approved the project recommending approval to the City Council.
The project is a subdivision of 144 single family lots ranging in size from 5,000 square feet
to 16,500 square feet. Homes are proposed in the range of 2,200 square feet to 2,800
square feet. Five common recreation lots are proposed as well as four open space lots, two
of which will accommodate a segment of the citywide trail system.
One member of the public, Bob Richards as a representative for the Agua Hedionda
Lagoon Foundation, spoke in favor of the project. There was no other public input.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The developer is responsible for all of the costs related to the development of the site. It is
not anticipated that there will be any fiscal impact to the City.
EXHIBITS:
1. City Council Resolution No. 98-&f
2. Location Map
3. Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4224, 4225, 4226, 4227 and 4228
4. Planning Commission Staff Report, dated January 21, 1998
5. Excerpts of Planning Commission Minutes, dated January 21, 1998.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-
RESOLUTION NO. 98-68
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND ADDENDUM, TENTATIVE
TRACT MAP, A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, A
HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, AND COASTAL
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO SUBDIVIDE PROPERTY
INTO 144 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS, 9 OPEN
SPACE/RECREATION LOTS, AND CONSTRUCT SINGLE
FAMILY HOMES ON 45 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED
SOUTH OF FUTURE CANNON ROAD AND WEST OF EL
CAMINO REAL IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT
ZONE 8.
CASE NAME: KELLY RANCH VILLAGE “E”
CASE NO.: CT 96-07/PUD 97-04/HDP 96-l 3/CDP 96-13
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Carlsbad Municipal Code,
the Planning Commission did, on January 21, 1998, hold a duly noticed public hearing
as prescribed by law to consider a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Addendum,
Tentative Tract Map (CT 96-07) Planned Unit Development Permit (PUD 97-04)
Hillside Development Permit (HDP 96-13) and Coastal Development Permit (CDP 96-
13); and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, on the 7th day
of April J 1998, held a duly noticed public hearing to consider said
Negative Declaration and Addendum, Tentative Map, Planned Unit Development,
Hillside Development Permit, and Coastal Development Permit and at that time
received recommendations, objections, protests, comments of all persons interested in
or opposed to CT 96-07/PUD 97-04/HDP 96-13/GDP 96-13; and
The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does hereby resolve
as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2. That the City Council adopt City Council Resolution No. 98-68
that the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission as set forth in
Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4224, 4225, 4226, 4227 and 4228 on file
with the City Clerk and made a part hereof by reference are the findings and
conditions of the City Council. The final paragraph of Condition No. 53 of
Planning Commission Resolution No. 4225 is amended by the addition of:
“The subdivision secured improvement agreement shall provide that:
Cannon Road from El Camino Real to Frost Street shall be
complete within one year following execution of the Subdivision
Improvement Agreement.
Cannon Road from Frost Street to the west tract boundary shall
be complete within two years following execution of the
Subdivision Improvement Agreement.”
3. That the applications for the Tentative Map, Planned Unit
Development, Hillside Development Permit, and Coastal Development Permit
are approved as shown on Planning Commission Exhibits “A-XX” dated January
21, 1998, on file with the Planning Department and incorporated herein by
reference.
4. This action is final the date this resolution is adopted by the City
Council. The Provisions of Chapter 1.16 of the Cartsbad Municipal Code, “Time
Limits for Judicial Review” shall apply.
“NOTICE TO APPLICANT
“The time within which judicial review of this decision must be sought is
governed by Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1094.6, which has been
made applicable in the City of Carlsbad by Carlsbad Municipal Code
Chapter 1.16. Any petition or other paper seeking review must be filed
in the appropriate court not later than the nineteenth day following the
date on which this decision becomes final; however, if within ten days
after the decision becomes final a request for the record of the deposit
in an amount sufficient to cover the estimated cost or preparation of
such record, the time within which such petition may be filed in court is
extended to not later than the thirtieth day following the date on which
the record is either personally delivered or mailed to the party, or his
attorney of record, if he has one. A written request for the preparation
of the record of the proceedings shall be filed with the City Clerk, City
of Carlsbad, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008.”
-2-
1 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the
2 City of Carlsbad on the 7th day of April 1998, by the following vote
3 to wit:
4 AYES: Council Members Lewis, Finnila, Nygaard and Hall
5 NOES: None
6
ABSENT: Council Member Kulchin
7
8
9
10
11 ATTEST:
12
13 ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, City/Clerk
14 (SEAL)
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-
-3-
EXHIBIT 2
KELLY RANCH VILLAGE “E”
-- CT 96007/CDP 96-13/
HDP 96=13/PUD 97-04
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
EXHIBIT 3
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4224
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION,
ADDENDUM, AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND
REPORTING PROGRAM FOR A 153 LOT SUBDIVISION ON
45 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED EAST OF EL CAMINO
REAL AND SOUTH OF FUTURE CANNON ROAD IN LOCAL
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 8.
CASE NAME: KELLY RANCH VILLAGE “E”
CASE NO.: CT 96-07/PUD 97-04/HDP 96-13KDP 96- 13
WHEREAS, Kelly Land Company, Inc, “Developer”, has filed a verified
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Kelly Land Company, Inc.,
“Owner”, described as
Portions of lots I and F of Ranch0 Agua Hedionda, in the County
of San Diego, State of California, according to map thereof No.
823, filed in the of&e of the County Recorder of said San Diego
County, November 16,1896.
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 21st day of January, 1998,
hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors
relating to the Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
W That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission hereby RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the Mitigated Negative
Declaration according to Exhibit “ND” dated June 17, 1997, addendum dated
January 21, 1998 and “PII” dated June 11, 1997 and Mitigation Monitoring
L
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
and Reporting Program, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the
following findings:
Findings:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed, analyzed and considered
Mitigated Negative Declaration for Kelly Ranch Village “E”, the environmental impacts
therein identified for this project and said comments thereon, and the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program, on file in the Planning Department, prior to
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the project. Based on the EIA Part II and
comments thereon, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence
the project will have a significant effect on the environment and hereby
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
The Planning Commission does hereby find that the Mitigated Negative Declaration for
Kelly Ranch Village “En and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program have
been prepared in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality
Act, the State Guidelines and the Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of
Carlsbad.
The Planning Commission finds that this project qualifies as a subsequent
development to the City’s MEIR (MEIR 93-01) under Section 21083.3 of CEQA for
analysis of cumulative air quality and trafftic impacts and that all feasible mitigation
measures or project alternatives identified in the MEIR 93-01 which are
appropriate to this Subsequent Project have been incorporated into this Subsequent
Project.
The Planning Commission finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Kelly
Ranch Village “E” reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the
City of Carlsbad.
The project has the potential to cause significant environmental impacts but those
impacts can be mitigated to a level of less than significant through the
implementation of the measures identified herein.
Conditions:
1. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, impacts to coastal sage scrub habitat shall
be mitigated either through the City’s HMP 4d process, or through a separate
Section 7 consultation with the USFWS.
2. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit for improvements to Cannon Road, a 404
permit shall be obtained from the USACE and a Streambed Alteration Agreement
pursuant to 1601 shall be obtained from’the CDFG for impacts associated with the
construction of Cannon Road.
PC RESO NO. 4224 -2- ?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
f2
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
. . .
. . .
-
Prior to initiation of clearing, grubbing, or grading, the project site shall be clearly
flagged, staked and fenced to the satisfaction of the City Engineer with a visual
barrier such as a drift fence. The purpose of the barrier is to protect the adjacent
habitat during construction. This includes protection of coastal sage scrub habitat
as well as the riparian habitats associated with the Agua Hedionda Creek.
Initiation of construction should occur outside of the least Bell’s vireo breeding and
nesting season (May 15 through July 15). If this is not possible, a qualified biologist
shall survey the areas that occur in or near the southern willow scrub habitat, prior
to construction. If the least Bell’s vireo is not observed within the habitat, then
construction can be initiated.
Storm water runoff shall be directed into an oil separator and/or desiltation basin.
This will ensure protection of off-site resources in the Agua Hedionda Creek and the
lagoon downstream.
Indirect impacts to nesting birds shall be avoided by initiating construction in late
summer, fall, or winter. If this is not possible, then a nesting bird survey shall be
completed prior to brushing, clearing, or grading.
Detailed geotechnical and soils studies shall be prepared and approved by the City
Engineer prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
Slope stability investigations shall be conducted prior to the issuance of a grading
permit. Any unfavorable conditions will be removed or stabilized by buttressing or
reorientation of slope direction.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a runoff control plan shall be prepared to
the satisfaction of the City Engineer which demonstrates that there will be no
significant increase in peak runoff rate from the development site over the greatest
discharge expected from the existing undeveloped site as from a (i-hour, lo-year
frequency storm.
Development approvals shall include detailed provisions for emplacement, repair
and maintenance of approved drainage and erosion facilities. Permanent runoff
and erosion control devices shall be installed prior to or concurrent with onsite
grading activities.
Prior to occupancy, noise barriers shall be provided along Cannon Road and El
Camino Real frontages as described. in TABLE S-l of “Exterior Noise Analysis for
Kelly Ranch Area E” prepared by Mestre Greve Associates; Report # 96-173 Dated
November 19,1996 to the satisfaction of the Planning Director.
PC RESO NO. 4224 -3-
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 21st day of January, 1998, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Noble, Commissioners Compas, Heineman,
Monroy, Nielsen, Savary, and Welshons
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
BAILEY NOB@, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
V MICHAEL J. HOLZM’kLER
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 4224 -4-
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Address/Location: South of Cannon Road and west of El Camino Real in Local
Facilities ‘Management Zone 8.
Project Description: A 142 lot single family subdivision on 28 acres.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and
the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, a
Mitigated Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on
the environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in
the Planning Department.
A copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the
Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the
public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 20
days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Christer Westman in the
Planning Department at (760) 438-l 161, extension 4448.
DATED: JUNE 17,1997
CASE NO: CT 96-07KDP 96-l 3/HDP 96-l 3/PUD 97-04
CASE NAME: KELLY RANCH VILLAGE “E”
PUBLISH DATE: JUNE 17,1997
MI
Planning Director
2075 Las Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-l 576 - (619) 438-1161 - FAX (619) 438-0894 Id
@
- C
ADDENDUM TO A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR KELLY RANCH
VILLAGE “E” CT 96-07/PUD 97-04/HDP 96-13/GDP 96-13
Project Address/Location: South of Cannon Road and west of El Camino Real in Local
Facilities Management Zone 8.
The project description shaI1 be amended to read as follows:
A 153 lot subdivision on 45 acres.
A
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: CT 96-07/CDP 97-07/HDP 96-l 3/PUD 97-04/CDP 96-13
DATE: April 22, 1997
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Kellv Ranch Village “E”
2.
3.
APPLICANT: Kellv Land Comuanv. Inc.
ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: Suite 206 2011 Palomar Airport Road
Carlsbad California 92009
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: A~ril2 1,1997
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A 142 lot single family subdivision on 28 acres located south of Cannon
Road and west of El Camino Real in Local Facilities Management Zone 8.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving
at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant Impact Unless
Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
0 Land Use and Planning q Transportation/Circulation 0 Public Services
0 Population and Housing q Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems
0 Geological Problems 0 Energy & Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics
0 Water Cl Hazards cl Cultural Resources
q Air Quality cl Recreation
0 Mandatory Findings of Significance
Rev. 03/28/96 ] a
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
0
ix
0
cl
cl
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described
on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will
be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at
least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An Negative
Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects
(a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b)
have been voided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation
measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior
Compliance has been prepared.
Date
2 Rev. 03128196 I3
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an
Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the
environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a
checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be
impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for
deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report @JR), Negative Declaration, or to rely
on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
0 A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are
adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each
question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information
sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A “No
Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or it is
based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
l “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential
impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted general
standards and policies.
l “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of
mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less
Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must
describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less
than significant level.
l “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect
is significant.
. Based on an “EIA-Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant effect on
the environment, but fl potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in
an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b)
have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative
Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed
project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or supplemental EIR are
present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior environmental document have
been incorporated into this project, then no additional environmental document is required
(Prior Compliance).
l When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required to
prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement of
Overriding Considerations” has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR.
l A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that
the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment.
3 Rev. 03/28/96
a If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR
if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and those
mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the
appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” may be checked
and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared.
a An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including but
not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has not been
discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer
does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than significant; (2) a
“Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant impact has not been made
pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the impact to less
than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part II analysis it is not possible to determine the
level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness of a
mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant effect to below a level of
significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the
form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be
given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant.
4 Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Source
#k(s):
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies
adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project?
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to
soils or farmlands, or impacts from ,incompatible Iand
uses?
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of
established community (including a low-income
minority community)?
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
an
or
Cumulatively exceed oficial regional or local population
projections?
Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or
extension of major infrastructure)?
Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing?
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
4
b)
cl
4
e)
0
8)
h)
9
expose people to potential impacts involving:
Fault rupture?
Seismic ground shaking?
Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard?
Landslides or mudflows?
Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions
from excavation, grading, or till?
Subsidence of the land?
Expansive soils?
Unique geologic or physical features?
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
4
b)
c)
4
e)
Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate
and amount of surface runoff?
Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding?
Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface
water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or
turbidity)?
Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body?
Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements?
5
Potentially
Significant impact
0
0
0
cl
0
0
cl
0
0
0
cl
cl
0
0
0
0
cl
0
0
0
0
0
Potentially
Significant Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
0
0
cl
0
El
0
0
cl
0
cl
0
cl
0
cl
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Less Than
Significant Impact
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0
0
0
0
0
No Impact
[XI
m
El
IE3
lzl
lx
ix
lx
lx
IXI
lxl
El
lxl
El
lxl
txl
(XI .
IXI
lxl
El
Ix1
El
/ii Rev. 03128196
-
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
impact
0
0 0
0
No
impact
f) Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either through
direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of
an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial
loss of groundwater recharge capability?
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
h) Impacts to groundwater quality?
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies?
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation?
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants?
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate?
d) Create objectionable odors?
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal
result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves
or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm
equipment)?
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
fj Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts?
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in
0
0
0 0
0 0 0
0
0 0
0 0 lx
0 0
0
0 [XI 0 lxl
0 0 [XI
Ix1 0 0 0 0 0 0 El
0
0 0 0
0
0
0 0 0
0
0 El 0 IB 0 !xl 0 iz
0 El
impacts to:
Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals,
and birds?
Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest,
coastal habitat, etc.)?
Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?
lx 0 0 a)
b)
c)
4
e)
VIII.
a)
b)
c)
0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 lxl 0 (XI
0 (x1 0 IXI
ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal?
Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient
manner?
Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of future value to the region and
the residents of the State?
0 0
0
0 0
0
0 lxl 0 El
0 El
6 Rev. 03/28/96 17
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
4
b)
c)
4
e>
A risk of .accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation)?
Possible interference with an emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazards?
Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health
hazards?
Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass,
or trees?
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels?
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
4
b)
c)
4
4
upon, or result in a need for new or altered government
services in any of the following areas:
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
Other governmental services?
XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the proposal
a)
b)
c)
4
e)
f)
g)
XIII.
4
b)
C)
XIV.
a)
b)
result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial
alterations to the following utilities:
Power or natural gas?
Communications systems?
Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities?
Sewer or septic tanks?
Storm water drainage?
Solid waste disposal?
Local or regional water supplies?
0
0
0
0.
0
0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
0
0 0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
.
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0
ix1
lxl
lxl
El
IXI
lx4
IXI
lxl
El
lz
[XI
la
Ix]
Ed
lx
Ix1
lx q Ix1
AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway?
Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect?
Create light or glare?
0 0 0 IXI 0 0 0 lx
cl 0 0 lx
CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
Disturb paleontological resources?
Disturb archaeological resources? 0 0 0 lzd
0 0 0 IXI
7 Rev. 03/28/96 /I?
Potentially
Significant
impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significanl
Impact
No
Impact
-
Issues (and Supporting lnformation Sources).
c) Affect historical resources?
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values?
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area?
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
4
b)
XVI.
4
b)
c)
XVII.
Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks
or other recreational facilities?
Affect existing recreational opportunities?
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population
to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate
a plant or animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal
or eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively
considerable” means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with
the effects of past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
EARLIER ANALYSES.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Less Than
Significant
impact
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0’
No
Impact
lx
El
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative
declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following
on attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for
review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were
within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
cl Mitigation measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated,“ describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined
from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific
conditions for the project.
8 Rev. 03/28/96
-
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
AIR OUALITY:
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994
General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles traveled.
These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive organic gases,
oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are the major contributors
to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since the San Diego Air Basin is a
“non-attainment basin”, any additional air emissions are considered cumulatively significant:
therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in the updated General Plan will have
cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region.
To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a variety of
mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions for
roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures to
reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand
Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including mass transit
services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5) participation in
regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and appropriate General Plan
air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project or are
included as conditions of project approval.
Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is located
within a “non-attainment basin”, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially
Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of
an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council
Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for air quality impacts.
This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent projects covered by the
General Plan’s Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review
of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the Planning Department.
CIRCULATION:
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994
General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate to
accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely impacted
by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These generally
include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad Boulevard. Even with
the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections are projected to fail the
City’s adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout.
To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerous
mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include 1) measures to
ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develop
alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestrian
linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation strategies when
adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or State Highway onto
City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to control. The applicable
and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the
design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
9 Rev. 03128196 40
Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the failure of
intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore, the “Initial
Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the
General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the recent certification of
Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of
Overriding Considerations” for circulation impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations”
applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan’s Master EIR, including this project,
therefore, no further environmental review of circulation impacts is required.
LAND USE AND PLANNING:
The project is the development of a 142 single family lot subdivision. Development will include the
construction of a portion of Cannon Road. The General Plan, Zoning, Local Coastal Program and a
Master Plan identify this site as a residential area for single family development. Cannon Road has
been included on the General Plan Land Use Map and in the General Plan text as a Major Arterial.
Development of the site will not be inconsistent with existing land use designations.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES:
The majority of the site has been disturbed and major portions of the road have been graded. Some
isolated vegetation exists interior to the site and a limited amount of significant plant community
exists within the Cannon Road right-of-way.
The interior vegetation is largely mixed chaparral. The pockets of chaparral are separated by graded
areas resulting in isolation from vegetated hillsides to the west and southwest. These interior
pockets are therefore not considered to have any significant biological value.
The plant communities found within the Cannon Road right-of-way have been identified in previous
studies as having significant biological value. Disturbance of these communities will require
mitigation if impacts are to be considered less than significant. Impacts to plant communities within
the Cannon Road right-of-way were identified in a report prepared by Tetra Tech, Inc. in January
1996. Direct impacts were identified as 0.16 acres of southern willow scrub; 0.14 acres of open
water; 0.13 acres of disturbed riparian scrub; 1.41 acres of coastal sage scrub; 0.5 1 acres of disturbed
coastal sage scrub; 0.14 acres of baccharis scrub; and 9.66 acres of disturbed area.
Specific mitigation measures for this disturbance have been identified and are included within the
Mitigation Measures section of this Environmental Impacts Assessment.
POPULATION AND HOUSING:
The City’s Growth Management Plan and the General Plan make projections on housing and
population. The development of this area will only implement those plans which have determined
the maximum capacity for housing and population within the surrounding area. The development
itself will not be a contributor to increases in housing or population above what has already been
accounted for within the General Plan.
10 Rev. 03128196 21
GEOLOGIC:
There are no active faults identified within the limits of the City. Soils preparation for the
development will be per standard procedure which will reduce the potential for impacts to the road
once completed.
WATER:
The residential development of the site will not impact existing bodies of water other than the
bridging at the eastern edge of the project area for Cannon Road at El Camino Real. Standard
measures to implement the National Pollution Discharge Standards will capture harmful runoff from
the development prior to its discharge into Agua Hedionda Lagoon. Disturbance of open water, at
the bridge crossing, will require the issuance of an Army Corps of Engineers 404 permit.
ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES:
No impacts have been identified.
HAZARDS:
No impacts have been identified.
NOISE:
Noise associated with the project will be created by vehicles traveling Cannon Road. A noise study
was prepared for the project. Mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project which
will reduce traffic related noise impacts on future residents to a level of less than significant.
Construction noise impacts can be reduced to levels of insignificance by scheduling work outside of
the breeding season.
PUBLIC SERVICES, UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS:
The project is within the Zone 8 Local Facilities Management Plan. All services demanded by the
development of the project will be provided prior to or concurrently with development. No
significant impact has been identified.
AESTHETICS:
Development of the site has been proposed consistent with the regulations of the City’s Hillside
Development Ordinance. The project occurs in an area that has been disturbed. Views of the site
are from the east. Because of the height of the hills east of the site, there will be no ridge line
disturbance. The road is designated to pass Agua Hedionda Lagoon on the south side. The road can
be designed to take advantage of the available views to the greatest extent possible.
CULTURAL RESOURCES:
Resources were identified onsite for the Kelly Ranch when an EIR was prepared in 1983. Those
resources were recovered through a data recovery program. No further known resources are onsite.
There will not be any significant impact to cultural resources.
Rev. 03/28/96 aa
RECREATION:
Individual recreation lots are proposed within the subdivision. The development of the site will not
preclude community recreational resources. No impact has been identified.
ALTERNATIVES:
Project alternatives are required when there is evidence that the project will have a significant
adverse impact of the environment and an alternative would lessen or mitigate those adverse
impacts. Public Resources Code section 21002 forbids the approval of projects with significant
adverse impacts when feasible alternatives or mitigation measures can substantially lessen such
impacts. A “significant effect” is defined as one which has a substantial adverse impact. Mitigation
measures required as conditions of project approval will reduce the identified potentially significant
impacts to insignificant levels; therefore, no discussion of alternatives is necessary.
SOURCE DOCUMENTS:
(NOTE: All source documents are on file in the Planning Department located at 2075 Las Palmas
Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009, Phone: (619) 438- 116 1.)
1.
2.
3.
“Final Master EIR for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update,” prepared by the City of
Carlsbad Planning Department and certified September 6, 1994.
“Kelly Ranch Master Plan,” MP 174, approved September 18, 1994.
“1995 Growth Management Plan Traffic Monitoring Program,” prepared by JHK and
Associates.
4.
5.
“City of Carlsbad Draft Habitat Management Plan,” dated July 1995.
“Biotechnical Report for Cannon Road Reach II,” prepared by Tetra Tech dated January
1996.
6. City of Carlsbad General Plan
I. “Kelly Ranch EIR,” dated 1983.
8. Local Facilities Management Plan: Zone 8.
12 Rev. 03128196 43
h ,-
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
Direct Imuacts from Cannon Road
1. Impacts to coastal sage scrub habitat shall be mitigated either through the City’s HMP 4D
process, or through a separate Section 7 consultation with the USFWS. Mitigation may
include revegetation of a particular suitable area or the purchase of habitat in a mitigation
bank within the City of Carlsbad.
2. Impacts to regenerating disturbed coastal sage scrub may be considered significant and will
be mitigated by the same method and at the same rate as coastal sage scrub habitat.
3. The intersection of Cannon Road and El Camino Real necessitates a bridge across Agua
Hedionda Creek. This will impact southern willow riparian scrub, open water, and disturbed
riparian scrub. Southern willow scrub is a no net loss habitat and mitigation will be required
at a ratio of at least 2:l. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a 404 permit will be
required from the USACE and a Streambed Alteration Agreement pursuant to 1601 will be
required from the CDFG.
Indirect Impacts from Cannon Road
4. The right-of-way for Canon Road should be clearly flagged, staked and fenced prior to
initiation of clearing, grubbing, or grading. The right-of-way should be fenced with a visual
barrier such as a drift fence. The purpose of the barrier is to protect the adjacent habitat
during construction. This includes protection of coastal sage scrub habitat as well as the
riparian habitats associated with the Agua Hedionda Creek. The right-of-way does not need
to be flagged or fenced on the south side except where it is adjacent to native habitat. The
placement of the fencing should be based on survey stakes at the site and not on the
biological resource maps.
5. Initiation of construction should occur outside of the least Bell’s vireo breeding and nesting
season (May 15 through July 15). If this is not possible, a qualified biologist should survey
the areas that occur in or near the southern willow scrub habitat, prior to construction. If the
least Bell’s vireo is not observed within the habitat, then construction can be initiated.
6. Storm water runoff should be directed into an oil separator and/or desiltation basin. This will
ensure protection of off-site resources in the Agua Hedionda Creek and the lagoon
downstream.
7. Indirect impacts to nesting birds can be avoided by initiating construction in late summer,
fall, or winter. If this is not possible, then a nesting bird survey may need to be conducted
prior to brushing, clearing, or grading.
Geologv/Soils
8. Detailed geotechnical and soils studies will be prepared and engineering solutions approved
by the City prior to development. Erosion control measures will be required during project
construction.
9. Further slope stability investigations will be conducted. Any unfavorable conditions will be
removed or stabilized by buttressing or reorientation of slope direction.
13 Rev. 03/28/96 al/
Hydrology
10.
11.
Noise
12.
A runoff control plan will be prepared which demonstrates that there will be no significant
increase in peak runoff rate from the development site over the greatest discharge expected
from the existing undeveloped site as from a 6-hour, IO-year frequency storm.
Development approvals shall include detailed provisions for emplacement, repair and
maintenance of approved drainage and erosion facilities. Permanent runoff and erosion
control devices shall be installed prior to or concurrent with onsite grading activities.
Noise barriers shall be provided along Cannon Road and El Camino Real frontages as
described in TABLE S-l of “Exterior Noise Analysis for Kelly Ranch Area E” prepared by
Mestre Greve Associates; Report # 96-173 Dated November 19, 1996.
APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND
CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEAS
6
Date /
14 Rev. 03128196
t : % = ‘i z : i : = 9
J
u
! . I m
i
i c * : u :
ENVIRONMENTAL lJllTlGATlON MONITORING CHECKLIST: Page 1 of 4
- -
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST: Page 2 of 4
5 cl 2; c/l
r 1%. ‘i: r C 0
5,
1
P ’ t 0 e
s z
ENVIRONMENTA-- dllTIGATION MONITORING CHE~LIST: Page 3 of 4
= E $ n s VI .-
r" ii .P p! .-
2 z
g .- P
E&i ga"o ‘= m c mu 0 82 s E -i6
- -
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MONITORING CHEL;KLIST: Page 4 of 4
m
F .- ;s c 2 E
.z
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
C
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4225
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF CARLSBAD TRACT NUMBER CT 96-07 TO
SUBDIVIDE 45 ACRES INTO 153 LOTS ON PROPERTY
GENERALLY LOCATED EAST OF EL CAMINO REAL AND
SOUTH OF FUTURE CANNON ROAD IN LOCAL
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 8
CASE NAME: KELLY RANCH VILLAGE “E”
CASE NO.: CT 96-07
WHEREAS, Kelly Land Company, Inc., “Developer”, has filed a verified
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Kelly Land Company, Inc.,
“Owner”, described as
Portions of lots I and F of Ranch0 Agua Hedionda, in the County
of San Diego, State of California, according to map thereof No.
823, filed in the office of the County Recorder of said San Diego
County, November l&1896.
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Tentative Tract
Map as shown on Exhibit(s) “A” -“C” dated January 21, 1998, on file in the Planning
Department Kelly Ranch Village “E” CT 96-07, as provided by Chapter 20.12 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 21st day of January 1998,
hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
relating to the Tentative Tract Map.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
W That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of Kelly Ranch Village “E” CT 96-07, based
on the following findings and subject to the following conditions:
FindinPs:
1. The Planning Commission finds that the project, as conditioned herein for Kelly Ranch
Village “E”, is in conformance with the Elements of the City’s General Plan, based on
the following:
Land Use : The project is consistent with the City’s General Plan since the
proposed density of 3.2 du/acre is below the density range of 4-8 du/acre specified
for the site as indicated on the Land Use Element of the General Plan, and is at or
below the growth control point of 6.
l-9 Circulation : The project will provide a segment of Cannon Road which is a
circulation element roadway.
c> Noise : Noise will be attenuated to 60 dBA or less through construction of
sound attenuation walls along Cannon Road.
4 Housing : The project will provide housing for various segments of the
community in that the project is consistent with the Housing Element of the
General Plan and the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance as the Developer has been
conditioned to enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement prior to final map to
provide and deed restrict a proportionate share of dwelling units as affordable to
lower-income households within an off-site facility that will satisfy the
inclusionary housing requirement for the entire Kelly Ranch.
e> Open Space and Conservation : The project will not preclude the use of the
surrounding open space by the community at large.
0 Public Safety : All emergency services can adequately serve the project.
2. The project is consistent with the City-Wide Facilities and Improvements Plan, the
applicable local facilities management plan, and all City public facility policies and
ordinances since:
a> The project has been conditioned to ensure that building permits will not be issued
for the project unless the District Engineer determines that sewer service is
available, and building cannot occur within the project unless sewer service
remains available, and the District Engineer is satisfied that the requirements of
the Public Facilities Element of the General Plan have been met insofar as they
apply to sewer service for this project.
3f PC RESO NO. 4225 -2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
4
cl
4
e>
School fees will be paid pursuant to the agreement between the Carlsbad
School District and Kelly Land Company, Inc.
Park-in-lieu fees are required as a condition of approval.
All necessary public improvements have been provided or are required as
conditions of approval.
The developer has agreed and is required by the inclusion of an appropriate
condition to pay a public facilities fee. Performance of that contract and payment
of the fee will enable this body to find that public facilities will be available
concurrent with need as required by the General Plan.
This project has been conditioned to comply with any requirement approved as part of the
Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 8.
That all necessary public facilities required by the Growth Management Ordinance will
be constructed or are guaranteed to be constructed concurrently with the need for them
created by this project and in compliance with adopted City standards, in that a portion
of Cannon Road will be constructed for the length of the project.
The Planning Commission has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the Developer
contained in this resolution, and hereby finds, in this case, that the exactions are imposed
to mitigate impacts cause by or reasonably related to the project, and the extent and the
degree of the exaction is in rough proportionality to the impact caused by the project.
That the proposed map and the proposed design and improvement of the subdivision as
condition, is consistent with and satisfies all requirements of the General Plan, any
applicable specific plans, Titles 20 and 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, and the State
Subdivision Map Act, and will not cause serious public health problems, in that the
project is a single family residential subdivision which is consistent with the General Plan
and the Kelly Ranch Master Plan.
That the proposed project is compatible with the surrounding future land uses since
surrounding properties are designated for single family development on the General Plan,
in that the proposal is also a single family development.
That the site is physically suitable for the type and density of the development since the
site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate residential development at the density
proposed, in that the project density is below the density range identified in the
General Plan and below the Growth’Management control point of 6 units per acre.
That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with
easements of record or easements established by court judgment, or acquired by the
public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision, in
that all necessary easements for access are required as conditions of approval.
3a
PC RESO NO. 4225 -3-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
That the property is not subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the Land
Conservation Act of 1965 (Williamson Act).
That the design of the subdivision provides, to the extent feasible, for future passive or
natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision, in that there are southern
exposures which can capture solar energy.
That the Planning Commission has considered, in connection with the housing proposed
by this subdivision, the housing needs of the region, and balanced those housing needs
against the public service needs of the City and available fiscal and environmental
resources;
That the design of the subdivision and improvements are not likely to cause substantial
environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their
habitat, in that the project has been reviewed consistent with the California
Environmental Quality Act and no significant unmitigable adverse impacts were
identified.
That the discharge of waste from the subdivision will not result in violation of existing
California Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements, in that NPDES
measures will be implemented as a condition of approval.
The project has been conditioned to pay any increase in public facility fee, or new
construction tax, or development fees, and has agreed to abide by any additional
requirements established by a Local Facilities Management Plan prepared pursuant to
Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. This will ensure continued availability of
public facilities and will mitigate any cumulative impacts created by the project.
Conditions:
1. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require Developer to make, all corrections
and modifications to the Tentative Tract Map document(s), as necessary, to make them
internally consistent and in conformity with final action on the project. Development
shall occur substantially as shown in the approved Exhibits. Any proposed development
different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval.
2. The Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local
ordinances in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
3. The Developer/Operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and
hold harmless the City of Carlsbad, its Council members, officers, employees, agents, and
representatives, from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims
and costs, including court costs and attorney’s fees incurred by the City arising, directly
or indirectly, from (a) City’s approval and issuance of this Tentative Tract Map, (b)
City’s approval or issuance of any permit or action, whether discretionary or non-
discretionary, in connection with the use contemplated herein, and (c)
33
PC RESO NO. 4225 -4-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Developer/Operator’s installation and operation of the facility permitted hereby,
including without limitation, any and all liabilities arising from the emission by the
facility of electromagnetic fields or other energy waves or emissions.
The Developer shall provide the City with a reproducible 24” x 36”, mylar copy of the
Tentative Map as approved by the final decision making body. The Tentative Map shall
reflect the conditions of approval by the City. The Map copy shall be submitted to the
City Engineer and approved prior to building, grading, final map, or improvement plan
submittal, whichever occurs first.
The Developer shall include, as part of the plans submitted for any permit plan check, a
reduced legible version of the approving (resolution(s)) on a 24” x 36” blueline drawing.
Said blueline drawing(s) shall also include a copy of any applicable Coastal Development
Permit and signed approved site plan.
Building permits will not be issued for development of the subject property unless the
District Engineer determines that sewer facilities are available at the time of application
for such sewer permits and will continue to be available until time of occupancy. A note
to this effect shall be placed on the final map.
The Developer shall pay the public facilities fee adopted by the City Council on July 28,
1987, (amended July 2, 1991) and as amended from time to time, and any development
fees established by the City Council pursuant to Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal
Code or other ordinance adopted to implement a growth management system or Facilities
and Improvement Plan and to fulfil1 the subdivider’s agreement to pay the public
facilities fee dated November 11, 1996 , a copy of which is on file with the City Clerk
and is incorporated by this reference. If the fees are not paid, this application will not be
consistent with the General Plan and approval for this project will be void.
This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures which are required
as part of the Zone 8 Local Facilities Management Plan in effect at the time of final
map, including, but not limited to the following:
a) Construction of a portion of Cannon Road
W Improvements to El Camino Real at the Cannon Road intersection.
cl Storm drain facilities in Cannon Road.
The Developer shall establish a homeowner’s association and corresponding covenants,
conditions and restrictions. Said CC&Rs shall be submitted to and approved by the
Planning Director prior to final map approval. Prior to issuance of a building permit the
Developer shall provide the Planning Department with a recorded copy of the official
CC&Rs that have been approved by the Department of Real Estate and the Planning
Director. At a minimum, the CC&Rs shall contain the following provisions:
34
PC RESO NO. 4225 -5-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
General Enforcement by the City. The City shall have the right, but not the
obligation, to enforce those Protective Covenants set forth in this Declaration in
favor of, or in which the City has an interest.
Failure of Association to Maintain Common Area Lots and Easements, In the
event that the Association fails to maintain the “Common Area Lots and/or the
Association’s Easements” as provided in Article , Section the City
shall have the right, but not the duty, to perform the necessary maintenance. If the
City elects to perform such maintenance, the City shall give written notice to the
Association, with a copy thereof to the Owners in the Project, setting forth with
particularity the maintenance which the City finds to be required and requesting
the same ‘be carried out by the Association within a period of thirty (30) days from
the giving of such notice. In the event that the Association fails to carry out such
maintenance of the Common Area Lots and/or Association’s Easements within
the period specified by the City’s notice, the City shall be entitled to cause such
work to be completed and shall be entitled to reimbursement with respect thereto
from the Owners as provided herein.
4 Special Assessments Levied by the City. In the event the City has performed the
necessary maintenance to either Common Area Lots and/or Association’s
Easements, the City shall submit a written invoice to the Association for all costs
incurred by the City to perform such maintenance of the Common Area Lots and
or Association’s Easements. The City shall provide a copy of such invoice to
each Owner in the Project, together with a statement that if the Association fails to
pay such invoice in full within the time specified, the City will pursue collection
against the Owners in the Project pursuant to the provisions of this Section. Said
invoice shall be due and payable by the Association within twenty (20) days of
receipt by the Association., If the Association shall fail to pay such invoice in full
within the period specified, payment shall be deemed delinquent and shall be
subject to a late charge in an amount equal to six percent (6%) of the amount of
the invoice. Thereafter the City may pursue collection from the Association by
means of any remedies available at law or in equity. Without limiting the
generality of the foregoing, in addition to all other rights and remedies available
to the City, the City may levy a special assessment against the Owners of each Lot
in the Project for an equal prorata share of the invoice, plus the late charge. Such
special assessment shall constitute a charge on the land and shall be a continuing
lien upon each Lot against which the special assessment is levied. ‘Each Owner in
the Project hereby vests the City with the right and power to levy such special
assessment, to impose a lien upon their respective Lot and to bring all legal
actions and/or to pursue lien foreclosure procedures against any Owner and
his/her respective Lot for purposes of collecting such special assessment in
accordance with the procedures set forth in Article of this Declaration.
10. The Developer shall provide proof of payment of school fees to mitigate conditions of
overcrowding as part of the building permit application. The amount of these fees
PC RESO NO. 4225
33-
-6-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
has been determined by the Carlsbad Unified School District school facilities
mitigation agreement dated November 20,1997.
11. This approval shall be null and void if the project site subject to this approval is not
annexed to City of Carlsbad CFD No. 1 within 60 days of the approval. The City shall
not issue any grading, building, or other permit, until the annexation is completed. The
City Manager is authorized to extend the 60 days, for a period not to exceed 60 days,
upon a showing of good cause.
12. The Developer shall prepare a detailed landscape and irrigation plan in conformance with
the approved Preliminary Landscape Plan and the City’s Landscape Manual. The plans
shall be submitted to and approval obtained from the Planning Director prior to the
approval of the final map, grading permit, or building permit, whichever occurs first. The
Developer shall construct and install all landscaping as shown on the approved plans, and
maintain all landscaping in a healthy and thriving condition, free from weeds, trash, and
debris.
13. If any condition for construction of any public improvements or facilities, or the payment
of any fees in-lieu thereof, imposed by this approval or imposed by law on this residential
housing project are challenged this approval shall be suspended as provided in
Government Code Section 66020. If any such condition is determined to be invalid this
approval shall be invalid unless the City Council determines that the project without the
condition complies with all requirements of law.
14. The Developer shall provide bus stops to service this development at locations and with
reasonable facilities to the satisfaction of the North County Transit District and the
Planning Director. Said facilities, if required, shall at a minimum include a bench, free
from advertising, and a pole for the bus stop sign. The bench and pole shall be designed
to enhance or consistent with basic architectural theme of the project.
15. Prior to the approval of the final map for any phase of this project, the Developer
shall enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement with the City to provide and deed
restrict approximately 133 dwelling units to satisfy the inclusionary housing
ordinance requirement for the entire Kelly Ranch Master Plan, area of which 22 are
attributed to Village “E” as affordable to lower-income households for the useful life
of the dwelling units, in accordance with the requirements and process set forth in
Chapter 21.85 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. The draft Affordable Housing
Agreement shall be submitted to the Planning Director no later than April 30,1998 .
The recorded Affordable Housing Agreement shall be binding on all future owners
and successors in interest.
16. The Developer shall display a current Zoning and Land Use Map in the sales office at all
times, or suitable alternative to the satisfaction of the Planning Director.
17. All sales maps that are distributed or made available to the public shall include but not be
limited to trails, future and existing schools, parks and streets.
PC RESO NO. 4225
, s(&
-7-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
Prior to approval of the final map, the Developer shall be required: 1) to consult with the
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) regarding the impact of the project on
the Coastal California Gnatcatcher; and, 2) obtain any permits required by the USWFS.
The Developer shall diligently implement, or cause the implementation of, all mitigation
measures identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration and attached Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program.
Paleontology:
a>
b)
c)
4
3
Prior to any grading of the project site, a paleontologist shall be retained to
perform a walkover survey of the site and to review the grading plans to
determine if the proposed grading will impact fossil resources. A copy of the
paleontologist’s report shall be provided to the Planning Director prior to issuance
of a grading permit;
A qualified paleontologist shall be retained to perform periodic inspections of the
site and to salvage exposed fossils. Due to the small nature of some of the fossils
present in the geologic strata, it may be necessary to collect matrix samples for
laboratory processing through fine screens. The paleontologist shall make
periodic reports to the Planning Director during the grading process;
.
The paleontologist shall be allowed to divert or direct grading in the area of an
exposed fossil in order to facilitate evaluation and, if necessary, salvage artifacts;
All fossils collected shall be donated to a public, non-profit institution with a
research interest in the materials, such as the San Diego Natural History Museum;
Any conflicts regarding the role of the paleontologist and the grading activities of
the project shall be resolved by the Planning Director and City Engineer.
Prior to the recordation of the final map, the Developer shall prepare and record a Notice
that this property may be subject to noise impacts from the proposed or existing
Transportation Corridor, in a form meeting the approval of the Planning Director and
City Attorney (see Noise Form #l on file in the Planning Department).
Open space lot 147 shall be split into two lots. The second lot (No. 154) shall include
the upland habitats.
The Developer shall dedicate an open space easement to the Home Owner’s Association
on the final map for those portions of lots 148 and 154 which are in slopes, wetlands,
coastal sage scrub or other constrained land plus all other lands set aside as part of the
Citywide Open Space System in their entirety to prohibit any removal of natural
vegetation, encroachment or development, including but not limited to fences, walls,
decks, storage buildings, pools, spas, stairways and landscaping other than that approved
as part of biological revegetation program and/or landscape plan as shown on Exhibits
PC RESO NO. 4225 -8-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
. . .
h
“OO-TT” or upon written order of the Carlsbad Fire Department for fire prevention
purposes or upon written approval of the Planning Director based upon a request from the
Homeowner’s Association accompanied by a report from a qualified arborist/botonist
indicating the need to remove specified trees and/or plants because of disease or
impending danger to adjacent habitable dwelling units. For areas containing native
vegetation the report required to accompany the request shall be prepared by a qualified
biologist.
The Developer shall dedicate an open space easement to the Home Owner’s Association
on the final map, on recreation/open space lots 145-147 and 149-153 to prohibit any
removal of vegetation, encroachment or development, including but not limited to fences,
walls, decks, storage buildings, pools, spas, stairways and landscaping other than that
shown on Exhibits “OO-TT” or upon written approval of the Planning Director.
Maintenance of the lots shall be the responsibility of the Home Owner’s Association
as required by the CC&Rs.
Open space/recreation lots 145-147 and 149-153 shall be improved concurrent with
the development of the residential lots within a 500’ radius.
Prior to approval of the final map, the Developer shall provide an irrevocable offer of
dedication to the City of Carlsbad for a trail easement for trail(s) shown on the tentative
map and Exhibits “00” and “PP” dated January 21, 1998 within Open Space Lots
146 and 147. If the City of Carlsbad accepts dedication of the trail easement, the trail
shall be constructed as a public trail and will be the maintenance and liability
responsibility of the City of Carlsbad. If the City of Carlsbad does not accept dedication
of the trail easement, the trail shall still be constructed but it shall be constructed as a
private trail and shall be the maintenance and liability responsibility of the Homeowners
Association.
The Developer shall provide paved access and recreational vehicle storage, with a
total area of not less than 2,880 square feet, off-site at the location shown on exhibit
“XX” prior to issuance of the 1Olst building permit. Maintenance of the facility
shall be the responsibility of the Kelly Land Company and may be transferred to a
subsequent maintenance entity.
The developer shall construct noise attenuation barriers consistent with the findings
of the “Exterior Noise Analysis for Kelly Ranch Area E” dated November 19, 1996.
Noise attenuation shall be achieved through the use of a combination of berms and
solid masonry walls. These noise barriers shall be integrated into a single design
which includes variation in depth and coordination with the 30 foot landscape
easement treatment along Cannon Road. Final location, height, and materials shall
be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director as a component of the
landscape plans prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
PC RESO NO. 4225 -9- 39
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29. The Developer shall provide enhanced rear elevations as shown on the approved
architectural exhibits “H-W” on the following lots: 1-17; 40-56; 66-71; 81-94; 103-
108; 117-144.
30. The developer shall provide enhanced paving or “Pasadena” driveways throughout
the project on lots which are built with the third garage space option within plans
three and four to the satisfaction of the Planning Director.
EnPineerinP Conditions
31. The .net developable acres shall be shown for each parcel on the conforming mylar
tentative map.
32. Prior to issuance of any building permit, the developer shall comply with the
requirements of the City’s anti-graffiti program for wall treatments if and when such a
program is formerly established by the City.
33. Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to or from any proposed construction site
within this project, the developer shall submit to and receive approval from the City
Engineer for the proposed haul route. The developer shall comply with all conditions and
requirements the City Engineer may impose with regards to the hauling operation.
NOTE: Unless specifically stated in the condition, all of the following engineering conditions,
upon the approval of this proposed major subdivision, must be met prior to approval of a final
map.
34.
35.
36.
All concrete terrace drains shall be maintained by the homeowner’s association (if on
commonly owned property) or the individual property owner (if on an individually
owned lot). An appropriately worded statement clearly identifying the responsibility
shall be placed in the CC&Rs (if maintained by the Association) and on the Final Map.
The developer shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and its agents, officers,
and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City or its agents,
officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void or null an approval of the City, the
Planning Commission or City Engineer which has been brought against the City within
the time period provided for by Section 66499.37 of the Subdivision Map Act.
The developer shall provide for sight distance corridors in accordance with Engineering
Standards and the tentative map; and, shall record the following statements on the
conforming mylar tentative map and preliminary landscape plan:
a) Mature vegetation within the site line area of all intersections shall be no
greater than 30” in height or have a canopy no less than 8’ in height.
b) No structure, fence, wall, sign, or other object over 30 inches above the street
level shall be placed or permitted to encroach within the area identified as a sight
PC RESO NO. 4225 -lO- 39
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
distance corridor in accordance with City Standards and the tentative map. The
underlying property owner, or homeowner’s association shall maintain this
condition.
This project is within the proposed boundary of the Cannon Road West Bridge and
Thoroughfare Fee District. This project is required to pay a fair share contribution
towards the construction of Cannon Road in accordance with the proposed fee program.
If the district has not been formed prior to the issuance of building permits for the project,
the owner shall pay a fee based on the Average Daily Trips generated by the project and
shall enter into an agreement with the City not to oppose the formation of a fee district
and to pay the project’s fair share contribution towards the construction of Cannon Road
in accordance with the future adopted fee program.
Prior to issuance of a building permit for any buildable lot within the subdivision, the
property owner shall pay a one-time special development tax in accordance with City
Council Resolution No. 91-39.
The developer shall pay all current fees and deposits required.
The owner of the subject property shall execute an agreement holding the City harmless
regarding drainage across the adjacent property.
The owner shall execute a hold harmless agreement for geologic failure.
Prior to approval of any grading or building permits for this project, the owner shall give
written consent to the annexation of the area shown within the boundaries of the
subdivision plan into the existing City of Carlsbad Street Lighting and Landscaping
District No. 1 on a form provided by the City.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall submit proof that a Notice of
Intention has been submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board.
Based upon a review of the proposed grading and the grading quantities shown on the
tentative map, a grading permit for this project is required. The developer must submit’
and receive approval for grading plans in accordance with City codes and standards.
Upon completion of grading, the developer shall ensure that an “as-graded” geologic plan
is submitted to the City Engineer. The plan shall clearly show all the geology as exposed
by the grading operation, all geologic corrective measures as actually constructed and
must be based on a contour map which represents both the pre and post site grading. This
plan shall be signed by both the soils engineer and the engineering geologist. The plan
shall be prepared on a 24” x 36” mylar or similar drafting film and shall become a
permanent record.
No grading for private improvements shall occur outside the limits of the subdivision
unless a grading or slope easement or agreement is obtained from the owners of the
affected properties and recorded. If the developer is unable to obtain the grading or slope
PC RESO NO. 4225 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
47.
easement, or agreement, no grading permit will be issued. In that case the developer must
either amend the tentative map or modify the plans so grading will not occur outside the
project site in a manner which substantially conforms to the approved tentative map as
determined by the City Engineer and Planning Director.
The developer shall install or agree to install and secure with appropriate security as
provided by law desiltation/detention/urban pollutant basin(s) of a type and a size and at
location(s) as approved by the City Engineer. The developer shall enter into a basin
maintenance agreement and submit a maintenance bond satisfactory to the City Engineer
prior to the approval of grading, building permit or final map whichever occurs first for
this project. Basin maintenance shall be conducted by the Kelly Ranch Village “E”
Homeowner’s Association (HOA) or a Kelly Ranch Master HOA. Language to this
effect shall be added to the Covenants Conditions & Restrictions (CC & Rs) for the
applicable HOA responsible for maintaining any basin(s). Each basin shall be
serviced by an all-weather access/maintenance road.
48. Direct access rights for all lots abutting Cannon Road shall be waived on the final map.
49. Additional drainage easements may be required. Drainage structures shall be provided or
installed prior to or concurrent with any grading or building permit as may be required by
the City Engineer.
50. The owner shall make an offer of dedication to the City for all public streets and
easements required by these conditions or shown on the tentative map, as identified
below. The offer shall be made by a certificate on the final map for this project. All land
so offered shall be granted to the City free and clear of all liens and encumbrances and
without cost to the City. Streets that are already public are not required to be rededicated.
a) El Camino Real northwest of Cannon Road shall be dedicated on the final
map, along the property frontage.
b) The remaining segments of Cannon Road shall be dedicated on the final
map, along the property frontage, approximately from the project entrance
to the project’s southwestern boundary line.
c) “AA, B, C, CC, D, E, F, G, H, HH, I Streets” and “Frost Street”.
51. Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall underground all existing
overhead utilities along and within the subdivision.
52. The developer shall comply with the City’s requirements of the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The developer shall provide best
management practices as referenced in the “California Storm Water Best Management
Practices Handbook” to reduce surface pollutants to an acceptable level prior to discharge
to sensitive areas. Plans for such improvements shall be prepared by the developer and
PC RESO NO. 4225 -12- a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-
approved by the City Engineer. Said plans shal
prospective owners and tenants of the following:
1 include but not be limited to notifying
All owners and tenants shall coordinate efforts to establish or work with
established disposal programs to remove and properly dispose of toxic and
hazardous waste products.
b> Toxic chemicals or hydrocarbon compounds such as gasoline, motor oil,
antifreeze, solvents, paints, paint thinners, wood preservatives, and other such
fluids shall not be discharged into any street, public or private, or into storm drain
or storm water conveyance systems. Use and disposal of pesticides, fungicides,
herbicides, insecticides, fertilizers and other such chemical treatments shall meet
Federal, State, County and City requirements as prescribed in their respective
containers.
4 Best Management Practices shall be used to eliminate or reduce surface pollutants
when planning any changes to the landscaping and surface improvements.
53. Plans, specifications, and supporting documents for all public improvements shall be
prepared to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. In accordance with City Standards, the
developer shall install, or agree to install and secure with appropriate security as provided
by law, improvements shown on the tentative map, and in accordance with the
following:
a)
b)
4
4
d
Install a fully actuated traffic signal at the intersection of Cannon Road and
Frost Street.
Install a fully actuated traffic signal at the intersection of Cannon Road and a El Camino Real (ECR).*
Full Major Arterial improvements to Cannon Road, including the
landscaped raised median and all utilities, and the improvements to ECR, in
accordance with improvement drawing 333-26, from station 99+00 easterly.
Construction of Cannon Road improvements requires the issuance of a
Coastal Development Permit by the California Coastal Commission.*
Full on-site public street improvements to “A, AA, B, C, CC, D, E, F, G, H,
HH, I Streets” and “Frost Street”.
South Agua Hedionda Interceptor sewer (temporary dry line) along the
project frontage within Cannon Road, connecting to the existing 36” sewer
within ECR, extending westerly to the tract boundary along Cannon Road.
(In accordance with CMWD District Engineer correspondence, dated
1 l/6/97.)
Temporary sewer force main within Cannon Road along the project’s
frontage to service the project.
PC RESO NO. 4225 -13-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
g)
h)
3
j)
k)
- -
Temporary lift station, as shown on the tentative map.
Emergency overflow pipeline from the wet well of the temporary lift station
to the south Agua Hedionda Interceptor Sewer. (In accordance with CMWD
District Engineer correspondence, dated 1116197.)
Manhole covers at all locations on the collector sewer system shall be above
the 24’ elevation. (In accordance with CMWD District Engineer
correspondence, dated 11/6/97.)
The existing sewer line within Frost Street (at Evan’s Point) shall be
extended and connected to the proposed sewer line, in Frost Street, for this
project in accordance with CMWD District Engineer correspondence, dated
1116197.
The existing sewer line, from Frost Street to the force main, along the
project’s easterly boundary line shall be abandoned in accordance with
CMWD District Engineer correspondence, dated 11/6/97.
*The developer shall enter into a reimbursement agreement and shall be eligible for
fee credit and/or reimbursement for their portion of the Cannon Road common
improvements as defined in the Cannon Road West Bridge and Thoroughfare
District. Improvements to ECR, including the transitions on the east side of the
roadway, are reimbursable, except for any frontage improvements along ECR.
A list of the above improvements shall be placed on an additional map sheet on the final
map per the provisions of Sections 66434.2 of the Subdivision Map Act. Improvements
shall be constructed within 18 months of approval of the secured improvement agreement
or such other time as provided in said agreement.
54. Notes to the following effect shall be placed on the final map as non-mapping data:
a> This subdivision contains a remainder parcel. No building permit shall be issued
for the remainder parcel until it is further subdivided pursuant to the provisions of
Title 20 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
b) Geo-technical Caution:
The owner of this property on behalf of itself and all of its successors in interest
has agreed to hold harmless and indemnify the City of Carlsbad from any action
that may arise through any geological failure, ground water seepage or land
subsidence and subsequent damage that may occur on, or adjacent to, this
subdivision due to its construction, operation or maintenance.
c> No structure, fence, wall, sign, or .other object over 30 inches above the street
level shall be placed or permitted to encroach within the area identified as a sight
PC RESO NO. 4225 -14- 43
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
55.
56.
Sewer clean-outs and water valves shall not be located within driveways.
Sewer clean-outs and water valves shall be shown on the conforming mylar site
development plan. These items can be shown either on individual lots, or on a
typical plan view.
57. A minimum of 330’ of Comer Sight Distance shall be shown on the conforming
mylar tentative map and final landscape plans for all streets that intersect Frost
Street. A minimum of 660’ of Comer Sight Distance shall be shown on the
conforming mylar tentative map and final landscape plans at the intersection of
Frost Street with Cannon Road.
58. The PCC overflow ditches being shown on the tentative map at “A, CC, D and G”
Streets shall be revised to indicate vegetated swales or another overflow mitigation
system as shall be approved by the City Engineer. All overflow mitigation systems
shall be shown on the project’s final grading plans.
59.
60.
The Zone 8 Local Facilities Management Plan Amendment shall be approved.
A drainage cross-section detail indicating that a 5 foot minimum width shall be held
from the face of any structure to the face of any retaining wall; and, a 3 foot
minimum width shall be held from the face of any structure to the flow line,
regardless of the height of the proposed wall, shall be shown on the conforming
mylar site development plan.
61. The following note shall be added to the conforming mylar site development plan:
a) “Retaining walls which are added shall be located a minimum of 5 feet away
from any structure. This 5’ distance shall be measured from the face of the
retaining wall to the face of any structure. A minimum of 3 feet shall be held
from the face of any structure to the flow line. These requirements shall
apply regardless of the height of any proposed retaining wall and shall be
approved by the City Engineer, prior to building permit issuance.”
62. The pad elevations for tentative map lot numbers 113 through 129 and the street
grades for “C” and “C-C” streets shall be raised so that a minimum 1’ freeboard is
achieved above the 100 year flood line. This shall be shown on the conforming
mylar tentative map and the project’s fmal grading plans.
. . .
distance corridor in accordance with City Standards and the tentative map. The
underlying property owner, or homeowner’s association shall maintain this
condition.
d) Mature vegetation within the site line area of all intersections shall be no
greater than 30” in height or have a canopy no less than 8’ in height.
PC RESO NO. 4225 -15- il4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-
63. This project is within the proposed boundary of the Cannon Road West Bridge and
Thoroughfare Fee District. This project is required to pay a fair share contribution
towards the construction of Cannon Road in accordance with the proposed fee program.
Developer shall enter into an agreement with the City providing that, if the fee district has
not been formed prior to issuance of building permits for the project, the owner shall pay
a fee, in an amount currently estimated to be $210.00/ADT attributable to the
project, subject to potential increase or decrease at time of building permit (and
correspondingly increased fee, or reimbursed), and shall enter into an agreement with
the City not to oppose the formation of a fee district and pay the project’s fair share
contribution towards the construction of Cannon Road in accordance with that future
adopted fee program.
Fire Conditions
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
. . .
Prior to issuance of building permits, the Fire Department shall evaluate building plans
for conformance with applicable fire and safety requirements of state and local fire codes.
Provide additional public fire hydrants at intervals of 500 feet along public streets and
private driveways. Hydrants should be located at street intersections when possible, but
should be positioned no closer than 100 feet from terminus of a street or driveway.
Applicant shall submit a site plan to the Fire Department for approval, which depicts
location of required, proposed and existing public water mains and fire hydrants. The
plan should include off-site fire hydrants within 200 feet of the project.
Applicant shall submit a site plan depicting emergency access routes, driveways and
traffic circulation for Fire Department approval.
An all weather, unobstructed access road suitable for emergency service vehicles shall be
provided and maintained during construction. When in the opinion of the Fire Chief, the
access road has become unserviceable due to inclement weather or other reasons, he may,
in the interest of public safety, require the construction operations to cease until the
condition is corrected.
All required water mains, tire hydrants and appurtenances shall be operational before
combustible building materials are located on the construction site.
Prior to final inspection, all security gate systems controlling vehicular access shall be
equipped with a “Knox”, key operated emergency entry device. Applicant shall contact
the Fire Prevention Bureau for specifications and approvals prior to installation.
Prior to building occupancy, private roads and driveways which serve as required access
for emergency vehicles shall be posted as fire lanes in accordance with the requirements
of section 17.04.020 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
PC RESO NO. 4225 -16- $-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
72. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall obtain fire department
approval of a wildland fuel management plan. The plan shall clearly indicate the
methods proposed to mitigate and manage fire risk associated with native vegetation
growing within 60 feet of structures. The plan shall reflect the standards presented in the
fire suppression element of the City of Carlsbad Landscape Guidelines Manual.
73. Prior to occupancy of buildings, all wildland fuel mitigation activities must be complete,
and the condition of all vegetation within 60 feet of structures found to be in conformance
with an approved wildland fuel management plan.
74. The applicant shall provide a street map which conforms with the following
requirements: A 400 scale photo-reduction mylar, depicting proposed improvements and
at least two existing intersections or streets. The map shall also clearly depict street
centerlines, hydrant locations and street names.
Water Conditions
75. The entire potable water system, reclaimed water system and sewer system shall be
evaluated in detail to insure that adequate capacity, pressure and flow demands can be
met.
76. The developer shall be responsible for all fees, deposits and charges which will be
collected before and/or at the time of issuance of the building permit. The San Diego
County Water Authority capacity charge will be collected at issuance of application for
meter installation.
77. Sequentially, the developer’s Engineer shall do the following:
Meet with the City Fire Marshal and establish the fire protection requirements.
Also obtain G.P.M. demand for domestic and irrigational needs from appropriate
parties.
b) Prepare a colored reclaimed water use area map and submit to the Planning-
Department for processing approval.
4 Prior to the preparation of sewer, water and reclaimed water improvement plans, a
meeting must be scheduled with the District Engineer for review, comment and
approval of the preliminary system layouts and usages (i.e. - GPM - EDU).
78. If any of the foregoing conditions fail to occur; or if they are, by their terms, to be
implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so
implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to
revoke or modify all approvals herein granted; deny or further condition issuance of all
future building permits; deny, revoke or further condition all certificates of occupancy
issued under the authority of approvals herein granted; institute and prosecute litigation to
compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. No
PC RESO NO. 4225 -17- 46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
vested rights are gained by Developer or a successor in interest by the City’s approval of
this (type of action, e.g. Tentative Map).
Code Reminders
79. The developer shall exercise special care during the construction phase of this project to
prevent offsite siltation. Planting and erosion control shall be provided in accordance
with the Carlsbad Municipal Code and the City Engineer.
I PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 21st day of January 1998, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Noble, Commissioners Compas, Heineman,
Monroy, Nielsen, Savary, and Welshons
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
BAILEY NOBLE, Chairperson’
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
\
MICHAEL J. HOLZMIYLER
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 4225 -18- 47
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
. 16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4226
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PUD 97-04
FOR A SUBDIVISION OF 153 LOTS ON PROPERTY
GENERALLY LOCATED EAST OF EL CAMINO REAL AND
SOUTH OF FUTURE CANNON ROAD IN LOCAL
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 8.
CASE NAME: KELLY RANCH VILLAGE “E”
CASE NO.: PUD 97-04
WHEREAS, Kelly Land Company, Inc., “Developer”, has filed a verified
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Kelly Land Company, Inc..
“Owner”, described as
Portions of lots I and F of Ranch0 Agua Hedionda, in the County
of San Diego, State of California, according to map thereof No.
823, filed in the office of the County Recorder of said San Diego
County, November 16,1896.
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Planned Unit
Development as shown on Exhibit(s) “D” - “TT” dated January 21, 1998 ,on file in the
Planning Department, Kelly Ranch Village “E” PUD 97-04 as provided by Chapter 21.45 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 21st day of January, 1998,
hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
relating to the Planned Unit Development.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
48
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
W That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL (of) Kelly Ranch Village “E” PUD 97-04,
based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions:
Findinps:
1. All findings contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 4225 shall apply as
findings of this permit and are incorporated herein by reference.
2. That the granting of this permit will not adversely affect and will be consistent with
Chapter 21.45 of Title 21, the General Plan, applicable specific plans, master plans, and
all adopted plans of the City and other governmental agencies, in that the project is
proposing densities below the Growth Management Control Point; the mitigation of
onsite surface runoff so as not to affect on and offsite downstream properties is
required; prior to recordation of the final map an affordable housing agreement
must be entered into which provides for and deed restricts dwelling units as
affordable to lower income households for the useful life of the dwelling units; the
construction of a portion of Cannon Road and access to this subdivision from it is
required; prior to occupancy the construction of noise walls to meet the standards
contained within the General Plan is required; and all densities, setbacks, parking,
recreational space, streets, and storage meet the minimum standards of the Kelly
Ranch Master Plan and the Planned Development Ordinance.
3. That such use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons
residing or working in the vicinity, or injurious to property or improvements in the
vicinity, in that a) all necessary mitigation of potentially adverse environmental
impacts are incorporated into the project’s design or are conditions of approval; b)
the project is conditioned to construct all necessary public improvements; and c) the
project is consistent with all applicable City design and development standards.
4. That the proposed Planned Development meets all of the minimum development
standards set forth in Chapter 21.45.090, the design criteria set forth in Section 21.45.080,
and has been designed in accordance with the concepts contained in the Design
Guidelines manual, in that a) the project is consistent with the Planned Development
standards for building height, setbacks, private recreational open space,
recreational vehicle parking and guest parking; and b) the design is compatible with
surrounding land uses and circulation patterns through its opportunity for
connection with potential adjacent single family development and provides for
adequate usable open space that is readily accessible to residents.
5. That the proposed project is designed to be sensitive to and blend in with the topography
of the site, and maintains and enhances significant natural resources on the site, in that
PC RESO NO. 4226 -2- e
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
the grading design preserves the major ridegelines and is consistent with the
topography by terracing the development from the west to the east.
6. That the proposed project’s design and density of the developed portion of the site is
compatible with surrounding development and does not create a disharmonious or
disruptive element to the neighborhood, in that the proposed lots are substantially the
same as those within the existing adjacent residential development and the homes
being proposed are also similar in scale.
7. That the project’s circulation system is designed to be efficient and well integrated with
the project and does not dominate the project, in that the streets are designed consistent
with the standards of the City which include a curvature emulating the existing
topography.
8. That the project complies with the intent of Council Policy 44 regarding guidelines
for the development of small lots in that the project architecture provides street-
oriented design with the incorporation of front porches and varied building planes
which does not appear boxy.
Conditions:
1.
2.
3.
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require Developer to make, all corrections
and modifications to the Planned Unit Development document(s), as necessary, to make
them internally consistent and in conformity with final action on the project.
Development shall occur substantially as shown in the approved Exhibits. Any proposed
development different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval.
This approval is subject to the approval of Carlsbad Tract CT 96-07 and all of the
conditions of Planning Commission Resolution No. 4225 are incorporated herein by
reference.
This approval will become null and void with the expiration, withdrawal, or denial
of CT 96-07.
PC RJZSO NO. 4226 -3-
t
-7
e
s
IC
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- -
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 21st day of January 1998, by the
’ following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Noble, Commissioners Compaq Heineman.
Monroy, Nielsen, Savary, and Welshons
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
BAILEY NOB
CARLSBAD
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. HOyZMILkR
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 4226 -4-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- -.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4227
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR
THE GRADING OF A 153 LOT SUBDIVISION ON PROPERTY
GENERALLY LOCATED EAST OF EL CAMINO REAL AND
SOUTH OF FUTURE CANNON ROAD IN LOCAL
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 8.
CASE NAME: KELLY RANCH VILLAGE “E”
CASE NO: HDP 96-13
WHEREAS, Kelly Land Company, Inc., “Developer”, has filed a verified
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Kelly Land Company, Inc.,
“Owner”, described as
Portions of lots I and F of Ranch0 Agua Hedionda, in the County
of San Diego, State of California, according to map thereof No.
823, filed in the office of the County Recorder of said San Diego
County, November 16,1896.
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Hillside
Development Permit as shown on Exhibit(s) “A”-“ C” and “UU’‘-“WW dated January 21,
1998, on file in the Carlsbad Planning Department Kelly Ranch Village “E” HDP 96-13 as
provided by Chapter 21.95 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 21st day of January 1998,
consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
, relating to the Hillside Development Permit; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows:
-4) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. s-4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 ?
A
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing. the Commission
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of Kelly Ranch Village “E”. HDP 96-13. based
on the following findings and subject to the following conditions:
Findings:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
8.
That hillside conditions have been properly identified on the constraints map which show
existing and proposed conditions and slope percentages;
That undevelopable areas of the project, i.e. slopes over 40%, have been properly
identified on the constraints map;
That the development proposal is consistent with the intent, purpose, and requirements of
the Hillside Ordinance, Chapter 2 1.95, in that grading will follow existing topography
to the greatest extent possible and will not create any slopes greater than 30 feet in
height.
That the proposed development or grading will not occur in the undevelopable portions of
the site pursuant to provisions of Section 21.53.230 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, in
that all slopes greater than 40% have been identified and are excluded as isolated
ravines caused by erosion.
That the project design substantially conforms to the intent of the concepts illustrated in
the Hillside Development Guidelines Manual, in that the natural slopes west of the
developed portion of the site will remain undisturbed which will provide a natural
backdrop to the project and will preserve existing ridgelines.
That the project design and lot configuration minimizes disturbance of hillside lands, in
that grading is proposed only within areas of previous disturbance and grading
quantities are within the “Acceptable” range of 0 - 7,999 cubic yards per acre.
That the site requires grading to accommodate a circulation-element roadway, in that a
portion of Cannon Road will be constructed concurrent with the development of the
site.
Conditions:
1. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require Developer to make, all corrections
and modifications to the Hillside Development Permit document(s), as necessary, to
make them internally consistent and in conformity with final action on the project.
Development shall occur substantially as shown in the approved Exhibits. Any proposed
development different from this approval, shali require an amendment to this approval.
2. This approval is subject to the approval of Carlsbad Tract CT 96-07. All conditions
of Planning Commission Resolution No. 4225 are incorporated herein by reference.
PC RESO NO. 4227 -2- 53
-
3. A grading permit may not be issued to implement this Hillside Development Permit
until all conditions of Planning Commission Resolution No. 4225 related to grading
and erosion control have been completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
4. This approval will become null and void with the expiration, withdrawal, or denial
of CT 96-07.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 21st day of January 1998, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Noble, Commissioners Compas, Heineman,
Monroy, Nielsen, Savary, and Welshons
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
BAILEY NOB@, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. H-~LZMII?I%R
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 4227 -3- %54
1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4228
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO.
CDP 96-13 FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A 153 LOT
SUBDIVISION ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED
EAST OF EL CAMINO REAL AND SOUTH OF FUTURE
CANNON ROAD IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT
ZONE 8.
CASE NAME: KELLY RANCH VILLAGE “E”
CASE NO. : CDP 96-l 3
WHEREAS, Kelly Land Company, Inc., “Developer”, has filed a verified
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Kelly Land Company, Inc.,
“Owner”, described as
Portions of lots I and F of Ranch0 Agua Hedionda, in the County
of San Diego, State of California, according to map thereof No.
823, filed in the office of the County Recorder of said San Diego
County, November 16,1896.
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Coastal
Development Permit as shown on Exhibit(s) “A” - “XX” dated January 21, 1998,0n file in the
Planning Department, Kelly Ranch Village “E” CDP 96-13 as provided by Chapter 21.201.040
of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad approved the Kelly Ranch Master Plan in
September 1984 in conformance with the Mello II and Agua Hedionda Lagoon segments of
the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program ; and
WHEREAS, the California Coastal Commission approved the areas and type
of development within the Kelly Ranch through the approval of Coastal Development
Permit 6-84-617 which approved the Kelly Ranch Master Plan with amendments; and
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 21st day of January, 1998,
hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
relating to CDP 96-13.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
W That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of Kelly Ranch Village “E” CDP 96-13, based
on the following findings and subject to the following conditions:
Findings:
1. That the proposed development is in conformance with the Certified Local Coastal
Program and all applicable policies in that the proposed development of Village “E” is
consistent with the requirements of the Kelly Ranch Master Plan which was
approved by the California Coastal Commission per Coastal Development Permit
6-84-617.
Conditions:
1. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require Developer to make, all corrections
and modifications to the Coastal Development Permit document(s), as necessary, to
make them internally consistent and in conformity with final action on the project.
Development shall occur substantially as shown in the approved Exhibits. Any proposed
development different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval.
2. Building permits shall be issued for this project within two (2) years of approval
or this coastal development permit will expire unless extended per Section
21.201.210 of the Zoning Ordinance.
3. Prior to the issuance of building permits, a grading permit issued by the City
Engineer shall be approved.
4. This approval is subject to the approval of Carlsbad Tract CT 96-07 and all
conditions of Planning Commission Resolution No. 4225 are incorporated herein by
reference.
PC RESO NO. 4228 -2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-
5. This approval will become null and void with the expiration, withdrawal, or denial
of CT 96-07.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 21st day of January 1998, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Noble, Commissioners Compas, Heineman,
Monroy, Nielsen, Savary, and Welshons
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
BAILEY NOB&, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. H&!,ZMIkLER
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 4228 -3-
C EXHIBIT 4 um City of CARLSBAB Planning Department
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Item No. 6 0
Application complete date: April 22, 1997
P.C. AGENDA OF: January 21,1998 Project Planner: Christer Westman
Project Engineer: Mike Shirey
SUBJECT: CT 96-07/PUD 97-04/HDP 96-13/GDP 96-13 ; KELLY RANCH VILLAGE
,,,,, - Request for approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program, Tentative Map, Planned Development
Permit, Hillside Development Permit, and Coastal Development Permit to
subdivide property into 144 single-family lots, 9 open space/recreation lots, and
construct single family homes on 45 acres generally located south of future
Cannon Road and west of El Camino Real in Local Facilities Management Zone
8.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 4224
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and ADOPT Planning
Commission Resolutions No. 4225,4226,4227 and 4228 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of
Carlsbad Tract CT 96-07, Planned Unit Development PUD 97-04, Hillside Development Permit
HDP 96-13, and Coastal Development Permit CDP 96-13 based on the findings and subject to
the conditions contained therein.
II. INTRODUCTION
The subject site is designated as Village “E” of the Kelly Ranch Master Plan. The description of
Village “E” in the master plan identifies the area as approximately 38 acres. With the inclusion
of the land necessary for the improvement of Cannon Road and adjacent slopes, the project area
under review by this application becomes 45 acres. This application is a request for approval of
a subdivision of approximately 45 acres of land for the development of 144 single family
detached homes on 144 residential lots. The subdivision includes 9 open space lots to be used as
passive and active recreation lots for the subdivision. As designed and conditioned, the project is
consistent with the General Plan, Kelly Ranch Master Plan, Mello II LCP, Subdivision
Ordinance, and the relevant Zoning Chapters of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
The subject site is located south of the future extension of Cannon Road and west of El Camino
Real. The site is currently vacant except for a single home with facilities for horses. The site has
been previously graded and has terraced pads which are higher on the west and step down toward
the east. The site is largely devoid of significant vegetation. There are patches of coastal sage
scrub along the northern perimeter and in the upland areas to the west. To the north is the Agua
-
CT 96-07/PUD 97-04/HDr- $6-13/GDP 96-l 3 KELLY RANCH VILLAGE “E”
January 2 1,1998
Pane 2
Hedionda Lagoon and to the south is an existing residential development. The site is Village “E”
of the Kelly Ranch Master Plan.
The Kelly Ranch Master Plan was approved in 1984 as a residential development for up to 1600
homes. The plan called out for both attached and detached product on a total of 433 acres. More
than 200 of the gross acres were set aside as open space both in the Agua Hedionda Lagoon and
in upland slopes. The site is subject to the development standards of the Kelly Ranch Master
Plan. Village “E” called for up to a maximum of 240 single family detached residential units.
The project is 153 lots of which 144 are for residential development. The residential lots vary in
size from 5,000 to 16,500 square feet. Minimum lot pads are 5,000 square feet and the average
lot size is 7,000 square feet. The remaining 9 lots are open space/recreational. The subdivision
area is 45 acres which includes land to be dedicated for Cannon Road improvements.
Shea Homes, the proposed builder, has proposed homes with a variety of elements. The use of
materials such as stucco, wood siding, wooden shutters, clay, brick and stone veneers creates a
diversity of styles. Each of the floorplans provide a two car garage and the option of a flex space
which could either be finished as garage space or living area.
The proposed project is subject to the following adopted land use plans and regulations:
A. General Plan;
B. MP 174 (Kelly Ranch);
C. Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program (LCP);.
D. Carlsbad Municipal Code, Title 21 (Zoning Ordinance), including:
l Chapter 2 1.45 - Planned Development Ordinance
0 Chapter 2 1.24 - Residential Density - Multiple
a Chapter 2 1.85 - Inclusionary Housing;
a Chapter 2 1.95 - Hillside Development Regulations;
l Chapters 21.201,21.202, and 21.203 - Coastal Development Permit
Procedures, Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone.
E.
F.
G.
H.
Small Lot Architectural Guidelines
Carlsbad Municipal Code, Title 20 (Subdivision Ordinance);
Habitat Management Plan (in process);
Growth Management Ordinance, (Zone 8 Local Facilities Management ,Plan); and
IV. ANALYSIS
-. The recommendation of approval for this project was developed by analyzing the project’s
consistency with the applicable policies and regulations listed above. The following analysis
section discusses compliance with each of the regulations/policies utilizing both text and tables.
- -
CT 96-07/PUD 97-04/HDk ~6- 13/GDP 96- 13 KELLY RANCH VILLAGE “E”
January 21,1998
A. GENERAL PLAN
The proposed project is consistent with the policies and programs of the General Plan. The table
below indicates how the project complies with the Elements of the General Plan which are
particularly relevant to this proposal.
DISCUSSION
the RM density range of 4-8 du/net acre and below the growth control point of 6
Proposed project is conditioned to provide roadway and intersection improvements
2. Mitigation of interior noise levels to 45 dBA.
tve map, or inc
B. KELLY RANCH MASTER PLAN MP 174
The Kelly Ranch Master Plan requires that development of Village “E” shall be subject to the
Planned Development process as contained in Chapter 2 1.45 and the uses found within Chapter
21.24 (Residential Density - Multiple) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. The master plan also
designates single family residential development and open space as uses allowed within the
planning area.
The master plan also includes development standards in various sections (Environmental
Constraints, Land Use and Development Standards, Open Space and Recreation, Public Facilities
and Phasing, and- Sign Program.) which were incorporated as conditions of approval. A
summary of the project mitigation follows:
C
CT 96-07/PLJD 97-04kIDk 36-13/GDP 96- 13 KELLY RANCH VILLAGE “E”
January 2 1, 1998
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
Noise
The applicant submitted a noise analysis to determine the level of sound attenuation required
along Cannon Road. Attenuation will be achieved through the construction of noise walls in
conjunction with berms as shown on exhibits “Y-NN”.
Hvdrolonv
At the time the master plan was submitted for review, there were portions of Village “E that were
in a 100 year floodplain. However, since the grading for the surcharge of Cannon Road in the
mid- 1980s Village “E” is no longer in a floodplain and no Special Use Permit is required.
Appropriate mitigation includes conditions restricting grading during the rainy season, runoff
control plans, storm water pollution control plans, and erosion control plans. Each of these
conditions must be satisfied prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
Biolopical Resources
Those conditions of the master plan which are applicable to this village include maintaining the
Cannon Road alignment as shown on the circulation exhibit and minimizing the removal of sage
scrub. Both of these conditions have been met through project design. The Cannon Road
alignment is consistent with the master plan exhibits and sage scrub will only be removed in
conjunction with the construction of Cannon Road.
Geologv/Tonographv
The master plan requires grading to be consistent with the City Grading Ordinance and that
geotechnical studies be conducted prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Both conditions
have been satisfied .
Archeology/Paleontology
A standard condition has been applied requiring reconnaissance for paleontological resources
during grading operations.
Visual Resources
The master plan requires development to occur within the boundaries defined by the Areas of
Modification exhibit, building heights are limited to 35 feet, alternate transportation concepts
should be considered, and preservations of existing views where feasible.
All of the development is proposed within the areas of modification, buildings are proposed at
heights under 30 feet, bicycle lanes are designed within Cannon Road and a public trail is
proposed to run parallel to Cannon Road. Views of the property are primarily of the upper bluffs
which will be preserved. 61
-
CT 96-07/PUD 97-04MDI 96-l 3/CDP 96-13 KELLY RANCH VILLAGE “E”
January 21,1998
LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Notes to Table III-1
The Kelly Ranch Master Plan identified conditions as notes associated with each of the
development villages in Table III-l. Village “E” is subject to notes 7,9, and 10.
Note 7 requires that bus stops be provided along Cannon Road and El Camino Real as
determined by the North County Transit District. The North County Transit District has
requested that a bus stop be provided on the east side of El Camino Real at the future extension
of Cannon Road. A condition has been included in the resolution requiring that bus facilities be
provided to the satisfaction of the North County Transit District and the Planning Director.
Note 9 requires that all living units within the village shall be sound attenuated and setback a
minimum of 30 feet from the right-of-way. The project has been designed with a combination
wall and berm to attenuate noise along Cannon Road. The project has also been designed to
accommodate a 40 foot building setback along Cannon Road as required by the Planning
Development Ordinance.
Note 10 requires that a common recreational vehicle storage area be provided prior to the
occupancy of the 500th unit in the master plan. The project has been conditioned to provide its
share of the common facility prior to the issuance of the 1Olst building permit within Village
“E”.
Fire Control
The master plan requires that fire retardant roofs be used in construction of the homes and that
fire retardant plant materials be used when homes are adjacent to native vegetation.
Both of these requirements have been satisfied through the use of concrete tile roofs and the
submittal of a fire suppression plan.
OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION
Pertinent to this village is the preservation of major project slopes, provision of a bikeway on
Cannon Road, inclusion of a pedestrian system within the Cannon Road right-of-way, and
preservation of views to the lagoon.
The project complies with these requirements by the preservation of major project slopes through
dedication of open space easements over open space lots and by the inclusion of bikeways and a
pedestrian system within the design of Cannon Road improvements. In an effort to segregate the
preservation of natural open space and open space which will be improved, staff has
recommended through a condition of resolution No. 4225 that open space lot 147 be broken into
two lots. The upland areas would be placed in a new lot number 154 and the open space adjacent
to Cannon Road would remain in lot number 147. By virtue of the existing topography which is
higher on the west and north, the project will not obstruct views of the lagoon and will afford a
CT 96-07/PUD 97-04/HDk 96-13/GDP 96-13 KELLY RANCH VILLAGE “E”
January 2 1,1998
Page 6
view of the lagoon from some of the proposed home sites.
PUBLIC FACILITIES AND PHASING
The major public facility required for Village “E” is Cannon Road for the length of the site.
Other facilities are those which are identified in the Zone 8 Facilities Management Plan. Cannon
Road has been conditioned to be constructed concurrent with development of the site and the
project has been conditioned to comply with the requirements of the Zone 8 Facilities
Management Plan. Therefore the project complies with this section of the Kelly Ranch Master
Plan.
SIGN PROGRAM
The master plan includes a sign program. No signs are proposed at this time. Prior to the
issuance of a sign permit for community signs, a review for consistency with the sign program
will be conducted.
Discussion of the project’s compliance with Chapter 21.45 and 21.24 is provided under the
heading of ZONING ORDINANCE.
C. MELLO II LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
Other than Cannon Road, the project is located within and subject to the Mello II segment of the
Local Coastal Program and is designated for residential medium (RM) density land use and RD-
M zoning. The project is consistent with all Mello II policies regarding land use, sensitive slopes
and hydrology.
Cannon Road is within the Agua Hedionda segment of the Local Coastal Program and is
therefore subject to the review and approval of the California Coastal Commission. The City of
Carlsbad has applied for a Coastal Development Permit for the construction of Cannon Road as a
Capital Improvements Project and is currently scheduled to be heard by the Coastal Commission
in early February 1998.
Develonment Regulations
The project is consistent with Mello II LCP policies requiring the preservation of steep slopes
(25%+) possessing chaparral and coastal sage plant communities (“dual criterion” slopes). Major
slopes which are the backdrop to the project on the southwest side are preserved. Some isolated
slopes are disturbed, however, the Kelly Ranch Master Plan was approved by the City Council
and Coastal Commission with “Areas of Modification” which allowed a limited disturbance of
25% slopes as designated on an exhibit of the Master Plan. Those areas of modification are
within the limits of.what is proposed for disturbance in Village “E”.
Hydrology standards of the Mello II segment of Carlsbad’s LCP require the drainage system to
be designed to ensure that runoff resulting from a 10 year frequency storm of 6 hours, and 24
hours duration under developed conditions, are less than or equal to the runoff from a storm of IA3
-
CT 96-07/PUD 97-04kIDI 96-l 3/CDP 96-13 KELLY RANCH VILLAGE “E”
January 2 1,1998
the same frequency and duration under existing developed conditions. Drainage from the project
will be routed through storm drains in Cannon Road. The preliminary grading plan includes
drainage, siltation and erosion control facilities.
D. ZONING ORDINANCE
1. Chapter 2 1.45 - Planned Development Ordinance
The developer is proposing a small lot (less than 7,500 square feet) single family subdivision
requiring compliance with the Planned Development Ordinance. In accordance with Planned
Development design criteria, the project is compatible with surrounding land uses and circulation
patterns. Village “E” connects with the adjacent single family development to the south via
Frost Street and provides for adequate usable open space that is readily accessible to residents.
The following table summarizes the project’s compliance with the Planned Development
development standards:
-.
2.
40’ - 85’
Street Widths
Private Passive
Common
15’ X 15’ Min. Yard 15’ X 15’ Min. Yard
.
Chapter 2 1.24 Residential Density-Multiple
The Kelly Ranch Master Plan identifies uses allowed within Village “E” as those found in the
CT 96-07/PUD 97-04/HDr 96-l 3/CDP 96-13 KELLY RANCH VILLAGE “E”
January 2 1, 1998
Pane 8
Residential Density-Multiple chapter of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. The project is proposed
as single family residential which is a permitted use of the RD-M zone.
3. Chapter 21.85 Inclusionary Housing, and Chapter 21.53, Site Development Plan
The project is subject to the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance requiring that a minimum of 15%
of all approved residential units be restricted and made affordable to lower income households.
The project includes 144 single-family market rate residential lots and there are approximately
886 residential units proposed for the entire master plan area. Out of approximately 133
affordable units, this project’s share of inclusionary housing for the Kelly Ranch Master Plan is
21.6 dwelling units. Ten percent of those units, or 3 units, must be three-bedroom. The applicant
has proposed compliance with the Inclusionary Housing provisions of the Municipal Code
(Chapter 2 1.85) through the adoption of an Affordable Housing Agreement which will cover the
entire master plan area. The Affordable Housing Agreement is a legally binding agreement
between the developer and the City which provides the specific details regarding the phasing and
implementation of the affordable housing requirements of this project.
The agreement requires the construction of affordable units within Villages “D” and “G” of the
Kelly Ranch Master Plan. In order to implement the Affordable Housing Agreement, the
developer (Kelly Land Company, Inc.) has involved a separate builder for the construction of
both market rate and affordable rental units (subject to the City’s approval) in Villages “D” and
“G”. Kelly Ranch Village “E” is conditioned to enter into the Affordable Housing Agreement
prior to issuance of final map. Prior to review of this project by the City Council, and Housing
Commission will review the affordable housing agreement and make a recommendation to City
Council.
4. Chapter 2 1.95 Hillside Development Regulations
The project site contains slopes of 15% or greater and an elevation differential greater than 15
feet, therefore, a Hillside Development Permit is required. The table below indicates how the
project complies with the requirements of the Hillside Development Regulations:
STANDARD REQUIRED
Slope Height 30 Feet
Grading Volume 8,000 - 10,000 cubic yds/acre -
potentially acceptable
40%+ Slopes
Contour Grading
Undevelopable unless
modifications to standards
approved or excluded from
standards.
~ Variety of slope direction &
undulation.
PROPOSED
30 Feet
7,23 5 ydslacre
Those areas of 40% slope have
been excluded as isolated ravines
caused by previous disturbance.
Slopes adjacent to the existing
hillsides follow the same general
CT 96-07/PUD 97-04/HDk 36-13KDP 96-13 KELLY RANCH VILLAGE “E”
January 2 1,1998
Pane 9
STANDARD I REQUIRED PROPOSED
Slope Screening
Slope Setback
Landscaping
Not quantified - 15 Foot
recommended from top of slope.
Architecture Roofline, building bulk & scale
Roadways
contours as the current
topography.
Combination of trees, shrubs, &
ground cover.
Minimum 17 Feet
Roof plains often follow the
general direction of the slopes
behind the structure.
Curvilinear streets that follow
contours and provide access to
terraced lots.
Slopes have been identified on the constraints map. The grading plan shows that the scheme
stays within areas that have been previously disturbed and generally follows the existing
topography in that the project terraces from the southwest to the northeast and the significant
slope areas are being preserved in open space.
5. Chapters 2 1.201.140 and 2 1.203- Coastal Development Permit Procedures, Coastal
Resource Protection Overlay Zone
Chapter 2 1.201 requires approval of a coastal development permit for the proposed development
to ensure that the project is consistent with the Mello II Local Coastal Program policies and
conforms to the requirements of the Mello II Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone. (See
Discussion under C. Mello II Local Coastal Program above.)
E. SMALL LOT ARCHITECTURAL GUIDELINES
As can be seen on Attachment 10, the proposed project complies with all but two of the Small
Lot Architectural Guidelines. Although the home designs don’t fully comply with the letter of
all of the Small Lot Development Guidelines, there is a great degree of conformance. The
project does not comply with Guideline No. 1 in that building elevations which incorporate a 10
foot wide side yard single story element and the rear elevations have only one additional plane
versus three. First, incorporation of the 10 foot wide single story element forces a design
solution which is inconsistent with the overall design concept of the project. The design solution
is a long sloping shed which is not an element found on any of the currently proposed floorplans.
Second, consistent with the intent of the Small Lot Guidelines, the project does propose a second
story enhancement for the rear elevation but only on 25% of the units rather than 50% of the
units (Guideline No. 5). The enhanced rear elevations provide relief in an area and in an amount
that can be appreciated by those outside of the individual lot. In this situation, because a large
number of homes will not have rear yards visible because of adjacent slopes, providing relief in
-
CT 96-07/PUD 97-04/HDk ~6-13/GDP 96-13 KELLY RANCH VILLAGE “E”
January 2 1, 1998
key areas on the second floor will provide satisfactory visual interest.
All of the plans have substantial single story elements as features of the front elevations. Two of
the plans have front porches. Two of the plans have a single story side element in combination
with a building jog that creates a greater side yard setback to the second story. This greater
separation between second stories enhances the streetscape visual presentation. There are
variations in planes on all of the plans along the street and those lots which back up to an area of
public view have enh&ced rear elevations.
F. SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE
The proposed tentative map complies with all the requirements of the City’s Subdivision
Ordinance, Title 20 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. The project is 153 lots of which 144 are for
residential development. The residential lots vary in size from 5,000 to 16,500 square feet.
Minimum lot pads are 5,000 square feet and average lot size is 7,000 square feet. The remaining
9 lots are open space/recreational. The subdivision area is 45 acres which includes land to be
dedicated for Cannon Road improvements.
Primary access to the property would be provided by Cannon Road, a 102’ wide, non-loaded,
major arterial, which will terminate at the project’s western boundary. Secondary access is
proposed through the connection of Frost Street to the existing subdivision to the south.
The proposed project is required to provide streets including Cannon Road (for the length of the
project area), sidewalks, a segment of the City-wide trail system (adjacent to Cannon Road),
street lights, and fire hydrants. Cannon Road and all streets will be constructed concurrent with
the development of the project. Cannon Road is a major arterial which is 102 feet wide and
includes parkways and sidewalks on either side of the street, bicycle lanes, two travel lanes in
either direction and a median. As Cannon Road nears the intersection with El Camino Real there
will be a bridge structure over Agua Hedionda Creek which runs north to south at this location.
The bridge will be 95 feet wide and 133 feet long. It will have a span height of approximately 22
feet above the bottom of the channel. All the local streets within this area would be constructed
by the developer to full public street width standards, and have curb, gutters, sidewalks, and
underground utilities. The proposed street system is adequate to handle the project’s pedestrian
and vehicular traffic and accommodate emergency vehicles.
To mitigate drainage impacts from the project site, drainage and erosion control have been
provided on the preliminary grading plans. The drainage requirements of City ordinances, and
Mello II have been considered and appropriate drainage facilities have been designed and
secured. In addition to City Engineering Standards and compliance with the City’s Master
Drainage Plan, National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards have been
satisfied which will prevent any discharge violations.
G. HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN (DRAFT DECEMBER 1997)
The project is not located within Core Area 4 defined by the City’s draft Habitat Management
Plan (HMP) dated December 1997. Although disturbance to 1.92 acres of coastal sage scrub
67
-
CT 96-07/PUD 97-04/HDh $6-13/GDP 96- 13 KELLY RANCH VILLAGE “E”
January 21,1998
(CSS) will result from the construction of Cannon Road, it will not preclude connectivity
between Core Areas nor preclude the preservation of CSS habitat. Moreover, the project is
required to provide mitigation for Cannon Road in the form of off-site preservation.
Since completion of a subregional NCCPA-IMP has not occurred, prior to the issuance of a
grading permit, the City will have to authorize this project to draw from the City’s 5% CSS take
allowance (4d rule). The City’s availability of acreage within the 5% will be determined at the
time of 4d permit request. If there is no available inventory, a 4d permit may not be issued. The
take of 1.92 acres of CSS habitat may not exceed the 5% allowance and may not jeopardize the
HMP. This is unlikely since the project is located outside the HMP Core Areas and/or linkage
planning areas (LPA) and therefore makes no contribution to the overall preserve system, and
will not significantly impact the use of habitat patches as archipelago or stepping stones to
surrounding preserve planning areas (PPAs). Since mitigation for the habitat loss will result in
the preservation of equal or better habitat in an off-site location, the project will not appreciably
reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of the gnatcatcher. The habitat loss is
incidental to otherwise lawful activities. The development of the Kelly property is a legal
development which is consistent with the City’s General Plan and all required permits will be
obtained.
H. GROWTH MANAGEMENT
The proposed project is located within the Zone 8 Local Facilities Management Zone in the
northwest quadrant of the City. The impacts created by this development on public facilities and
compliance with the adopted performance standards are summarized as follows:
WATER
The project is 126 dwelling units below the Growth Management Dwelling Unit allowance of
270 dwelling units for the property as permitted by the Growth Management Ordinance growth
control point. These 126 dwelling units will be placed into a City bank of excess dwelling units.
The City can allocate these dwelling units for affordable housing or other special housing needs
within this quadrant.
This project is in compliance with the requirements of the Local Facilities Management Plan for
CT 96-07/PUD 97-04/HDk 96-l 3/CDP 96- 13 KELLY RANCH VILLAGE “E”
January 21,1998
Zone 8. However, further development of the Kelly Ranch Master Plan area requires an
amendment to the plan.
V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts from the future development of Kelly
Ranch were analyzed in the Kelly Ranch Master Plan EIR. Additional project level studies have
been conducted including biological and noise analyses. In addition to the project level analysis.
studies regarding the construction of Cannon Road which have been prepared in conjunction
with the City capital improvement project to construct Cannon Road have been reviewed and are
used as reference. These studies provide more focused and detailed project level analyses and
indicate that unmitigable environmental impacts would not result from implementation of the
project. The Planning Director issued a Mitigated Negative Declaration on June 17, 1997. The
recommended and applicable mitigation measures of the Mitigated Negative Declaration are
included as conditions of approval for this project. Conditions include specific mitigation for
impacts to coastal sage scrub habitat. With regard to air quality and circulation impacts, the
City’s MEIR found that the cumulative impacts of the implementation of projects consistent with
the General Plan are significant and adverse due to regional factors, therefore, the City Council
adopted a statement of overriding consideration. The project is consistent with the General Plan
as to these effects; therefore, no additional environmental document is required.
A correction should be noted and an addendum made to the Mitigated Negative Declaration and
EIA Part II. The project area was erroneously described as 28 acres in both cases and should
have been identified as 45.05 acres. The full 45.05 acres were surveyed for environmental
resources and are the true area that was analyzed for the purposes of CEQA compliance.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4224
2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4225
3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4226
4. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4227
5. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4228
6. Location Map
7. Background Data Sheet
8. Local Facilities Impact Assessment Form
9. Disclosure Form
10. Small Lot Architectural Guidelines Compliance
11. Exhibits “A” - “XX” dated January 21,1998
-
BACKGROUND DATA SHEET
CASE NO: CT 96-07/PUD 97-04/HDP 96-13/GDP 96- 13
CASE NAME: -Kelly Ranch Village “E”
APPLICANT: Kelly Land Comnany. Inc.
REQUEST AND LOCATION: Subdivision of annroximately 45 acres into 144 single family
lots and 9 onen space lots generally located east of El Camino Real and south of future Canon
Road.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Portions of lots I and F of Ranch0 Anua Hedionda, in the
County of San Diego, State of California. according to man thereof No. 823, filed in the office of
the County Recorder of said San Diepo County, November 16, 1896.
APN: 208-020-03.33.34.35 207-101-12 Acres: 45.05
lots/l 44 units
Proposed No. of Lots/Units: 153
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
Land Use Designation: Residential Medium
Density Allowed: 4-8 du/ac Density Proposed: 3.2
Existing Zone: Planned Community Proposed Zone: Planned Community
Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: (See attached for information on Carlsbad’s Zoning
Requirements)
Zoning Land Use
Site PC vacant, RM
North PC vacant, OS
south PC Residential, RLM
East R-l vacant, OS
West PC vacant, OS
PUBLIC FACILITIES
School District: Carlsbad Water District: Carlsbad Sewer District: Carlsbad
Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity): 144
Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated: November 11, 1996
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
lxl Negative Declaration, issued June 17, 1997
cl Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated
cl Other,
70
- -
CITY OF CARLSBAD
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
LOCAL FACILITIES IMPACTS ASSESSMENT FORM
(To be Submitted with Development Application)
PROJECT IDENTITY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT:
FILE NAME AND NO: CT 96-07/PUD 97-04/HDP 96-13/GDP 96- 13
LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE: 8 GENERAL PLAN: RM
ZONING: PC
DEVELOPER’S NAME: Kelly Land Comnanv. Inc.
ADDRESS: 2011 Palomar Airnort Road, Suite 206, Carlsbad. CA 92009
PHONE NO.: (760) 931-1190 ASSESSOR’S EARCEL NO. 208-020-03,33.34,35,207-101-12
QUANTITY OF LAND USE/DEVELOPMENT (AC., SQ. FT., DU): 45.05 acres
ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE:
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
-. L.
City Administrative Facilities: Demand in Square Footage =
Library: Demand in Square Footage =
Wastewater Treatment Capacity (Calculate with J. Sewer)
Park: Demand in Acreage =
Drainage: Demand in CFS =
Identify Drainage Basin =
(Identify master plan facilities on site plan)
Circulation: Demand in ADT =
(Identify Trip Distribution on site plan)
Fire: Served by Fire Station No. =
Open Space: Acreage Provided =
Schools:
(Demands to be determined by staff)
Sewer: Demands in EDU
Identify Sub Basin =
(Identify trunk line(s) impacted on site plan)
Water: Demand in GPD =
500 scl. ft.
267 XI. ft
144 EDU
1 .O acre
124
B
1,440
#.
7.11
29
144
CMWD
3 1.680 GPD
The project-is 126 units the Growth Management Dwelling unit allowance.
Carlsbad 114 11
DISCLOSURESTATEMENT
APPLICANT’S STATEMENT OF DISCLOSURE OR CERTAIN OWNERSHIP IVIERESTS ON ALL APPLIC~TI0N.S
WHICH WILL REQUIRE DISCRETIONARY ACTION ON THE PART OF THE CITY COUNCIL OR .uiY
APPOINTED BOARD, COIMMISSION OR COMMI-fTEE
(Please Print)
The following information must be disclosed:
1. ADDhcant
List the names and addresses of all persons having a financial interest in the application.
kelly Land Comuanv. a Delaware Corporate 2011 Palomar Airport Rd., t206
Carlsbad, CA 92009
2. Owner List the names and addressees of all person having any ownership interest in the property involved.
Kelly Land Company, a Delaware Corporation
2011 Palomar Airport Road. #206 Marvin H. Sippel 6 Lucia.C,
Carlsbad, CA 920119 Sippel, Sippel Revocable
Family Trust
3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names
and addresses of ail individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning
any partnership interest in the partnership.
4. If any person identified pursuant to (I) or (2) above is a non-profit organization or a trust, list the names and addresses of any person serving as officer or director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary of the trust.
DISCLOS.FRM 2196 PAGE1 of2 73 2075 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad. California 92009-1576 - (619) 436-l 161 @
- i 4’
Disclosure Statement
;,, Cl.
Puge T
- 2. Have you had more than 930.00 worth of business transacted with any member of CiT S;Lz.
Boards. Commissions. Commirtees and Council within the pas; welve months'?
Yes - NO ./ If yes, please indicate person(s)
P=rson is defined as “Any individual. t’irm. copartnership, joint venture, 3ssocixion. social club. fraternal oq~l:z::o~.
corporscion, escate. trusl, receiver. syndicate. this and any other COUXI~, ci? and ;oun~. cit)l municipalicl/, disrr:c: or OL+.~:
political subdivision or any other group or combination acting as a unit.”
(VOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary)
D. L. Clemens/Vice President
Silgnatuie of Owner/date
Scott Medansky/Assis\tant Secretary
Print or type name of.owner _ -.
Marvin H. Sippgle and Lucia C. Sipple, Revocable Family Trust
Signat'ure of Owner/date- l
Marvin H. Sipp&es m#T Print or type name of owner
-3-d&z&r-
Lucia C. Sip*,{ JR Print or type name of owner
DISCLOS.FRM 2196
D. L. Clemens/Vice President
Print or type name of applicant
PAGE 1 of 2
73 . .
i
MARVIN H. SIPP&ND LUCIA C. SIPl?k@ $4
SIPPLE REVOCABLE FAMILY TRUST
Signature of Owner/Date
(VI PRW hi - SPPEL
Name (print)
\ -
-jl”,,r.&w c / ii - i-7’- qjsg
Signature of Owner/Date
/LJy(pl S/PPEL..
Name (print)
0 -t w
5 \F 0
8 3 w = 5 0 CD
ti E \: 0 s 3 u = z 0
EXHIBIT 5
6. CT 06-07/PUD 9764/HDP 96/13/GDP 96-13 - KELLY RANCH VILLAGE ‘*E” - Request for
approval of a Mitigate Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Tentative Map, Planned Development Permit, Hillside Ordinance Permit, and Coasta B
Development Permit to subdivide property into 144 single-family lots, 9 open space/recreation
lots, and construct si.ngle family homes on 46 acres generally located south of future Cannon
Road and west of El Camino Real in Local Facilities Management Zone 8.
Assistant Planning Director, Gary Wayne, introduced the item and announced that the Commission’s
action on this item is not final and will be forwarded to the City Council for its consideration.
Project Planner, Christer Westman, presented the staff report and described the project as follows: A
Master Plan was approved for the Kelly Ranch in the early 80s. That Master Plan identified the project
site as Village “E”. The project before you today is a subdivision consistent with the vision of the Kelly
Ranch Master Plan and the Carlsbad Zoning Ordinance. The site is approximately 45 acres.
144 residential lots and 9 recreation/open space lots are proposed. Lot sizes range from a minimum of
5,000 square feet up to 16,500. The average lot size is 7,000 square feet. This results in a density of
3.2 dwelling units per acre which is below the General Plan range of 4-8 and the growth control point of
MINUTES 76
PLANNING COMMISSION January 21, 1998 Page 14
6 units per acre. The homes proposed range in size from 2,238 to 2,783 square feet. Each of the floor
plans is two stories with a two-car garage and optional flex space which could be finished to
accommodate a third enclosed parking space or additional living area. The renderings on display show
typical elevations which include the optional third enclosed parking space. The buildings have been
designed with a variety of materials and colors which provides for some differentiation between the
models. The project has taken advantage of both the Planned Development Ordinance and the Kelly
Ranch Master Plan by siting the homes with porches (Models 1 and 2) and Model 4 (which has an
optional detached living area or garage) at varying distances from the front property line. Front yard
setbacks range from 10 feet to more than 35 feet. The intent is to create an interesting street scene by
pulling the building faces closer to and conversely away from the sidewalk. There are 5 common
recreation lots and 4 open space lots. The recreation lots are proposed to be improved with children’s
play area, parcourse station, open grass area, covered picnic area and volleyball court. A segment of the
Citywide trail system will be provided parallel to Cannon Road within a landscaped open space easement
outside of the right of way. The Village “E” homeowner’s association will be responsible for maintenance
of these lots. Recreational vehicle storage will be provided offsite within another area of the Master Plan,
The Master Plan requires a permanent common facility for all of the villages. A portion of that permanent
facility is required to be constructed and made available to residents of Village “E” prior to the issuance of
the lOIs’ building permit. The applicant has proposed an affordable housing agreement which will require
the affordable units to be provided elsewhere within the Master Plan Area. The agreement must be
approved by the Housing Commission prior to Final Map and it is staffs understanding that the applicant
expects to provide specifics of the housing proposal, along with the agreement, to the Housing
Commission in March or April of 1998. The project will be the catalyst for the construction of the
easternmost segment of Cannon Road. The project is conditioned for its improvement from El Camino
Real to the western edge of the project site. Concurrently with the processing of this application, has been
the City’s independent pursuit of permits for Cannon Road as a Capital Improvement Project. That
includes permits from the Coastal Commission, the Army Corps of Engineers, and Fish and Game. The
project has been reviewed pursuant to CEQA. Impact to Coastal Sage and wetlands will be mitigated
through implementation of the Mitigated Negative Declaration Conditions of Approval. There are some
amendments that have been presented to the Commission for incorporation, both into the Mitigated
Negative Declaration, it’s resolution, and Resolution No. 4225. The addendum to the Mitigated Negative
Declaration would be correcting some incorrect information.
Staff has suggested that included in the title of the Resolution for the Mitigated Negative Declaration, there
should be an approval of an addendum. Finally, a new condition (No. 61(a)) is proposed that would
require certain lots and street sections be elevated in height in order to guarantee that those lots and
street sections are clearly outside the flood plane area. All of these condition changes have been
presented to the applicant for his review.
Commissioner Monroy asked if he is correct in his understanding that if the developer requests a change
in the Master Plan, will that change result in requiring a new EIR thereby causing further delays.
Mr. Westman responded by stating that it will not impact the forward movement of Cannon Road and
pointed out that Cannon Road has been reviewed for CEQA compliance as a separate project, by the
City, and the applicant is the same applicant for Village E that holds the remaining property in Kelly Ranch.
Their application for the remaining property and their intent to amend that plan in some way, will require an
EIR. However, the improvements to Cannon Road have essentially been cleared through the CEQA
process and Cannon Road is on the verge of obtaining all of the necessary permits from the different
wildlife agencies and the Coastal Commission for the City to go forward, independently, to build Cannon
Road.
Commissioner Compas asked if there is any truth to a recent newspaper story that stated that Cannon
Road would be delayed by about a year because of all of the environmental changes.
Mr. Westman replied that it is his understanding that shortly after the interviews for that article were
completed, the City negotiated concurrent mitigation for Cannon Road and that the Coastal Commission,
Department of Fish and Game, and Fish and Wrldlife Service were all in concurrence that it would be O.K.
MINUTES 77
- -
PLANNING COMMISSION January 21, 1998 Page 15
for the City to go forward with concurrent mitigation versus doing the mitigation and waiting for the
mitigation to mature prior to the beginning of the project. There was one agency, the Army Corps of
Engineers, that had not given the “thumbs up” to that mitigation plan. The City is confident that it will be
able to do concurrent mitigation and the road will not be delayed.
Commissioner Welshons asked if the amendment to Engineering Condition No. 37, will be identical to the
amended condition in the project immediately preceding this one, and is it applicable to this project.
Mr. Rudolf replied that it is identical and much preferred.
Paul Klukas, Planning Systems, 2111 Palomar Airport Road, Suite 100, Carlsbad, representing the Kelly
Land Company, the relatively new owners of Kelly Ranch including Planning Area E, stated that he is
appearing before this Commission in the place of the vacationing Larry Clemens. Mr. Klukas stated that
the Kelly Land Company is very exited about their plans for this project including the dedication of the
lagoon to the State of California, the reduction of the total number of units that will be on the Kelly Ranch
property, working with the City to expedite the construction of Cannon Road, and Planning Area E. Mr.
Klukas further stated that Kelly Land Company is in agreement with the staff report and their
recommendations and are accepting the conditions including the modifications in the addendum and the
modification advised by the City Attorney. Mr. Klukas pointed out that Kelly Land Company is a Master
Developer, not a home builder, and as a result Planning Area E is in escrow to be purchased by Shea
Homes.
Chairperson Noble opened Public Testimony and offered the invitation to speak.
Bob Richards, 4615 Park Drive, Carlsbad, President of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon Foundation and
speaking at the request of the Foundation’s Board of Directors. Mr. Richards stated that the Foundation
felt it necessary to review this project, which is located next to the Agua Hedionda Creek, which feeds the
lagoon and has concluded that the development will be in conformance with applicable City standards,
particularly those standards that will ensure protection of the lagoon and the waters leading to the lagoon.
Mr. Richards further stated that one of the goals of the Foundation is to encourage pedestrian access
adjacent to the lagoon and wetlands. He went on to say that they have noted that there is a meandering
trail that will be constructed along the setback between Cannon Road and the walls of the rear yards of
the lots. However, he continued, the Foundation believes that most people walking in this area,
particularly nature lovers, would prefer the trail to be closer to the lagoon and to that end, the Foundation
suggest that if possible, the proposed trail be located on the side of Cannon Road closest to the lagoon
and a more standard sidewalk be located on the north side of Cannon Road near the proposed homes.
Mr. Richards assured the Commission that the Foundation has no desire to delay the construction of
Cannon Road and if the suggested change in the location of the trail can be made without causing a
delay, they certainly would like to see the revision implemented. Further, the Foundation has no issue
with this project.
Mr. Klukas, in response to a previous question for clarification, stated that it is his belief that the City owns
a good portion of the Cannon Road right-of-way. However, the section west of this site has not been
dedicated and the EIR will hold that up, to some degree, but it will still be within the time frames because it
takes a certain amount of time to put the bridge in. The time frame that has been worked out with City
staff for the focussed EIR for that segment still falls into line to where that can be constructed and still not
delay Cannon Road.
Commissioner Monroy asked what the timing is for the dedication of the 200 acres to the state.
Mr. Klukas replied that that acreage has been offered for dedication but it has not been accepted, to date.
However, he continued, they anticipate that within the next weeks, rather than months, it will be accepted
by the state.
Chairperson Noble asked Mr. Klukas to comment on Mr. Richard’s request regarding the trail.
MINUTES 7 8
PLANNING COMMISSION January 21, 1998 Page 16
Mr. Klukas responded by stating that they do not want to do anything that delays the project and it is his
concern that moving the trail would change the Engineering plans in such a way as to require Cannon
Road to be moved, thereby causing a delay in its construction. He pointed out, however, that there is a
sidewalk on that side that will be available. Also, Mr, Klukas stated that it is his understanding that the
Department of Fish and Game does encourage a trail on that side.
Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Noble closed Public Testimony.
Mr. Wojcik stated that regarding the trail on the lagoon side, there would probably be additional impacts to
the wetlands and the City would be opening up negotiations on mitigations again for those impacts.
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Welshons, and duly seconded, to adopt Planning
Commission Resolution No. 4224, recommending approval of a Mitigated
Negative Declaration and adopt Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4225,
4226, 4227, and 4228, recommending approval of Carlsbad Tract CT 96-07,
Planned Unit Development PUD 97-04, Hillside Development Permit HDP 96-13,
and Coastal Development Permit CDP 96-13, based upon the findings and
subject to the conditions contained therein, and to include the Errata sheet dated
January 21, 1998 as well as the amendment to Engineering Condition No. 37, as
read into the record by Assistant City Attorney, from the previous project.
Commissioner Monroy stated that he will support the project, but with some reservations because he feels
that there a lot of loose ends. He further stated that he realizes the importance of Cannon Road.
VOTE: 7-o
AYES: Noble, Heineman, Savary, Monroy, Welshons, Compaq and Nielsen
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
79
April 13, 1998
-
Kelly Land Company, Inc.
2011 Palomar Airport Road, Suite 206
Carlsbad, CA 92009
RE: KELLY RANCH - VILLAGE “E”
Enclosed for your records is a copy of Council Agenda Bill No. 14,586 and Council
Resolution No. 98-68 which approved a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Tentative Map
for CT 96-7, and PUD 97-4/HDP 96-IYCDP 96-13 for Village E of Kelly Ranch.
If you have any specific questions regarding this action please contact your project
coordinator, Christer Westman, in the Planning Department. Mr. Westman be reached
by phone at (760) 438-l 161 ext. 4448.
KATHLEEN D. SHOUP
Sr. Office Specialist
April 7, 1998
h
TO: CITY MANAGER
FROM: Public Works Director
CT 96=07/PUD 97=04/HDP 96-131 CDP 9643 - KELLY RANCH VILLAGE “E”
As you are aware, staff has been working with the Village “E” applicant over the past
month concerning the requirement to construct Cannon Road full width along the
frontage of Village “E”. The applicant requested that only a half width improvement be
required.
The applicant’s concerns would be alleviated with the clarification that the improvement
of Cannon Road be accomplished over a two year period. The first phase
improvements from El Camino Real to Frost Street would be accomplished during the
first year. The frontage westerly of Frost Street would be required in the second year.
This clarification is consistent with past City practice of allowing the phasing of , improvements over a two year period.
If you concur and Council agrees, the Council’s action should be to adopt its Resolution
98-68, after amending its paragraph 2 by adding: The final paragraph of Condition 53 of
Planning Commission Resolution No. 4225 is amended by the addition of:
“The subdivision secured improvement agreement shall provide that:
Cannon Road from El Camino Real to Frost Street shall be complete within one
year following execution of the Subdivision Improvement Agreement.
Cannon Road from Frost Street to the west tract boundary shall be complete
within two years following execution of the Subdivision Improvement
c: City Attorney
Community Development Director
Planning Director
Principal Civil Engineer - Wojcik
Assistant Planning Director
Larry Clemens -\-*- .‘, .( ‘i ;“j=EM # ( 0
. ---
-
(Form A)
TO: CITY CLERK’S OFFICE
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
RE: PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST
Attached are the materials necessary for you to notice
CT g6-07/CDP 96-13/HDP 96-13/PUD 97-04 - Kelly Ranch Village "E"
for a public hearing before the City Council.
Please notice the item for the council meeting of
.
Thank you.
Assistant City Man-
February 18, 1998
Oate
CARLSBAD UNIF SCHOOL DIST
801 PINE AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CITY OF SAN MARCOS
1 CIVIC CENTER DR
SAN MARCOS CA 92069-2949
CALIF DEPT OF FISH 81 GAME
SUITE 50
330 GOLDENSHORE
LONG BEACH CA 90802
LAFCO
1600 PACIFIC HWY
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE
2730 LOKER AVE WEST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
TRISH GAPIK
4831 FLYING CLOUD WAY CARLSBAD CA 92008
SD COUNTY PLANNING CITY OF ENCINITAS
SUITE 8 505 S VULCAN AVE
5201 RUFFIN RD ENCINITAS CA 92024
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
CITY OF OCEANSIDE
300 NORTH COAST HWY
OCEANSIDE CA 92054
REGIONAL WATER QUALITY
SUITE B
9771 CLAIREMONT MESA BLVD
SAN DIEGO CA 92124-1331
AIR POLLUTION CNTRL DIST
9150 CHESAPEAKE DR
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
CA COASTAL COMMISSION
STE 200
3111 CAMINO DEL RIO NO
SAN DIEGO CA 92108
MARJORIE ROSENFELD 4793 FLYING CLOUD WAY CARLSBAD CA 92008
CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY OF CARLSBAD
PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING DEPT PUBLIC WORKS - OAK ST
CITY OF VISTA
PO BOX 1988
VISTA CA 92085
SANDAG
SUITE 800
401 B STREET
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
I.P.U.A.
SCHOOL OF PUBLIC ADMIN AND
URBAN STUDIES
SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY
SAN DIEGO CA 92182-4505
DAVID J. KOLDA 4833 FLYING CLOUD WAY CARLSBAD CA 92008
(ABOVE ADDRESS - For City Council
Notices Only)
CITY OF CARLSBAD
MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
PROJECT PLANNER
CHRISTER WESTMAN
Shea Homes LTD Partnership 10721 Treena Street, #200 San Diego, CA 92131
General Security Corp. 5039 El Camino Real Carlsbad, CA 92008
Robertson Family Trust 5056 N. El Camino Real Carlsbad, CA 92008
Kelly Family Investments Lt 239 E. 4th Avenue Escondido, CA 92025
Western Land Development 5200 El Camino Real Carlsbad, CA 92008
KELLY LAND COMPANY INC
2011 PALOMAR AIRPORT 206
CARLSBAD CA 92009
WRITER’S DIRECT LINE
SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON Lo
* LlMlTED LIIB3LIT” PARTNEmBYIP INCLUD,HG CRO,~5510NAL CO~POF)*T,oNS
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
NINETEENTH FLOOR
501 WEST BROADWAY
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA SZIOI-35S6
TELEPHONE (6191 336-6500 OUR FILE NUMBER
(619) 338-6530
oneil~.com
FACSIMILE (6191 234-3615 CRB-44254
March 4, 1998
BY TELECOPY
Ms. Lee Rautenkranz
City Clerk
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, California ‘92008- 1989
Re: Kellv Ranch-Village “E”
City Council Hearing; Date March 10. 1998
Dear Lee:
Attached is correspondence dated yesterday which has been sent earlier
today by fax to the City Attorney, Ron Ball. Please be advised that Kelly Land
Company, the applicant, will oppose condition 53~ as worded in the resolution adopted
by the Planning Commission, to the extent and for the reasons stated in the attached
correspondence.
Enclosure
for SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
SDl:DMlLE~51067463.1
cc: Mr. Ray Patchett, (w/enclosure)
LOS ANGELES S ORANGE COUNTY S SAN DIEGO n SAN FRANCISCO
WRITER’S DIRECT LINE
SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
. L,YlTiD LIA.IL,TV l A”I”C”I”,P WCLUDIIIO c”oIcss#o”Al. co”co”.TIoIIs
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
NINETEENTH FLOOR
501 WEST BROADWAY
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA SZIOI-35S6
TELEPHONE 1619) 338-6500
FACSIMILE (619) 2343815 (619) 338-6530
OUR FILE NUMBER
March 3, 1998
BY TELECOPY
Ronald R. Ball, Esquire
City Attorney
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, California 92008- 1989
Re: Kelly Ranch/Villag;e “E”
Dear Ron:
By way of background, I enclose herewith copies of the following
correspondence: letter from Larry Clemens of Kelly Ranch Company to Lloyd Hubbs
dated February 16, 1998; another letter from Larry Clemens of Kelly Ranch Company
to Lloyd Hubbs dated February 17, 1998; and reply letter from Lloyd Hubbs to Lany
Clemens dated March 2, 1998.
The principal purpose of this letter is to be sure you are aware of the
objection made by Kelly Land Company to condition no. 53 (c), as originally stated
and for all the reasons mentioned in the Clemens letter of February 17. It is apparent
from the Hubbs letter that staff does not agree. Accordingly, it appears that it will be
necessary for Kelly Land Company to discuss its objection and the reasons therefor
with the council at the scheduled hearing. I have also placed a call to your of&e, and
hope to discuss this with you.
I am unclear as to the hearing date. Larry Clemens told me he had seen a
notice stating the hearing was March 10, but I see that Lloyd Hubbs refers to it in his
LOS ANGELES 8 ORANGE COUNTY 8 SAN DIEGO 8 SAN FRANCISCO
,
SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LL~
Ronald R. Ball, Esquire
March 3, 1998
Page 2
letter as being on the council agenda for March 17. I would appreciate confiig
which is the applicable date.
I would also appreciate the opporttmity to discuss the issue with you in
advance. I have not had the opportunity to review in full the record of what was
submitted to and discussed at the Planning Commission meeting regarding Kelly
Ranch-Village “E.” However, it is clear to me that Kelly Land Company has raised a
significant issue about lack of nexus relating to any requirement by the City that Kelly
Land Company construct the extra two lanes of Cannon Road at KLC’s financial
obligation or fmanciiil risk. I am aware that Kelly Land Company made a conceptual
proposal to the City that it would be willing to undertake the task of constructing the
extra two lanes, provided that the City would commit to unconditional reimbursement
with a definite time certain. In the absence of such a solid and definite commitment,
however, Kelly Land Company objects to imposing any condition beyond the nexus
requirement referred to by Clemens.
I hope mat you will give me a call so that we can discuss the matter.
Unless it is otherwise resolved, however, the issue will need to be discussed before the
council.
With best regards.
Sincerely,
for SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
Enclosure
SDIDMlK.EIWXX!51O67Z47.1
cc: Mr. D.L. Clemens
-‘_ MQF!. 2.1998 3:08PM
‘. , NO. 548 P.24 d
IS7 KEL,LYRANCH
February 16,1998
Mr. Lloyd Hubbs
Director of Public Works
City of C&bad
2075 Las Pe&nas Drive
Carlsbad, California 92009
Dear Lloyd:
‘T’he tentative subdivision map/site development plan package for Kelly Ranch Area “E”
was recommended for approval by the Carlsbad Planning Commission on January 21,
and will be heard by the City Council shortly. Kelly Laud Company has generally
accepted the extensive list of recommended conditions of approval. .4s you know, in
conjunction with recordation of the final map, we are agreeable to dedication of the
required Cannon Road rights-of-way to the City of Carlsbad.
However, our ability to comply with two of the conditions of approval rests more within
the City’s control, than ours. We are very concerned that the timetable for City action,
and thus our compliance with these two conditions yriil be extended SO long as to delay
the hea “E” final map, and the Cannon Road dedication, indefinitely. It is our
expectation that the Area “E” final map will be ready for approval by May, 1998; and
with its rccordation Village “E”. El Camino Bridge, and Cannon Road construction will commence.
Condition No. 8. ‘Wtis project shall corn@ with ail conditions and m&*gation
measures which are required as part of the Zone 8 LFMP in effect at the time offrnd
map... ” A proposed amendment to the exiuisting Zone 8 LFMP has been under review in
the City Engineering Departnent since October 6,1997. No substantive comments have
been received f?om the City in the five months since its submittal. A number of
requirements of the original (I 985) approved Zone 8 LFMP are no longer accurate or
appropriate to the present proposal. w it is necessary that the parks impact mitigation conditions of the existing LFMP be revised prior to the final map for Area “E”.
‘111 I 1’\111\,\11 .\l*l’llrl P1\,,. ‘,li,lI ‘IN,, l~.\lt1\,‘,,#. 1’A ‘I!(JII’I - ,I,, [1,1’Jj’I I,., l’ill l “1. /hI’l)‘JJl-l’b’r(r
,‘. . MFIR. 2.1998 3:09PM
-
Mr. Lloyd Hubbs
Feb& 16,1998
Page Two
NO. 548 P.38
.
Condition No. IS. “Prior to ihe approval of thefznai mapfir any phase ofthis
project, the Developer shall enter into an Agordable Housing Agreement with the
cl@,.. ” Kelly Land Company has submitted a draft Affordable Housing Agreement for
City review. We have recently been notified that it is the City’s preference (although not
ordinance) to review and approve a full set of development plan drawings of the
affordable project at the same time that an Affordable Housing Agreement is reviewed
aad approved.
Although many aspects of the Kelly Ranch affordable housing solution arc known at this
time (including location, number of units, number of bedrooms, and tiordable lease
rates>, the site development plan approval will be delayed with the Kelly Ranch
Supplemental EIR for approximately 8 months. Unless some flexibility on this issue is
allowed, the entire cooperative program for expediting processing and dedication (which
was soundly supported by the Planning Commission) is jeopardizcd, and the very narrow
construction window is diminished.
Kelly Land Company will assist the City in any way they can to provide the information
necessary in order to achieve approvals necessary for the LFMP Amendment and the
Affordable Housing Agreement, and to allow the final map and dedication of Cannon
Road to proceed within the previously discussed time fkunes. We condude, however,
that it is absoiuteiy necessary for the City to promptly address the above two items, in
order that the Cannon Road dedication and construction program be completed as
previously scheduled.
D. Larry Clemens
Vice President
cc; Marty Orenyalc
Gary Wayne
Bob Wojcik
Debra Fountain
Michaci Hokmiller
Christcr Westman
Mike Shirey
KallyUhbbs.E.klk
,- MFIR. 2.1998 3:09Pfl No. 548 P.4/8 \)
IS7 KELLYRANCH
February 17,199s
Mr. Lloyd Hubbs
Director of Public Works
City of Carlsbad
2075 Las Palmas Drive
C&bed, California 92009
R&3: Kelly Ranch - Canuon Road
Dear Lloyd:
Thank you for meeting with me and our Kelly Ran& team on February II,1998 to
discuss Cannon Road aad, specifically, the financing and reimbursement arrangements
for this major element of C&bad’s circulation system.
We were very surprised at the change in attitude that you represented. It had been our
understanding over the last several months that the Cannon Road effort was to be a
“partnership” between rhc City and landowners, and a team effoti to expedite its
construction. Certainly the completion of Cannon Road would greatly enhance the City’s
circdation system surrounding Pdomar Airport Road and Lego, while providing the
front door to Kelly Ranch. We both have a real incentives to work together and to fairly
share the proportionate burden that constructing major infrastructure entails. HOWCVCX,
your outline of financing in our recent m&ing fell far short of fair and equitable. It is
OUT tirstanding that it is your expectation that Kelly Land Company construct Cannon
Road with &),l width improvements, the enike iength of our Kelly Ranch frontage.
Though our subdivision obligations will only rquire two (2) lanes and the median,
thereby leaving the remaining one-half of Cannon Road subject to reimbursement. As WC
discussed, you estimate that the amount subject to reimbursement could be as much a~ $3
- $5 million dollars and you cannot tell us when we can expect to be repaid.
Additionally, the fee per AD’T has escalated widely from %73/ADT to $21 O/ADT (300%)
and has the potential of rhc landowners who signed agreements with the City early, to
remain at the lesser amour& while the remainder of the participating landov!mers will
ncccssarily pay the higher amounts to make up for the short-falls. This is & acce@~~e
to Kelly Land Company.
‘ltl I I’\lclrlrw .\lWl~llWl IlllW. IrlUll , JOI, l’\ut~,fc,“t. (‘4 ‘t ‘Ofl’J l lll:~l~I’ll’l:l Il’jlJ . 1. 1.4: It, I’JI ‘b I I .7’M
MRR. 2.1998 .- 3: 1ElPM No. 548 P.54
Mr, Lloyd Hubbs
Februwy 17,1998
Page Two
The I4ilhnan orgariization has already entered into several substantial Reimbursement
Agreemcxts with the City of C&bad (ix,, Villa Loma Affordable Housing; Aviara Park
Agreement) where the City has not acted reasonably in discharging the responsibilities of
the agreements. So, given the significance of the Cannon Road expenditures; the lack of
acceptable reimbursement terms, and the unsettling history of C&bad’s reimbursement
agreements, Kelly Land Company is proposing that the Cannon Road - Kelly Ranch
frontage proceed as follows:
. ixstall two lanes and median, curb/gutter and sidewalk (as required) on the project
side of Cannon Road (south side); coincident with adjacent development;
. dedicate full Cannon Road right-of--y upon the recordadon of each of the Kauy
Ranch subdivision maps (Village E; Master T.M. Villages D,F,G,H,J,J,K,L);
. instztU xew improvements to El Camino Bridge (at Agua Hedionda Creek) subject
to immediate reimbursement.
. install the remainder width of Cannon Road (2 lams; full length) on their own
schedule;
. use the now available funds to construct the Ma&o Canyon Bridge;
. Reimburse KLC! for El Csmino Bridge construction;
. install Cannon Road (upgraded) utilities, as required;
. construct Faraday Avenue with now available fix&
Further, it is Kelly Land Company’s cont&ion that the Condition No.53 (c) (stated in the
Piann@ Commission Village E Conditions of Approval) requiring the fU width
improvement of Canuon Road, subject to reimbursement, is now a acceptable because
of the City’s inability to provide reasonable reimbursement terms. Inasmuch as the full
width improvement installation is voluntary, and cannot be mandated because of lack of
nexus to the Village “En subdivision requirements, we hereby request that this condition
be properly modified for the City Council’s pending hearing on Village “E” I
ml?. 2.1998 , 3:lBPM NO.548 P.bltl
Mr. Lloyd I-Iubbs
February 17,1998
Page Three
As you know, we were greatly disappointed to have you disallow the reimbursement of
expenses that Kelly has already expended in assisting the City with rheir permit
processing at the state and federal resource agencies. It was our understanding f+om the
beginning that these costs would be subject to reimbursement with proper documentation.
We realizc that some of these costs were to advance our own interests and will of course,
be properly accounted for. It is not fair to dismiss a costs when we diligently prctcceded
based upon our verbal agreement, as you requested.
There still are several sign&ant and timely matters out&&ing that will require
Kelly/City cooperation. Among them are: (1) the City’s need to establish a borrow site on
Kelly Ranch to excavate approximately 80,000 cubic yards of dirt for surcharging
purposes at the 1Macario Canyon Bridge; and (2) the provision of approximately 2 l/2
acres of mitigarion land on the Kelly Ranch for the Ciry’s use in satisfying Cannon Road
requirements.
We have a long way to go to compkte Cannon Road. Kelly Land Company is a tilling
participant in the process but, it is a two-way street; it must be fhir to both sides, We
have so little time, and the available time is so constrained, that brinkmanship negotiating
distracts from the t&s at hand,
I am hopeful that you will figure out a fair method to allow landowners to parricipate
with the City to build Cannon Road (full width, ~L-U length) without having to phase the
construction. Kelly Laud Company remains committed to the project, but without
reasonable reimbursement terms, we will have to proceed as I have outlined and install
only the portions of Cannon Road that meet the nexus test for the adjacent projects.
At your earliest convenience I would like to meet with you to discuss coordination of
partial improvements of Cannon Road.
Sincerely,
>LWL J’
D. Larry Clemens Vies President
cc: Mayor Bud Lewis Lisa Hildebrand Council Members Shari Howard
Raymond Patch&t David Hauser
Marty Omyak Christer Westman
KellytHubbsZlRWk
768 NO. 54869 P.7- ;flfif?._~.J~~~ -3: \EJPM CITY CIF CRRLSBRD
: I .
FAX TkANSMlTTAL
Public Works/Engineering Department ’
3-2-98 Numb d page8 bdng tranrmltted:
DATE: (tneludlngfransml@al), x I
TIME SEHT: 1:3$ AM @
TO: Larry Clemens FROM: Lloyd Hubbs
COMPANY: ~11~ m ~sIo)II:Puhjlc: Works Llfre
PHONE NO: 931-1190 PHONE NO. 080) 4381181 x 4391
FAX NO: 931-7950 FAX NO: (780) 43s8788
Letter from Lloyd Hubbs ta Larry Clemens dated 3/Z/98 regarding
Kelly Ranch - Village "E" Canditlon 653 from Lloyd Hubbs.
2076 Las Palmaa 0th 0 Carllbad. CA 92OOM676 l (760) 4364161 l FAX (760) 43l-6766
IMRR. 2.1998 3: 1lPM CITY OF CMLSBD 760 ~r?_q: ?‘%9 p.“‘W02 . .--
City of ~Garlsbad
D. Larry Clemens Vlm President .
2011 Pabm6rAirpwtw Sult6209
Cadsbad, CA 92008
KELLY RANCH - VlLlAee 'P .
Dear Law,
In your letter of February 17,1999 you dibcu66Od youf cowom &I ~C6f&f6n N’o. 53 (C) t0 #IO
Village ‘l? Tentathm Map pruubusly apprwed by the Plann~ w SMwiil not srppan modifi&ionbthlsc;ondlt&n. IfitIsywrin(enttoappcel~~oondnkn.yo;ncsdbson~tha Clly Clerk 8s 6oon as pos6ibk
Ar you know this was not an Issue raised at the Plmnlng.W and has not been
addressed in the cauncll Staff Report. Thii item 1s sclvedukd far Vm COUM -6 an Mvch 17. 1900.
’ Rcspondlng to the other concem8 e6pr665ad in your kiter. I w&d like to a6sun you that Cwumn Road remains a priai(y pmjaci that the City ilr acthmiy ~WSI&IQ; Rndlng and Umiw h6ve am
bean an issue as has been coQpvlltbcl v& the Kelly Ranch ownem.
As we discussed at our last meeting, staff will not suppat parlhi impfpemdnt of Read 2 of
CennOn Reed. The m6jor bwe ir the amount and Uming of fdmbW66malt. Thi6.h rdates to tha evailabil~ty of tirldii and the tir&tg of developmmk We ora imdy at(em9ting to compk(l
analysis of City fUndhg and tomplete thhr, hrmdan of the cumprrm BIMQO and Thorcwghkfe
OWrkL When Ibee two item are complete, we will know when futiding for -6dl2 would ba available.
I would alsa hcfweww, ~thattherc6ffhta6identilkdCrnonRoad~~ 6ndf6red6y Avenue through Mouario Canyon 66 having prlwity owr Readl2 d Cannon Read.
If you have any questkwvs. ple68a let me know, You continued cmpcdOn is eppreefated.
.
0: CltyMsnager * =YA--Y CommunWD~o&mcmr PIming Dlre6t6r
Auittant clw Englnaer AsdmntPknnlngDirecto~ Principal CM Enghw - Bob Wojcik AsaociateEn*mu-s~
2075 La Palmas Dr. - Car&bad. CA 8200~16m l f76O~~lqeT - FAX t760~ 43196789 a TOTRL P.02
03/_09/98 MON 14:52 FAX 3386700 . SW&II SANDIEGO
SBEPPARD, t@JLLnv, RrcBT.RB L BlwPmm LLP A Partnership Including Professional COrpOrationS Attorneys at Law 501 West Broadway, Nineteenth floor San Diego, California 92101 Telephone (619) 338-6500
Facsimile (619) 234-3815
DATE: March 9, 1998
FRCIM: Christopher B. Neils, Esquire
TO: Mr. D.L. Clemens Fax #: Confirmation #: 760-931-7950 760-931-1190
Lee Rautenkranz City Clerk, City of Carlsbad Fax #: 760-434-1987
Raymond R. Patchett city Manager, City of Carlsbad
Fax (I: Coniirmation I: 760-720-9461 760-434-2820
Ronald R. Ball, Edquire City Attorney, City of Carlsbad Fax X: 760-434-8367 Confirmation #: 760-434-2891
.
TOTAL rmmm or PwEs (INCLUDING CO-R LETTER): 3
IF ALL PAGES NOT RECEIVED, PLEASR CALL (619) 338-6500 X. 562.
CRB-44254
03@9/98 MON 14:53 FAX 3386700 SMRtkE SANDIEGO -
SHEPPARD, MULLIN. RICHTER 6 HAMPTON LV I l.l*mo Lm0,l.m WlNcmswv ,“scuD(NG “O~,,Iw CO”4.h~S
ATTORN- AT LAW
NINIWEEMH FLOOR
5Ol WE6T BROADWAY
6AN oIEGO. CALIFORNIA S+IOk36S6
WRITER’S DIRECT LINE TELEPHONE I6lS) X38-6SOO OUR FILE NUMBER
FACSIMILE 16lPI 234-3615 (619) 338-6530
March9,1998
LOS
CRB-44254
BY TELECOPY
RonaIdR Ball, Esquire
City Attorney
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, Cahfomia ‘92008-1989
Re: Kelly RancWVillarre T’
Dear Ron:
today.
This will confirm my telephone conversation with you just after lunch
You and I spoke ear&r today, as well as late last week, about the topics
which had been raised iu my correspondence to you of March 3,1998, and the
correspondence betw- Latry Clemens aud Lloyd Hubbs of which I attached copies.
It was suggested that a continuance of the Village “E” item from the City
Council agenda of March 10, for two weeks (until the Council meeting of March 24)
would allow City staff and KeIIy Land Company the opportuni@ to hold further
meetings and discussions regarding the matters at issue. I have discussed that with
Larry Clemens of Kelly Land Company, and this ktter conk-ms my verbal report to
you this afternoon thqt KeIly Land Company is in agreement with that idea.
Accordingly, please consider this letter to be Kelly Land Company’s
agreement to continue, and request that the Village “E” project be continued from the
City Council agenda of March 10 to the City CounciI agenda of March 24, 1998. Let
ANGELES 8 O-RANGE COUNTY 8 SAN OIEGO 8 SAN fRANCIStO
la002
03/09/98 MON 14:53 FAX 3388700 .- SMR&E SANDIEGO
SHEPPARD, MU&N, RICHTER & HAMPTON UP
Ronald R Ball, Esquire
March 9,1998
Page 2
me express the willingness of Larry Clemens and the staff at Kelly Laud Company, as
well as my own willingness, to meet as needed with various representatives of the City
staff to discuss the applicable issues. At the top of that list, it is extremely important
that Marty Orenyak and Mike Holzmiller meet with Larry Clemens as soon as
possible, and I believe that Larry is making his own phone call to arrange such a
meeting.
I~sen~gthehardcopyofthisl~~toyo~bym~withaninstant
copy by fax I have also sent copies by fax to the City Manager and to the City Clerk
With best regards.
fix SHEPPARD, MLJLLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON ILP
@loo3
SDIDMI-10.1 *
cc: Mr. D.L. Clemens
Mr. Ray Patchett
Ms.LeeRalltenkranz
03/04/98 17:19 *
DATE:
FROM:
TO:
A Partnership Uacluding Professional Corporations Attorneys at Law 501 West Broadway, Nineteenth floor San Diego, California 92101 Telephone (619) 338-6500
Facsimile (619) 234-3615
TELECOPP covlm xdmTlcR CRB-44254 March 4, 1998
Christopher B. Neils, Esquire
T-. Lee Ratstenkranz city Cl&Is, City of Carlsbad Fax #: 760-434-1987
Raymond R. Patchett City Manager, City of Carlsbad Fax #: 760-720-9461
confirmation #: 760-434-2820
TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES. (INCLUDING COVER LETTER): /I
IF ALL PAGES NOT RECEIVED, PLEASE CALL (619) 338-6500 X. 562 (Pamel.a)m
03/04/98 17:19 s @loo2
WRITER’& DIRECT LINE
(619) 338-6530
SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER 6 HAMPTON UP
A L‘Y”r~ l.,.~lLrn rrrrurmmur I*CLYmMa PaD.C~~IOIw CD14mATlw4b
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
NlNETEENTkl FLOOR
601 WEST BROADWAY
SAN DIEGO. CALIFORNIA 9210M6S6
TELtPhONE It319) 338-6600
FACSIMILE ~619~ -%SI’3
OUR FILE NUMBER
(X3-44254
Mmh 4,1998
BY TELECOPY
Ms. Lee Rautenkranz
City Clerk
City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, California -92008-1989
II 11 Re; Kelly Ranch-W&e E
Citv Council Hearing Date March 10, 1998
Dear Lee:
Attached is correspondence dated yesterday which has been sent earlier
today by fax to the City Attorney, Ron Ball. Please be advised that Kelly Land
Company, the applicant, will oppose condition 53~ as worded in the resolution adopted
by the Planning Commission, to the extent and for the reasons stated in the attached
correspondence.
for SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON up
Enclosure
SD1Dhf1UP.XXXU 1067463.1
cc: Mr. Ray Patchett, (w/enclosure)
LO5 ANGELE5 S ORANGE COUNTY m SAN DIEGO m SAN FRANCISCO
03104198 17:19 fj? -.
WRITER’S DIUECT LINE
(6 19) 3384530
SHEPPARD, MULLIN. RICHTER 6 HAMPTON LW A Lm*tw.D UAuLIn .U,(IC”,“W m*ewmMa 0110,~,,w)uc ca-no*r
nftORN6-1-5 AT LAW
NINflELN’TH FLOOR
101 WEST SROADWAY
SAN DlbOO, CnUFORNlA 8210~3698
TELEPHONE (6191 338-6600
FACSIMiLC t619) 234J6Is
Boo3
OUR me NUHWER
March 3, 1998
BY TELECOPY
Ronald R Ball, Esqu@e
City Attorxrey City of CarIsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
C&bad, California 92008-1989
Re: Kellv Ranch/Village “E”
Dear Ron:
By way of background, I enclose herewith copies of the following . correspondence: letter from Lany Clemens of Kelly Ranch Company to Lloyd Hubbs
dated February 16, 1998; another letter fkom Larry Clemens of Kelly Ranch Company
to Lloyd Hubbs dated February 17, 1998; and reply letter knn Lloyd Hubbs to Larry
Clemens dated March 2, 1998.
The principal purpose of this letter is to be sure you are aware of the objection made by Kelly Land Company to condition no. 53 (c), as originally stated
and for all the reasons mentioned in the Clemens letter of February 17. It is apparent
fkom the Hubbs Ietter that staBdoes not agree. Accordingly, it appears that it will be
necessary for Kelly Land Company to discuss its objection and the reasons therefor
with the council at the scheduled hearing. I have also placed a call to your office, and
hope to discuss this with you.
I am unclear as to the hearing date. Larry Clemens told me he had seen a
notice stating the hearing was March 10, but I see that Lloyd Hubbs refers to it in his
LOS AQNGELES R ORANGE COUNTY n SAN OILGO 8 SAN FRANCISCO
03/04/98 17:20 e
SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON w
Ronald R Ball, Esquire March 3, 1998
Page 2
letter a5 being on the council agenda for March 17. I would appreciate confirming which is the applicable date.
I would also appreciate the opportunity to discuss the issue with you in
advance. I have not had the opportunity to review in full the record of what was
submitted to and discussed at the Plamring Commission meetjug regarding Kelly
Ranch-Village “E.” However, it is clear to me that Kelly Land Company ha5 raised a
significant issue about lack of nexus relating to any reqnirement by the City that Kelly
Land Company con5tnrct the extra two lanes of Cannon Road at KLc’s Gnancial
obligation or Gnancial risk. I am aware that Kelly Land Company made a conceptual
proposal to the City that it would be willing to undertake the ta5k of constructing the
extra two lanes, provided that the City would commit to unconditional reimbursement
with a definite time certain. In the absence of such a solid and definite commitment, however, Kelly Land Company objects to imposing any condition beyond the nexus
requirement referred to by Clemens.
I hope that you will give me a call 50 that we can discuss the matter. Unless it is otherwise resolved, however, the issue will need to be discussed before the
calrlGil.
With best regards.
El004
Enclosure for SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
!xaDhil-l~7.1 .
cc: Mr, D.L. Clemens
03/04/98 17:20 s
". Mm.. 2.199s 3:faePPl
d
. Fehruaxy 16,1998
- No.548 p.m @loo5
Y
Mr. LIoyd Hubbs
Director of Public Works
City of Carlsbad
2075 Las Pelmas Drive
Carlsbad, Califbmia 92009
DearLloyd:
The tentive subditisioa map/site development plan package for Kelly Raach AI= “E”
WRS recommendtd for wval by the Carlsbad Plimning Commission on Jpnwry 21,
and will be heard by the City Council shortly. Kally Land Compmy has goneridly
acccptedtheextensivck’tofreco~d conditions ofappvd. & YOUkrurw, in conjunction with record&n of the fkal map, we w agrmtblc to dedication of the
tcquirfd camloll Rcmd righrs-of-way to rile city of carlsbad
However, our ability to comply with two of the conditions of approval rests more witbin
the City’s con?xol, than ems, We are very concerned that tht timetable for City acti-
ami thus our compliance with these two condiGons will be extended so long RS to delay
the Area “E” fiaal map, d the Cannon Road dediciitio~ i&f%tely. It is our
expectation that the &a 93 &al map will be re&y for approval by May, 1998; and wit& its record&on Village “I?‘. El Cemino Bridge, aad Cannan Road construction will cmuntnce.
Condition Na. 8. “Tkir project shall com& with ail con&ions and mitigruin
muarums w&h are required as purt of the Zone 8 L&W in e#eet m the the offhi
nopu ” A proposed ;tmcadmcnt to the t&sting Zone 8 L.FMP has been under review in the Ci@ JZnghw& &paa~~enr since Oarher 6,1997. No suhs?antivc commcnt5 have
bcco received &CUD tbc City in the five months since its submittal. A rumba of
requirements of the original (1985) qproved Zone 8 LIMP ~;tt no Ionges accurate or
appropriate to the present proposal. m it is netcssaq that the parks impact
mitigation cm&ims of the existing LFMP be revised prior to the final map for Ama “E”.
.
.,,, , ,‘ul,\,r, Sk,,,, ,A,,,,, +,,,, A,~,,, l’,,,,,,ow,. 1.~ -I.!IM~) l III. II~IVI '1 1 '-I "1') = : 'b: iI,J'd 'JJJ -"J'm
03/04/98 17:21 B
- mR..e.195e 3:B9pM -4 NO.548 P.3K-U @loos
Y
Mr, Lloyd Hubbs
February l&l998
Page Two
Condition No. 15. "Prior ro the opprovtzl of thafZhal mapfdr anyphuse of this
pmject, the Developer shall enter into an Aflordable Hmrihg Agreement with the
C@.. ” KelIy Land Company has submitted a draft Affbrdable &using Agreement for
City dew, We hax resartly been notified that it is the Ci@‘s prcfcr~c (aitho~gh not
ordinaace) ta mricw and approve a ftU set of development plan drawings of the
afibrdable project EU the same t&c that an Affordable Housing Af.peemcd is reviewed
and approved,
Akhough many aspects of the Kelly Ranch afSon3able housing sol&m are lmown at this
rime (including location, number of units, numk of bedmoms, and &Mable lease mBs), the site dcvtlopmcnt plan approval will be delayed with the Kelly Ranch
Suppkrnanti EIR far qqxoximate~y 5 mm&s. Unless sozne flexibility on this issue is
dlowex$ the tmk cooperative program for expediting procrsskg and dedication (m&icb
wan soudy supported by the PIeming Commissior~) is jeopardkcd, aud the very rmuww
fzomtrdon widow is diminished
Kelly Land Campany will assist the City in any my t&y can to provide the informati~~~
necessary in order to a&&-e appmmis aecessq for tha LFMP Amendment and the A.fSdable Housing Agreemcat zLdtoauowf&efkulm.apaadticationofCaueon
RI& to proceed within the px&eusly discussed time ties. We coneiude, hovtcver,
tba~ ir is absoIuta\y necessary for the City to promptly address the above two items, in
oh that the Canaan Road dedicsdio~ and eonsuuction program be completed as
previausly scheduled
D- Larry Cleznems vice Rc!sident
cc: AMerty OrcaymJL MiAclHolzmitler
Gary Waylle CbrisrefWti Bob Wojcik -shircy Debra Fountain
03/04/98 1?:21 fp
.m* 3.1998 3:B9pM .1
A Mu.;>4a I-. 4/u @foo7 \J
IS? KEZLLY RANCH
February 17,1998
Mr. Lloyd Hubbs
Directoz of Pub&o WC&S
City of Carlsbad
2075 Las Pahnas Drive
C&bad, Califhrnia 92009
Rf3: Kelly Ranch - C0nnoaRoad
Dear Lloyd:
Tbaakyanf~~~gwithme~ourKelly~~aamonFcbruary 11.1998to
discuss Canwn Road and, specifically, the fhmcing and rcimbursunea zurangemcnts
fbr this major element of Carl&ad5 c-n systan.
We~vcrysrrrpriacdatthcchaElgeinattitudethstyourrprescateh Ithadbceoour
understanding aver the last swaal month3 that the Cam012 Road &nt was to be a
“partnc~&p” betsecu the C;ty and m, andatczuncfkttoexpcditeits
l em Certainly ths completio5 of Cauuon Road would greatly e&me tke Ciry’s
Grculation systcpl suzfm Palamar Airpozt Road and Lega, While pmtiding the fixmt door SO Kelly Ran& We both I-WC a real inccnths KI work tog&M and to &rly share the propurtianatc burden that construct major ir&asmac~re cnta&. However,
your outline of hncing in our rcccnt mecthg fell far short of f!air sad equhble. It is
our undemanding that it is your expectation tht Kelly Land Company construct Cannon
Rhsdwith~width~~e~,theentktlengtbofourKclly~~o~ee. Though our subdivision obligatiom wU oaiy rqukc twp (2) hues a&the xncdhn,
thcrcby leaving the rcmiegolle-balfofcanrunaRoadsu~ccttoreimb\psement Aawe
dkuscd, you estimate that the amount subjtot to mimbuament could bc as much as S3 -$$5milliandollarsandyeucaanotttllusFvhtnwccaaocpect~~rtqpaid
Atlditidy, tbc fee per ADT &as escalated widely itom S73iADT to 82 1 WADf (300%)
audbas the p- of The laAdowncr3 who signed agrcancnts With the City e&y, to
recrmin at the tesser tunoun~ while the rcpraiader of the paaicipathg landoWncr3 will
nccessdy pay the hi&her amaunts to make up for the short-falls. This is m a~ce#%blc
to Kelly Land company.
‘I)! I I’M IIUVI .\lWWI lh\~L 51u11 .!()f,, l’W,mJ,, I-e\ ‘I ‘1JlJlJ . 1, I: 11, 1’11 ‘I : I I )‘)I1 . It \?: 11, IPI 91 1 I .TWJ
03/04/98 IT:22 e
.1 IIRR.. z.1998 3:10PM - lvo.54e P.Sfu @IO08
Mr. Lloyd Hubbs F&my 17.1998
Page Two
‘T’hc i3iknan orghizaticm ius beady entered into sewral substial Reimbursanmt
Agrcemu~ts with the City of Carl&ad (i-e., Villa Lam% Affbrdabe Ho-g; Aviara Pa&
Agreement) w&e the City has not acted re3Eonably in di~wg the responsibilities of the agreements. Soa given the si@ficance of h Cannon Road exp&mes; the Is& of
acceptable rtime tcms, and the unsettling hi&~ of Carlsbad’s rtimburswt agreements, Kelly Land Company is proposiag that the CannOn Road - Kelh Ranch
@antagcprocecdasfollo\rvs:
l instdltwa lanes animcdiim curb/gutter ad sidewatk (as required) onthe project
side of Cmnon Road (south side); c&scident with adjawu denreloprncnt:
. dmfAicatefull ~~adri~t~f-~upantberteordmianofeachaftheRally
R,ench subdi~mags (Village E; Muter TM. Villages D,WxT,JT.&);
. i&all new improyements to El Camho Bridge (at Agua&dicn%ia Creek) subject
toimnediaterrimbutsemon~
:
I uscthemwavailableffmdstocon@xt the Macario Canyon Bridge;
. Reimburse KLC for El Csmino Sxidgc comsuudon;
. i,lslauC~nRo3d(upgradad)~,asr~
. tonsaun.Paradny Avenue withnow available funds
Fucther, it is Icdy Laud CO~Y’S capon tba till0 C&m No.53 Cc) (stated in the
Phaiugc4a3missian WhgeECnnditiolrnofApprovai)requiringthcfiillti~
improw of camon bad. subject ta reimburscmeac. is now ~QS acecptable because ofthc City% inability to provide xeasaaabh xeisn?mfsezWnt trims. ZTrll.Zmu& 89 the full
width iuzpm~emcnt indlarion is ~~luatary, and amnot be zmhted because of la& of m to the Viic T subdivision ~c#s, we hereby request that this c~dition
be proply modXed 6oz the City Cods pending hcahg on VilIagc “Em.
03/04/98
--Mm. z.1998 17:22 a
, 3:10m
riw.3YO I-.PCU El009
Mr., Lloyd Hubbs Febtuary 17,1998
Page Three
AS you know, we were greatiy disappuinted to have you disa.Uow the rcixnbursunent of
expmscs that Kelly has already expended in assisting the Ciw with e pennit
processing at the state and federal reSoUrce agencies. It wes otpt UUkStandiDg &xn the begin&g that these costs would be subject to reimbursernmt with proper docuuzenmion.
We real& that some of tkse costs were to advance OUT own iatemts sad will of course,
be properly accounted for. It is not fair to dismiss d casts w&n we diligently proceeded
based upon our verbal agreema& as you requeskd.
T&es~stiUamsevcraisigni&antandtimolymutersoukmmd&thatwillrequk
J&ily/City cxmpenttkm Among them are: (1) the City% need to esrablisb a borrow site on blly Raach to excavate approximutdy 80,000 cubic yards of dirt fm sumbqing
pqosos at kc Maauia Canyon Bridge; and (2) the provision of approximately 2 l/2
acres of mitigation land on the K&y km& for the C&y’s use ia satis@@ Cwan Road
requireme.
We &we a long way to go to complete Cannon Road. Kelly Land Company is a tiiling
pticipaat in tk process but, it is a two-way q it must be f&to both sides, We
have so little time, and tk available rime is so con&a&d, that br: ’ hip negotiating
distruetsfiramtbotasksathand.
frrmhopefuItbatyouwillfigraeouta~metkodtoailaw[aodawrrsrs to parcicip2uc
with the City to build Cannon Road (fi& width, fkil length) without having to phase the
CO~tiOL Kelly Land Company te&nsc~tctthcproj~butwithout
‘Leasonabie~~rs~tctmS,wCWiUhBwtoproc~~Ihaveo~~and~~ oaly t&e pmtions of Camon Road that meet tic nexus test for the adjacent projects.
At your earliest come&me I would like to meet with you to discuss coordkation of
pastialimprovemeatsofcannonRcled,
SiSUXdy,
>i C-J
D. hqv Clenms vice President
Oc: Mayor Bud Lewis LissEiildebmnd CouncilMembc~ ShcKi Howurd Raymond Putchett David Hauser
Marty o=yalc chaerwe3b3lan
03/04/98 17:23 B
E?- 2. &_s-EJ -2: gPrl CITY-= - 1r-g 4W.3uN @lo10 l-r ,*w-
FAX TkANSMlTTAL
Public Works/Engineering Depar&nent ’
.
WIE SEWI: 1:w AM @
TO: Larry Clemens FROMZ Lloyd Hubbs
COMPANYZ m I -w&J+ b&gks Drretta+
FwanE NO: 931-1190 PHou6U~. usa 438416l x 4391
FAX NO: 931.7950 FAX NO; J?6owrlabs
Letter f?Om Lloyd Hubbs to Larry Clemens dated 3/2/g/3 regarding
kelly Ranch - Village "E" Candltian 853 fmn Lloyd Hubbs. '
,
03/04/98 17:23 'g la?. 2.1998 3:11Frl CIM gE cfmamJJ I”” ..-s -.- kilo11 . .-. -- .
City of Gaarlsbad
D.LBiVC- VkePre16idmt - ~20~mlmlmclaaksutbu206 .
Asywknavthbwss~anbs5wfaisedatitlsPlanhg-- andtlBwnut&Ml eddrwmedhtheCwbcitSta#~ Thiiitemhs schaduwfbrllTBCound(~aM~ 17, lsm. .
.
c:
iz%ziy
izzg%&--
~ntEnmEnph.ar
-PkmhODim PdneipBlciumEflghmr-BclbW~ . . .
-~~-shkeY
207s La Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad. CA B200&1678 I me&l*61 - FAX nireol4ai-6789 a lmRL P.&?
MR-EG-1998 13:49
March 6,1998
CITY OF CQRLSBQD 760 431 5769 P-8 /
TO:
FROM:
CITY MANAGER
Public Works Director
CT 9647/PUD97-+UHDP 96-13/GDP 96-13 - KELLEY RANCH VILLAGE ‘E’ c&
Please find attadred several pieces of correspondence related to Kelly Ranch Village ‘F project These letters express concerns related to various conditions of approval which are inctuded in the final project approval being heard by the Council at its upcoming March IO, 1998 Council meeting.
None of the issues addressed in these fetters were discussed at the Planning Commission hearings.
The issues raised are:
1. Condition No. 53 (C) of PC Resolution 4227 requires full Village “E” Cannon Road
frontage improvements.
The applicant Is requesting % street Improvements. The applicant is concerned that reimbursements amtemplated by the approval conditions will not be timely.
2. Condition No. 8 e#xtive!y prevents final map approval until the Local Facilities
Management Plan for Zone 8 (Zone 8 LFMP) is amended.
The developer seeks relief from this condition or expedited approval of the Zone 8 LFMP.
3. Condition 15 states “Prior to the approval of the final map for any phase of this project the Developer shall enter into an affordabte Housing Agreement with the City. ,.I.
The developer seeks flexibility in the interpretation of this condition.
None of these issues were addressed at the Planning Commission Hearing. It is the opnlon of the City Attorney that the project should be remanded to the Planning Commission for further
consideration.
It would be my recommendation that thfs Item by continued to March 24, 1998 to allow staff to meet with the applicant to better understand the issues involved prior to taking action to remand the item to the Planning Commlssion for rehearing.
If you have any guestions please let me know.
. P. E. PublgWorks Dire&r
LBHrbrg
c: Community Development Director Planning Director Assistant Planning Director Principal Civil Engineer - Wojcik Associate Planner - Westman
MN?-86-1998 13:49 CITY OF CfWLSBAD 760 431 5769 P.83118
SWEPPARD, MULLIN, RCCITEF~ is HAMPTON w r-wmuw-m-w ASATulll
WWWEIL~ DlRLc* UNC
MN- m.ooR
IQ)wmMo*;mmr
gAN Dlmd. MWnuY -
r6L6PMow6 mml56~ OUR rli.6 NUW-6R
(619) 3384530
LO8
Cityd- 12UOC8dBbMVi~ Cad&ad, c.aWimh 920084989
Bywa~ofb&puad,Iencl~henwithoclpimaftbe~~ carrm: MkrhomLarryC%mcusofKclly~comprmY6bLlaydHub~
dimdFcbnrsry16,1998;anotfierlstaar~~~ofKellyRancsI~ to~~br~Febnrary17,1998;mdrepEyletber~~H~boLanry Clcma~~ dated &fat& 2 1998.
AU=6bC5 8 ORAIUQS! rAn PRANCI8)CO
MM?-86-1998 13:49 CITY Of= CFIRLSBRD '760 431 5769 P.O4/18
SIIEPPARD, MULLIN, R!CHIU & HAMFWN IIP
With best regimiu.
forSEEPMRDJMULLIN,~CH’IER&HAMpToNua
L-B,.l ’
CG: MI.DLclUlKWB
MN?-06-1998 13:49 . -. rmc. z.aYm s*mrrl CITY OF CRRSBc7D - $; ~ . 760 431 5769 P. 05/10
ne. LloydHubbB DiractordFUbliEWOEk# City of Cadsbad 2fmLaaPalumaJmm c2srlB~c~92009
~1 I I’UI!UU Atqw L~IUL ‘WI Jllfh t’&i\ru+ 4-A ‘Ma’l l lll,~llIB~‘lII~lI’PI ’ IIr:l41’l1’(rl~~‘J%
MAR+&1998 13:50 p. mK. c-a- a.--, , CITY OF CWLSBQD
5’ .
‘LH
Mr. Lbydl&lbbr IhbuBry 16,199s
WJ-
760 431 5769 P. 06110
MrW-E%-1998 13:50 . . .- -” -’ CITY OF CR?LSBFID 768 431 5769 P. 87/l@
MW-96-1998 13: 50 .d . _ CITY OF CFRLSBFID
:. 1 768 431 5769 P. 08/l%
MdloydHubb8 kkuluy 17,199b
pm-
.
MR-96-1998 13: 50 .# CITY OF CQRLSBQD 760 431 5769 -4 P. 09J10
Mr.LIOYdHUbbt wbnmy II,1998
pase=-
, ~youknow,~wuegzuJtlydimlppoluh?dtohnnyoutisllowtbo ’ ’ lontof
wpaw8zhrt~hs8~~in~~cib*~~~
)7mc48~rrtth4statpwdt;cllbpilwIoIpc4~ Itrrmournr”iahmrllrrs~~
b4@lm@th8tthe88w8t8wauIdboNbjutto~ar(rh~-ort
W8ndi;a~SOXWOfUWc#o~tOBdV8WottloIvp~WdwiuCfcOmre,
kpmpaiy -fix. xtbPOt~todiw&~tom~iw~wldy~d
-npoa~-u=-t ~yoam--
MQR-06-1998 13:51 pim, 2.19w a~llrll CITY OF CRRLSBAD -(I Y w-- 760 431 5769 P. 1WlB .
:‘. l i
j Citv
TOTfX P. IB
AU RECEIVE
March 20,1998
TO: CITY MANAGER !
FROM: Public Works Director
CT 96-07/PUD 97-04/HDP 96-13/ CDP 96-I 3 -
As you will recall at its March 10, 1998 meeting, the City Council continued
consideration of the approval of Village “E” of the Kelly Ranch to allow staff and
the developer to resolve issues raised subsequent to the Planning Commission
approval.
Staff has met with the developer and resolved the issues related to the
affordable housing requirements and modifications required to the Local
Facilities Management Plan (LFMP) for Zone 8.
The developer continues to express concerns about Condition No. 53 (C) related
to the improvement of Cannon Road along the frontage of Village “E”.
Condition No. 53 (C) states:
Plans, specifications, and supporting documents for all public improvements
shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. In accordance with
City Standards, the developer shall install, or agree to install and secure with
appropriate security as provided by law, improvements shown on the tentative
map, and in accordance with the following:
C) Full Major Arterial improvement to Cannon Road, including the
landscaped raised median, from ECR to the project’s southwestern
boundary. Construction of Cannon Road improvements requires the
issuance of a Coastal Development permit by the California Coastal
Commission.*
*The developer shall enter into a reimbursement agreement and shall be eligible
for fee credit and/or reimbursement for their portion of the Cannon Road
common improvements as defined in the Cannon Road West Bridge and
Thoroughfare District.
The timing and extent of improvements of Cannon road are dealt with in both the
Kelly Ranch Master Plan and the Zone 8 LFMP. The Planning Commission
March 20,1998
CT 96=07/PUD 97=04/HDP 96-131 CDP 96-13 - KELLY RANCH VILLAGE “E”
Page 2
approvals and the Environmental Clearances were based on the findings of
consistency with these documents, assuming the full width improvement of
Cannon Road
A reduction of the condition for full improvements will require further study to
insure adequate conformance to Growth Management and overall conformance
with the Master Plan.
Should the applicant wish to pursue a reduction in improvement requirements,
staff recommends that the project be remanded to the Planning Commission for
consideration to insure conformance with all applicable documents and the
c: City Attorney
Community Development Director
Planning Director
Principal Civil Engineer - Wojcik
Assistant Planning Director
Larry Clemens
03/23/98 MON 11:13 FAX 3386700 SMk%H SANDIEGO
SHEPPARD, WLLIN, RICHTER G HAMPTON LLP A Partnership Including Professional Corporations Attoraeys at Law 501 West Broadway, Nineteenth floor San Diego, California 92101 Telephone (619) 338-6500
Facsimile (619) 234-3815
‘PEuicoPYr COVER LETTER
DATE : March,23, 1998
FROM: Christopher B. Neils, Esquire
TO: Lee Rautenkranz City Clerk, City of Carlsbad Fax #: 760-434-1987
Raymond R. Patchett City Manager, City of Carlsbad Fax #: 760-720-9461 Confirmation #: 760-434-2820
Ronald R. Ball, Esquire City Attorney, City of carlsbad Fax #: 760-434-8367 Confirmation #: 760-434-2891
Mr. D.L. Clemens Fax #: 760-931-7950 Confirmation #: 760-931-1190
T&AL NUMBER OF PAGES (INCLUDING COVER LETTER): 3
@loo1
CM-44254
IF ALL PAGES NOT RECEIVED, PLEASE CALL (619) 338-6500 X. 562.
03/23/98 MON 11:13 FAX 3386700 SMR&Ef SANDIEGO
WAITCR’S BIACCT LINE
(619) 3386530
Eati~com
SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER 6 HAMPTON LLp
a LIMITCO Lunlurf P*ar*ac*l* I”CL”rn,NO C”D,C,,WNY Co~PoaAIIoIIL
A-iTORNerS AT LAW
NINmEENTH FLOOR
sci WEST aRo4owAY
SAN DIEGO. CALIFORNIA SZIOI-3598
TELEPClONC (619) 318-6500
FACSlMfLE (619) 234-3815
@loo2
OUR C)LC tull)nEiER
CREi-44254
March 23,1998
BY TELECOPY
Ronald R. Ball, Esquire
City Attomcy
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
G.&bad, California 92008-1989
Re: Kellv R.anch/Vill~e “E”
Citv Council Agenda of March 24
Dear Ron:
This will con&m my telephone message to you about 10:00 a.m. today.
With theconsent and request of Kelly Land Company, as confkmed in
my letter to you of March 9, 1998, items related to Village “E” were continued from
the City Council agenda of March 10 until March 24, to afford City staff and Kelly
Land Company the opportunity to hold further meetings and discussions regarding the
matters at issue. As you know, there have been a number of such discussions. Among
the matters being discussed was an apparent wide discrepancy between cost estimate
figures developed by Kelly Land Company, as compared to cost figures developed by
City staff Representatives of the Kelly Land Company and City staff have met in the
attempt to reconcile those discrepancies, and I uuderstand tirn Larry Clemens that a
good deal of additional information is being received from the City for further such
review and analysis over the next couple of days.
Larry Clemens believes that it would be a good idea to provide some
additional time to allow that information process to be completed, and then to continue
LOS ANGELES I ORANGE COUNTY m SAN DIEGO l SAN FRANCISCO
03/23/98 MON 11:13 FAX 3380700 SMR&H SANTlIEGO
. Qloo3
A
SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
Ronald R Ball, Esquire
‘March 23,1998
Page 2
thediscussions seeking to explore a mutual agreemem based upon the confirmed
numbers.
Accordingly, please consider this letter to confirm Kelly Land
Company’s agreement to continue, and request that the Village “E” project be
continued again from the City Council agenda of March 24 to the City Council agenda
of April 7, 1998.
I again con&m the willingness and availability of Larry Clemens and the staff at Kelly Land Company to meet as needed with various representatives of the
City staff to discuss all applicable issues. I am also willing to meet with you, or
otherwise discuss with you any matters relating to the applicable issues.
I am sending the hard copy of this letter to you by mail, with an instant
copy by fax. T am also sending copies by fax to both the City Manager and the City
Clerk.
With best regards.
Sincerely,
for SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON up
SD1:DM1LEIWRBWO69413.1
cc: Mr: D.L. Clemens
Mr. Ray Patchett
Ms. Lee Rautenkranz
04/03/98 12~42 e
, '*
.
SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER c aMPTON LLP A Partnership Including Professional Corporations Attorneys at Law 501 West Broadway, Nineteenth floor San Diego, California 92101
Telephone (619) 338-6500
Facsimile (619) 234-3815
TELECOPY COVER LETTER WR8-30773
San Dieao Office TELECOPY NUMBER TARGETED TIME ATTORNEY/SECRETARY EXT.
(619) 234-3815 ASAP CBN\530
WE ARE TRANSMITTING FROM A "SERIES 3" MACHINE
l * THIS TELECOPY TRANSMISSION WILL NOT BE MAILED **
DATE:
FROM:
TO:
April 3, 1998
Christopher B. Neils, Esquire
Claude E. Lewis, Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Carlsbad Fax #: 760-434-8367 Confirmation #: 760-434-2891
Lee Rautenkranz City Clerk, City of Carlsbad Fax #: 760-434-1987
Raymond R. Patchett City Manager, City of Carlsbad Fax #: 760-720-9461 Confirmation #: 760-434-2820
Ronald R. Ball, Esquire City Attorney, City of Carlsbad Fax #: 760-434-8367 Confirmation #: 760-434-2891
Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer AND David Hauser City of Carlsbad Fax #: 760-438-1094 Confirmation #: 760-438-1161 Ext. 4391
TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES (INCLUDING COVER LETTER):
IF ALL PAGES NOT RECEIVED, PLEASE CALL (619) 338-6500
NAME OF SENDER Pamela TIME COMPLETED
MESSAGE :
M001/004
/
+o
THIS MESSAGE IS IWTERDED OllLY FOR THE USE OF THE IM)IV1WM OR ERYITY TO UliICH IT IS
ADDRESSED, ARD HAY CDRTAIN IRFORMTIoY TX&T IS PRIVILE6fiD, CORFIDEYTIM ARD EXERPT FRDR
DISCLOSURE UYOER APPLICMLE W. IF THE READER OF THIS WESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED
RECIPIENT, OR THE EMPLOYEE OR AGENT RESPONSIBLE FOR DELIVERING THE HESSAGE TO THE INTENDED
RECIPIENT, YCU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTIDN DR COPYING OF THIS
CDRMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONE, AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO US AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS VIA THE U.S. POSTAL SERVICE. THANK YOU.
*WE HAVE A HEARING IMPAIRED EMPLOYEE WORKING IN OUR FAX ROCM AFTER 5:45 P.M. ON UEEKDAYS. 1F YOU HAVE A
PROBLEM WITH YOUR FAX DURING THESE TIMES, PLEASE CALL (619) 33B-66DD.*’
04/03/98 12:42 %?
. b-
@ 002/004
WRITER’S DIRECT LINE
(619) 338-6530
SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON UP . L,Y,lra UAOILITI C&m,*I”sH1, ,WcL”DINO rrorc*sm”bL co”coI.mo*s
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
NINETEENTH FLOOR
501 WEST QROADWAY
SAN DIEGO. CALIFORNIA ‘3ElOl-3598
TELEPHONE (619) 336-6600
FACSIMILE (619) P34-3815
OUR FILL NUMEER
WR8-3 0773
April 2, 1998
VIA HAND DELIVERY AND FAX
Claude E. Lewis, Mayor
Members of the Ci& Council
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, California 92008
Re: &Deal of Plannine Commission Aumoval. SDP 97-14
, C&bad Ranch. Lots 9 and 10
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers:
We represent Koll Real Estate Group and its affiliates (“KREG”), the
applicant in connection with SDP 97-14, the subject of the appeal mentioned above.
This letter is written to address the appeal, and we wish to clarify a significant matter
which is central to fhe appeal. We hope that this letter will simplify and clarify the
issue.
The draft Agenda Bill which we reviewed characterizes the appeal as an
“all or nothing” issue as regards condition no. 37. In other words, the staff report reads
as if KREG’s objection is to the entire condition. In fact, that is not the case. The
objection, and the reason for the appeal, is because of the dollar figure of “$210.00 per
ADT” which is contained in the condition. It is the KREG position that such dollar
amount is incorrect, and should be stated at “$73.00 per ADT.” KREG believes that
the imposition of any front end payment requirement, within the context of condition
37, in excess of $73.00 is both (a) inconsistent with the treatment of other projects, and
unfair, and (b) not legally justifiable at this time.
KREG will accept virtually all of the condition, including the provisions
which will require the applicant to sign an agreement with the City, consent to the
LOS ANGELES m ORANGE COUNTY 8 SAN DIEGO = SAN FRANCISCO
04/03/98 12~43 B I0 003/004
. .
SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER 6 HAMPTON LLP
Claude E. Lewis, Mayor
April 2, 1998
Page 2
formation of a fee district, and (within the agreement) acknowledge that the applicant
will ultimately become obligated to pay a fee determined at the time that the district is
formed. The only feature of the condition to which KREG objects is the portion which
designates an “estimated” amount to be paid in cash by the applicant, at the time it
pulls a building permit. Even then, tbe disagreement is not with the concept of payment, but with the amount stated as the estimate. The only estimate of ADT costs
which has any official standing in the City, of which KREG is aware, is the amount of
$73.00 per ADT. pat amount resulted from a study done in 1995, which achieved at
least a semi-official status as a result of ensuing actions by the Council. Other projects
have been conditioned within recent months to a similar condition, in which the
estimated amount to be paid at time of building permit is $73.00 per ADT.
The Agenda Bill indicates that several other developments within the
proposed fee district area have already “paid their estimated fees and have signed the
required agreement. ” What the Agenda Bill does not state is that those developments
paid the fee at $73.00 (or in some cases even less).
There has been a wide range of speculation by staff in recent weeks
about studies of projected actual costs of facilities which may be constructed within the
district, when and if it is formed. KREG has heard a wide range of dollar figure
speculations as to the fee which will be stablished when and as tbe district is formed.
As of today, those are all informal, and none of those has any official status.
KREG is prepared to accept the condition if it is modified so that the
dollar figure of $210.00 is changed to $73.00. The terms of the agreement referred to
in the condition would also be modified to reflect that the payment at the time of the
building petit should be in the amount of $73.00. PLEASE NOTE that the balance
of the agreement, which KREG would sign, will make the KREG project subject to
whatever the ultimate fee becomes, when determined at the time of the formation of
the district. As is the case with other property owners who have already signed such
04/03/98 12~44 f&P
SHEPPARD. MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
Claude E. Lewis, Mayor
April 2, 1998
Page 3
agreements, KREG could become subject to paying additional funds through the
mechanism of the district. That would place KREG on the same position as the other
developers who have already signed such agreements.
for SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
SD1:DM1LJi~WR8!51070783.1
cc: City Clerk
City Manager
City Engineer
David Hauser
City Attorney
MOO4/004