Loading...
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