HomeMy WebLinkAboutCDP 97-52; Kelly Ranch Corporate Center; Coastal Development Permit (CDP) (16)November 10, 1998
Richard S. Allen
Kelly Ranch Corporate Center, LLC
4365 Executive Drive, Suite 850
San Diego, CA 92121
SUBJECT: SDP 97-25/CDP 97-52/ZC 98-03 - KELLY RANCH CORPORATE CENTER
The items requested from you earlier to make your Site Development Plan, Coastal
Development Permit, and Zone Change, application no. SDP 97-25, CDP 97-52, and ZC 98-
03 complete have been received and reviewed by the Planning Department. It has been
determined that the application is now complete for processing. Although the initial
processing of your application may have already begun, the technical acceptance date is
acknowledged by the date of this communication.
Please note that although the application is now considered complete, there may be issues
that could be discovered during project review and/or environmental review. Any issues
should be resolved prior to scheduling the project for public hearing. In addition, the City
may request, in the course of processing the application, that you clarify, amplify, correct,
or otherwise, supplement the basic information required for the application. Attached is a
list of Planning and Engineering Department issues for the project.
Please contact your staff planner, Don Neu, at (760) 438-j 161, extension 4446, if you
have any questions or wish to set up a meeting to discuss the application.
Sincerely,
Planning Director
MJH:DN:mh
c: Gary Wayne
Adrienne Landers, Team Leader
Frank Jimeno, Project Engineer
Bobbie Hoder
-Fik%QQy-
Data Entry
Planning Aide
Stuart Fisk, Hofman Planning Associates
Tony Grant, Smith Consulting Architects
Sam Kab, Urban Systems
Richard C. Kelly
2075 Las Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 - (760) 438-11610 FAX (760) 438-0894 a9
ISSUES OF CONCERN
No. SDP 97-25/CDP 97-52/ZC 98-03 - Kelly Corporate Center
Planning:
1. As previously requested please provide a roof plan showing the location of roof
appurtenances and mechanical equipment. Adequate parapet heights must be
designed into the building elevations to avoid the need for future equipment screens.
A minimum parapet height of approximately 5 feet appears to be necessary based
on the average height of commonly proposed roof equipment. An alternative is to
show mechanical yards for each building on the project plans. A mechanical yard
was only shown for building 1.
2. Enclosed is a copy of the traffic report containing Planning staff comments. Please
revise the report as requested and submit 3 copies of the new document. The
traffic division will need to review and approve the revised report. The Engineering
Department has additional review comments on the report.
The report shows that the project does not comply with the Growth Management
Circulation Performance Standard in the peak hour. The third draft of the report
revised September 28, 1998 shows that an LOS E will fall to just above LOS F at
the intersection of Palomar Airport Road/l-5 northbound ramps. Therefore, city
staff will not be able to recommend approval of the project.
In addition, because the project is showing a traffic increase it is in conflict with the
Master Environmental Impact Report and the adopted Statements of Overriding
Considerations for significant unavoidable impacts to circulation and air quality. As
a result an Environmental impact Report would be required to be prepared for the
project. A Statement of Overriding Considerations would also be required causing
the Planning Commission and City Council to have to determine that there are
adequate reasons to allow the proposed impacts. Given the focus on circulation
impacts in this area it is doubtful that the adoption of overriding considerations for
the project impacts would receive approval.
3. The issue of additional traffic generation from the proposed project causes the
proposal to not meet the growth management circulation performance standard and
also requires the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) as the
additional traffic and air quality impacts caused by the project were not analyzed in
the Master EIR prepared for the General Plan Update for which a statement of
overriding considerations was adopted for air quality and circulation impacts.
The alternative of revising the project so as to not generate additional vehicle trips
over those projected for the property would allow a mitigated negative declaration
to be prepared and no growth management circulation level of service standard
would be affected.
Should you not wish to revise the project proposal please submit the required fees
for the processing of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). You have the option of
contracting directly with an environmental consultant or having the city put out a
--
Request For Proposals to prepare an EIR for which you will be responsible for paying
the cost of EIR preparation. Please inform me in writing by November 24, 1998 as
to how you wish to proceed.
4. It was requested that the project biologist consult with the California Department of
Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concerning the proposed
project impacts. Please provide correspondence from both of these agencies
concerning their concurrence with the Biological Resource Report, the proposed
mitigation and the project as designed. The revised design has encroachments into
the 50 foot buffer area at the southeast corner of the site and impacts vegetation in
other areas of the property. This is inconsistent with Policies 3-7 and 3-8 of the
Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program.
5. Enclosed are redlined checkprints of the project plans containing revisions required
to be made. Please make the revisions noted and return the redlined checkprints
along with 12 sets of the revised plans.
6. Submit a letter withdrawing the zone change application and requesting a refund of
the unused fees for that application.
Engineering:
1. The Traffic Division has reviewed the revised transportation analysis. Please note
the comments in the enclosed report. Some major issues remain to be resolved.
Please contact John Kim at (760) 438-l 61, extension 4500 to set up a meeting to
go over his comments.
2. Some minor drainage issues remain to be resolved. Please have your engineer
contact Frank Jimeno at (760) 438-l 161, extension 4501.
3. Please return the enclosed redlined traffic analysis with the revised report to assist
us in our continued review.