Loading...
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.