The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCDP 98-13; Rancho Real; Coastal Development Permit (CDP) (11)Memorandum TO: Senior Planner, Elaine Blackburn FROM: Associate Engineer, Clyde Wickham DATE: March 19, 1998 CDP 98 - 13 : RANCHO REAL ( AKA .. CT 90 - 13 / PUD 90 - 16 ) COMPLETENESS & ISSUES REVIEW Engineering Department staff has completed a review of the above-referenced project CDP 98 - 13 for application completeness. The application and plans submitted for this proposed project are currently incomplete and unsuitable for further review due to the following incomplete item: 1. The proposed CDP and all exhibits must be in compliance with the approved subdivision and planned unit development. The proposed CDP added a Gated Entry and the proposed grading is different than the approved plan. The plans submitted were more architectural, except for the rough grading plan which was different than the approved CT / PUD. We have no check-prints to return or process at this time. If you or the applicant have any questions, please either see or contact me at extension 4353. Associate Engineer Land Development Division From: Elaine Blackburn To: Clyde Wickham Date: 5/19/981:53PM Subject: Rancho Real (CDP 98-13) The above project must be heard by the PC no later than Sept. 6 (although it really should be heard sooner). For a hearing date of Sept. 6,1 would need the Engineering conditions no later than July 7. For a hearing date of Aug. 19, (my preferred target hearing date), I would need the conditions no later than June 30. Since I will be on vacation from July 3-20, it would be helpful to have them by the June 30 date if possible, so I can get the staff report into the review process before I leave on vacation. Please let me know what hearing date you think you can accommodate. Thanks! siBifliffi^s^^g?^^ •maigia^aiggggg^i^^ From: Elaine Blackburn To: Clyde Wickham Date: 5/20/98 4:40PM Subject: Re: CDP 98-13 Rancho Real I will call the applicant on Friday and remind him of the letter you sent him and tell him that you expected and need to see a revised full submittal with any corrections/changes you told him about in your letter. >» Clyde Wickham 05/20/98 09:31 AM >» My last plancheck was technically a notice of INCOMPLETE (wrong design, grading not clear.appeared to be different than approved) but, the planning dept. called the submittal "complete". So, to go along with the call, I sent my comments directly to the applicant with a copy to you (March 19,1998) The application was not in compliance with the approved project, in addition to a gated entry, It appeared that the proposed grading was different than the approved tract map. The plans submitted were more "architectural" except for the rough grading plan as I mentioned above. Before I could prepare conditions of approval. I would expect to see a complete application, with the approved design (CT 90-13 / PUD 90-16). page From: Elaine Blackburn To: Clyde Wickham Date: 5/20/98 8:37AM Subject: Re: Rancho Real (CDP 98-13) There are no corrections. For Planning, no corrections that would require a resubmittal are needed. The plans originally submitted are exact copies of the original approvals (as they should be) with the addition of a new cover page. The new cover page contained a drawing of a gated entry which was not on the previous approvals. I informed the applicant some time ago that the gate could not be approved as it was a change from the approved plans. When I followed up with a phone call to him recently, he indicated to me that the new gate sheet should be deleted (as I told you last week). Since no other Engineering issues were identified in the first review, that appeared to have resolved the only Engineering issue. If you need a resubmittal of the same plans (without the gate sheet) to continue your review, or if there are other corrections not previously identified, please let me know so I can let the applicant know what he needs to do. My first message was not intended to rush you. Since we all have a lot more work now I thought a little advance notice regarding the need for conditions might be helpful rather than waiting until June 30 to request them per the critical dates calendar. >» Clyde Wickham 05/20/98 08:03AM >» I have reviewed the application one time and have not seen a resubmital or correction of the application. As you know we are swamped, just submit the corrections and I'll do what I can. The C.T. is also in for an extension (last one available). >» Elaine Blackburn 05/19/98 01:53PM >» The above project must be heard by the PC no later than Sept. 6 (although it really should be heard sooner). For a hearing date of Sept. 6,1 would need the Engineering conditions no later than July 7. For a hearing date of Aug. 19, (my preferred target hearing date), I would need the conditions no later than June 30. Since I will be on vacation from July 3-20, it would be helpful to have them by the June 30 date if possible, so I can get the staff report into the review process before I leave on vacation. Please let me know what hearing date you think you can accommodate. Thanks! JUNE 25, 1998 TO: CLYDE WICKHAM, ASSOCIATE ENGINEER FROM: Elaine Blackburn, Senior Planner RANCHO REAL SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE - CT 90-13 With regard to the substantial conformance exhibit submitted for the above project, I offer the following comments: 1. The RV access roadway is shown in two places in a conflicting manner. The access way drawn in red appears to be about 15' wide. However, the profile of the access roadway shows it to be 24' wide. I believe it needs to be at least 24' wide to accommodate the vehicles. 2. The substantial conformance exhibit should show, in addition to the proposed grading changes, the trail location and the required trail amenities. 3. Based upon what I've seen so far, it does not appear that any additional environmental documentation will be necessary as a result of the requested substantial conformance changes. I've already spoken with Dave KiKcher about these items and will fax this memo to him. If you have any questions, please call me at extension 4471. Thanks! ELAINE BLACKBURN EB:mh Memorandum TO: Senior Planner, Elaine Blackburn FROM: Associate Engineer, Clyde Wickham DATE: July 14, 1998 CDP 98 -13 : RANCHO REAL (AKA .. CT 90 -13 / PUD 90 -16 ) COMPLETENESS & ISSUES REVIEW Engineering Department staff has completed a 2nd review of the above-referenced project CDP 98-13 for application completeness. The application and plans submitted for this proposed project are currently incomplete and unsuitable for further review due to the following incomplete item: 1. The proposed CDP and all exhibits must be in compliance with the approved subdivision and planned unit development. The previous submittal added a Gated Entry and the proposed grading was different than the approved plan. The gate system has been removed and the Engineer has been processing a substantial conformance exhibit to show the proposed changes to the approved tentative map grading. This 2nd submittal shows grading as originally approved without the proposed changes. I believe the applicant is ahead of himself and that the substantial conformance exhibit should be approved or clarified before we proceed. The rough grading plan which was submitted is different than the approved CT / PUD. The rough grading plan should also have the Engineers name, seal and date prepared on the plan. I have called the Engineer ( Masson & Associates) to clarify the issue. In the interim, I am returning the submittal as incomplete. We have no check-prints to process at this time. If you or the applicant have any questions, please either see or contact me at extension 4353. ICKHAM Associate Engineer Land Development Division CITY OF CARLSBAD ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT LAND USE REVIEW riTO: Senior Planner - Elaine Blackburn /V /////?] July 31, 1998 FROM: Associate Engineer - Clyde Wickhar RE: CDP98-13: RANCHO REAL VIA: Principal Civil Engineer - Land Use Review The Engineering Department has completed its review of the above referenced project and is recommending: X That the project be approved subject to the conditions as listed on the attached sheet. That the project be denied for the following reasons: Grading: Quantities: Cutd 3.980 cv) FJIK13980 cv) lmport(0 cv) ExporUO cv) Grading quantities have been identified on tentative map CT 90-13 and are found to be in substantial conformance with this project. A grading permit is required and is currently in final review. Permit Required: YES Offsite Approval required/obtained: Yes , conditioned prior to issuance of permit. Hillside Grading Requirements met: Yes Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Performed by: GEOCON Drainage and Erosion Control: Drainage Basin: B Preliminary Hydrology Study Performed by: O'Day Consultants Erosion Potential: Moderate Land Title: Conflicts with existing easement: No Easement dedication required: YES Site boundary coiners with land title: YES Comment: No major land title issues are associated with this proposed project. Improvements: Frontage Improvements Required: Yes Standard Variance Required: No Engineering Conditions General Note: Unless specifically stated in the condition, all of the following engineering conditions, Prior to the approval of Final Map, or issuance of grading or building permits whichever occurs first.. All conditions of CT 90 -13 are incorporated by reference to this approval. There are no additional conditions from Engineering Department that affect CDP 98-13