Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-08-21; Planning Commission; ; Three on Garfield; request to replace a three-unit, three-story condominium structure with a new three-unit, three-story condominium structure Meeting Date: August 21, 2024 To: Planning Commission Staff Contact: Kyle Van Leeuwen, Associate Planner, 442-339-2611, kyle.vanleeuwen@carlsbadca.gov Subject: Three on Garfield; request to replace a three-unit, three-story condominium structure with a new three-unit, three-story condominium structure Location: 2685, 2687, & 2689 Garfield Street / APN 203-141-27-00 / District 1 Case Numbers: PUD 2021-0003 / SDP 2021-0008 / CDP 2021-0010 / NCP 2021-0001 / MS 2023- 0002 / EIR 2022-0005 (DEV2020-0205) Applicant/Representative: John Beery, 760-438-2963, john@bgiarchitect.com CEQA Determination: ☐ Not a Project ☐ Exempt ☐ IS/ND or IS/MND ☒ EIR ☐ Other: Permit Type(s): ☒ SDP ☐ CUP ☒ CDP ☒ TPM ☐ GPA ☐ REZ ☐ LCPA ☒ Other: Planned Development, Nonconforming Construction Permit CEQA Status: ☒ The environmental assessment IS on the Agenda for discussion ☐ A CEQA determination was already issued and IS NOT on the Agenda Commission Action: ☒ Decision ☐ Recommendation to City Council ☐ Informational (No Action) Recommended Actions That the Planning Commission 1) ADOPT the Planning Commission Resolution (Exhibit 1) CERTIFYING Environmental Impact Report EIR 2022-0005, including the Candidate Findings of Fact and a Mitigation Monitoring and Report Program, and 2) ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution (Exhibit 2) APPROVING Planned Development Permit PUD 2021-0003, Site Development Plan SDP 2021-0008, Coastal Development Permit CDP 2021-0010, Nonconforming Construction Permit NCP 2021-0001, and Minor Subdivision MS 2023- 0002, based upon the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. Existing Conditions & Project Description Existing Setting The subject site is a 0.16-acre lot located at 2685, 2687, and 2689 Garfield Street on the northwest corner of the intersection of Garfield Street and Beech Ave (Exhibit 2). The site slopes gradually down away from the Garfield Street frontage and is currently developed with an attached three-unit residential air-space condominium. Vehicle access to the site is taken from Beech Ave. Magee Park is located across Garfield Street from the site to the east. Beach public access is provided from Ocean Street just south of the project site. Site Map Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 1 of 128 PLANNING COMMISSION Staff Report . Table “A” below includes the General Plan designations, zoning and current land uses of the subject site and surrounding properties. TABLE A – SITE AND SURROUNDING LAND USE Location General Plan Designation Zoning Designation Current Land Use Site R-15, Residential (8-15 dwelling units per acre) Multiple-Family Residential (R-3) w/ Beach Area Overlay (BAO) Multiple-family residential structure/ Three condominium units North R-15 R-3 w/ BAO Three-story, single-family structure South R-15 R-3 w/ BAO Beech Street / Undeveloped Land East V-B, Village-Barrio V-B, Village-Barrio Garfield Street / Magee Public Park West R-15 R-3 w/ BAO One-story single-family structure and three-story single-family structure General Plan Designation Zoning Designation Proposed Project The applicant proposes to demolish the existing three-unit structure (4,800 square feet) and construct three attached, three-story residential air-space condominiums. The proposed building design consists of the following: • Pedestrian entries to residence from Garfield Street. • Attached two-car garage accessed from Beech Ave. with direct entrance into the residential units. • Units range in size from 1,701 square feet to 1,713 square feet, provided as two two-bedroom units and one three-bedroom unit. Each with a private third-floor balcony. • Building materials include fiber-concrete panels, synthetic wood-grain siding, stone veneer, and stucco. Other finishes include glass balcony railings, black vinyl recessed windows, and a 3:12 pitch asphalt- shingle roof. The site is currently developed with a three-unit residential air-space condominium and does not contain any sensitive vegetation. Grading for the proposed project requires a grading permit and includes 233 cubic yards of cut, 93 cubic yards of fill, 140 cubic yards of export, and 434 cubic yards of remedial grading. Based on the size of the lot (0.16 acres) and the allowed density on the property’s land use designation (R-15, or 8-15 dwelling units per acre), a maximum of two units are allowed on the property. Approval of a Nonconforming Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 2 of 128 Construction Permit (NCP) is required to allow the continuation of the legally established use of three dwelling units on a property. Public Outreach & Comment The project was submitted on March 10, 2021. Like all projects, it was subject to City Council Policy No. 84 (Development Project Public Involvement Policy). As such, a notice of application was sent, by the applicant, to surrounding property owners within 600 feet and occupants within 100 feet, and a notice placed on the site informing neighbors of their application. These early notices were carried out in June of 2021. The early public notices gained the attention of local architects, including one of the architects who designed the existing structure on site. Comments received called for protection of the existing structure constructed in 1982; explained the potential historic significance of the structure; and called for the project to be denied. Public notice of the proposed Project was mailed on August 8, 2024, to property owners within 600 feet and occupants within 100 feet of the subject property (approximately 106 owners/addresses notified). Response to Public Comment & Project Issues The main concern raised in the early public notice was related to the potential historic and architectural nature of the structure. The property was not over 45 years old, so per the city’s Tribal, Cultural, and Paleontological Resources Guidelines a historic report would not typically be required. However, prior to any determination of exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act, in response to the public comment received and after consultation with city staff, the applicant chose to initiate an Environmental Impact Report. This process would include an in-depth review of the property and the structure’s eligibility as a historic resource. The Environmental Impact Report was prepared consistent with the procedures outlined in Title 19 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, including that the City was the lead agency in selection and contracting the project. Additional information on the Environmental Impact Report is included in the “Environmental Review” portion of this staff report. Project Analysis General Plan Consistency The General Plan Land Use designation for the property is R-15 Residential, which allows residential development at a density range of 8-15 dwelling units per acre (du/ac). The existing and proposed density for the site is 18.75 du/ac, exceeding the R-15 density range. However, an existing nonconforming residential structure may be demolished and replaced with the approval of a Nonconforming Construction Permit (NCP). Aside from the legally established, nonconforming residential density rate, the project is consistent with the applicable goals and policies of the General Plan. Specific compliance with the relevant goals and policies is described in Exhibit 4. Municipal Code Consistency The City of Carlsbad Municipal Code, most notably Tile 21 Zoning Code, includes requirements and provisions that guide development and land use within the city, consistent with the General Plan. The project is required to comply with all applicable regulations and development standards of the Carlsbad Municipal Code (CMC) including the Multiple-Family Residential (R-3) zone (CMC Chapter 21.16), Planned Developments (CMC Chapter 24.145), Nonconforming Lots, Structures, and Uses (CMC Chapter 21.48), and the Beach Area Overlay (BAO) zone (CMC Chapter 21.82). Specific compliance with these relevant requirements is described in Exhibit 4. Local Coastal Program Consistency The project site is in the Coastal Zone and requires a Coastal Development Permit. The project complies with the Local Coastal Program (Mello II Segment), including all goals and policies of the General Plan and all zoning code standards, as referenced above. Additional information on the Coastal Development Permit and Local Coastal Program findings is included in Exhibit 4. Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 3 of 128 Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Pursuant to CMC Chapter 21.85.030.D.3, a project may be exempt from the inclusionary housing requirement if the construction of a new residential structure replaces a residential structure that was demolished within two years prior to the application for a building permit for the new residential structure. The exemption is contingent upon the number of residential units not being increased from the number of residential units in the previously demolished residential structure. Since there will not be an increase in the number of units on this lot, the project will be exempt from the inclusionary housing requirement if building permits are issued within two years of the demolition of the existing residential structure. State Housing Accountability Act The city's discretionary authority on this project is limited because all such multi-family residential projects are subject to the state Housing Accountability Act, California Government Code Section 65589.5(j)(1), which states when a proposed housing development project complies with the applicable, objective general plan, zoning and subdivision standards and criteria that were in effect at the time that the application was deemed complete, cities cannot disapprove the project or impose a condition requiring lower density unless the city can make specific written findings based on a preponderance of evidence. The city must find that the project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety unless the project is disapproved or approved upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower density, and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact. A “specific, adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete. Discretionary Actions & Findings The proposed Project requires approval of certain permit types, each of which is discussed below: Planned Development Permit (PUD 2021-0003) Approval of a Planned Development Permit (PDP) is necessary to show how the condominium townhomes comply with established standards relative to architectural design, lot coverage, height, building setbacks, residential parking, and private recreational space. Staff finds that the required findings for this application can be met (Exhibit 4). Site Development Plan (SDP 2021-0008) Approval of a Site Development Permit (SDP) is required to ensure that that site layout, configuration, and site development standards comply with all relevant city standards. (CMC §21.06.030.) Staff finds that the required findings for this application can be met (Exhibit 4). Coastal Development Permit (CDP 2021-0010) Approval of a Coastal Development Permit is required because the project site is located within the Mello II Segment of the Coastal Zone. Staff finds that the required findings for this application can be met as described in Exhibit 4. The project’s discretionary applications are all within the purview of the Planning Commission per the Carlsbad Municipal Code. The Planning Commission’s action on the project will be an approval or denial, with appeal available to City Council. The project site is also located with the appeals jurisdiction of the California Coastal Commission; and therefore, the CDP is appealable to the State. Nonconforming Construction Permit (NCP 2021-0001) A nonconforming residential use that is proposed to be voluntarily demolished may be replaced subject to issuance of all required discretionary and building permits and provided that an application for a Nonconforming Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 4 of 128 Construction Permit is submitted and the decision-maker approves the findings of fact pursuant to CMC Section 21.48.080 (D) prior to the date of the demolition. Staff finds that the required findings for this application can be met (Exhibit 4). Tentative Parcel Map (MS 2023-0002) Approval of a Tentative Parcel Map is necessary for the proposed condominiums, which will facilitate ownership of the air-space condominiums and common areas. Based on a detailed analysis, staff finds that the required findings for this application can be met (Exhibit 4). Environmental Review An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for the Three on Garfield project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines, and the Environmental Protection Procedures (Title 19) of the CMC. The EIR addresses the environmental impacts associated with all discretionary applications for the proposed project, including development of the project. City staff issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP) on November 17, 2022. The NOP was distributed to all Responsible and Trustee Agencies, as well as other agencies. The NOP was sent to all property owners within a 600-foot radius and all occupants within a 100-foot radius of the project boundaries and was published in the San Diego Union Tribune. Written comments received in response to the NOP were taken into consideration prior to developing the detailed scope of the content for the EIR and are summarized in and appended to the EIR. The Three on Garfield project EIR analyzed the following areas of potential environmental impact: • Aesthetics • Historical, Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources • Land Use and Planning Following consideration of the public and agency comments submitted on the NOP, it was determined that the proposed project would not result in a significant impact on Agriculture and Forestry Resources, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Energy, Geology and Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Mineral Resources, Noise, Paleontological Resources, Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Transportation, Utilities and Service Systems, and Wildfire. Additionally, the EIR includes other sections required by CEQA including an Executive Summary, Project Description, Cumulative Effects, Effects Found Not to Be Significant, Growth Inducing Effects and Alternatives. Three alternatives are considered in the EIR. The alternatives include the "No Project/No Development" alternative, a "Full Rehabilitation” alternative, and a "Partial Rehabilitation” alternative. On October 30, 2023, a Draft EIR was released, and the city published a Notice of Completion (NOC) and mailed the NOC to interested Responsible and Trustee Agencies and other interested agencies, surrounding owners and occupants, and the interested parties list that staff had developed based on requests from the public during the processing of the project. The Notice of Completion commenced a 45-day public review and comment period on the Draft EIR expiring on December 15, 2023. The Draft EIR was published on the City's website (https://www.carlsbadca.gov/departments/community-development/planning/agendas-minutes-notices). Complete hardbound copies were also available with the appendices through the Planning Division. As required by CMC Section 2.42.040, the Historic Preservation Commission reviewed the Draft EIR to provide any feedback to staff. This regularly scheduled meeting was conducted on November 13, 2023. The Commission requested additional time to review the document, and a special meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission was held on November 30, 2023, to complete the Historic Preservation Commission’s review of the DEIR. While commissioners did asked for clarifications regarding mitigations measures and alternatives, and discussed whether the building is special or architecturally significant, no comments from the two Historic Preservation Commission meetings raised issues or concerns regarding the adequacy of or the content of the DEIR Recordings Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 5 of 128 of these meetings can be found on the City’s website (https://www.carlsbadca.gov/city-hall/meetings- agendas/city-council-meeting-archive). The analysis contained in Draft Environmental Impact Report concluded that the project would result in the potential for significant impacts to Historical, Cultural, and Tribal Cultural Resources (direct impact to a significant historic structure and unknown buried historic, prehistoric, or tribal cultural resources). Mitigation measures have been identified that would reduce impacts to the significant historic structure, to the extent feasible, but impacts to historic resources would remain significant and unavoidable. Potential impacts to cultural and tribal cultural resources would be mitigated to less-than-significant levels. A total of three comment letters were submitted prior to the close of the public review period. The city evaluated comments on the environmental issues received from persons that reviewed the Draft EIR. Responses were prepared for each of the letters and mailed to the commenters on August 7, 2024. The response transmittal letter also provided notice of availability of the Final EIR. City staff and consultants also prepared Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), which includes all of the mitigation measures identified in the Draft EIR. The MMRP is also attached to the Planning Commission resolution for the EIR (Exhibit 1). Upon approving the project, the Planning Commission must also adopt the MMRP to ensure compliance with the required mitigation measures or project revisions during project implementation. Under CEQA, before a project which is determined to have significant, unmitigated environmental effects can be approved, the public agency must consider and adopt a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15043 and 15093. The primary purpose of CEQA is to fully inform the decision makers and the public of the environmental effects of a proposed project and to include feasible mitigation measures and alternatives to reduce any such adverse effects below a level of significance. However, CEQA recognizes and authorizes the approval of projects where not all adverse impacts can be fully lessened or avoided. The Lead Agency must explain and justify its conclusion to approve such a project through the Statement of Overriding Considerations setting forth the proposed project's general social, economic, policy or other public benefits which support the agency's informed conclusion to approve the project. The CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for impacts to Historical, Cultural, and Tribal Cultural Resources (Historical Resources) are attached to the Planning Commission Resolution for the EIR. The Final EIR and MMRP, which are provided as attachments to the draft resolution (Exhibit A), would be used by the city, in conjunction with other information developed in the city’s formal administrative record, to act on and implement the proposed Project. The applicant’s representative has also provided comments in response to the Final EIR and proposed Mitigation Measures (Exhibit 6). Conclusion Considering the information above and in the referenced attachments, staff has found that the proposed Project is consistent with all applicable policies of the General Plan and Local Coastal Program, provisions of the Municipal Code and Local Facility Management Zone. All required public improvement and utilities are available to serve the proposed development. In addition, an Environmental Impact Report has been prepared to fully inform the decision makers and the public of the environmental effects associated with the Project. The Planning Commission should be aware that under the state’s Housing Accountability Act, a project cannot be denied, and the density cannot be reduced, unless the project is found to have a specific adverse impact on public health or safety. The Planning Commission would need to cite specific findings as its reason for denial and must comply with the terms of the state’s Housing Accountability Act. Impacts to historic resources that are significant and unavoidable are not considered an adverse impact on public health and safety. However, as it relates to the Planning Commission’s environmental review of the project, the Housing Accountability Act states that nothing in Government Code Section 65589.5 shall be construed to relieve the local agency from complying with CEQA. Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 6 of 128 The Project is conditioned to ensure the proposed Project’s compatibility with the surrounding properties and that the public health, safety, and welfare of the community are maintained, and to ensure all mitigation measures identified in the EIR process are required for the project. The Project would be required to comply with all applicable California Building Standards Codes and engineering standards through the standard building permit and civil improvement plan checking process. Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the resolutions, approving the project and certifying the Final EIR, as described in this staff report. Exhibits 1. Planning Commission Resolution (EIR) 2. Planning Commission Resolution (PUD et al) 3. Location Map 4. Project Analysis 5. Table C and E of the Planned Development Regulations 6. Applicant Correspondence on Final EIR 7. Disclosure Form 8. Reduced Exhibits 9. Final EIR for Three on Garfield dated March, 2024 (Available at the Planning Division and https://www.carlsbadca.gov/departments/community-development/planning/agendas-minutes- notices) 10. Full Size Exhibits “A” – “O” dated August 21, 2024 (on file in the Office of the City Clerk) 11. List of Acronyms and Abbreviations Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 7 of 128 Exhibit 1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 7518 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, EIR 2022-0005, FOR THE THREE ON GARFIELD PROJECT, AND ADOPTING THE CANDIDATE FINDINGS OF FACT, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING THREE- UNIT, RESIDENTIAL AIR-SPACE CONDOMINIUM AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF NEW THREE-UNIT, RESIDENTIAL AIR-SPACE CONDOMINIUM PROJECT ON A 0.16-ACRE SITE LOCATED AT 2685, 2687, AND 2689 GARFIELD STREET, WITHIN THE MELLO II SEGMENT OF THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AND LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE L CASE NAME: THREE ON GARFIELD CASE NO.: EIR 2022-0005 (DEV2020-0205) WHEREAS, Renee Wailes, "Developer/Owner,'1 has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as PARCEL 1, IN THE CTY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON PARCEL MAP NO, 12124, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, MAY 20, 1982 ("the Property"); and WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code section 21000 et. seq.) and its implementing regulations (the State CEQA Guidelines), Article 14 of the California Code of Regulations section 15000 et. seq., the city is the Lead Agency for the project, as the public agency with the principal responsibility for approving the proposed project; and WHEREAS, a Project Environmental Impact Report (EIR 2022-0005) was prepared in conjunction with said project; and WHEREAS, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines section 15082, the city distributed a Notice of Preparation ("NOP") of an EIR to the State Clearinghouse, local and regional responsible agencies, and other interested parties on Nov. 17, 2022, for a 30-day comment period which ended on Dec.19,2022;and WHEREAS, the Draft EIR for the proposed Project was then prepared in accordance with CEQA Guidelines sections 15120 through 15131 and circulated for review and comment by the public, agencies, and organizations and was circulated for public review and comment pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines by filing a Notice of Availability ("NOA") of the Draft EIR for review with the County Clerk of San Diego. The NOA was also mailed to organizations and parties expressing interest in the Project on Oct. 30, 2023, notifying the general public, public agencies, and interested individuals and organizations that a 45-day public review period would end on Dec. 14, 2023. The NOA was also filed with the City Clerk, published in the Coast News, and posted on the City's website; and WHEREAS, a Notice of Completion the Draft EIR was circulated to State agencies for review through the State Clearinghouse, Office of Planning and Research (SCH No. 2022110423) on Oct. 26,2023;and WHEREAS, the City received comments concerning the Draft EIR from public agencies, organizations, and individuals, and pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 15086 and 15088. The city received three comment letters during the 45-day public comment period, two of which were submitted by members of the public or public organizations and one of which was submitted by a public agency, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control. A response to comments document was prepared and responds to all of the comment letters received on the Draft EIR; and WHEREAS, the city has determined that the comments received on the Draft EIR did not contain any significant new information within the meaning of CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5 and therefore, recirculation of the Draft EIR is not required; and WHEREAS, CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines provide that no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been completed that identifies one or more significant effects of the project unless the public agency makes certain written findings for each of the significant effects, accompanied by a statement of facts supporting each finding; and WHEREAS, CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines require that where an agency approves a project that would allow the occurrence of significant environmental effects which are identified in an EIR, but are not mitigated to a level of insignificance; the Lead Agency state in writing the specific reasons supporting its action based on the Final EIR and/or other information in the record; and WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 15091, 15093, and 15097, the city has prepared CEQA Findings of Fact, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and a MMRP, which have been filed with the city (Attachments "B" and "C," which are incorporated herein by this reference as though fully set forth herein); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on Aug. 21, 2024, 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 Project EIR, Candidate Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and MMRP, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors relating to the Project EIR. 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. B) That the Final Project Environmental Impact Report, dated March 2024, consists of the Draft Project Environmental Impact Report, EIR 2022-0005, appendices, written comments and responses to comments, as amended to include the comments and documents of those testifying at the public hearing and responses thereto, is hereby found to be in good faith and reason by incorporating a copy of the minutes of said public hearing into the report, all on file in the Planning Division incorporated by this reference, and collectively referred to as the "Report." C) The Planning Commission independently and jointly reviewed and analyzed the Final EIR, and these documents reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission and the city as the Lead Agency for the Project. The Planning Commission considered all significant impacts, mitigation measures, project alternatives identified in the Final EIR, and considered all written and oral communications from the public regarding the environmental analysis, and found that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. The Planning Commission finds the Final EIR environmental document is complete and the valid environmental review for this Project. D) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby CERTIFIES the Final EIR, "Attachment A," and ADOPTS the Candidate Findings of Fact ("CEQA Findings"), AND THE Statement of Overriding Considerations ("Statement"), attached hereto marked as "Attachment B" and incorporated by this reference and the MMRP ("Program"), attached hereto marked as "Attachment C" and incorporated by this reference; based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions. Findings: 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find that the Final Project EIR 2022- 0005, the Candidate Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and the MMRP, have been prepared in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State EIR Guidelines, and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Carlsbad. 2. The Developer/Owner has agreed to implement all mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR in order to reduce all potentially significant environmental impacts to a less-than-significant level, in accordance with the MMRP. 3. That the Final EIR is adequate and provides good-faith disclosure of available information on the project and all reasonable and feasible alternatives thereto. The Final EIR has determined that any remaining significant effects on the environment found to be unavoidable under CEQA Guidelines section 15091 are acceptable due to overriding concerns as described in section 15093. 4. The Planning Commission has balanced the benefits of the Project against its unavoidable environmental risks in making its decision on this Project, has analyzed the information submitted by city staff and considered any written and oral comments received at the public hearing, including all factors relating to the Project, and has determined that any remaining unavoidable significant impacts are outweighed by specific economic, legal, social, or other benefits of the Project. 5. The Planning Commission does accept as its own, incorporate as if set forth in full herein, and make each and every one of the findings contained in the CEQA Findings ("Attachment B"), including feasibility of mitigation measures pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, and infeasibility of project alternatives. 6. The Record of Proceedings for this Project includes, but is not limited to: (1) the Final EIR and the appendices and technical reports cited in and/or relied upon in preparing the Final EIR and MMRP; (2) the staff reports, city files and records and other documents, prepared for and/or submitted to the city relating to the Final EIR, MMRP, and the project itself; (3) the evidence, facts, findings and other determinations set forth in herein; (4) the General Plan, Carlsbad Municipal Code, and Local Facility Management Plan; (5) all designs, plans, studies, data and correspondence submitted to the city in connection with the Final EIR, the MMRP, and the Project itself; (6) all THREE ON GARFIELD PROJECT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SCH No. 2022110423 March 2024 Prepared for: Community Development Department Planning Division 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Attachment A Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 13 of 128 ------- C cityof Carlsbad Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 14 of 128 Three on Garfield Project City of Carlsbad Final EIR March 2024 i THREE ON GARFIELD PROJECT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CONTENTS Page 1.Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Overview ................................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Format of the Final EIR .............................................................................................................. 1-1 2.Responses to Comments ...................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 2-1 2.2 Comments and Responses ........................................................................................................ 2-2 2.3 Agency Letters ........................................................................................................................... 2-3 2.3.1 Letter A1: California Department of Toxic Substances Control ................................... 2-3 2.4 Organizations Letters ................................................................................................................ 2-6 2.4.1 Letter O1: San Diego County Archaeological Society, Inc. ........................................... 2-6 2.5 Individuals Letters ..................................................................................................................... 2-9 2.5.1 Letter I1: Armistead Smith ........................................................................................... 2-9 3.Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ............................................................................... 3-1 Tables Table RTC-1 List of Commenting Agencies, Organizations, and Individuals .................................................... 2-2 Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 15 of 128 Contents City of Carlsbad Three on Garfield Project March 2024 Final EIR ii INTENTIONALLY BLANK Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 16 of 128 Three on Garfield Project City of Carlsbad Final EIR March 2024 1-1 THREE ON GARFIELD PROJECT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Overview This Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as amended (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et. seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (California Administrative Code Section 15000 et seq.). According to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15132, the FEIR shall consist of the following: a) The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) or a revision of the DEIR; b) Comments and recommendations received on the DEIR, either verbatim or in summary; c) A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the DEIR; d) The responses of the Lead Agency to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process; and e) Any other information added by the Lead Agency. In accordance with these requirements, the Three on Garfield Project Environmental Impact Report (EIR) includes the following: • This FEIR document, dated March 2024, that incorporates the information required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15132, including responses to comments received on the DEIR; and • The DEIR document, dated October 2023 (SCH #2022110423). 1.2 Format of the Final EIR This document is organized as follows:  Section 1: Introduction: This section describes CEQA requirements and the contents of this FEIR.  Section 2: Response to Comment Letters Received on the DEIR. This section provides copies of the written comment letters received and individual responses to comments. In accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21092.5, copies of the written responses to public agencies will be forwarded to the agencies at least 10 days prior to certifying an EIR. The responses will conform to the legal standards established for responses to comments on EIRs. Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 17 of 128 Chapter 1. Introduction City of Carlsbad Three on Garfield Project March 2024 Final EIR 1-2  Section 3: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program: This section includes the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), which identifies the mitigation measures for the project, timing, and responsibility for implementation of the measures. Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 18 of 128 Three on Garfield Project City of Carlsbad Final EIR March 2024 2-1 2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 2.1 Introduction Letters of comment to the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) were received from agencies, organizations, and individuals (see below table) during the 45-day public review from October 30, 2023, to December 15, 2023. There were three comment letters and/or e-mails received by the city during the DEIR public review period. No late letters were received after the public review period closed at 5 p.m. on December 15, 2023. In addition, during the public review period, consistent with the requirements of Carlsbad Municipal Code (CMC) Section 2.42.040, the City of Carlsbad Historic Preservation Commission (Commission) reviewed the DEIR to provide any DEIR feedback to staff. This regularly scheduled meeting was conducted on November 13, 2023. During the Historic Preservation Commission meeting, a presentation regarding the project was provided by city staff. Commission members asked questions regarding the construction date of the structure and asked for clarification regarding criterion used for determination of the structure’s historic status. A Commission member indicated that the DEIR has been completed consistent with the purposes of CEQA and identifies a significant and unavoidable impact to historic resources, provides mitigation for the identified impact, and concludes that the impact to historic resources would remain significant and unavoidable after implementation of mitigation. A second Commission member agreed with these comments; however, another Commission member requested additional time to review the document. A special meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission was held on November 30, 2023, to complete the Historic Preservation Commission’s review of the DEIR. During the November 30, 2023, meeting, a Commissioner asked for clarifications regarding mitigation and alternatives. Additional comments from the Commissioners addressed the proposed mitigation, and whether the building is special or architecturally significant. No comments from the two Historic Preservation Commission meetings raised issues or concerns regarding the adequacy of or the content of the DEIR. Comments that address environmental issues related to the DEIR are addressed in full in this Final EIR (FEIR). Comments that (1) do not address the adequacy or completeness of the DEIR; (2) do not raise environmental issues; or (3) request the incorporation of additional information not relevant to environmental issues, do not require a response, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(a). Individual comments within each letter are bracketed and subsequently numbered in the margin of the comment letter. Bracketed/numbered comment letters are placed before the responses to the letter. Table RTC-1, List of Commenting Agencies, Organizations, and Individuals, provides a list of each of the comment letters received, organized by type commenter (i.e., agencies, organizations, and individuals). Information provided in the response to comments (RTC) clarifies or amplifies information included in the DEIR; however, the RTC did not require changes to the information contained in the DEIR. No significant new information has been added that would require recirculation of the document, per CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 19 of 128 Chapter 2. Responses to Comments City of Carlsbad Three on Garfield Project March 2024 Final EIR 2-2 Table RTC-1 LIST OF COMMENTING AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND INDIVIDUALS Letter Commenter Date Page Agencies A1 California Department of Toxic Substances Control December 14, 2023 RTC-2-3 Organizations O1 San Diego County Archaeological Society, Inc. December 2, 2023 RTC-2-6 Individuals I1 Armistead Smith December 8, 2023 RTC-2-9 2.2 Comments and Responses Responses to specific comments in the letters received by the city during public review are provided in this section of the FEIR. The bracketed letters and corresponding responses are arranged in the order presented in Table RTC-1. Opinions concerning issues not within the purview of CEQA, as well as expressions of opposition or support for a project, are made a part of the administrative record and forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration but they do not require a response in a CEQA document. Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 20 of 128 I I I I I I I I I I I I Chapter 2. Responses to Comments Comments Responses Three on Garfield Project City of Carlsbad Final EIR March 2024 2-3 2.3 Agency Letters 2.3.1 Letter A1: California Department of Toxic Substances Control A1-1 DTSC’s summary of the project description is acknowledged. Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 21 of 128 ,,,,., A1-1 YanaGMcia ~ctf'!:lfylol Enwtw'IIIM-,t:IIProtKton December 14, 2023 Kyle Van Leeuwen Associate Planner Ctty of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Ave. Carlsbad, CA 92008 Department of Toxic Substances Control Meredith Williams, Ph.D. Director 6800 Cal Center Drive Sacramenlo, ca!iforma 95826-3200 SENT VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL kyle. vanleeuwen@ca rlsbadca .gov Letter A1 RE: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) FOR THE THREE ON GARFIELD PROJECT DATED OCTOBER 30, 2023 STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER2022110423 Dear Kyle Van LeelN/en, The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) received an EIR for the Three on Garfield project (Project). The Project proposes demolttion of an existing three-story structure, containing three attached residential air-space condominiums, each with a first-floor, two-car garage, accessed from Beech Avenue, and the construction of three attached, three-story residential air-space condominiums wtth first-floor garages. Vehicular access is proposed to be provided via Beech Avenue. Each residential unit includes an attached two-car garage with direct entrance into the unit. The units range in size from 1,701 square feet to 1,713 square feet. After reviewing the project, DTSC recommends and requests consideration of the following comment: Chapter 2. Responses to Comments Comments Responses City of Carlsbad Three on Garfield Project March 2024 Final EIR 2-4 A1-2 As described in the DEIR, the structure is proposed for demolition and was constructed in 1982. This comment from the DTSC recommends surveys for the presence of lead-based paints or products, mercury, asbestos- containing materials, and polychlorinated biphenyl caulk; however, per DTSC’s referenced guidance (DTSC 2006), residential structures with paint or surface coatings constructed on or after January 1, 1979, are excepted from the presumed presence of lead-based paint. Similarly, due to the age of the existing structure, mercury, asbestos-containing materials, and polychlorinated biphenyl caulk are not expected to be present. Hazardous materials and hazardous wastes are highly regulated, and the project would be required to adhere to applicable regulations regarding hazardous materials and hazardous waste, including appropriate demolition and material removal procedures, to ensure that demolition of the existing structure and the construction of the project would not result in a release of hazardous materials, including those identified in the comment. The project would adhere to all applicable regulations regarding hazardous materials and hazardous waste, including those associated with the demolition of the existing structure. Therefore, as stated in DEIR Section 6.5.7, the project would result in less than significant impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials. A1-3 As discussed in DEIR Section 3.5, the project would require 140 cubic yards of soil export. The project site has previously been developed with a residential use, and the import of fill material is not expected or proposed. Thus, the recommended soil sampling would not be necessary. Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 22 of 128 A1-2 Kyle Van Leeuwen December 14, 2023 Page 2 1. If buildings or other structures are to be demolished on any project sites included in the proposed project, surveys should be conducted for the presence of lead- based paints or products, mercury, asbestos containing materials, and polychlorinated biphenyl caulk. Removal, demolrtion, and disposal of any of the above-mentioned chemicals should be conducted in compliance wrth Calfornia environmental regulations and policies. In addtt:ion, sampling near current and/or former buildings should be conducted in accordance with DTSC's 2006 Interim Guidance Evaluation of School Sites with Potential Contamination from Lead Based Paint Termiticides snd Electrical Transformers 2. DTSC recommends that all imported soil and fill material should be tested to ensure any contaminants of concern are within approved screening levels for the intended land use. To minimize the possibility of introducing contaminated soil A1-3 and fill material there should be documentation of the origins of the soil or fill material and. if applicable. sampling be conducted to ensure that the imported soil and fill material meets screening levels for the intended land use. The soil sampling should include analysis based on the source of the fill and knowledge of the prior land use. DTSC appreciates the opportunity to comment on the EIR for the Three on Garfield project. If you have any questions or concerns, simply respond to this email for guidance. Sincerely, Dave Ke reazis Associate Environmental Planner HWMP-Permitting Division -CEQA Unit Department of Toxic Substances Control Dave. Ke reazis@dtsc.ca .gov Chapter 2. Responses to Comments Comments Responses Three on Garfield Project City of Carlsbad Final EIR March 2024 2-5 Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 23 of 128 Kyle Van Leeuwen December 14, 2023 Page3 cc: (via email) Governor's Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse State.Clearinqhouse@opr.ca.gov Tamara Purvis Associate Environmental Planner HWMP -Permitting Division -CEQA Unit Department of Toxic Substances Control Tamara.Purvis@dtsc.ca.gov Scott Wiley Associate Governmental Program Analyst HWMP -Permitting Division -CEQA Unit Department of Toxic Substances Control Scott.Wiley@dtsc.ca.qov Chapter 2. Responses to Comments Comments Responses City of Carlsbad Three on Garfield Project March 2024 Final EIR 2-6 2.4 Organizations Letters 2.4.1 Letter O1: San Diego County Archaeological Society, Inc. O1-1 Each of the objectives listed in the DEIR, (stated in DEIR Sections 3.3 and 5.2.1), are project objectives identified by the project applicant for the project. Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15124(b), “the statement of objectives should include the underlying purpose of the project and may discuss benefits.” Demolition of the existing structure is a primary objective of the project. The specific comments regarding the intent of the listed objectives 1, 4–6, 9, and 10 do not raise issues regarding the adequacy of the DEIR, but rather indicate the commentor’s disagreement with the project objectives identified by the project applicant. The DEIR analysis of historical resources is based on the Historical Resources Assessment Report (HRAR) (Appendix B) and concludes that the proposed demolition of the existing structure would result in significant and unavoidable impacts. Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 24 of 128 Letter 01 o'E.CO Co(/ ~· +>,. .,~·. ► San Diego County Archaeological Society, Inc. ,. ... "C'I O 4-, Environmental Review Committee ,s. c,' -ff'. -,0 2 Dect:mber 2023 01-1 0toc, cP.'- To: Mr. Kyle Van Leeuwen, Associate Planner Plam1ing Division City of Carlsbad I 635 Faraday A venue Carlsbad, California 92008 Subjt:ct: Uraft Environmental Impact Report Thret: on Garfield PUfl 2021-0003, SflP 2021-0008, CflP 202 1-0010, MS 2023-0002, NCP 2021-0001, EIR 2022-0005 Dear Mr. Van Lt!euwen: J have reviewed the cultural resources aspects of the subject DEIR on behalf of this commiuee or lht: San Dic.::go County Archat:ological Society. Based on the information contained in the DErR and its Appendices B, C and n, we have the following comments: Section 5.2.1 of tht:: DEIR lists Project Objectives whi<..:h \.Vere overtly inten<le<l tu justify tht: demolition of the current structures, which have been recommended (in Appendix B) as digible for inclusion in the California Register. For example: O'ojt:clive 1 explicitly says lhat an u'ojective is tu remove the existing: struclu~. • Objt:ctiYt: 4 is moot, as any new const.J.\lction or other «ction wiH have to comply with applicable codes and standards. • Objective 5 is not applicable as the project is not intill, it is purely replacement of three with three dwelling units. • Objective 6 is an obvious statement that the applicant docs not like the historic design and uses that lo justify demolition of the historic structure. Objective 9 is unncccssaT}' as nothing prohibits internal changes to historic private residences. • Objective IO is another attempt to justif)' the destruction of an historic structure. The current structures presumably complied with, and continue to comply with, all requirements imposed by the City of Carlsbml. The deliberate, intentional demolition uf an historic resource is nut a legitimate project objective and should be rejected by the City. P.O. Box B1106 San Diego, CA 92138-1106 {858) 538-0935 Chapter 2. Responses to Comments Comments Responses Three on Garfield Project City of Carlsbad Final EIR March 2024 2-7 O1-2 Appendix D, Victor Condo Building Feasibility Study, of the DEIR incorrectly references a “Conceptual Opinion of Probable Costs” prepared by Campbell-Anderson & Associates; however, an Economic Analysis for the project was prepared by Worden Williams, LLP, utilizing a market valuation (Eshelman Appraisals, Inc. 2023) and construction costs estimates (WNC Contractors, Inc. 2024). An Economic Analysis is not required as part of the CEQA analysis or as components of the DEIR. The omission of the economic analysis does not affect the adequacy or content of the DEIR and does not alter the environmental impacts of the project or the conclusions of the DEIR. CEQA Guidelines Section 15131 specifically states that economic effects of a project shall not be treated as significant effects on the environment. However, economic factors shall be considered by public agencies in deciding whether changes in a project are feasible to reduce or avoid a project’s significant effects. If economic information is not presented in the EIR, the information can be added to the record in a manner to allow the public agency to consider economics (and other social, technological, and environmental factors) when reaching a decision on the project. As such, the economic analysis referenced in the appendix will be disclosed in the future, should the city choose to use economics when deciding to approve or deny the project. O1-3 This comment is correct, the HRAR states that implementation of identified mitigation would not reduce the impacts of demolition to a historic structure to a less-than-significant level. The text of the DEIR also indicates that implementation of Mitigation Measures CR-1, CR-2, and CR-3 would not reduce impacts to historical resources to a less-than-significant level (refer to Section 4.3.7 in DEIR Section 4.3, Historical, Cultural, and Tribal Cultural Resources). As discussed in Section 4.3.7, the identified measures would not be enough to avoid, rectify, or reduce or compensate for the loss of the building. A substantial adverse change to a historic resource would occur which would be inconsistent with the Secretary of the Interior Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 25 of 128 01-2 01-3 01-4 Appendix Dis u feasibility study ofpre.serv1.1tion alternatives. The version ofthul report posted for public review omits the inforrnation in the "Conceptual Opi1lion of Probable Costs", prepared by Campbell-Anderson & /\ssociatcs, (nc. While the financial aspects of the project should generally not be a factor in the City's decision-making, the analysis which the appendix contained is rdevunt lo the public review and should be disclosed. /\s /\ppcndix B, on page 60, states, the proposed HA8S rccordation of the existing structures (Mitigation Measure CR-I, and the related CR-2 and CR-3) does not mitigate the impacts of demolition to I.he level of insignificance. Therefore. the City must produce findings oveiTiding the impacts of demolition. Section S of the DEIR demonstrates that there are feasible alternatives to demolition. muking overriding findings unsupportable. Regarding J\1litigation :Vlcasure CR•4, any historic period material recovered, such as related to agricultural operations or the construction of the present st'11crures, would presumably not l.x: subject to repatriation. This can likely be resolved between the Tribal and archaeological monitors. Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the posted documents as part of the public review process for this project. cc: ASM Affiliates SDCAS President Pile Sincerely, ~7~, ~es W. Royle, Jr., C~so~ Envinmmt:ntul Review Committee P.O. Uo,c 81106 • San Diego, CA 92138-1106 • (858) 538-0935 Chapter 2. Responses to Comments Comments Responses City of Carlsbad Three on Garfield Project March 2024 Final EIR 2-8 Standards, and the DEIR concludes that the impact would be significant and unavoidable. Because of this impact conclusion, the city acknowledges that it would be required to produce Candidate Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations in order to approve the project. CEQA (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations Section 15000 et seq.) require that no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified that identifies one or more significant environmental impacts of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant impacts, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. CEQA further requires the decision-making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental effects when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered "acceptable" (CEQA Guidelines Section 15093(a)). The City, as lead agency, is responsible for making the findings for the project, in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. O1-4 This comment is correct, repatriation of history-period materials would not occur, and any repatriation issues related to archaeological materials would be resolved between the Tribal and archaeological monitors. Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 26 of 128 Chapter 2. Responses to Comments Comments Responses Three on Garfield Project City of Carlsbad Final EIR March 2024 2-9 2.5 Individuals Letters 2.5.1 Letter I1: Armistead Smith I1-1 Comment noted. However, as indicated in project objectives outlined in DEIR Chapter 3, the project applicant’s proposal is to demolish and not remodel the existing structure. To clarify, there is no mitigation proposed for the project that retains or preserves the historic facade of the building at its current location, but Mitigation Measure CR-3 would allow for salvage of character-defining features of the building. The Partial and Full Rehabilitation Alternatives identified in DEIR Chapter 5, Alternatives, would allow for the possible retention of the facade through reconstruction of the false front facade, in kind, due to significant dry rot documented to occur throughout the facade. I1-2 Comment noted, attachments were received. This comment does not address the adequacy or content of the DEIR. Refer to response to comment O1-2, which describes the role of economics in the CEQA process, as outlined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15131. I1-3 Although this comment identifies an “omission in the report”, the background information regarding the development of GoHomes and programs teaching architects strategies to stop urban sprawl are not relevant in the context of or conclusions reached in the DEIR discussion. The Historical Resources Assessment Report (HRAR), located in DEIR Appendix B, does contain a brief discussion of the GoHomes program Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 27 of 128 11-1 I 11-2 Smith and Others Architects 1910 State Street n 208 San Diego, CA 92101 December 8, 2023 City of Carlsbad Community Development Department Planning Division 1635 Faraday Ave. Carlsbad, CA 92008 Attention Kyle Van Leeuwen Re: Three on Garfield project ( Victor Condo) Draft EIR Good morning Mr. Van Leeuwen, Letter 11 I wanted to be sure those who are reviewing this demolition permit, are aware of the offer we have made to provide pro bona architectural design services as regards accomplishing one of the proposed means of mitigation out lined in the EIR, a remodel that saves the historic facades of the building. Attached please find: 1. An economic analysis provided by our office to determine a cost to remcxtel the portion of the building impacted by the neighboring view blocking new building to the West, that partially instigated the owners interest in demolishing the three condos and replacing them with another three condos of the same size. The analysis prepared and presented to the owner's representative, the ex-husband of the petitioner, in June of 2022 outlines how a remodel of the structure to solve the issue caused by the view blockage could be close to free given the Mills Act tax advantage closely matching the financed cost of the remodel. Although interest rates are higher today, a similar advantage, if not break even would be possible. Smith and Others is a development firm as well as architects, with extensive experience preparing economic analysis, and construction cost estimating. 2. Plans of the proposed remodel showing the addition in plan and section In addition, we would like to place in the record an omission in the report. The central thesis behind our development work over the last 40 years has been the invention and development of "GoHomes", which are market rate affordable housing where bedroom suites in a unit are 11-3 designed to be shared by unrelated adults. Victor Condo is the first built example of the strategy where these suites are provided with private exterior doors and the option to use a master bedroom vanity as a mini kitchenette or for roommates to live together using the main kitchen. The suit is flexible so that it can be used as a third bedroom or an affordable rental Chapter 2. Responses to Comments Comments Responses City of Carlsbad Three on Garfield Project March 2024 Final EIR 2-10 in the “Historic Context” section of the HRAR, as part of the overall discussion of the architect’s background. As discussed in DEIR Section 4.3.4.1, both the HRAR and the DEIR identify the Victor Condo as a structure recommended as eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources under Criterion 3 (it embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values). Additionally, the HRAR and DEIR Section 4.3.4.1 recommend the Victor Condo as eligible for listing as a Carlsbad Historic Resource, provided there was owner consent, under local criteria a and c because it exemplifies special elements of the city’s architectural history, specifically Postmodern architecture. The additional information provided regarding the GoHomes program and programs teaching architects strategies to stop urban sprawl would not affect or alter the resource’s eligibility or the conclusions of the HRAR or DEIR, which identifies Victor Condo as a historical resource for the purposes of CEQA. I1-4 The Feasibility Study prepared for Victor Condo, included in DEIR Appendix D, documents the condition of the property based on a field investigation conducted in July 2023. The field investigation was conducted by two surveyors, including one that meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for Architecture and Historic Architecture (refer to page 1 of DEIR Appendix D, Victor Condo Building Feasibility Study). The field investigation included a visual survey of accessible exterior and interior areas of the property. Photographs of the existing conditions of the property are included in pages 17 through 36 of the Feasibility Study. While it is unclear if the commentor has the expertise for evaluating the condition of the property, the preparer of the Feasibility Study does have expertise in the field of historic preservation. CEQA Guidelines Section 15151, Standards for Adequacy of an EIR, states that “Disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate, but the EIR should summarize the main points of disagreement among the experts.” In this case, it is assumed that the commenter does not have the Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 28 of 128 11-3 cont. 11-4 11-s j providing financial benefit to both the sub tenant and the owner. We have gone on to build many such housing opportunities that have mostly been constructed in the City of San Diego. The most notable example is the Via Donada project where six suites share a kitchen. The project was extensively published most notably in Art and Architecture, article attached. I founded Woodbury University's Master's in Real Estate Development program primarily to teach this strategy to architects hoping to stop sprawl, density the suburban condition, and provide affordability. The program ran successfully for 14 years graduating over a hundred trained architect developers who have gone on to build the majority of San Diego first ring housing in Hilk rest, North Park, South Park, University Heights, Normal Heights and Golden Hills as well as many projects in the urban core. The first project in this rather long history was Victor Condo. I am hoping that accomplishment can add further credence to the report's conclusion that the project is a significant example worth saving. We also would like to take exception to the reports structural condition report. When we presented the Mills Act remodel proposal. We were invited into the building where the interior framing had been examined and uncovered exposing a structural frame showing no damage at all to the wood in the interior from leakage. They were no on-going leak pointed out and if there was any noticeable mold at all, ( I did not see any mold or smell anything) it was not serious enough to cause demolition. We also observed a slight calcification of lime on the interior of the retaining walls, that is very normal in buildings even a year old, and easily mitigated. There were no visible structural deficiencies. We disagree whole heartedly with the report's description of the structural integrity posing any problem approaching a need to demolish. Anc:I finally, please make it be known that we are willing and able to help the owner in any way possible to remodel or even purchase or market the property on their behalf. Thank you for attaching this letter and attached illustrations as responses to the EIR. Sincerely, (?J()O,,, "-- Armistead Smith Chapter 2. Responses to Comments Comments Responses Three on Garfield Project City of Carlsbad Final EIR March 2024 2-11 Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for Architecture and Historic Architecture expertise for evaluating the condition of the property. No revisions to the DEIR are necessary or have been made in response to this comment; however, the commentor’s disagreement with the conclusions of the expert’s Feasibility Report are noted. I1-5 Comment noted; as noted in DEIR Chapter 3, the project objectives do not state the applicant’s desire to remodel the Victor Condo building. This comment does not address the adequacy or content of the DEIR. Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 29 of 128 Victor Condo Property Tax Reduction, Mills Act Current Tax estimate $ 1,265,202.00 $ 893,499.00 $ 959,842.00 $ 3,118,543.00 total assessment ( purchase price) tax rate 0.0125 $ 38,981.79 current yearly tax estimate Mills Act Tax estimate or more? tax rate s 5,500.00 market rental rate each for Mills Act? $ 16,500.00 assume all three the same $ 198,000.00 yearly Gross Scheduled Income 30% $ 59,400.00 typical operating expenses and vacancy $ 138,600.00 Net Operating Income Mills Act cap Rate 6.75% interest component 4% Hstoric Property risk component 1.67¾ Amortization component 1.24% pre>perty tax component 13.66% total Cap rate $ 1,014,641.29 Mills Act determination of value for Taxes 0.0125 $ 12,683.02 ~arly tax $ 26,298.77 ~arly tax savings Calculation of potential matching borrowed budget rate 4¾ $ (26,294.59) yearly mortgage portion of refi or 2nd TD ($2,191.22) Refurbish budget monthly payment@ 1504 Existing Square footage ( no garage) 4512 Total Three Buildings S 108.15 Loan Budget per foot tax savings would finance $ 487,972.80 remodel and refurbish budget Chapter 2. Responses to Comments Comments Responses City of Carlsbad Three on Garfield Project March 2024 Final EIR 2-12 Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 30 of 128 REFURBISH BUDGET HARD SOFT 9 Bathrooms 3 kitchens strip to studs $ 6,500.00 $ 30,000.00 wa ter proof. Front retaining wall new roof deck ( recent new roof ) new floor coverings most windows newly replaced new window coverings repaint contingency Contractor consultants reduced permit misc. subtotal 10% construction peric:x:l insurance carry empty building financing Soft Contingency Total Refurbish Budget Budget based man Mills Act Tax Savings Assumed Estimate of Existing Equity $ 893,499.00 $ 959,842.00 $ 1,265,202.00 $ 3,118,543.00 20¾ $ 623,708.60 $ 264,603.73 $ 58,500.00 $ 90,000.00 $ 20,000.00 $ 35,000.00 $ 45,000.00 $ 15,000.00 $ 20,000.00 $ 25,000.00 $ 75,000.00 $ 383,500.00 $ 38,350.00 $ 421,850.00 $ 10,000.00 $ s 5,000.00 $ 15,000.00 $ 15,000.00 $ 15,000.00 $ 481,850.00 $ 487,972.80 Condo 1 Condo2 Condo 3 Total Purchase assumed equity equity required Chapter 2. Responses to Comments Comments Responses Three on Garfield Project City of Carlsbad Final EIR March 2024 2-13 Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 31 of 128 -.. •·,,.·., --:-----:=<,i----,7.T,-;' .P I !"'··. Chapter 2. Responses to Comments Comments Responses City of Carlsbad Three on Garfield Project March 2024 Final EIR 2-14 Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 32 of 128 Chapter 2. Responses to Comments Comments Responses Three on Garfield Project City of Carlsbad Final EIR March 2024 2-15 Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 33 of 128 She I Horn From: Sent: Kyle Van Leeuwen <Kyle.VanLeeuwen@carlsbadca.gov> Thursday, December 14, 2023 8:49 AM To: Sheryl Horn Kim Baranek Cc, Subje-ct: FW: Three on Garfield GoHome information and plans Second email, -KVL Fram: A B SM!™ ,csm1thandotl!ers9<X>xcnot> Sant: Thursday, o ... mber 14 2023 8:28 AM To: K~ Van l.ffuwen <1(¥e.YanLeeuwanOCilrlsbadcii.tpV> Sllbllct: Three on Garfield GoHome informitiOn and phms Sometimes thi1jpeJ111 don\ fflliil ~11. P14Ue let me know ~u recei\edr th""i•c.c•~nc.dth..=•Y._•~"''-------. arts architecture Chapter 2. Responses to Comments Comments Responses City of Carlsbad Three on Garfield Project March 2024 Final EIR 2-16 Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 34 of 128 Chapter 2. Responses to Comments Comments Responses Three on Garfield Project City of Carlsbad Final EIR March 2024 2-17 Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 35 of 128 Chapter 2. Responses to Comments Comments Responses City of Carlsbad Three on Garfield Project March 2024 Final EIR 2-18 Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 36 of 128 Chapter 2. Responses to Comments Comments Responses Three on Garfield Project City of Carlsbad Final EIR March 2024 2-19Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 37 of 128 Chapter 2. Responses to Comments City of Carlsbad Three on Garfield Project March 2024 Final EIR 2-20 INTENTIONALLY BLANK Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 38 of 128 Three on Garfield Project City of Carlsbad Final EIR March 2024 3-1 3. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Project Name: Three on Garfield Project Location: 2685, 2687, and 2689 Garfield Street, Carlsbad, California Project Description: Three attached, three-story residential air-space condominiums City Contact: Kyle Van Leeuwen, Associate Planner, Carlsbad Planning Division; Phone Number: 442.339.2611 Mitigation Measure Responsible for Mitigation Responsible for Verification Method of Verification Timing of Verification Verification Date Comments Historical, Cultural, and Tribal Cultural Resources MM CR- 1- Historic American Building Survey (HABS) Documentation Prior to the issuance of the demolition permits, the Victor Condo building shall be documented to Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) Level 2 standards according to the outline format described in the Historic American Building Survey Guidelines for Preparing Written Historical Descriptive Data. The documentation shall be undertaken by a qualified professional who meets Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards (36 CFR, part 61) for architectural history. The documentation shall consist of the following: • Photographic Documentation: Documentation should follow the Photographic Specification– Historic American Building Survey, including 15 to 20 archival quality, large-format photographs of the exterior and interior of the building and its architectural elements. Construction techniques and architectural details should be documented, especially noting the measurements, hardware, and other features that tie architectural elements to a specific date. Applicant City of Carlsbad Planning Department Review and approval of HABS documentation package Prior to issuance of demolition permit Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 39 of 128 Chapter 3. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Carlsbad Three on Garfield Project March 2024 Final EIR 3-2 Mitigation Measure Responsible for Mitigation Responsible for Verification Method of Verification Timing of Verification Verification Date Comments • HABS Historical Report: A written historical narrative and report completed according to the HABS Historical Report Guidelines. • Original architectural plans shall be archivally reproduced, following HABS standards, or included as figures in the HABS historical report. Three copies of the HABS documentation package, with one copy including original photo negatives, shall be produced, with at least one copy placed in an archive or history collection accessible to the general public, such as the Carlsbad Public Library and San Diego History Center. MM CR-2 Interpretation Prior to the issuance of demolition permits, the project applicant, in coordination with, and subject to approval by the City Planner, shall develop an interpretative opportunity that would communicate the significance of the Victor Condo building to the local community. The opportunity could consist of a permanent plaque or sign with general information at the project site with an opportunity for the public to digitally link to additional information, such as historic photographs, HABS documentation or other materials that are maintained by the city or other organization, such as the Historical Society. The interpretive exhibit shall be developed by a qualified team including a historian and graphic designer or other professional with demonstrated experience in displaying information and graphics to the public in a visually interesting manner. The exhibit should be located at the project site, or at some other location determined as appropriate by the qualified team and the City Planner. Applicant City of Carlsbad Planning Department Review and approval of interpretation opportunity Prior to issuance of demolition permit Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 40 of 128 Chapter 3. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Three on Garfield Project City of Carlsbad Final EIR March 2024 3-3 Mitigation Measure Responsible for Mitigation Responsible for Verification Method of Verification Timing of Verification Verification Date Comments MM CR-3 Architectural Salvage Prior to the issuance of demolition permits that would remove character-defining features of the building, the developer shall consult with city Planning Department staff as to whether any such features may be salvaged. This could include both interior and exterior features for preservation on or off-site or for sale or use in another structure. The developer shall make a good faith effort to salvage materials of historical interest to be utilized as part of the interpretative program. The developer shall prepare a salvage plan for review and approval by the City Planner prior to issuance of any site demolition permit. Applicant City of Carlsbad Planning Department Submittal of salvage plan Prior to issuance of demolition permit MM CR-4 Construction Monitoring Prior to the commencement of any ground disturbing activities, the project developer shall enter into a Pre- Excavation Agreement, otherwise known as a Tribal Cultural Resources Treatment and Tribal Monitoring Agreement, with a Traditionally and Culturally Affiliated Luiseño tribe (TCA Tribe). This agreement will contain provisions to address the proper treatment of any tribal cultural resources and/or Luiseño Native American human remains inadvertently discovered during the course of the project. The agreement will outline the roles and powers of the Luiseño Native American monitors and the archaeologist. Such agreement shall include at minimum, that, if a possible tribal cultural resource is uncovered during ground disturbing activities, all work shall cease within a minimum distance of 50 feet from the find until a Qualified Tribal Monitor and Archaeological Monitor have had the opportunity to evaluate the find. If a Qualified Tribal Monitor or Archaeological Monitor determines that the object or artifact appears to be a potentially significant tribal cultural resource, the City of Carlsbad shall notify the Applicant’s Construction Contractor City of Carlsbad Planning Department Pre-Excavation Agreement, Tribal and Archaeological Monitor Contract, and Site inspections Prior to issuance of grading permit. During site preparation and grading Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 41 of 128 Chapter 3. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Carlsbad Three on Garfield Project March 2024 Final EIR 3-4 Mitigation Measure Responsible for Mitigation Responsible for Verification Method of Verification Timing of Verification Verification Date Comments affiliated Tribes to conduct a site visit and make recommendations to the City regarding the monitoring of future ground disturbance activities and the treatment and disposition of any discovered tribal cultural resources. A copy of said archaeological contract and Pre-Excavation Agreement shall be provided to the City of Carlsbad prior to the issuance of a grading permit. A Luiseño Native American monitor shall be present during all ground disturbing activities. Ground disturbing activities may include, but are not be limited to, archaeological studies, geotechnical investigations, clearing, grubbing, trenching, excavation, preparation for utilities and other infrastructure, and grading activities. Consistent with Public Resources Code Section 21083.2, the handling, treatment, preservation, and recordation of tribal cultural resources should occur as follows:  The find should be preserved in place or left in an undisturbed state unless the project would damage the resource.  All collected artifacts, if not human remains or other mortuary objects, shall be repatriated to the affiliated Tribes for reburial on the project site. MM CR-5 Discovery of Human Remains In the event human remains are encountered, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e)(1) state that no further disturbance shall occur to the area of the find until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition of the human bone pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The County Coroner shall be notified of the find immediately and shall make their determination within two working days of being notified. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the County Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) by phone within Applicant’s Construction Contractor City of Carlsbad Planning Department Site inspections During site preparation and grading Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 42 of 128 Chapter 3. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Three on Garfield Project City of Carlsbad Final EIR March 2024 3-5 Mitigation Measure Responsible for Mitigation Responsible for Verification Method of Verification Timing of Verification Verification Date Comments 24 hours, and the NAHC shall then immediately determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant. With the permission of the landowner or his/her authorized representative, the Most Likely Descendant may inspect the site of the discovery. The Most Likely Descendant shall complete the inspection and make recommendations or preferences for treatment of the remains within 48 hours of being granted access to the site. The Most Likely Descendant’s recommendations may include scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials, preservation of Native American human remains and associated items in place, relinquishment of Native American human remains and associated items to the descendants for treatment, or any other culturally appropriate treatment. Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 43 of 128 Chapter 3. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Carlsbad Three on Garfield Project March 2024 Final EIR 3-6 INTENTIONALLY BLANK Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 44 of 128 Page 1 of 17 August 2024 Attachment B CANDIDATE FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE THREE ON GARFIELD PROJECT SCH No. 2022110423 INTRODUCTION A. Findings of Fact The following Candidate Findings are made for the Three on Garfield Project (hereinafter referred to as "project"). The environmental impacts of the project are addressed in the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) dated March 2024 (State Clearinghouse No. 2022110423), which is incorporated by reference herein. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Res. Code §§21000, et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (Guidelines) (14 Cal. Code Regs §§15000, et seq.) require that no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified which identifies one or more significant environmental impacts of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant impacts, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings are: 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental impact as identified in the FEIR. 2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. 3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the FEIR. CEQA also requires that the findings made pursuant to §15091 be supported by substantial evidence in the record (§15091(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines). Under CEQA, substantial evidence means that enough relevant information has been provided (and reasonable inferences from this information may be made) that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion, even though other conclusions might also be reached. Substantial evidence may include facts, reasonable assumptions predicted upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts (§15384 of the State CEQA Guidelines). CEQA further requires the decision-making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental effects when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered "acceptable" (§15093(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines). When the lead agency approves a project which will result Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 45 of 128 Page 2 of 17 August 2024 in the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the FEIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its actions based on the FEIR and/or other information in the record. B.Record of Proceedings For purposes of CEQA and these Findings, the Record of Proceedings for the Project consists of the following documents and other evidence, at a minimum: •The Notice of Preparation (NOP), dated Nov. 18, 2022 and all other public notices issued by the city in conjunction with the project; The Draft EIR (DEIR), dated October 30, 2023; The FEIR, dated March 2024; •All written comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the public review comment period on the DEIR; •All responses to written comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the public review comment period on the DEIR and included in the FEIR; •The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP); •The reports and technical memoranda included or referenced in the FEIR; •All documents, studies, EIRs, or other materials incorporated by reference in the DEIR and the FEIR; •Matters of common knowledge to the city, including but not limited to federal, state and local laws and regulations; •Any documents expressly cited in these Findings; and •Any other relevant materials required to be included in the Record of Proceedings pursuant to Public Resources Code §21167.6(e). C.Custodian and Location of Records The documents and other materials which constitute the administrative record for the City of Carlsbad (city’s) actions related to the project are located at the City of Carlsbad, Community Development Department, Planning Division, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008. The city Community Development Department is the custodian of the administrative record for the project. Copies of these documents, which constitute the Record of Proceedings, are and at all relevant times have been and will be available upon request at the offices of the city Community Development Department. The DEIR and FEIR was also placed on the city's website at https://www.carlsbadca.gov/departments/community-development/planning/agendas-minut es- notices. This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code §21081.6(a)(2) and CEQA Guidelines §15091(e). Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 46 of 128 Page 3 of 17 August 2024 PROJECT SUMMARY A.Project Location The subject 0.16-acre infill site is located at 2685, 2687, and 2689 Garfield Street in the northwestern portion of the city. The city is bordered to the north by the city of Oceanside, to the south by the city of Encinitas, to the east by the cities of Vista and San Marcos, and on the west by the Pacific Ocean. The project site is located approximately 250 feet east of the beach and cliffs along the Pacific Ocean and immediately west of the Carlsbad Downtown Village. Regional access to the project site is provided by Interstate 5 (I-5) and State Route 78 (SR-78) with local access provided by Carlsbad Village Drive and Carlsbad Boulevard. The property is situated at the northwest corner of Garfield Drive and Beech Avenue. B.Project Objectives and Description Project Objectives The objectives of the Three on Garfield Project are as follows: 1.Demolish the existing structure and construct three condominium units with an updated architectural design. 2.Eliminate ongoing structural deterioration of the building and façade, foundation degradation and mold that have been caused by age and documented moisture intrusion. 3.Eliminate roof and deck leaks and site drainage problems associated with the current building. 4.Construct condominiums that fully comply with current building code and development standards. 5.Redevelop an infill residential site that retains the city’s housing supply. 6.Utilize contemporary project design features to reflect a modernized appearance while ensuring compatibility with adjacent residential land uses. 7.Increase the amount of window area and natural light entering each condominium unit. 8.Update the design to adjust for obstructed views and take better advantage of views that remain. 9.Update internal configuration of the condominiums to improve accessibility and to allow for a more contemporary design that incorporates a traditional floor plan for each of the three units. 10.Construct a structure that would not obstruct views of the coastline from public lands or public rights-of-way in the Coastal Zone. Project Description The Three on Garfield Project proposes the construction of three attached, three-story residential air-space condominiums to replace the existing units on site. Each home includes an attached two- car garage with direct entrance into the unit for a total of six parking spaces. In addition, one guest Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 47 of 128 Page 4 of 17 August 2024 parking space would be provided along the building exterior on the north side of the site. Two residential units would contain two bedrooms, while the third unit would feature three bedrooms. The units would range in size from 1,701 square feet (SF) to 1,713 SF, for a total structure size of 5,118 SF. All units would feature private balconies on the third floor. The units’ entry doors and porches would be oriented toward Garfield Street on the building’s eastern elevation. Vehicular access would be provided via a new driveway along the western side of the lot connecting to Beech Avenue. The project proposes a contemporary architectural style that is commonly seen in southern California coastal communities and has been designed to better protect against future water intrusion. Design elements include a new foundation and drainage system, sloped roofs and exterior decks with additional slope, drainage features, and materials to prevent leaks. The project interior has a more contemporary and open style. The interior layout of each unit would include larger rooms and fewer small spaces. Bathroom sinks, showers and toilets are combined into one room, rather than being on different floors in some instances. Additional windows are included on the east side to create views towards Magee Park, and windows in other locations are located to take advantage of view opportunities between and around existing development. The building would be finished with complementary building materials, fiber-concrete panels, synthetic wood- grain siding, stone veneer, and stucco. Other finishes include glass balcony railings, black vinyl recessed windows, and a 3:12 pitch asphalt-shingle roof. The proposed roofline would be below the 30-foot height limit for sloped rooflines and lower in elevation than the existing 35- to 43-foot-high flat rooftop on the existing structure. Figure 36, Renderings, provides images of the project from several public vantage points. Landscaping, consisting of various native and/or drought tolerant trees, shrubs, and ground cover species, would be installed along walls and in raised planters throughout the common areas surrounding the building and along the driveway. Decorative pavement or permeable pavers would be used to reconstruct the on-site drive aisle which would connect to a wider curb cut and concrete apron constructed at the driveway connection with Beech Avenue. The existing sidewalk and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) ramp at the northwest corner of Beech Avenue and Garfield Street would be reconstructed as part of the project. The building would receive services from existing utility connections on the site. Trash and recycling containers would be individually stored inside each unit’s garage and staged for pick-up along the driveway. The project would comply with all applicable development standards for Planned Unit Developments (CMC Chapter 21.45). The project requires the city to issue a number of permits which are listed below under Project Approvals and Regulatory Requirements. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION The lead agency approving the project and conducting environmental review under CEQA (California Public Resources Code §§21000, et seq.), and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder in California Code of Regulations, Title 14, §§15000 et seq. (CEQA Guidelines), shall be the city. The city as lead agency shall be primarily responsible for carrying out the project. In compliance with §15082 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the city published an NOP on Nov. 17, 2022, which began a 30-day period for comments on the appropriate scope of the EIR. The city Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 48 of 128 Page 5 of 17 August 2024 received comments on the NOP which were taken into consideration during the preparation of the DEIR (refer to Appendix A of the FEIR). The city published a DEIR addressing the project on October 30, 2023, in compliance with CEQA. Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines §15085 and upon publication of the DEIR, the city made the DEIR available for review and comment by the public for a period of 45 days. The city also posted a Notice of Availability of the DEIR at this time pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines §15087. During the public review period, the city received three comment letters on the environmental document; no comment letters were received after the close of the public review period. The city provided responses in writing to all comments received on the DEIR. Information provided in the response to comments (RTC) clarifies or amplifies information included in the DEIR; however, the RTC did not require changes to the information contained in the DEIR. No significant new information was added that would require recirculation of the document, per CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. The FEIR for the project was published on March 2024. The FEIR has been prepared in accordance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines (§15132). SUMMARY OF IMPACTS Impacts associated with specific issue areas resulting from approval of the project are discussed below. The FEIR concludes the project would have no impacts with respect to the following issue areas: •Agriculture and Forestry Resources •Land Use and Planning •Mineral Resources The FEIR concludes the project would have less than significant impacts and require no mitigation measures with respect to the following issue areas: •Aesthetics •Air Quality •Biological Resources •Energy •Geology •Greenhouse Gas Emissions •Hazards and Hazardous Materials •Hydrology/Water Quality •Noise •Paleontological Resources •Population and Housing •Public Services •Recreation •Transportation/Circulation •Utilities and Service Systems •Wildfire Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 49 of 128 Page 6 of 17 August 2024 The FEIR concludes the project would potentially have a significant impact but mitigated to below a level of significance with respect to the following issue areas: •Historic, Cultural, and Tribal Cultural Resources (Archaeological Resources and Human Remains) •Historic, Cultural, and Tribal Cultural Resources (Tribal Cultural Resources) The FEIR concludes the project would have significant unavoidable impacts for the following CEQA issue areas: •Historic, Cultural, and Tribal Cultural Resources (Historic Resources) FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS The Findings incorporate the facts and discussions in the FEIR for the project as fully set forth therein. A.Findings Regarding Impacts That Will be Mitigated to Below a Level of Significance (CEQA §21081(a)(1) and CEQA Guidelines §15091(a)(1) The city, having independently reviewed and considered the information contained in the FEIR and the public record for the project, finds, pursuant to Public Resource Code §21081(a)(1) and State CEQA Guidelines §15091(a)(1), that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which would mitigate, significantly lessen or avoid the significant effects on the environment related to the following issues: HISTORIC, CULTURAL, AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES Archaeological Resources Impact The project has the potential for grading to occur in undisturbed on-site areas and the potential to encounter unknown buried historic or prehistoric resources. Finding Implementation of actions pursuant to Mitigation Measure CR-4 would reduce impacts to unknown buried historic and prehistoric resources to less than significant. Facts in Support of Finding The project area was surveyed by an archaeologist and Native American monitor and no cultural material was observed during the survey. No previously recorded cultural resources are recorded in the project area. However, the 1887 Magee House, now the home of the Carlsbad Historical Society and located east across Garfield Drive approximately 100 feet from the project area, exhibits local significance. The presence of the 1887 Magee House less than 100 feet from the current project area suggests the possibility that buried resources may exist in the project area. Although the project site has been previously disturbed and graded during the original development of the project site with the existing structure, there is potential for project grading to occur within undisturbed on-site areas and potential to encounter unknown buried historic or prehistoric resources. Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 50 of 128 Page 7 of 17 August 2024 Mitigation Measures The potentially significant impact to unknown buried historic or prehistoric resources through disturbance of previously undisturbed sediments would be mitigated to below a level of significance with implementation of the Mitigation Measure CR-4, as identified in Section 4.3.6.2 of the FEIR, Mitigation Measure CR-4 requires implementation of construction monitoring, which includes steps to be taken prior to the commencement of ground-disturbing activities and in the event a cultural resource is uncovered. Mitigation Measure CR-4 also requires that a Luiseño Native American monitor is present during all ground-disturbing activities. Reference See FEIR Section 4.3 for a complete discussion of the historic, cultural, and tribal cultural resources (archaeological) impacts associated with the project. HISTORIC, CULTURAL, AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES Human Remains Impact The construction of the project has the potential to extend into previously undisturbed native sediment, resulting in the potential to encounter unknown human remains. Finding Implementation of actions pursuant to Mitigation Measure CR-5 would reduce impacts associated with the discovery of unknown human remains to less than significant. Facts in Support of Finding Although the project would not disturb any known human remains, grading associated with the project has the potential to extend into previously undisturbed native sediment. As such, there is the possibility, although it is unlikely given the previous disturbance on the project site, that unknown human remains may be encountered. Mitigation Measures The potentially significant impact to unknown human remains would be mitigated to below a level of significance with implementation of the Mitigation Measure CR-5, as identified in Section 4.3.6.3 of the FEIR. Mitigation Measure CR-5 identifies procedures to implement in the event human remains are encountered during project construction. These procedures include halting ground disturbance in the area of the find until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition of the remains, notifying the Native American Heritage Commission if remains are determined to be Native American, inspection of the site by a Most Likely Descendant, and recommendations for culturally appropriate treatment. Reference See FEIR Section 4.3 for a complete discussion of the historic, cultural, and tribal cultural resources (human remains) impacts associated with the project. Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 51 of 128 Page 8 of 17 August 2024 HISTORIC, CULTURAL, AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES Tribal Cultural Resources Impact Ground disturbance associated with the construction of the project has the potential to encounter unknown buried tribal cultural resources. Finding Implementation of actions pursuant to Mitigation Measures CR-4 and CR-5 would reduce impacts to tribal cultural resources to less than significant. Facts in Support of Finding In response to the Notice of Preparation, The Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians requested to accompany the archaeologist for the pedestrian survey, which was completed on March 7, 2023. Per Assembly Bill 52, the city provided formal notification of the project to the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians, Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians, Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians, and Mesa Grande Band of Diegueno Mission Indians on June 13, 2023.. Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians and San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians requested consultation, correspondence was made with both tribes and consultation was concluded in October 2023.,. There are no known Native American resources in the project site that are listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in by the Public Resources Code. Additionally, no specific tribal cultural resources were identified in the project site as a result of Native American consultation conducted for the project per Assembly Bill 52. If any artifacts are inadvertently discovered during ground-disturbing activities, existing federal, state and local laws and regulations would require construction activities to cease until such artifacts are properly examined and determined not to be of significance by a qualified cultural resources professional. Although the project site has been previously disturbed and graded during the original development of the project site with the existing structure, there is potential for project grading to occur within undisturbed on-site areas and potential to encounter unknown buried tribal cultural resources. Mitigation Measures The potentially significant impact to tribal cultural resources would be mitigated to below a level of significance with implementation of the Mitigation Measures CR-4 and CR-5, as identified in Section 4.3.6.4 of the FEIR. Reference See FEIR Section 4.3 for a complete discussion of the tribal cultural resource impacts associated with the project. Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 52 of 128 Page 9 of 17 August 2024 B.Findings Regarding Impacts That Are Found to be Significant and Unavoidable The city hereby finds that the following environmental impact is significant and unavoidable and although there is mitigation required for the impact to historic resources, that there is no feasible mitigation to fully reduce the impact to historic resources to a less than significant level. "Feasible" is defined in §15364 of the CEQA Guidelines to mean "capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social, and technological factors." The city may reject a mitigation measure if it finds that it would be infeasible to implement the measure because of specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers. These findings are based on the discussion of impacts in Section 4.3 of the EIR. HISTORIC, CULTURAL, AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES Historic Resources Impact The project would result in demolition of the Victor Condo building, which is considered a substantial adverse change to the historical resource pursuant to CEQA Section 21084.1. Therefore, according to CEQA Guidelines, this action constitutes a significant effect on the environment and material impairment on a historical resource pursuant to CEQA Section 15064.5(b). Impacts would be significant. Finding Implementation of Mitigation Measures CR-1, CR-2, and CR-3 would partially compensate for the historic resource impacts associated with the project; however, these measures would not be enough to avoid, rectify or reduce or fully compensate for the loss of the building. No additional feasible mitigation measure exist and a substantial adverse change would still occur; therefore, the impact would be significant and unavoidable even after implementation of CR-1, CR-2 and CR-3. Facts in Support of Finding The Victor Condo was evaluated for eligibility for listing in the California and local registers. Constructed in 1982, the building is an example of the Postmodern style and was evaluated within the context of Postmodernism in San Diego County. Although the Victor Condo is less than 50 years old and is not the only example of postmodern architecture in the San Diego region, it is the first example of the style in Carlsbad. Some project features, such as exterior windows and the garage doors, are no longer original, reducing to some degree the integrity of the buildings historic value. However, the primary east-facing façade of the Victor Condo remains a distinct feature of the building’s Postmodern style. Because Victor Condo embodies distinct characteristics of the style and was recognized by both scholarly and popular publications, the building is recommended as eligible for the CRHR under Criterion 3. Provided there was an owner application and consent, the Planning Commission could determine that the Victor Condo is eligible as a Carlsbad Historic Resource under criteria a and c because it exemplifies special elements of the city’s architectural history, specifically Postmodern architecture. Additionally, although the building is less than 50 Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 53 of 128 Page 10 of 17 August 2024 years old, sufficient time has passed to understand the authenticity, integrity, and value of the building to meet the special considerations at the state and local level. The existing building on the project site, Victor Condo, does not qualify as a historic resource under the first two criteria outlined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a)(1) and (2). The Victor Condo is not listed, or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission for listing, in the CRHR. The Victor Condo is not included in a local register of historical resources or identified as significant in an historical resource survey meeting the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1(g). However, under CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a)(3) and (4), the lead agency retains discretion to make its own determination that the Victor Condo qualifies as an historical resource, provided it is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. As such, Victor Condo is identified as a historical resource for the purposes of CEQA. Mitigation Measures Implementation of Mitigation Measures CR-1, CR-2, and CR-3 would be required in order to document and interpret the significance of the Victor Condo for the public, as identified in Section 4.3.6.1 of the FEIR. These mitigation measures would create preservation materials available to the public to inform future research. The mitigation would partially compensate for the historic resource impacts associated with the project; however, these measures would not be enough to avoid, rectify, reduce or compensate for the loss of the historic building. Reference See FEIR Section 4.3 for a complete discussion of the historic resource impacts associated with the project. C.Findings Regarding Alternatives (CEQA §21081(a)(3) and CEQA Guidelines §15091(a)(3)) In accordance with §15126.6(a) of the Guidelines, an EIR must contain a discussion of "a range of reasonable alternatives to a project, or the location of a project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives." The CEQA Guidelines §15126.6(f) further states that "the range of alternatives in an EIR is governed by the 'rule of reason' that requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice." Thus, the following discussion focuses on alternatives to the project that are capable of eliminating significant environmental impacts or substantially reducing them as compared to the project, even if the alternative would impede the attainment of some project objectives, or would be more costly. In accordance with §15126.6(f)(1) of the Guidelines, among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are: (1) site suitability; (2) economic viability; (3) availability of infrastructure; (4) general plan consistency; (5) other plans or regulatory limitations; (6) jurisdictional boundaries; and (7) whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control, or otherwise have access to the alternative site. As required in §15126.6(a), in developing the alternatives to be addressed in the FEIR, consideration was given to an alternative's ability to meet most of the basic objectives of the project but would substantially lessen or avoid any of the significant effects of the project. Because the project will cause a significant and unavoidable environmental effect, the city must consider the feasibility of any environmentally superior alternatives to the project, evaluating whether these alternatives could avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects while achieving most of the objectives of the project. Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 54 of 128 Page 11 of 17 August 2024 The city, having reviewed and considered the information contained in the FEIR and the Record of Proceedings, and pursuant to Public Resource Code §21081(a)(3) and State CEQA Guidelines §15091(a)(3), makes the following findings with respect to the alternatives identified in the FEIR. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the alternatives identified in the FEIR (SCH No. 2022110423) as described below. "Feasible" is defined in §15364 of the CEQA Guidelines to mean "capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social, and technological factors." The CEQA statute (§21081) and Guidelines (§15019(a)(3)) also provide that "other considerations" may form the basis for a finding of infeasibility. Alternatives under Consideration The FEIR evaluated the following alternatives in detail: •No Project Alternative; •Full Rehabilitation Alternative; and •Partial Rehabilitation Alternative. These project alternatives are summarized below, along with the findings relevant to each alternative. 1. No Project Alternative Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15126.6(e), consideration of a no project alternative is required. The analysis of a no project alternative must discuss the existing conditions at the time the NOP was published (i.e., Nov. 18, 2022), as well as “what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services” [CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2)]. Under the No Project Alternative, the existing condominium building would remain and require ongoing efforts to address the structural and water-related problems that currently exist on site. Potentially Significant Impacts There would be no significant environmental impacts associated with the No Project Alternative as described in Section 5.4.1 of the FEIR. The existing condominium building would remain at the project site and would require ongoing efforts to address the structural and water-related problems that currently exist on site. All impacts associated with the project would be avoided, and no impacts would occur. No significant impacts associated with demolition of a historic resource would occur. No potentially significant impacts to historical resources associated with unknown archaeological resources, unknown human remains, or unknown buried tribal cultural resources would occur. Finding The No Project Alternative is rejected because specific economic, social, or other considerations including matters of public policy make this alternative infeasible. Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 55 of 128 Page 12 of 17 August 2024 Facts In Support of Finding While the No Project Alternative would eliminate three significant and mitigatable impacts (archaeological resources, human remains, and tribal cultural resources) and the significant and unavoidable impact to historic resources resulting from the project, it would not meet any of the project objectives listed in Section 3.3 of the EIR. The No Project Alternative would not accomplish any of the project objectives, which are directed towards demolition of the existing structure, eliminating ongoing structural deterioration and documented moisture intrusion associated with the existing building, development of completely new condominiums with a more contemporary design that complies with current building and development standards for the area and constructing a structure that would not obstruct views of the coastline from public lands or public rights-of-way in the Coastal Zone. Rationale Although the No Project Alternative would eliminate significant and unavoidable impacts to historic resources and would eliminate significant but mitigable impacts to archaeological resources, human remains, and tribal cultural resources associated with the project, it does not meet the project objectives outlined in Section 3.3 of the FEIR. Reference See FEIR Section 5.4.1 for a complete analysis of this alternative. 2. Full Rehabilitation Alternative Under the Full Rehabilitation Alternative, the existing residence would be preserved and rehabilitated in accordance with the Secretary of Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. The rehabilitation of the building would focus on the structural issues, repair of foundation and stabilization of the site. Repair of water damage and prevention of future moisture infiltration would also be addressed. The paint scheme of the Victor Condo is part of the character- defining features of the structure, thus, the Full Rehabilitation Alternative would require a retention of the existing paint scheme, although fresh paint would be used after reconstruction of the façade. The Full Rehabilitation Alternative would require replacement, repair, and/or stabilization of many of the features at the project site, most notably, the reconstruction of the wood-framed false front façade, and the wood deck and front stairs at the east façade. This alternative would require the stabilization and partial reconstruction of the existing curved glass block walls, intervention to stabilize the foundation of the building, and replacement of existing wood-framed stucco-clad structural columns on the garage level of the west façade. Replacement of all existing windows (excluding the six original windows that remain) and all exterior doors would be required, along with repair of interior damage related to water leaks and various interior improvements to rehabilitate the structure. The three existing residential units would be retained. Potentially Significant Impacts There would be no significant environmental impacts associated with the Full Rehabilitation Alternative as described in Section 5.4.2 of the FEIR. The Full Rehabilitation Alternative would avoid the project’s significant and unavoidable impacts to historical resources caused by the proposed demolition of the structure. The Full Rehabilitation Alternative would avoid the project’s significant, but mitigable impacts associated with unknown buried archaeological resources, human remains, Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 56 of 128 Page 13 of 17 August 2024 and tribal cultural resources because ground disturbance would be limited to discrete locations where structural repairs would be implemented. Finding The Full Rehabilitation Alternative is rejected because specific economic, social, or other considerations including matters of public policy make this alternative infeasible. Facts In Support of Finding While the Full Rehabilitation Alternative would eliminate the project’s potentially significant but mitigable impacts to archaeological resources, human remains, and tribal cultural resources and would eliminate significant and unavoidable impacts to historic resources, the Full Rehabilitation Alternative would not accomplish most of the project objectives. The Full Rehabilitation Alternative would accomplish two of the ten project objectives, which include elimination of ongoing structural deterioration of the building and façade, foundation degradation, and mold, and would also eliminate roof and deck leaks. The remaining eight project objectives would not be accomplished under the Full Rehabilitation Alternative. Additionally, the Full Rehabilitation Alternative would require implementation of a number of additional treatments, as detailed in Appendix D. Feasibility Study including the repair of the foundation, stabilization of the site, repair of water damage, prevention of future moisture infiltration, and reconstruction of the historic façade, that would not be required under the project. Per the Economic Analysis prepared for the project, the estimated cost of implementing the required repairs and rehabilitation for the Full Rehabilitation Alternative would have a negative financial impact, with the cost of implementing the Full Preservation Alternative exceeding the market value of the rehabilitated structure by more than a million dollars making this alternative infeasible. (Worden Williams LLP 2024; Eshelman Appraisals, Inc. 2023; WNC General Contractors, Inc. 2024). Rationale The Full Rehabilitation Alternative would not fully meet the project objectives outlined in Section 3.3 of the FEIR and would be economically infeasible due to the extensive rehabilitation work that would be required and its associated cost. Reference See FEIR Section 5.4.2 for a complete analysis of this alternative. 3. Partial Rehabilitation Alternative The Partial Rehabilitation Alternative would require reconstruction of the wood façade of the Victor Condo for use when finishing the new building. A new building would be constructed behind the reconstructed façade. The unique design of Victor Condo, which involves a clear separation between the façade and the rest of the structure, allows for possible retention of the façade, the most significant character-defining feature of the building; however, based on the current condition of the façade, reconstruction of the false front façade, in kind, would be required. The façade would be detached and reconstructed while the existing building behind the façade would be demolished. The paint scheme of the Victor Condo is part of the character-defining features of the structure, thus, the Partial Rehabilitation Alternative would require a retention of the existing paint scheme, Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 57 of 128 Page 14 of 17 August 2024 although fresh paint would be used following reconstruction of the façade. A new building, containing three air-space condominiums consistent with the requirements of the BAOZ and R-3 zone, would be constructed behind the reconstructed façade. The design of the proposed building would have to be modified in order to provide surfaces on the east elevation for the reattachment of the Victor Condo façade. The east elevation would also be redesigned to incorporate or reference character-defining features visible to the public, such as the glass block, and skylight “chimneys,” provided the new structure conforms to the 30-foot building height requirement in the city regulations. Potentially Significant Impacts The Partial Rehabilitation Alternative would eliminate the project’s significant and unavoidable impact to historic resources as described in Section 5.4.3 of the FEIR. The demolition of the historic building would result in a potentially significant impact to a historic resource and mitigation measures would be required. Mitigation measures would include Historic American Building Survey (HABS) documentation and an interpretative opportunity that would communicate the significance of the structure to the local community. With the reconstruction and retention of the front façade, incorporation of or reference to existing character-defining features of the Victor Condo building in the new design, and the two mitigation measures, the project’s significant and unmitigable impact to historical resources would be reduced to less than significant (with mitigation) under the Partial Rehabilitation Alternative. The Partial Rehabilitation Alternative would result in significant, but mitigable impacts associated with unknown buried archaeological resources, human remains, and tribal cultural resources, similar to the project. Finding The Partial Rehabilitation Alternative is rejected because specific economic, social, or other considerations including matters of public policy make this alternative infeasible. Facts In Supporting Finding The Partial Rehabilitation Alternative would eliminate the significant and unavoidable impact associated with demolition of the historic structure; however, mitigation measures would be required to reduce impacts to historic resources to a less than significant level. Although this alternative would reduce the project’s significant and unavoidable impact to a significant and mitigable impact and although it would meet most of the project objectives, it would not meet all of the project objectives. The Partial Rehabilitation Alternative would not fully meet the project objectives to demolish the existing structure and construct three condominium units with an updated architectural design, nor would it construct a structure that would not obstruct views of the coastline from public lands or public rights-of-way in the Coastal Zone. Further, the Partial Rehabilitation Alternative would only partially accomplish two of the project objectives related to contemporary project features and increasing the amount of window area and natural light entering each condominium unit. Additionally, the Partial Rehabilitation Alternative would have a negative financial impact, based on the estimated cost of rehabilitation and construction compared to the expected market value of the completed structure. The Partial Rehabilitation Alternative is financially infeasible because it would result in a negative financial impact on the applicant with a loss of property value of approximately $235,000 as compared to the project making it infeasible (Worden Williams LLP 2024; Eshelman Appraisals, Inc. 2023; WNC General Contractors, Inc. 2024). The Partial Rehabilitation Alternative would reduce the significant and unavoidable impact to historic resources to a significant and mitigable impact and would result in the same significant but mitigable impact Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 58 of 128 Page 15 of 17 August 2024 associated with unknown buried archaeological resources, human remains, and tribal cultural resources. Rationale The Partial Rehabilitation Alternative would eliminate the significant and unavoidable impact to historic resources but would still result in significant but mitigable impacts to historic resources, buried archaeological resources, human remains, and tribal cultural resources. The Partial Rehabilitation Alternative does not meet all of the project objectives outlined in Section 3.3 of the FEIR because of its economic infeasibility for the applicant. Reference See FEIR Section 5.4.3 for a complete analysis of this alternative. Environmentally Superior Alternative The Environmentally Superior Alternative is the Full Rehabilitation Alternative; but the alternative does not meet the Project Objectives (provided Section 2.3). The applicant has collaborated with the city, engineers, and experts; using extensive experience in real estate development and rehabilitation projects, and knowledge of anticipated construction costs; to develop a reasonable, desired, and feasible development project. The Full Rehabilitation Alternative is cost prohibitive, would not be pursued by the applicant, and ultimately would not eliminate existing hazards currently associated with the building. FINDINGS REGARDING OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS A.Growth Inducement The §15126.2(e) of the CEQA Guidelines mandates that the growth-inducing impact of a project be discussed. This discussion is presented in Section 6.2 of the FEIR. The city finds that the project would not result in growth-inducing impacts. The project would replace the three existing condominium units with three new condominium units. The city’s General Plan and Local Coastal Plan (LCP) designate the project site R-15 Residential (8 to 15 dwelling units per acre [du/ac]), while the property is zoned Multiple-Family Residential (R-3). Based on the size of the lot (0.16 acres) and the allowed density on the property’s land use designation (R-15, or 8 to 15 du/ac), a maximum of two units are allowed on the property. However, the existing three-unit structure on the project site is nonconforming and the project would be subject to the Carlsbad Municipal Code, (CMC) Chapter 21.48, Nonconforming Lots, Structures and Uses. Approval of a Nonconforming Construction Permit would allow the continuation of the legally established use of three dwelling units on the property. As such, since the project is replacing the existing condominium units with an equal number of units, its implementation would not result in the alteration of growth patterns within the city from those anticipated in the adopted General Plan. In addition, the proposed project is located in an urbanized area and is adequately served by the existing infrastructure with no expansion required. The project would provide new employment opportunities, through the employment of temporary construction workers. The short-term nature of the construction jobs is not anticipated to lead to significant long-term population growth in the region. These jobs would be limited in number; it would be expected that these employees are already present in the region. The project would not Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 59 of 128 Page 16 of 17 August 2024 need to recruit substantial numbers of new employees living elsewhere in or outside of the region. Construction of the proposed project would not cause direct population growth as the workforce already exists in the region. No cumulative growth inducing impacts would occur. B.Significant Environmental Effects that Cannot Be Avoided if the Project is Implemented CEQA Guidelines §15126.2(c) requires an EIR to identify significant environmental effects that cannot be avoided if the project is implemented (14 CCR §15000 et seq.). As discussed in Chapter 4, Environmental Impact Analysis, of the FEIR, implementation of the project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact to historic resources. FINDINGS REGARDING RESPONSES TO COMMENTS AND REVISIONS IN THE FEIR The FEIR includes comments received on the DEIR and responses to those comments. The focus of the responses to comments is on the disposition of significant environmental issues that are raised in the comments, as specified by CEQA Guidelines §15088(c). Information provided in the response to comments clarifies or amplifies information included in the DEIR; however, the response to comments did not require changes to the information contained in the DEIR. Finding/Rationale: Responses to comments made on the DEIR do not require revisions to the analysis presented in the document, and do not trigger the need to recirculate per CEQA Guidelines §15088.5(b). STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS Public Resources Code §21081(b) prohibits approval of a project with significant, unmitigable adverse impacts resulting from infeasible mitigation measures or alternatives unless the agency finds that specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the significant effects on the environment. CEQA Guidelines §15093 adds that the decision-making agency must "balance, as applicable, economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project." CEQA further requires that, when the Lead Agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the FEIR, but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its actions based on the FEIR and/or other information in the record. The statement of overriding considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record (§15093[b] of the State CEQA Guidelines). This statement does not substitute for, and shall be in addition to, findings required pursuant to §15091 (§15093[c] of the State CEQA Guidelines). The Planning Commission, (i) having independently reviewed the information in the FEIR and the Record of Proceedings; (ii) having made a reasonable and good faith effort to eliminate or substantially lessen the significant impacts resulting from the project to the extent feasible by adopting the mitigation measures identified in the FEIR; and (iii) having balanced the benefits of the Three on Garfield Project against the significant environmental impacts, chooses to approve the Three on Garfield Project, despite its significant environmental impacts, because in its view, specific economic, legal, social, and other benefits of the project render the significant environmental impact acceptable. Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 60 of 128 Page 17 of 17 August 2024 The following statements identify why, in the Planning Commission’s judgment, the benefits of the Three on Garfield Project as approved outweigh the unavoidable and unmitigable significant impacts. Each of these public benefits serves as an independent basis for overriding all significant, unavoidable and unmitigable impacts. Substantial evidence supports the various benefits. Such evidence can be found either in the preceding sections, which are incorporated by reference into this section, the FEIR, or in documents that comprise the Record of Proceedings in this matter. The following benefits outweigh the significant impacts of the proposed project: •Implementation of the project will maintain the number of dwelling units existing at the site to retain the city’s housing supply. •Implementation of the project with the mitigations proposed will provide a historical marker to commemorate the Victor Condo. Although implementation of the project demolishes what is considered a historic resource and the mitigations measures proposed are not sufficient to reduce the impacts to less than significant, the historic marker would educate the public with information about the site and previous events. Currently, the multi-unit building has no identifying marker or information. •Implementation of the project will construct condominiums that fully comply with the General Plan, Subdivision Ordinance, and relevant building and zoning regulations of the Carlsbad Municipal Code (CMC). •The Feasibility Study substantiates the presence of one or more Health and Safety Code violations on the property, as well as other violations relating to building and fire codes and/or lack of proper maintenance in the dwelling units. Given the existing hazards currently associated with the building, the property owner proposes to demolish all units on the property and replace them with a new multi-family housing development. The Project provides the property owner with the opportunity to remove the hazards and improve the condition of the property without inflicting economic hardship. After the Project’s implementation, there would be reduced risks to life and property. •A substandard condition in one or more units, as documented in the Feasibility Study, indicates an increased risk of substandard conditions in other units on the same property or presence of blight to adjacent homes. The Project provides the property owner with the opportunity to remove the building, which is documented to be in poor condition, and improve the visual appearance of the property without inflicting economic hardship. •Implementation of the project will redevelop an infill residential site. •Implementation of the project will utilize contemporary project design features to reflect a modernized appearance while ensuring compatibility with adjacent residential uses. •Implementation of the project will construct a structure that would remove existing obstructions of views of the coastline from public lands or public rights-of-way in the Coastal Zone. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the city finds in accordance with Public Resources Code 21081(b) and 21085.5 and CEQA Guidelines 15093 and 15043, that the project's adverse, unavoidable environmental impacts are outweighed by the above-referenced benefits, any one which individually would be sufficient to outweigh the adverse environmental effects of the project. Therefore, the city has adopted these Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations. Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 61 of 128 City of Carlsbad Three on Garfield MMRP Page 1 of 5 MITIGATION MONITORING REPORTING PROGRAM Project Name: Three on Garfield Project Location: 2685, 2687, and 2689 Garfield Street, Carlsbad, California Project Description: Three attached, three-story residential air-space condominiums City Contact: Carlsbad Planning Division; Phone Number: 442.339.2600; Email: planning@carlsbadca.gov Mitigation Measure Responsible for Mitigation Responsible for Verification Method of Verification Timing of Verification Verification Date Comments Historical, Cultural, and Tribal Cultural Resources MM CR- 1- Historic American Building Survey (HABS) Documentation Prior to the issuance of the demolition permits, the Victor Condo building shall be documented to Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) Level 2 standards according to the outline format described in the Historic American Building Survey Guidelines for Preparing Written Historical Descriptive Data. The documentation shall be undertaken by a qualified professional who meets Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards (36 CFR, part 61) for architectural history. The documentation shall consist of the following: • Photographic Documentation: Documentation should follow the Photographic Specification– Historic American Building Survey, including 15 to 20 archival quality, large-format photographs of the exterior and interior of the building and its architectural elements. Construction techniques and architectural details should be documented, especially noting the measurements, hardware, Applicant City of Carlsbad Planning Department Review and approval of HABS documentation package Prior to issuance of demolition permit Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 62 of 128 Attach ment C City of Carlsbad Three on Garfield MMRP Page 2 of 5 Mitigation Measure Responsible for Mitigation Responsible for Verification Method of Verification Timing of Verification Verification Date Comments and other features that tie architectural elements to a specific date. • HABS Historical Report: A written historical narrative and report completed according to the HABS Historical Report Guidelines. • Original architectural plans shall be archivally reproduced, following HABS standards, or included as figures in the HABS historical report. Three copies of the HABS documentation package, with one copy including original photo negatives, shall be produced, with at least one copy placed in an archive or history collection accessible to the general public, such as the Carlsbad Public Library and San Diego History Center. MM CR- 2 Interpretation Prior to the issuance of demolition permits, the project applicant, in coordination with, and subject to approval by the City Planner, shall develop an interpretative opportunity that would communicate the significance of the Victor Condo building to the local community. The opportunity could consist of a permanent plaque or sign with general information at the project site with an opportunity for the public to digitally link to additional information, such as historic photographs, HABS documentation or other materials that are maintained by the city or other organization, such as the Historical Society. The interpretive exhibit shall be developed by a qualified team including a historian and graphic designer or other professional with demonstrated experience in displaying information and graphics to the public in a visually interesting manner. The exhibit should be located at the project site, or at Applicant City of Carlsbad Planning Department Review and approval of interpretation opportunity Prior to issuance of demolition permit Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 63 of 128 City of Carlsbad Three on Garfield MMRP Page 3 of 5 Mitigation Measure Responsible for Mitigation Responsible for Verification Method of Verification Timing of Verification Verification Date Comments some other location determined as appropriate by the qualified team and the City Planner. MM CR- 3 Architectural Salvage Prior to the issuance of demolition permits that would remove character-defining features of the building, the developer shall consult with city Planning Department staff as to whether any such features may be salvaged. This could include both interior and exterior features for preservation on or off-site or for sale or use in another structure. The developer shall make a good faith effort to salvage materials of historical interest to be utilized as part of the interpretative program. The developer shall prepare a salvage plan for review and approval by the City Planner prior to issuance of any site demolition permit. Applicant City of Carlsbad Planning Department Submittal of salvage plan Prior to issuance of demolition permit MM CR- 4 Construction Monitoring Prior to the commencement of any ground disturbing activities, the project developer shall enter into a Pre- Excavation Agreement, otherwise known as a Tribal Cultural Resources Treatment and Tribal Monitoring Agreement, with a Traditionally and Culturally Affiliated Luiseño tribe (TCA Tribe). This agreement will contain provisions to address the proper treatment of any tribal cultural resources and/or Luiseño Native American human remains inadvertently discovered during the course of the project. The agreement will outline the roles and powers of the Luiseño Native American monitors and the archaeologist. Such agreement shall include at minimum, that, if a possible tribal cultural resource is uncovered during ground disturbing activities, all work shall cease within a minimum distance of 50 feet from the find until a Qualified Tribal Monitor and Archaeological Monitor have had the opportunity to evaluate the find. If a Qualified Tribal Monitor or Archaeological Monitor determines that the Applicant’s Construction Contractor City of Carlsbad Planning Department Pre-Excavation Agreement, Tribal and Archaeological Monitor Contract, and Site inspections Prior to issuance of grading permit. during site preparation and grading Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 64 of 128 City of Carlsbad Three on Garfield MMRP Page 4 of 5 Mitigation Measure Responsible for Mitigation Responsible for Verification Method of Verification Timing of Verification Verification Date Comments object or artifact appears to be a potentially significant tribal cultural resource, the City of Carlsbad shall notify the affiliated Tribes to conduct a site visit and make recommendations to the City regarding the monitoring of future ground disturbance activities and the treatment and disposition of any discovered tribal cultural resources. A copy of said archaeological contract and Pre-Excavation Agreement shall be provided to the City of Carlsbad prior to the issuance of a grading permit. A Luiseño Native American monitor shall be present during all ground disturbing activities. Ground disturbing activities may include, but are not be limited to, archaeological studies, geotechnical investigations, clearing, grubbing, trenching, excavation, preparation for utilities and other infrastructure, and grading activities. Consistent with Public Resources Code Section 21083.2, the handling, treatment, preservation, and recordation of tribal cultural resources should occur as follows: • The find should be preserved in place or left in an undisturbed state unless the project would damage the resource. • All collected artifacts, if not human remains or other mortuary objects, shall be repatriated to the affiliated Tribes for reburial on the project site. MM CR- 5- Discovery of Human Remains In the event human remains are encountered, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e)(1) state that no further disturbance shall occur to the area of the find until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition of the human bone pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The County Coroner shall be notified of the find immediately and shall make their determination within two working days of being Applicant’s Construction Contractor City of Carlsbad Planning Department Site inspections During site preparation and grading Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 65 of 128 City of Carlsbad Three on Garfield MMRP Page 5 of 5 Mitigation Measure Responsible for Mitigation Responsible for Verification Method of Verification Timing of Verification Verification Date Comments notified. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the County Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) by phone within 24 hours, and the NAHC shall then immediately determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant. With the permission of the landowner or his/her authorized representative, the Most Likely Descendant may inspect the site of the discovery. The Most Likely Descendant shall complete the inspection and make recommendations or preferences for treatment of the remains within 48 hours of being granted access to the site. The Most Likely Descendant’s recommendations may include scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials, preservation of Native American human remains and associated items in place, relinquishment of Native American human remains and associated items to the descendants for treatment, or any other culturally appropriate treatment. Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 66 of 128 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO 7519. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, NONCONFORMING CONSTRUCTION PERMIT, AND MINOR SUBDIVISION TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING THREE-UNIT, RESIDENTIAL AIR-SPACE CONDOMINIUM AND CONSTRUCT A NEW THREE-UNIT, RESIDENTIAL AIR­ SPACE CONDOMINIUM PROJECT ON A 0.16-ACRE SITE LOCATED AT 2685, 2687, AND 2689 GARFIELD STREET, WITHIN THE MELLO II SEGMENT OF THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AND LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1. CASE NAME: CASE NO.: THREE ON GARFIELD PUD 2021-0003/SDP 2021-0008/CDP 2021-0010/NCP 2021-0001/MS 2023-0002 (DEV2020-0205) WHEREAS, Renee Wailes, "Developer/Owner," has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as PARCEL 1, IN THE CTY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON PARCEL MAP NO. 12124, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, MAY 20, 1982 ("the Property"); and WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Planned Development Permit, Site Development Plan, Coastal Development Permit, and Tentative Parcel Map as shown on Exhibit(s) "A" -"O" dated Aug. 21, 2024, on file in the Planning Division, PUD 2021-0003/SDP 2021- 0008/CDP 2021-0010/NCP 2021-0001/MS 2023-0002 (DEV2020-0205) -THREE ON GARFIELD, as provided by Chapter 21.06, 21.24, 21.45, 21.82, 21.203, and 20.24 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on Aug. 21, 2024, 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 Development Permit, Site Development Plan, Coastal Development Permit, and Tentative Parcel Map. Exhibit 2 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. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission APPROVES PUD 2021-0003/SDP 2021-0008/CDP 2021-0010/NCP 2021-0001/MS 2023-0002 (DEV2020-0205) -THREE ON GARFIELD, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: Findings: Planned Development Permit (PUD 2021-0003) 1. The proposed project is consistent with the general plan, and complies with all applicable provisions of this chapter, and all other applicable provisions of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, in that pursuant to Carlsbad Municipal Code (CMC) Section 21.48.0S0(E), a nonconforming residential use that is proposed to be voluntarily demolished may be replaced subject to issuance of all required discretionary and building permits and provided that an application for a nonconforming construction permit is submitted and the decision-maker approves the findings of fact pursuant to CMC Section 21.48.080.D prior to the date of the demolition. the project is consistent with all development and design standards applicable to the property as contained in Chapters 21.16 (Multiple-Family Residential) Zone, 21.45 (Planned Developments), and 21.82 (Beach Area Overlay Zone) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. 2. The proposed project will not be detrimental to existing uses, or to uses specifically permitted in the area in which the proposed use is to be located, and will not adversely impact the site, surroundings, or traffic, in that the three-unit residential air-space condominium project is compatible with the surrounding single-, two-and multi-family residential uses as permitted by the Multiple-Family Residential (R-3) Zone; and does not create any traffic circulation impacts as Beech Avenue is adequately designed to accommodate the 24 average daily trips (ADT) being generated. 3. The project will not adversely affect the public health, safety, or general welfare, in that the three- unit residential air-space condominium project has been designed to comply with all applicable development standards to ensure compatibility with surrounding single-, two-and multi-family residential uses. Additionally, the proposed structural improvements will be required to comply with all seismic design standards as well as all applicable fire safety requirements. 4. The project's design, including architecture, streets, and site layout a) contributes to the community's overall aesthetic quality, b) includes the use of harmonious materials and colors, and the appropriate use of landscaping, and c) achieves continuity among all elements of the project, in that the three-unit, three-story residential air-space condominium project is architecturally harmonious with the surrounding environment in that it is designed with a modern-beach influence. Primary building materials include fiber-concrete panels, synthetic wood-grain siding, stone veneer, and stucco. Other finishes include glass balcony railings, black vinyl recessed windows, and a 3:12 pitch asphalt-shingle roof. All elements (i.e. site layout, architecture, landscaping) create continuity in the overall project design. Site Development Plan (SDP 2021-0008} 5. That the requested use is properly related to the site, surroundings and environmental settings, is consistent with the various elements and objectives of the General Plan, will not be detrimental to existing uses or to uses specifically permitted in the area in which the proposed use is to be located, and will not adversely impact the site, surroundings or traffic circulation, in that the site is surrounded by a mix of existing single-, two-and multiple-family residential developments. The proposed three-unit condominium project has a density of 18.75 du/ac, which exceeds the R-15 Residential (8-15 du/ac) General Plan Land Use designation. However, pursuant to Carlsbad Municipal Code (CMC} Section 21.48.050(E), a nonconforming residential use that is proposed to be voluntarily demolished may be replaced subject to issuance of all required discretionary and building permits and provided that an application for a nonconforming construction permit is submitted and the decision-maker approves the findings of fact pursuant to CMC Section 21.48.080.D prior to the date of the demolition. The project is consistent with the various elements and objectives of the General Plan as discussed in the findings below and Section "A" of the project staff report. The proposed three-unit residential condominium will not be detrimental to existing uses or to uses specifically permitted in the area in that air-space condominiums are a use permitted within the Multiple-Family Residential (R-3} Zone and is compatible with the other residential uses surrounding the project site, including single-, two- and multiple-family residential. The three-unit residential air-space condominium project will not adversely impact the site, surroundings, or traffic circulation in that the existing surrounding streets have adequate capacity to accommodate the 24 Average Daily Trips (ADT) generated by the project; the project complies with all minimum development standards of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, including but not limited to the Multiple-Family Residential (R-3} Zone, Beach Area Overlay Zone (BAOZ}, and the Planned Development Ordinance. Additionally, the project provides adequate parking onsite and does not result in any environmental impacts. 6. That the site for the intended use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use, in that the three-unit residential air-space condominium project complies with all applicable development standards (i.e. setbacks, lot coverage, parking, and height restrictions) of the Multiple-Family Residential (R-3} Zone, the Beach Area Overlay Zone (BAOZ), and the Planned Development Ordinance as demonstrated in the project staff report. 7. That all yards, setbacks, walls, fences, landscaping, and other features necessary to adjust the requested use to existing or permitted future uses in the neighborhood will be provided and maintained, in that as demonstrated in the project staff report the three-unit residential air- space condominium project complies with all applicable development standards (i.e. setbacks, lot coverage, parking, and height restrictions) of the Multiple-Family Residential (R-3) Zone, the Beach Area Overlay Zone (BAOZ), and the Planned Development Ordinance. Landscaping along Garfield Street and Beech Avenue will be provided consistent with the requirements of the city's Landscape Manual. In addition to the above, privacy walls/fences on the property will be provided and maintained. 8. That the street systems serving the proposed use are adequate to properly handle all traffic generated by the proposed use, in that the three-unit residential air-space condominium project will be accessed via Beech Avenue, which is identified as a local street and is designed to adequately handle the 24 Average Daily Trips (ADT) generated by the project. Beech Avenue is already improved with pavement, curb, gutter and sidewalks. Coastal Development Permit (CDP 2021-0010) 9. That the proposed development is in conformance with the Mello II Segment of the Certified Local Coastal Program (LCP) and all applicable policies, in that the site is designated R-15 Residential (8-15 du/ac) for single-, two-and multi-family residential development by the Mello II LCP. The proposed three-unit condominium project has a density of 18.75 du/ac, which exceeds the R-15 Residential (8-15 du/ac) General Plan Land Use designation. However, pursuant to Carlsbad Municipal Code (CMC) Section 21.48.050(E), a nonconforming residential use that is proposed to be voluntarily demolished may be replaced subject to issuance of all required discretionary and building permits and provided that an application for a nonconforming construction permit is submitted and the decision-maker approves the findings of fact pursuant to CMC Section 21.48.080.D prior to the date of the demolition. The proposed three-story project will not obstruct views of the coastline as seen from public lands or the public right-of-way, nor otherwise damage the visual beauty of the coastal zone. No agricultural uses currently exist on the site, nor are there any sensitive resources located on the property. In addition, the proposed three-unit residential condominium project is not located in an area of known geologic instability or flood hazards. Since the site does not have frontage along the coastline, no public opportunities for coastal shoreline access are available from the subject site. Furthermore, the residentially designated site is not suited for water-oriented recreation activities. 10. The proposal is in conformity with the public access and recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act in that the property is not located adjacent to the shoreline. Therefore, the three- unit residential air-space condominium project will not interfere with the public's right to physical access to the ocean and, furthermore, the residentially designated site is not suited for water-oriented recreation activities. 11. That the project is consistent with the provisions of the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone (Chapter 21.203 of the Zoning Ordinance) in that the three-unit residential air-space condominium project will adhere to the City's Master Drainage Plan, Grading Ordinance, Storm Water Ordinance, BMP Design Manual and Jurisdictional Runoff Management Program (JRMP) to avoid increased urban runoff, pollutants, and soil erosion. No undevelopable steep slopes or native vegetation is located on the subject property and the previously graded site is not located in an area prone to landslides, or susceptible to accelerated erosion, floods, or liquefaction. 12. The project is not located in the Coastal Agriculture Overlay Zone, according to Map X of the Land Use Plan, certified September 1990 and Agricultural Conversion Mitigation Fees are not required in accordance with the provisions of the Coastal Agriculture Overlay Zone (Chapter 21.202 of the Zoning Ordinance). Nonconforming Construction Permit (NCP 2021-0001) 14. The expansion/replacement of the structure and/or use would not result in an adverse impact to the health, safety and welfare of surrounding uses, persons or property in that the proposed replacement of the structure is located on a property which has been developed with a three- unit condominium since the 1982 and the proposed project proposes to continue the property's current use as a three-unit condominium. The proposed three-unit condominium meets all current development standards including building height, lot coverage, setback, and parking requirements. 15. The area of expansion shall comply with all current requirements and development standards of the zone in which it is located, except as provided in Section 21.48.0S0(A)(3) of this chapter in that the proposed three-unit condominium meets all current development standards including building height, lot coverage, setback, and parking requirements. 16. The expansion/replacement structure shall comply with all current fire protection and building codes and regulations contained in Titles 17 and 18 in that a building permit issued by the City of Carlsbad is required for this project and the building plans will be reviewed for consistency with applicable fire protection and building codes prior to issuance. Furthermore, the project will undergo standard building inspection procedures during the construction of all improvements to the site. 13. The expansion/replacement would result in a structure that would be considered an improvement to, or complementary to and/or consistent with the character of the neighborhood in which it is located in that the property will continue to be used as a three-unit condominium, which is consistent with the neighborhood in which it is located. The site is surrounded by a mix of existing single-, two-and multiple-family residential developments. The proposed structure is architecturally harmonious with the surrounding environment in that it is designed with a modern-beach influence. Primary building materials include fiber-concrete panels, synthetic wood-grain siding, stone veneer, and stucco. Other finishes include glass balcony railings, black vinyl recessed windows, and a 3:12 pitch asphalt-shingle roof. All elements (i.e. site layout, architecture, landscaping) create continuity in the overall project design. Minor Subdivision (MS 2023-0002) 14. That the proposed map and the proposed design and improvement of the subdivision as conditioned, 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 three-unit residential air-space condominium project created through the minor subdivision satisfies all the minimum requirements of Title 20 and has been designed to comply with other applicable regulations including the Multiple-Family Residential (R-3) Zone, the Beach Area Overlay Zone, the Planned Development Ordinance, and Growth Management Ordinance. Although the three-unit condominium project has a density of 18.75 du/ac, which exceeds the R-15 Residential (8-15 du/ac) General Plan Land Use designation, the Carlsbad Municipal Code (CMC) Section 21.48.050(E), allows for a nonconforming residential use that is proposed to be voluntarily demolished to be replaced subject to issuance of all required discretionary and building permits and provided that an application for a nonconforming construction permit is submitted and the decision-maker approves the findings of fact pursuant to CMC Section 21.48.080.D prior to the date of the demolition. 15. That the proposed project is compatible with the surrounding future land uses since surrounding properties are designated R-15 Residential, for residential development at a density of 15-23 dwelling units per acre or have a designation for higher residential density. Furthermore, the proposed structure will be located on a property which has been developed with a three-unit condominium since the 1982 and the proposed project proposes to continue the property's current use as a three-unit condominium. The proposed three-unit condominium meets all current development standards including building height, lot coverage, setback, and parking requirements. 16. 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 all required development standards and design criteria required by the Multiple-Family Residential (R-3) Zone, the Planned Development Ordinance, and the Beach Area Overlay Zone are incorporated into the three-unit residential air-space condominium project. 17. 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 the three-unit residential air-space condominium project has been designed and conditioned so that there are no conflicts with established easements and no additional right-of-way is required. 18. That the property is not subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the Land Conservation Act of 1965 (Williamson Act). 19. 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 the new residential units are designed to include a balcony and operable windows oriented to maximize exposure of the unit to natural light and ventilation from nearby coastal breezes. 20. 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. 21. That the design of the subdivision and improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish and wildlife or their habitat, in that the three-unit residential air-space condominium project site has been previously developed and is surrounded by existing development. 22. That the discharge of waste from the subdivision will not result in violation of existing California Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements, in that the three-unit residential air-space condominium project will adhere to the city's Master Drainage Plan, Grading Ordinance, Storm Water Ordinance, BMP Design Manual and Jurisdictional Runoff Management Program (JRMP) to avoid increased urban runoff, pollutants, and soil erosion. General 18. The Planning Commission finds that the project, as conditioned herein, is in conformance with the Elements of the City's General Plan, based on the facts set forth in the staff report dated Aug. 21, 2024, including, but not limited to the following: a. Land Use & Community Design -The proposed three-unit residential infill development makes efficient use of the existing lot in that it maintains the number of dwelling units that currently exist on the site. A three-unit development is compatible with the surrounding development. The three-unit residential project has a density of 18.75 dwelling units per acre, which exceeds the R-15 Residential (8-15 du/ac) General Plan Land Use designation. However, pursuant to Carlsbad Municipal Code (CMC) Section 21.48.050(E), a nonconforming residential use that is proposed to be voluntarily demolished may be replaced subject to issuance of all required discretionary and building permits and provided that an application for a nonconforming construction permit is submitted and the decision- maker approves the findings of fact pursuant to CMC Section 21.48.080.D prior to the date of the demolition. b. Mobility -The proposed project has been designed to meet all of the circulation requirements, including a single driveway access point off Beech Avenue. In addition, the applicant will be required to pay traffic impact fees prior to issuance of building permit that will go toward future road improvements. c. Noise -The proposed project is consistent with the Noise Element of the General Plan in that the structure will comply with Title 24 requirements and is more than 500 feet away from a noise-producing transportation corridor. d. Housing -The project is not conditioned to pay an in-lieu fee Payment of in-lieu housing fee because the proposal to demolish the existing three-unit condominium and construct a new three-unit residential condominium does not increase the number of units on the property. e. Public Safety -The proposed structural improvements will be required to be designed in conformance with all seismic design standards. In addition, the project is consistent with all of the applicable fire safety requirements. Additionally, the proposed project is not located in an area of known geologic instability or flood hazard and the site is not located in an area prone to landslides, or susceptible to accelerated erosion, floods or liquefaction 19. The project is consistent with the Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan, the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 1 and all City public facility policies and ordinances. The project includes elements or has been conditioned to construct or provide funding to ensure that all facilities and improvements regarding sewer collection and treatment; water; drainage; circulation; fire; schools; parks and other recreational facilities; libraries; government administrative facilities; and open space, related to the project will be installed to serve new development prior to or concurrent with need. Specifically, a. The project has been conditioned to provide proof from the Carlsbad Unified School District that the project has satisfied its obligation for school facilities. b. The Public Facility fee is required to be paid by Council Policy No. 17 and will be collected prior to the issuance of building permit. c. The Local Facilities Management fee for Zone 1 is required by Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.90.050 and will be collected prior to issuance of building permit. 20. That the project is consistent with the City's Landscape Manual and Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 18.50). 23. 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 caused 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. Conditions: NOTE: Unless otherwise _specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to the issuance of grading permit, building permit, whichever comes first. 1. If any of the following 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; record a notice of violation on the property title; institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. No vested rights are gained by Developer or a successor in interest by the city's approval of this Planned Development Permit, Site Development Plan, Coastal Development Permit, Nonconforming Construction Permit, and Minor Subdivision. 2. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all corrections and modifications to the Planned Development Permit, Site Development Plan, Coastal Development Permit, Nonconforming Construction Permit, and Minor Subdivision documents, as necessary to make them internally consistent and in conformity with the final action on the project. Development shall occur substantially as shown on the approved Exhibits. Any proposed development, different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval. 3. Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local laws and regulations in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 4. 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 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. 5. 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 Planned Development Permit, Site Development Plan, Coastal Development Permit, Nonconforming Construction Permit, and Minor Subdivision, (b) city's approval or issuance of any permit or action, whether discretionary or nondiscretionary, in connection with the use contemplated herein, and (c) 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. This obligation survives until all legal proceedings have been concluded and continues even if the city's approval is not validated. 6. Prior to submittal of the building plans, improvement plans, grading plans, or final map, whichever occurs first, developer shall submit to the City Planner, a 24" x 36" copy of the Site Plan, conceptual grading plan and preliminary utility plan reflecting the conditions approved by the final decision making body. The copy shall be submitted to the City Planner, reviewed and, if found acceptable, signed by the city's project planner and project engineer. If no changes were required, the approved exhibits shall fulfill this condition. 7. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Developer shall provide proof to the Building Division from the Carlsbad Unified School District that this project has satisfied its obligation to provide school facilities. 8. This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures which are required as part of the Zone 1 Local Facilities Management Plan and any amendments made to that Plan prior to the issuance of building permits. 9. This approval shall become null and void if building permits are not issued for this project within 24 months from the date of project approval. 10. Building permits will not be issued for this project unless the local agency providing water and sewer services to the project provides written certification to the City that adequate water service and sewer facilities, respectively, are available to the project at the time of the application for the building permit, and that water and sewer capacity and facilities will continue to be available until the time of occupancy. A note to this effect shall be placed on the Final Map. 11. Developer shall pay the citywide Public Facilities Fee imposed by City Council Policy #17, the License Tax on new construction imposed by Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 5.09.030, and CFD #1 special tax (if applicable), subject to any credits authorized by Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 5.09.040. Developer shall also pay any applicable Local Facilities Management Plan fee for Zone 1, pursuant to Chapter 21.90. All such taxes/fees shall be paid at issuance of building permit. If the taxes/fees are not paid, this approval will not be consistent with the General Plan and shall become void. 12. Prior to the issuance of the grading permit, Developer shall submit to the City a Notice of Restriction executed by the owner of the real property to be developed. Said notice is to be filed in the office of the County Recorder, subject to the satisfaction of the City Planner, notifying all interested parties and successors in interest that the City of Carlsbad has issued a Planned Development Permit, Site Development Plan, Coastal Development Permit, Nonconforming Construction Permit, and Minor Subdivision by Resolution(s) No. ___ on the property. Said Notice of Restriction shall note the property description, location of the file containing complete project details and all conditions of approval as well as any conditions or restrictions specified for inclusion in the Notice of Restriction. The City Planner has the authority to execute and record an amendment to the notice which modifies or terminates said notice upon a showing of good cause by the Developer or successor in interest. 13. Developer shall submit and obtain City Planner approval of a Final Landscape and Irrigation Plan showing conformance with the approved Preliminary Landscape Plan and the City's Landscape Manual. Developer shall construct and install all landscaping and irrigation as shown on the approved Final plans. All landscaping shall be maintained in a healthy and thriving condition, free from weeds, trash, and debris. All irrigation systems shall be maintained to provide the optimum amount of water to the landscape for plant growth without causing soil erosion and runoff. 14. The first submittal of Final Landscape and Irrigation Plans shall be pursuant to the landscape plan check process on file in the Planning Division and accompanied by the project's building, improvement, and grading plans. 15. Developer shall establish a homeowner's association and corresponding covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&Rs). Said CC&Rs shall be submitted to and approved by the City Planner prior to final parcel map approval. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Developer shall provide the Planning Division with a recorded copy of the official CC&Rs that have been approved by the Department of Real Estate and the City Planner. At a minimum, the CC&Rs shall contain the following provisions: a. 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. b. Notice and Amendment: A copy of any proposed amendment shall be provided to the City in advance. If the proposed amendment affects the City, City shall have the right to disapprove. A copy of the final approved amendment shall be transmitted to City within 30 days for the official record. c. 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. d. 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 pro rata 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. e. Landscape Maintenance Responsibilities: The HOAs and individual lot or unit owner landscape maintenance responsibilities shall be as set forth in Exhibit ____ _ f. Balconies, trellis, and decks: The individual lot or unit owner allowances and prohibitions regarding balconies, trellis, and decks shall be as set forth in Exhibit ___ _ 16. Prior to issuance of building permits, the Developer shall submit to the City Planner a recorded copy of the Condominium Plan filed with the Bureau of Real Estate which is in conformance with the City-approved documents and exhibits. 17. Developer shall pay the citywide Public Facilities Fee imposed by City Council Policy #17, the License Tax on new construction imposed by Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 5.09.030, subject to any credits authorized by Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 5.09.040. Developer shall also pay any applicable Local Facilities Management Plan fee for Zone 1, pursuant to Chapter 21.90. All such taxes/fees shall be paid at issuance of building permit. If the taxes/fees are not paid, this approval will not be consistent with the General Plan and shall become void. 18. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners, shall be architecturally integrated and concealed from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets, in substance as provided in Building Department Policy No. 80-6, to the satisfaction of the Directors of Community Development and Planning. 19. If satisfaction of the school facility requirement involves a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District or other financing mechanism which is inconsistent with City Council Policy No. 38, by allowing a pass-through of the taxes or fees to individual home buyers, then in addition to any other disclosure required by law or Council policy, the Developer shall disclose to future owners in the project, to the maximum extent possible, the existence of the tax orfee, and that the school district is the taxing agency responsible for the financing mechanism. The form of notice is subject to the approval of the City Planner and shall at least include a handout and a sign inside the sales facility stating the fact of a potential pass-through of fees or taxes exists and where complete information regarding those fees or taxes can be obtained. 20. Developer shall display a current Zoning and Land Use Map, or an alternative, suitable to the City Planner, in the sales office or inside each unit, at all times. 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. 21. Developer shall post a sign in the sales office, or inside each unit, in a prominent location that discloses which special districts and school district provide service to the project. Said sign shall remain posted until ALL of the units are sold. 22. Developer shall submit and obtain City Planner approval of an exterior lighting plan including parking areas. All lighting shall be designed to reflect downward and avoid any impacts on adjacent homes or property. 23. Developer shall report, in writing, to the City Planner within 30 days, any address change from that which is shown on the permit application, any change in the telecommunications provider, or any transfer in ownership of the site. Engineering: General 24. Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to or from any proposed construction site within this project, developer shall apply for and obtain approval from, the city engineer for the proposed haul route. 25. This project is approved upon the express condition that building permits will not be issued for the development of the subject property, unless the district engineer has determined that adequate water and sewer facilities are available at the time of permit issuance and will continue to be available until time of occupancy. 26. Developer shall submit to the city engineer an acceptable instrument, via CC&Rs and/or other recorded document, addressing the maintenance, repair, and replacement of shared private improvements within this subdivision, including but not limited to private utilities, sidewalks, landscaping, permeable pavers, retaining walls, low impact development features and storm drain facilities located therein and to distribute the costs of such maintenance in an equitable manner among the owners of the properties within this subdivision. Fees/ Agreements 27. Developer shall cause property owner to execute and submit to the city engineer for recordation, the city's standard form Geologic Failure Hold Harmless Agreement. 28. Developer shall cause property owner to execute and submit to the city engineer for recordation the city's standard form Drainage Hold Harmless Agreement. 29. Developer shall cause owner to execute, for recordation, a city standard Local Improvement District Agreement to pay fair share contributions for undergrounding of all existing overhead utilities and installation of streetlights, as needed, along the subdivision frontage, should a future district be formed. Grading 30. Based upon a review of the proposed grading and the grading quantities shown on the Site Plan, a grading permit for this project is required. Developer shall prepare and submit plans and technical studies/reports as required by city engineer, post security and pay all applicable grading plan review and permit fees per the city's latest fee schedule. 31. Prior to approval of the grading plans, the applicant shall submit a Construction Plan to the city engineer for review and approval. Said Plan may be required to include, but not be limited to, identifying the location of the construction trailer, material staging, material deliveries, bathroom facilities, parking of construction vehicles, employee parking, construction fencing and gates, obtaining any necessary permission for off-site encroachment, addressing pedestrian safety, and identifying time restrictions for various construction activities. All material staging, construction trailers, bathroom facilities, etc. shall be located outside the public right-of-way unless otherwise approved by the city engineer or Construction Management & Inspection engineering manager. Storm Water Quality 32. Developer shall comply with the city's Stormwater Regulations, latest version, and shall implement best management practices at all times. Best management practices include but are not limited to pollution control practices or devices, erosion control to prevent silt runoff during construction, general housekeeping practices, pollution prevention and educational practices, maintenance procedures, and other management practices or devices to prevent or reduce the discharge of pollutants to stormwater, receiving water or stormwater conveyance system to the maximum extent practicable. Developer shall notify prospective owners and tenants of the above requirements. 33. Developer shall complete and submit to the city engineer a Determination of Project's SWPPP Tier Level and Construction Threat Level Form pursuant to City Engineering Standards. Developer shall also submit the appropriate Tier level Storm Water Compliance form and appropriate Tier level Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to the satisfaction of the city engineer. Developer shall pay all applicable SWPPP plan review and inspection fees per the city's latest fee schedule. 34. Developer shall complete the City of Carlsbad Standard Stormwater Requirement Checklist Form. Developer is responsible to ensure that all final design plans, grading plans, and building plans incorporate applicable best management practices (BMPs). These BMPs include site design, source control and Low Impact Design (LID) measures including, but not limited to, minimizing the use of impervious area (paving), routing run-off from impervious area to pervious/landscape areas, preventing illicit discharges into the storm drain and adding storm drain stenciling or signage all to the satisfaction of the city engineer. Dedications/Improvements 35. Developer shall design the private drainage systems, as shown on the Site Plan to the satisfaction of the city engineer. All private drainage systems (12" diameter storm drain and larger) shall be inspected by the city. Developer shall pay the standard improvement plan check and inspection fees for private drainage systems. 36. Prior to any work in city right-of-way or public easements, Developer shall apply for and obtain a right-of-way permit to the satisfaction of the city engineer. 37. Developer shall prepare and process public improvement plans and, prior to city engineer approval of said plans, shall execute a city standard Development Improvement Agreement to install and shall post security in accordance with C.M.C. Section 20.16.070 for public improvements shown on the Site Plan. Said improvements shall be installed to city standards to the satisfaction of the city engineer. These improvements include, but are not limited to: A. Curb and gutter B. Sidewalk C. Sewer laterals D. Water services/meters E. Sidewalk drains F. Asphalt concrete pavement G. Curb Ramp Developer shall pay the standard improvement plan check and inspection fees in accordance with the fee schedule. Improvements listed above shall be constructed within 36 months of approval of the subdivision or development improvement agreement or such other time as provided in said agreement. 38. Developer is responsible to ensure utility transformers or raised water backflow preventers that serve this development are located outside the right-of-way as shown on the Site Plan and to the satisfaction of the city engineer. These facilities shall be constructed within the property. Utilities 39. Developer shall meet with the fire marshal to determine if fire protection measures (fire flows, fire hydrant locations, building sprinklers) are required to serve the project. 40. Developer shall design and agree to construct public facilities within public right-of-way or within minimum 20-foot wide easements granted to the district or the City of Carlsbad. At the discretion of the district or city engineer, wider easements may be required for adequate maintenance, access and/or joint utility purposes. 41. Developer shall install potable water and/or recycled water services and meters at locations approved by the district engineer. The locations of said services shall be reflected on public improvement plans. 42. The developer shall agree to install sewer laterals and clean-outs at locations approved by the city engineer. The locations of sewer laterals shall be reflected on public improvement plans. 43. The developer shall design and agree to construct public water, sewer, and recycled water facilities substantially as shown on the Site Plan to the satisfaction of the district engineer and city engineer. Code Reminders The project is subject to all applicable provisions of local ordinances, including but not limited to the following: 44. Developer shall pay traffic impact and sewer impact fees based on Section 18.42 and Section 13.10 of the City of Carlsbad Municipal Code, respectively. The Average Daily Trips (ADT) and floor area contained in the staff report and shown on the Site Plan are for planning purposes only. 45. Developer shall pay planned local area drainage fees in accordance with Section 15.08.020 of the City of Carlsbad Municipal Code to the satisfaction of the city engineer. 46. Developer shall pay park-in-lieu fees to the City, prior to the approval of the final parcel map as required by Chapter 20.44 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. 47. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, Developer shall pay the Local Facilities Management fee for Zone 1 as required by Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.90.050. 48. Developer shall pay a landscape plan check and inspection fee as required by Section 20.08.050 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. 49. Approval of this request shall not excuse compliance with all applicable sections of the Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable City ordinances in effect at time of building permit issuance, except as otherwise specifically provided herein. 50. The project shall comply with the latest nonresidential disabled access requirements pursuant to Title 24 of the California Building Code. 51. Premise identification (addresses) shall be provided consistent with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 18.04.320. 52. Developer acknowledges that the project is required to comply with the city's greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction ordinances and requirements. GHG reduction requirements are in accordance with, but are not limited to, Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapters 18.21, 18.30, and 18.51 in addition to the California Green Building Standards Code (CCR, Title 24, Part 11-CALGreen), as amended from time to time. GHG reduction requirements may be different than what is proposed on the project plans or in the Climate Action Plan Checklist originally submitted with this project. Developer acknowledges that new GHG reduction requirements related to energy efficiency, photovoltaic, electric vehicle charging, water heating and traffic demand management requirements as set forth in the ordinances and codes may impact, but are not limited to, site design and local building code requirements. If incorporating GHG reduction requirements results in substantial modifications to the project, then prior to issuance of development (grading, building, etc.) permits, Developer may be required to submit and receive approval of a Consistency Determination or Amendment for this project through the Planning Division. Compliance with the applicable GHG reduction requirements must be demonstrated on or with the construction plans prior to issuance of the applicable development permits. NOTICE TO APPLICANT An appeal of this decision to the City Council must be filed with the City Clerk at 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, 92008, within ten (10) calendar days of the date of the Planning Commission's decision. Pursuant to Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 21.54, section 21.54.150, the appeal must be in writing and state the reason(s) for the appeal. The City Council must make a determination on the appeal prior to any judicial review. NOTICE Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the "imposition" of fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as "fees/exactions." You have 90 days from date of final approval to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section 66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul their imposition. You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning, zoning, grading, or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise expired. PACIFIC OCEAN O C E A N S T G A R F I E L D S T BEEC H A V E L C AMINO R E A L LA COSTA AV A L G A R D C A R L S B A D B L EIR 2022-0005 / PUD 2021-0003 / SDP 2021-0008 / CDP 2021-0010 / NCP 2021-0001 / MS 2023-0002 Three on Garfield SITE MAP J SITE Map generated on: 8/2/2024 Exhibit 3 Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 84 of 128 PROJECT ANALYSIS Exhibit 4 (GENERAL PLAN, MUNICIPAL CODE, AND OTHER REGULATIONS) PROJECT ANALYSIS The project is subject to the following regulations: A.General Plan R-15 Land Use Designation B.Multiple-Family Residential (R-3) Zone, Planned Development Regulations and Beach Area Overlay Zone (BAOZ) (CMC Chapter 21.16, 21.45, 21.82) C.Local Coastal Program (Mello II Segment) D.Subdivision Ordinance E.Nonconforming Lots, Structures, and Uses (CMC Chapter 21.48) F.Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (CMC Chapter 21.85) G.Growth Management Ordinance (CMC Chapter 21.90) and Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 1 The recommendation for approval of this project was developed by analyzing the project’s consistency with the applicable regulations and policies. The project’s compliance with each of the above regulations is discussed in detail within the sections below. A.General Plan R-15 Residential Land Use Designation The General Plan Land Use designation for the property is R-15 Residential which allows residential development at a density range of 8-15 dwelling units per acre (du/ac). The project site has a net developable acreage of 0.16 acres. The project’s proposed density of 18.75 du/ac exceeds the R-15 density range of 8-15 du/ac. Approval of a Nonconforming Construction Permit (NCP) is required to allow the continuation of the legally established use of three dwelling units on a property. The project also complies with the other Elements of the General Plan as outlined in Table “A” below: TABLE A – GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE Element Use, Classification, Goal, Objective or Program Proposed Uses & Improvements Comply? Land Use Goal 2-G.3 Promote infill development that makes efficient use of limited land supply, while ensuring compatibility and integration with existing uses. Ensure that infill properties develop with uses and development intensities supporting a cohesive development pattern. Policy 2-P.7 Do not permit residential development below the minimum of the density range except in certain circumstances. The proposed three-unit residential infill development makes efficient use of the existing lot in that it maintains the number of units on the lot. A three-unit development is compatible with the surrounding development. The three-unit residential project has a density of 18.75 dwelling units per acre which, exceed the R-15 Residential density range of 8-15 du/ac. Approval of a Nonconforming Construction Permit (NCP) allows the continuation of the legally established use of three dwelling units on a property. Yes Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 85 of 128 PROJECT ANALYSIS (GENERAL PLAN, MUNICIPAL CODE, AND OTHER REGULATIONS) Element Use, Classification, Goal, Objective or Program Proposed Uses & Improvements Comply? Housing Program 2.1 For all residential projects of fewer than seven units, payment of a fee in lieu of inclusionary units is permitted. Goal 10-G.1 New housing developed with diversity of types, prices, tenures, densities, and locations, and in sufficient quantity to meet the demand of anticipated city and regional growth and to meet or exceed the city’s established Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). The project maintains the number of units at three, therefore, payment of an in-lieu fee on a per unit basis is not required. This housing development will help ensure the city achieves its goal of contributing housing with diversity of types, prices, tenures, densities, and locations, and in sufficient quantity to meet the demand of anticipated city and regional growth and to meet or exceed the city’s established Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). Per Government Code Section 65863 (aka No Net Loss Law) a city cannot approve new housing at significantly lower densities or at different income categories than was projected in the RHNA of the Housing Element without making specific findings and identifying other sites that could accommodate these units and affordability levels “lost” as a result of the approval. The so-called “no net loss” provisions apply when a site is included in the jurisdiction’s Housing Element’s inventory of sites and is either rezoned to a lower residential density or is approved at a lower residential density than shown in the Housing Element. The project site is not identified in the City’s General Plan Housing Element Residential Sites Inventory for the 6th RHNA Planning Cycle. Because the provision of “no net loss” applies to housing located on any site listed in the City’s Housing Element, the City does not need to Yes Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 86 of 128 PROJECT ANALYSIS (GENERAL PLAN, MUNICIPAL CODE, AND OTHER REGULATIONS) Element Use, Classification, Goal, Objective or Program Proposed Uses & Improvements Comply? determine if this project or a decision related to this project would be subject to No Net Loss Law and its remedies. Mobility Policy 3-P.5 Require developers to construct or pay their fair share toward improvements for all travel modes consistent with the Mobility Element, the Growth Management Plan, and specific impacts associated with their development. The proposed project has been designed to meet all of the circulation requirements, including a single driveway access point off Beech Avenue. The applicant will be required to pay any applicable traffic impact fees prior to issuance of building permit that will go toward future road improvements. Yes Noise Goal 5-G.2 Ensure that new development is compatible with the noise environment, by continuing to use potential noise exposure as a criterion in land use planning. The proposed project is consistent with the Noise Element of the General Plan in that the structure will comply with Title 24 requirements and is more than 500 feet away from a noise-producing transportation corridor. Yes Public Safety Goal 6-G.1 Minimize injury, loss of life, and damage to property resulting from fire, flood, hazardous material release, or seismic disasters. Policy 6-P.6 Enforce the requirements of Titles 18, 20, and 21 pertaining to drainage and flood control when reviewing applications for building permits and subdivisions. Policy 6-P.34 Enforce the Uniform Building and Fire codes, adopted by the city, to provide fire protection standards for all existing and proposed structures. The proposed structure will be required to be designed in conformance with all seismic design standards. In addition, the project is consistent with all of the applicable fire safety requirements including fire sprinklers. Additionally, the proposed project is not located in an area of known geologic instability or flood hazard and the site is not located in an area prone to landslides, or susceptible to accelerated erosion, floods or liquefaction. Furthermore, the project has been conditioned to develop and implement a program of “best management practices” for the elimination and reduction of pollutants which enter into and/or are transported within storm drainage facilities. Yes Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 87 of 128 PROJECT ANALYSIS (GENERAL PLAN, MUNICIPAL CODE, AND OTHER REGULATIONS) Element Use, Classification, Goal, Objective or Program Proposed Uses & Improvements Comply? Sustainability Policy 9-P.1 – Enforce the Climate Action Plan (CAP) as the city’s strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The new dwelling unit will employ a photovoltaic system, heat pump water heater, and one electric vehicle service equipment (EVSE) ready parking space in accordance with the CAP. Yes B. Multiple-Family Residential (R-3) Zone (Chapter 21.16), Planned Development Regulations (Chapter 21.45), and Beach Area Overlay Zone (BAOZ) (Chapter 21.82) The proposed project is required to comply with all applicable land use and development standards of the Carlsbad Municipal Code (CMC) including the Multiple-Family Residential (R-3) Zone (CMC Chapter 21.16), Planned Developments (CMC Chapter 21.45), and the Beach Area Overlay Zone (BAOZ) (CMC Chapter 21.82). The three-unit, residential air-space condominium project meets or exceeds the requirements of the R-3 Zone and the BAOZ as outlined in Table D below. The existing buildings are taller than the current height requirements in the beach area overlay. The Planned Development regulations provide most of the development standards with the exception of those listed in the table below. The project complies with all applicable development standards for Planned Developments (CMC Chapter 21.45). Please refer to Exhibit No. 5 for an analysis of project compliance with Tables C & E of the Planned Development regulations. The project is also subject to City Council Policy No. 66 – Livable Neighborhoods. Please refer to Attachment No. 5 for a detailed analysis of project compliance with City Council Policy No. 66. TABLE B – BAOZ AND R-3 COMPLIANCE C. Local Coastal Program (Mello II Segment) 1. Mello II Segment of the Certified Local Coastal Program and all applicable policies The proposed site is located in the Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program (LCP) and is within the BAOZ Standards Required Proposed Comply? Building Height 30 feet with a minimum 3:12 roof pitch provided or 24 feet if less than a 3:12 roof pitch is provided 30 feet with 3:12 roof pitch Yes Guest Parking A 0.30 space per each unit or fraction thereof. One Guest Parking Space Yes R-3 Standards Required Proposed Comply? Setbacks Interior Side: 10% Lot Width – 5’ Rear: 20% Lot Width – 10’ Interior Side: 20’ Rear: 14’ Yes Lot Coverage 60% Maximum 39.6% Yes Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 88 of 128 PROJECT ANALYSIS (GENERAL PLAN, MUNICIPAL CODE, AND OTHER REGULATIONS) appealable area of the California Coastal Commission. The project site has an LCP Land Use designation of R-15 Residential and Zoning of R-3, which are consistent with the City’s General Plan and Zoning. The project’s consistency with the R-15 General Plan Land Use designation is analyzed in Section A, Table “C” above. The project consists of a three-unit, three-story air-space condominium project. The proposed project is compatible with the surrounding development of single-, two- and multi-family residential structures. The three-story structure will not obstruct views of the coastline as seen from public lands or the public right- of-way, nor otherwise damage the visual beauty of the coastal zone. No agricultural uses currently exist on the previously graded site, nor are there any sensitive resources located on the developable portion of the site. The proposed project is not located in an area of known geologic instability or flood hazard. Since the site does not have frontage along the coastline, no public opportunities for coastal shoreline access are available from the subject site. Furthermore, the residentially designated site is not suited for water-oriented recreation activities. 2. Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone The project is consistent with the provisions of the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone (CMC Chapter 21.203 of the Zoning Ordinance) in that the project will adhere to the City’s Master Drainage Plan, Grading Ordinance, Storm Water Ordinance, BMP Design Manual and Jurisdictional Runoff Management Program (JRMP) to avoid increased urban run-off, pollutants and soil erosion. The subject property does not include steep slopes (equal to or greater than 25 percent gradient) nor native vegetation. In addition, the site is not located in an area prone to landslides, or susceptible to accelerated erosion, floods or liquefaction. D. Subdivision Ordinance The Land Development Engineering Division has reviewed the proposed Minor Subdivision and has found that the subdivision complies with all applicable requirements of the Subdivision Map Act and the city’s Subdivision Ordinance (Title 20) for Minor Subdivisions. The subdivision is considered minor because it involves the division of land into four or fewer condominiums (three air-space condominiums proposed). The project has been conditioned to install all infrastructure-related improvements and the necessary easements for these improvements concurrent with the development. E. Nonconforming Lots, Structures, and Uses (CMC Chapter 21.48) Based on the size of the lot (0.16 acres) and the allowed density on the property’s land use designation (R-15, or 8-15 dwelling units per acre), a maximum of two units are allowed on the property. Pursuant to CMC Section 21.48.050(E), a nonconforming residential use that is proposed to be voluntarily demolished may be replaced subject to issuance of all required discretionary and building permits and provided that an application for a nonconforming construction permit is submitted and the decision- maker approves the findings of fact pursuant to CMC Section 21.48.080.D prior to the date of the demolition. Approval of a Nonconforming Construction Permit (NCP) is required to allow the continuation of the legally established use of three dwelling units on the subject property. F. Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 89 of 128 PROJECT ANALYSIS (GENERAL PLAN, MUNICIPAL CODE, AND OTHER REGULATIONS) For all residential development less than seven units, the inclusionary housing requirement may be satisfied through the payment of an inclusionary housing in-lieu fee. However, pursuant to Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.85.030(D)(3), the construction of a new residential structure which replaces a residential structure that was destroyed or demolished within two years prior to the application for a building permit for the new residential structure is exempt from affordable housing requirements. Payment of in-lieu housing fee is not required as the proposal to demolish the existing three-unit condominium and construct a new three-unit residential condominium does not increase the number of units on the property. If a building permit for the new units is not issued within two years after the demolition of the existing units, the inclusionary housing in-lieu fee will be required. G. Growth Management The proposed project is located within Local Facilities Management Zone 1 in the northwest quadrant of the city. There will be no impact to public facilities because there will be no net increase in the number of dwelling units on site which will remain at two. TABLE C – GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMPLIANCE STANDARD IMPACTS COMPLIANCE City Administration no impact Yes Library no impact Yes Wastewater Treatment no impact Yes Parks no impact Yes Drainage N/A (Developed Site) N/A Circulation no impact Yes Fire no impact Yes Open Space no impact Yes Schools no impact Yes Sewer Collection System no impact Yes Water no impact Yes Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 90 of 128 PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS (CMC SECTION 21.45.060) TABLE C: GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO ALL PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS REF. NO. SUBJECT DEVELOPMENT STANDARD COMPLIANCE COMMENT C.1 Density Per the underlying General Plan designation. When two or more general plan land use designations exist within a planned development, the density may be transferred from one general plan designation to another with a general plan amendment. N/A C.2 Arterial Setbacks All dwelling units adjacent to any arterial road shown on the Circulation Element of the General Plan shall maintain the following minimum setbacks from the right-of-way: Prime Arterial 50 Feet Major Arterial 40 Feet Secondary Arterial 30 Feet Carlsbad Boulevard 20 Feet N/A Half (50%) of the required arterial setback area located closest to the arterial shall be fully landscaped to enhance the street scene and buffer homes from traffic on adjacent arterials, and: • Shall contain a minimum of one 24” box tree for every 30 lineal feet of street frontage; and • Shall be commonly owned and maintained N/A Project perimeter walls greater than 42 inches in height shall not be located in the required landscaped portion of the arterial setback, except noise attenuation walls that: • Are required by a noise study, and • Due to topography, are necessary to be placed within the required landscaped portion of the arterial setback. N/A C.3 Permitted Intrusions into Setbacks/ Building Separation Permitted intrusions into required building setbacks shall be the same as specified in Section 21.46.120 of this code. The same intrusions specified in Section 21.46.120 shall be permitted into required building separation. CMC Section 21.46.120 permits a 2- foot chimney and roof eave intrusions into required yards. Proposed chimney and roof eave intrusions meet this requirement. C.4 Streets Private Minimum right-of-way width 56 feet N/A Minimum curb-to-curb width 34 feet Minimum parkway width (curb adjacent) 5.5 feet, including curb Minimum sidewalk width 5 feet (setback 6 inches from property line) Public Minimum right-of-way width 60 feet N/A Minimum curb-to-curb width 34 feet Minimum parkway width (curb adjacent) 7.5 feet, including curb Minimum sidewalk width 5 feet (setback 6 inches from property line) Street Trees within parkways One-family dwellings and twin homes on small-lots A minimum of one street tree (24-inch box) per lot is required to be planted in the parkway along all streets. N/A Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 91 of 128 Exhibit 5 Condominium projects Street trees shall be spaced no further apart than 30 feet on center within the parkway. A conceptual landscape plan has been reviewed and deemed complete by the city. The project is conditioned to require final landscape plan approval. Tree species should be selected to create a unified image for the street, provide an effective canopy, avoid sidewalk damage and minimize water consumption. A conceptual landscape plan has been reviewed and deemed complete by the city. The project is conditioned to require final landscape plan approval. C.5 Drive-aisles 3 or fewer dwelling units Minimum 12 feet wide when the drive-aisle is not required for emergency vehicle access, as determined by the Fire Chief. The project drive-aisle is 20’-5” wide. Project complies. If the drive-aisle is required for emergency vehicle access, it shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide. 4 or more dwelling units Minimum 20 feet wide. N/A All projects No parking shall be permitted within the minimum required width of a drive-aisle. Project does not propose any parking within the drive-aisle. Project complies. A minimum 24-foot vehicle back-up/maneuvering area shall be provided in front of garages, carports or uncovered parking spaces (this may include driveway area, drive-aisles, and streets). Each parking space, including visitor parking space includes a minimum 24 ft. vehicle back- up/maneuvering area behind each space. Project complies. Additional width may be required for vehicle/emergency vehicle maneuvering area. N/A Parkways and/or sidewalks may be required. Project is conditioned to construct infrastructure improvements where necessary. No more than 24 dwelling units shall be located along a single-entry drive-aisle. N/A All drive-aisles shall be enhanced with decorative pavement. Project proposes to provide decorative pavement on the drive- aisle. C.6 Number of Visitor Parking Spaces Required (1) Projects with 10 units or fewer A .30 space per each unit. Project proposes three units. At 0.30 spaces per units, the project requires 0.9 spaces or 1 space on rounding up to the nearest whole number. Project provides one visitor parking space. Project complies. Projects 11 units or more A .25 space per each unit. When calculating the required number of visitor parking spaces, if the calculation results in a fractional parking space, the required number of visitor parking spaces shall always be rounded up to the nearest whole number. C.7 Location of Visitor Parking On Private/ Public Streets On-street visitor parking is permitted on private/public streets, subject to the following: • The private/public street is a minimum 34-feet wide (curb- to-curb) • There are no restrictions that would prohibit on-street parking where the visitor parking is proposed • The visitor parking spaces may be located: o Along one or both sides of any private/public street(s) located within the project boundary, and o Along the abutting side and portion of any existing public/private street(s) that is contiguous to the project boundary N/A Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 92 of 128 In parking bays along public/private streets within the project boundary, provided the parking bays are outside the minimum required street right-of-way width. N/A When visitor parking is provided as on-street parallel parking, not less than 24 lineal feet per space, exclusive of driveway/drive-aisle entrances and aprons, shall be provided for each parking space, except where parallel parking spaces are located immediately adjacent to driveway/drive-aisle aprons, then 20 lineal feet may be provided. N/A Within the Beach Area Overlay Zone, on-street parking shall not count toward meeting the visitor parking requirement. Project is located within the BAOZ. All required visitor parking is being provided onsite. Project complies. On Drive- aisles Visitor parking must be provided in parking bays that are located outside the required minimum drive-aisle width. Project proposes one visitor parking space on-site located outside of the required minimum driveway width. Project complies. On a Driveway Outside the Beach Area Overlay Zone One required visitor parking space may be credited for each driveway in a project that has a depth of 40 feet or more. N/A For projects with 10 or fewer units, all required visitor parking may be located within driveways (located in front of a unit’s garage), provided that all dwelling units in the project have driveways with a depth of 20 feet or more. N/A Within the Beach Area Overlay Zone One required visitor parking space may be credited for each driveway in a project that has a depth of 40 feet or more. N/A If the streets within and/or adjacent to the project allow for on-street parking on both sides of the street, then visitor parking may be located in a driveway, subject to the following: • All required visitor parking may be located within driveways (located in front of a unit’s garage), provided that all dwelling units in the project have driveways with a depth of 20 feet or more. • If less than 100% of the driveways in a project have a depth of 20 feet or more, then a .25 visitor parking space will be credited for each driveway in a project that has a depth of 20 feet or more (calculations resulting in a fractional parking space credit shall always be rounded down to the nearest whole number). N/A All projects The minimum driveway depth required for visitor parking (20 feet or 40 feet) applies to driveways for front or side-loaded garages, and is measured from the property line, back of sidewalk, or from the edge of the drive-aisle, whichever is closest to the structure. N/A Compact Parking For projects of more than 25 units, up to 25% of visitor parking may be provided as compact spaces (8 feet by 15 feet). No overhang is permitted into any required setback area or over sidewalks less than 6 feet wide. N/A Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 93 of 128 For all projects within the Beach Area Overlay Zone, up to 55% of the visitor parking may be provided as compact spaces (8 feet by 15 feet). N/A Distance from unit Visitor parking spaces must be located no more than 300 feet as measured in a logical walking path from the entrance of the unit it could be considered to serve. Distance from visitor parking spaces to furthest unit is less than 300 ft. Project complies. C.8 Screening of Parking Areas Open parking areas should be screened from adjacent residences and public rights-of-way by either a view-obscuring wall, landscaped berm, or landscaping, except parking located within a driveway. The visitor parking spaces will be screened from adjacent residences and public right-of-way by landscaping, and walls. Project complies. C.9 Community Recreational Space (1) Community recreational space shall be provided for all projects of 11 or more dwelling units, as follows: N/A Minimum community recreational space required Project is NOT within R-23 general plan designation 200 square feet per unit Project IS within R-23 general plan designation 150 square feet per unit Projects with 11 to 25 dwelling units Community recreational space shall be provided as either (or both) passive or active recreation facilities. N/A Projects with 26 or more dwelling units Community recreational space shall be provided as both passive and active recreational facilities with a minimum of 75% of the area allocated for active facilities. N/A Projects with 50 or more dwelling units Community recreational space shall be provided as both passive and active recreational facilities for a variety of age groups (a minimum of 75% of the area allocated for active facilities). N/A For projects consisting of one-family dwellings or twin homes on small-lots, at least 25% of the community recreation space must be provided as pocket parks. • Pocket park lots must have a minimum width of 50 feet and be located at strategic locations such as street intersections (especially “T- intersections”) and where open space vistas may be achieved. N/A All projects (with 11 or more dwelling units) Community recreational space shall be located and designed so as to be functional, usable, and easily accessible from the units it is intended to serve. N/A Credit for indoor recreation facilities shall not exceed 25% of the required community recreation area. N/A Required community recreation areas shall not be located in any required front yard and may not include any streets, drive-aisles, driveways, parking areas, storage areas, slopes of 5% or greater, or walkways (except those walkways that are clearly integral to the design of the recreation area). N/A Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 94 of 128 Recreation Area Parking In addition to required resident and visitor parking, recreation area parking shall be provided, as follows: 1 space for each 15 residential units, or fraction thereof, for units located more than 1,000 feet from a community recreation area. N/A The location of recreation area parking shall be subject to the same location requirements as for visitor parking, except that required recreation area parking shall not be located within a driveway(s). N/A Examples of recreation facilities include, but are not limited to, the following: Active Swimming pool area Children’s playground equipment Spa Courts (tennis, racquetball, volleyball, basketball) Recreation rooms or buildings Horseshoe pits Pitch and putt Grassy play areas with a slope of less than 5% (minimum area of 5,000 square feet and a minimum dimension of 50 feet) Any other facility deemed by the City Planner to satisfy the intent of providing active recreational facilities Passive Benches Barbecues Community gardens Grassy play areas with a slope of less than 5% C.10 Lighting Lighting adequate for pedestrian and vehicular safety shall be provided. The project is conditioned to complete a final lighting plan. Appropriate lighting for the three- unit project will be evaluated with the final lighting plan. Project complies. C.11 Reserved C.12 Recreational Vehicle (RV) Storage (1) Required for projects with 100 or more units, or a master or specific plan with 100 or more planned development units. Exception: RV storage is not required for projects located within the R-15 or R-23 land use designations. N/A 20 square feet per unit, not to include area required for driveways and approaches. Developments located within master plans or residential specific plans may have this requirement met by the common RV storage area provided by the master plan or residential specific plan. RV storage areas shall be designed to accommodate recreational vehicles of various sizes (i.e. motorhomes, campers, boats, personal watercraft, etc.). N/A The storage of recreational vehicles shall be prohibited in the front yard setback and on any public or private streets or any other area visible to the public. A provision containing this restriction shall be included in the covenants, conditions and restrictions for the project. All RV storage areas shall be screened from adjacent residences and public rights-of-way by a view-obscuring wall and landscaping. N/A C.13 480 cubic feet of separate storage space per unit. N/A Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 95 of 128 Storage Space If all storage for each unit is located in one area, the space may be reduced to 392 cubic feet. Required storage space shall be separately enclosed for each unit and be conveniently accessible to the outdoors. N/A Required storage space may be designed as an enlargement of a covered parking structure provided it does not extend into the area of the required parking stall, and does not impede the ability to utilize the parking stall (for vehicle parking). N/A A garage (12’x20’ one-car, 20’x20’ two-car, or larger) satisfies the required storage space per unit. Each unit proposes a 20’x20’ two- car garage. Project complies. This requirement is in addition to closets and other indoor storage areas. N/A (1) This standard does not apply to housing for senior citizens (see Chapter 21.84 of this code). Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 96 of 128 PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS (CMC SECTION 21.45.080) TABLE E: CONDOMINIUM PROJECTS REF. NO. SUBJECT DEVELOPMENT STANDARD COMPLIANCE COMMENT E.1 Livable Neighborhood Policy Must comply with City Council Policy 66, Principles for the Development of Livable Neighborhoods. SEE SEPARATE COMPLIANCE CHART E.2 Architectural Requirements One-family and two-family dwellings Must comply with City Council Policy 44, Neighborhood Architectural Design Guidelines N/A Multiple-family dwellings There shall be at least three separate building planes on all building elevations. The minimum offset in planes shall be 18 inches and shall include, but not be limited to, building walls, windows, and roofs. The building contains separate building planes on all building elevations that are at a minimum of 18”. Project complies. All building elevations shall incorporate a minimum of four complimentary design elements, including but not limited to: • A variety of roof planes; • Windows and doors recessed a minimum of 2 inches; • Decorative window or door frames; • Exposed roof rafter tails; • Dormers; • Columns; • Arched elements; • Varied window shapes; • Exterior wood elements; • Accent materials such as brick, stone, shingles, wood, or siding; • Knee braces; and • Towers. The building features several complementary materials, including fiber-concrete panels, synthetic wood-grain siding, stone veneer, and stucco. Other finishes include glass balcony railings, black vinyl recessed windows, and a 3:12 pitch asphalt-shingle roof. Project complies. E.3 Maximum Coverage 60% of total project net developable acreage. Proposed building coverage is 39.6% of the net lot area (0.16 acres). Project complies. E.4 Maximum Building Height Same as required by the underlying zone, and not to exceed three stories (1)(7) The project is located within the BAOZ, and therefore pursuant to Footnote #1 below, building height shall be subject to the requirements of C.M.C. Chapter 21.82.050, which states that no residential structure shall exceed 30 feet when providing a minimum 3:12 roof pitch, or 24 feet when providing less than a 3:12 roof pitch. The project is proposing a building height of 30’ with a 3:12 roof pitch. Project complies. Projects within the R- 23 general plan designation (1)(7) 40 feet, if roof pitch is 3:12 or greater N/A. The project is located within the BAOZ. Therefore, pursuant to Footnote #1 below, building height shall be subject to the requirements of C.M.C. Chapter 21.82 as discussed above. The building does not exceed three stories. Project complies. 35 feet, if roof pitch is less than 3:12 Building height shall not exceed three stories Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 97 of 128 PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS (CMC SECTION 21.45.080) TABLE E: CONDOMINIUM PROJECTS REF. NO. SUBJECT DEVELOPMENT STANDARD COMPLIANCE COMMENT E.5 Minimum Building Setbacks From a private or public street(2)(3) Residential structure 10 feet The proposed building does not have direct-entry garages and the proposed front yard setback is 20 feet. The proposed corner side setback is 10 feet. Project complies. Direct entry garage 20 feet From a drive- aisle(4) Residential structure (except as specified below) 5 feet, fully landscaped (walkways providing access to dwelling entryways may be located within required landscaped area) N/A. Project is less than 25 units and located within the R-15 General Plan designation (see section below for compliance). Residential structure – directly above a garage 0 feet when projecting over the front of a garage. N/A. Project is less than 25 units and located within the R-15 General Plan designation (see section below for compliance). Garage 3 feet N/A. Project is less than 25 units and located within the R-15 General Plan designation (see section below for compliance). Garages facing directly onto a drive-aisle shall be equipped with an automatic garage door opener. Projects of 25 units or less within the R- 15 and R-23 general plan designations 0 feet (residential structure and garage) N/A Garages facing directly onto a drive-aisle shall be equipped with an automatic garage door opener. The project is required to comply with all applicable sections of the Zoning Ordinance. Balconies/ decks (unenclosed and uncovered) 0 feet N/A May cantilever over a drive-aisle, provided the balcony/deck complies with all other applicable requirements, such as: • Setbacks from property lines • Building separation • Fire and Engineering Department requirements From the perimeter property lines of the project site (not adjacent to a public/private street) The building setback from an interior side or rear perimeter property line shall be the same as required by the underlying zone for an interior side or rear yard setback. The underlying zone for the project is R-3. The required interior side yard setback for R-3 is 10% of the lot width or 7 feet for this property. The project has an interior side yard setback of 24 feet. The required rear yard setback for R-3 is double the interior side yard or 14 feet for this property. The project provides a rear yard setback of 14 feet. Project complies. E.6 Minimum Building Separation 10 feet N/A Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 98 of 128 PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS (CMC SECTION 21.45.080) TABLE E: CONDOMINIUM PROJECTS REF. NO. SUBJECT DEVELOPMENT STANDARD COMPLIANCE COMMENT E.7 Resident Parking (6) All dwelling types If a project is located within the R-23 general plan designation, resident parking shall be provided as specified below, and may also be provided as follows: • 25% of the units in the project may include a tandem two-car garage (minimum 12 feet x 40 feet). • Calculations for this provision resulting in a fractional unit may be rounded up to the next whole number. N/A One-family and two- family dwellings 2 spaces per unit, provided as either: • a two-car garage (minimum 20 feet x 20 feet), or • 2 separate one-car garages (minimum 12 feet x 20 feet each) • In the R-W Zone, the 2 required parking spaces may be provided as 1 covered space and 1 uncovered space (5) N/A Multiple- family dwellings Studio and one-bedroom units 1.5 spaces per unit, 1 of which must be covered (5) N/A When calculating the required number of parking spaces, if the calculation results in a fractional parking space, the required number of parking spaces shall always be rounded up to the nearest whole number. Units with two or more bedrooms 2 spaces per unit, provided as either: • a one-car garage (12 feet x 20 feet) and 1 covered or uncovered space; or(5) • a two-car garage (minimum 20 feet x 20 feet), or • 2 separate one-car garages (minimum 12 feet x 20 feet each) • In the R-W Zone and the Beach Area Overlay Zone, the 2 required parking spaces may be provided as 1 covered space and 1 uncovered space (5) Each unit proposes a two-car garage with minimum interior dimensions of 20’x20’. Project complies. Required parking may be provided within an enclosed parking garage with multiple, open parking spaces, subject to the following: • Each parking space shall maintain a standard stall size of 8.5 feet by 20 feet, exclusive of supporting columns; and • A backup distance of 24 feet shall be maintained in addition to a minimum 5 feet turning bump-out located at the end of any stall series. N/A Required resident parking spaces shall be located no more than 150 feet as measured in a logical walking path from the entrance of the units it could be considered to serve. All three units provide internal garage access. Project complies. E.8 Private Recreational Space One-family, two-family, and multiple- Required private recreational space shall be designed so as to be functional, usable, and easily accessible from the dwelling it is intended to serve. All three units have required private recreational space located adjacent Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 99 of 128 PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS (CMC SECTION 21.45.080) TABLE E: CONDOMINIUM PROJECTS REF. NO. SUBJECT DEVELOPMENT STANDARD COMPLIANCE COMMENT family dwellings Required private recreational space shall be located adjacent to the unit the area is intended to serve. to the unit and exclusive to each unit. Project complies. Required private recreational space shall not be located within any required front yard setback area, and may not include any driveways, parking areas, storage areas, or common walkways. One-family and two- family dwellings Minimum total area per unit Projects not within the R- 15 or R-23 general plan designations 400 square feet N/A Projects within the R-15 or R-23 general plan designations 200 square feet May consist of more than one recreational space. N/A May be provided at ground level and/or as a deck/balcony on a second/third floor or roof. N/A If provided at ground level Minimum dimension Not within the R-15 or R- 23 general plan designations 15 feet N/A Within the R-15 or R-23 general plan designations 10 feet Shall not have a slope gradient greater than 5%. N/A Attached solid patio covers and decks/balconies may project into a required private recreational space, subject to the following: • The depth of the projection shall not exceed 6 feet (measured from the wall of the dwelling that is contiguous to the patio/deck/balcony). The length of the projection shall not be limited, except as required by any setback or lot coverage standards. N/A Open or lattice-top patio covers may be located within the required private recreation space (provided the patio cover complies with all applicable standards, including the required setbacks). N/A If provided above ground level as a deck/ balcony or roof deck Minimum dimension 6 feet N/A Minimum area 60 square feet Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 100 of 128 PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS (CMC SECTION 21.45.080) TABLE E: CONDOMINIUM PROJECTS REF. NO. SUBJECT DEVELOPMENT STANDARD COMPLIANCE COMMENT Multiple-family dwellings Minimum total area per unit (patio, porch, or balcony) 60 square feet The project exceeds the minimum 60 square-foot requirement for each unit. Project complies. Minimum dimension of patio, porch or balcony 6 feet The balconies and/or patios counted towards the minimum requirement have at least a 6-foot dimension. Project complies. Projects of 11 or more units that are within the R-23 general plan designation may opt to provide an additional 75 square feet of community recreation space per unit (subject to the standards specified in Table C of this Chapter), in lieu of providing the per unit private recreational space specified above. N/A (1) If a project is located within the Beach Area Overlay Zone, building height shall be subject to the requirements of Chapter 21.82 of this code. (2) See Table C in Section 21.45.060 for required setbacks from an arterial street. (3) Building setbacks shall be measured from the outside edge of the required street right-of-way width, whichever is closest to the building. (4) Building setbacks shall be measured from one of the following (whichever is closest to the building): a) the outside edge of the required drive-aisle width; b) the back of sidewalk; or c) the nearest side of a parking bay located contiguous to a drive-aisle (excluding parking located in a driveway in front of a unit’s garage). (5) Any uncovered required parking space in the R-W zone may be located within a required front yard setback and may be tandem. (6) This standard does not apply to housing for senior citizens (see Chapter 21.84 of this code). (7) Protrusions above the height limit shall be allowed pursuant to Section 21.46.020 of this code. Such protrusions include protective barriers for balconies and roof decks. Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 101 of 128 CITY COUNCIL POLICY 66 – LIVABLE NEIGHBORHOODS Principle Compliance Comments 1 Building Facades, Front Entries, Porches Facades create interest and character and should be varied and articulated to provide visual interest to pedestrians. Clearly identifiable front doors and porches enhance the street scene and create opportunities for greater social interaction within the neighborhood. Building entries and windows should face the street. Front porches, bay windows, courtyards and balconies are encouraged. The project proposes a well- articulated front façade with multiple architectural features and multiple complimentary finishes creating visual interest. The front door for all units are oriented towards Garfield Street. Project complies. 2 Garages Homes should be designed to feature the residence as the prominent part of the structure in relation to the street. A variety of garage configurations should be used to improve the street scene. This may include tandem garages, side- loaded garages, front-loaded garages, alley-loaded garages and recessed garages. The project proposes a drive-aisle along the side/rear of the building, which improves the street scene by side-loading the garages. Project complies. 3 Street Design An interconnected, modified (grid) street pattern should be incorporated into project designs when there are no topographic or environmental constraints. Interconnected streets provide pedestrians and automobiles many alternative routes to follow, disperse traffic and reduce the volume of cars on any one street in the neighborhood. Streets should be designed to provide both vehicular and pedestrian connectivity by minimizing the use of cul-de-sacs. The street network should also be designed to create a safer, more comfortable pedestrian and bicycling environment. Local residential streets should have travel and parking lanes, be sufficiently narrow to slow traffic, provide adequate access for emergency and service vehicles and emergency evacuation routes for residents and include parkways with trees to form a pleasing canopy over the street. Local residential streets are the public open space in which children often play and around which neighborhoods interact. Within this context, vehicular movement should be additionally influenced through the use of City-accepted designs for traffic calming measures. The proposed project is a three-unit attached condominium within a 0.16-acre lot. Street design is not applicable to this project. Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 102 of 128 4 Parkways Street trees should be planted in the parkways along all streets. Tree species should be selected to create a unified image for the street, provide an effective canopy, avoid sidewalk damage and minimize water consumption. A conceptual landscape plan has been reviewed and deemed complete by the city. The project is conditioned to require final landscape plan approval and comply with all applicable requirements. 5 Pedestrian Walkways Pedestrian walkways should be located along or visible from all streets. Walkways (sidewalks or trails) should provide clear, comfortable and direct access to neighborhood schools, parks/plazas and transit stops. Primary pedestrian routes should be bordered by residential fronts, parks or plazas. Where street connections are not feasible (at the end of cul-de-sacs), pedestrian paths should also be provided. The proposed project is a three-unit attached condominium within a 0.16-acre lot. Pedestrian walkways beyond the subject private property are not applicable to this project. 6 Centralized Community Recreation Areas Park or plazas, which serve as neighborhood meeting places and as recreational activity centers should be incorporated into all planned unit developments. As frequently as possible, these parks/plazas should be designed for both active and passive uses for residents of all ages and should be centrally located within the project. Parks and plazas should not be sited on residual parcels, used as buffers from surrounding developments or to separate buildings from streets. The proposed project is a three-unit attached condominium within a 0.16-acre lot. Centralized community recreation areas are not applicable to this project. Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 103 of 128 1 Unit 2689 was purchased in 2016; 2687 in 2018 and 2685 in 2020. Exhibit 6 Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 104 of 128 rm Worden Williams LLP 1!£1 Trusted Legal Services Since 1.975 Areas Of Practice Real Estate Estate Planning & Administration Business Land Use & Environmental Litigation Public Agency Attorneys D. Wayne Brechtel Kristen McBride Tomer T. Gutman D. Dwight Worden Retired W. Scott Williams Retired Office 462 Stevens Avenue Suite 100 Solana Beach California 92075 (85 8) 755-6604 wordenwilliams.com Planning Commission August 14, 2024 Page 2 of 4 2 PUD 2021-0003/SDP 2021-0008/CDP 2021-0010/NCP 2021-0001 (DEV2020-0205) - THREE ON GARFIELD August 14, 2024 Planning Commission City of Carlsbad Community Development Department 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Re: Three on Garfield Project Honorable Chair and Commissioners: I have the pleasure of representing Renee Wailes, the applicant for the Three on Garfield Project. Ms. Wailes appreciates that the Commission’s attention will likely be focused on whether the existing building on her Garfield property qualifies a historic resource, and if so, how your decision will impact the resource. Ms. Wailes asks that the Commission’s deliberations also look at the other side of the equation, i.e. how your decision will impact her as a private property owner. A. Ms. Wailes Did Not Start With a Plan to Replace The Existing Condominiums. Ms. Wailes originally purchased the existing condominiums with the intent to fix them up and use them as a family compound. Initially, the ability to do any meaningful work was limited because she did not own all three units until 20201. By that time the level of general deterioration and damage from water intrusion and termite damage was extensive. Ms. Wailes worked with contractors to begin repairs and deal with moisture and mold intrusion that made the units unlivable. It quickly became clear that repairs alone would not be enough. Estimates for repairs exceeded 1 million dollars and the repairs would just be a band-aid fix because the units would continue to deteriorate due to their unique design, age and ongoing water intrusion. Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 105 of 128 Planning Commission August 14, 2024 Page 3 of 4 the building qualified as a historic resource.3 Regardless of which side of the fence one sits on, however, it is fair to say that this historic resource debate in this instance presents some 3 Commissioner John May during November 30, 2023 meeting B. The Historic Resource Issue Came as a Complete Surprise and Cost Ms. Wailes Thousands of Dollars and Years of Delay. In 2020, Ms. Wailes’s began pursuing the option of building new condominiums on the site, and submitted the project to the City for preliminary review. In 2021, after having gone through City preliminary review with no issues and investing considerable funds to cover design and engineering fees, Ms. Wailes’s team submitted the application for the proposed project to the City for review2. The City determined that the Project was complete in November of 2021 and was set to schedule it for Planning Commission approval in February 2022. The idea that the existing condominiums might be considered historic came as a complete surprise. Prior to declaring the project application complete, Ms. Wailes’s historical consultant and City Staff concluded that the existing buildings were not a historical resource. In December of 2021, Ms. Wailes learned that Ted Smith, the architect who designed the buildings, had written to staff and informed them of his petition to stop the Project on the grounds that the existing condominiums were historic and require preservation. This debate regarding the historical significance of the existing buildings triggered the need for preparation of an environmental impact report (“EIR”). Suddenly a project on track for approval was sent back to square one. Ms. Wailes is not a professional developer and she never in her wildest dreams anticipated that when she decided to replace condominiums built in 1981 that it would trigger the need for preparation of an environmental impact report (“EIR”), a process that on its own has cost an additional 2 years of delay and over $300,000, just to get to the point in which a decision on her proposed project could be made. For various reasons, the dream to make the Garfield property into a family compound has faded away, and Ms. Wailes simply wants to move on with her life. However, until she gets some type of project approval, Ms. Wailes’s life is on hold with regard to the Garfield property. C. The Historic Resource Issue in this Case Presents Unique Circumstances That Should Be Considered. While Ms. Wailes does not agree with the EIRs conclusion that the building on her Garfield property qualifies as a historic resource, she appreciates that professional opinions can differ. In fact, one member of the City’s Historic Commission stated during comments on the Project EIR that, although he thought the architecture was interesting, he did not feel Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 106 of 128 Planning Commission August 14, 2024 Page 4 of 4 decision that required full preservation of the existing building would be effectively a denial 4 See for example, CDP 2021-0056 / V 2021-0003 (DEV2021-0227) authorizing demolition of the Edward’s Residence on Garfield 2 doors to the north of Renee’s property. unusual circumstances: 1.The building at issue is less than 50-years old and is not listed, or proposed for listing, on any local or state historic register. 2.The EIR’s finding of significance is not based on any historic figure or event at the location; it is based on the architectural style. 3.The architectural style has been well documented in various published materials, and in the reports contained within the EIR. 4.The architect who designed the building is alive and has submitted additional documentation about the existing building to the City that could be used to help document its architecture style. 5.The materials used to construct the existing building are not unique and could be used by the original architect or anyone else to build another example of this architectural style at a new location. 6.The building was not designed or constructed to last forever. It is a very basic 1980s construction that can only be preserved if it is effectively reconstructed at great cost to the owner. 7.The current owner is not responsible for the decades of deterioration that occurred before she got full ownership in 2020. Given the unique factors outlined above, it is not reasonable or feasible to require Ms. Wailes to abandon her proposed Project and, instead, bear the cost of restoration and preservation of the existing building. D. The Proposed Project, With The Mitigation Measures Recommended By Staff, Should Be Approved. Approval of the Project as proposed with the mitigation measures that would fully document the existing building and its architectural importance is a fair and a reasonable way to balance private property rights and the public’s interest in preserving architectural history. A Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 107 of 128 Planning Commission August 14, 2024 Page 4 of 4 because the cost of restoration would far exceed the value of the restored building. Requiring the partial rehabilitation alternative would also have an adverse financial impact and deny Ms. Wailes the right to build a new project like all other neighbors in the area4. The bottom line is that both the full and partial rehabilitation alternatives are too expensive, make no economic sense, and are simply not fair to a private property owner. Accordingly, Ms. Wailes is asking that the Commission approve the proposed Project so that she can move on with her life and new housing on the site can be constructed. We sincerely appreciate your consideration of comments above. Very truly yours, D. Wayne Brechtel dwb@wordenwilliams.com Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 108 of 128 ~&~(YJ-a rm Ccityof Carlsbad DISCLOSURE STATEMENT P-1(A) Development Services Planning Division 1635 Faraday Avenue (760)602-4610 www.carlsbadca.gov Applicant's statement or disclosure of certain ownership interests on all applications which will require discretionary action on the part of the City Council or any appointed Board, Commission or Committee. The following information MUST be disclosed at the time of application submittal. Your project cannot be reviewed until this information is completed. Please print. Note: Person is defined as "Any individual, firm, co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, in this and any other county, city and county, city municipality, district or other political subdivision or any other group or combination acting as a unit." Agents may sign this document; however, the legal name and entity of the applicant and property owner must be provided below. 1. 2. P-1(A) APPLICANT (Not the applicant's agent) Provide the COMPLETE, LEGAL names and addresses of ALL persons having a financial interest in the application. If the applicant includes a corporation or partnership, include the names, titles, addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares. IF NO INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES, PLEASE INDICATE NON-APPLICABLE (N/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW. If a publicly-owned corporation, include the names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached if necessary.) Person Ms. Renee WailesCorp/Part __ ---a;tv"'+l l"-l�,__ ____ _ Title OwnerTitle -------------Address2729 Ocean St. Cbd.Address ------------ OWNER (Not the owner's agent) Provide the COMPLETE, LEGAL names and addresses of ALL persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. Also, provide the nature of the legal ownership (i.e., partnership, tenants in common, non-profit, corporation, etc.). If the ownership includes a corporation or partnership. include the names, titles, addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares. IF NO INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES, PLEASE INDICATE NON-APPLICABLE (NIA) IN THE SPACE BELOW. If a publicly-owned corporation, include the names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached if necessary.) Person Ms. Renee Wailes Title Owner Address2729 Ocean St. Carlsbad, CA. 92008 Corp/Part. __ ___,�PL,\-\ .... � _____ _ Title. _____________ _ Address ___________ _ Page 1 of 2 Revised 07/10 \ 1-- ' Exhibit 7 Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 109 of 128 I 1 t l I l ' I ---- L__ _J Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 110 of 128 ( 3. NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION OR TRUST If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a nonprofit organization or a trust, list the names and addresses of ANY person serving as an officer or director of the non- profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary of the. Non Profit/Trust.________ Non Profit/Trust. _________ _ Title___________ Title ____________ _ Address. _________ _ Address ___________ _ 4. Have you had more than $500 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees and/or Council within the past twelve (12) months? D Yes lvl No If yes, please indicate person(s): __________ _ NOTE: Attach additional sheets if necessary. I certify that all the above information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Signature of owner/date r/t2./)IDL Signature of applicant/date Ms. Renee Wailes Ms. Renee Wailes Print or type name of owner Print or type name of applicant Print or type name of owner/applicant's agent P-1(A) Page 2 of 2 Revised 07/10 1.ALL WORK SHALL COMPLY WITH THE LATEST CODES AND STANDARDS, AS ADOPTED BY THEGOVERNING AUTHORITIES, AND THE LOCAL JURISDICTION, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO: -2019 CALIFORNIA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE (CCR, PART 1 CHAPTER 4)-2019 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE (CCR, PART 2 VOLUME 1 AND 2 AND APPENDICES G, H, I, AND J)-2019 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE (CCR, PART 3)-2019 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE (CCR, PART 4 CHAPTER 1 AND APPENDICES A, B, AND D)-2019 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE (CCR, PART 5 CHAPTER 1 SECTIONS 101 AND 108, CHAPTER 2THROUGH 16, APPENDIX CHAPTER 1 SECTIONS 101, 102, AND 103, APPENDICES A, D, G, I, AND K)-2019 CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE, 2008 ENERGY STANDARDS (CCR, PART 6 CHAPTERS 1 THROUGH9 AND APPENDIX CHAPTER 1-A)-2019 CALIFORNIA HISTORICAL CODE (CCR, PART 8)-2019 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE (CCR, PART 9 CHAPTER 1 SECTION 109, CHAPTERS 2 THROUGH 47AND APPENDIX CHAPTER 1 SECTION 102)-2019 CALIFORNIA REFERENCED STANDARDS CODE (CCR, PART 12) 2. THE DRAWINGS REFLECT GENERAL ARRANGEMENT, DESIGN AND EXTENT OF WORK, AND ARENOT TO BE SCALED FOR MEASUREMENTS. THE DRAWINGS ARE PARTLY DIAGRAMATIC AND ARENOT INTENDED TO BE AN EXACT REPRESENTATION OF FIELD CONDITIONS OR TO SERVE AS THECONTRACTOR'S SHOP DRAWINGS. 3. AT ANY TIME SHOULD CONDITIONS ARISE WHEREIN THE INTENT OF THE DRAWINGS ARE INDOUBT, OR WHERE THE DRAWINGS ARE IN CONFLICT WITH EACH OTHER, OR WHERE THERE IS ADISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE DRAWINGS AND FIELD CONDITIONS, THE ARCHITECT SHALL BENOTIFIED AT ONCE FOR CLARIFICATION. 4. "EXISTING", "+/-", "SIZE TO FIT" AND SIMILAR PHRASES REQUIRE THE CONTRACTOR TO VERIFYAND COORDINATE DIMENSIONS AND CONDITIONS INDICATED IN THE DRAWINGS WITH THEACTUAL FIELD CONDITIONS. DISCREPANCIES SHALL BE REPORTED TO THE ARCHITECT FORDIRECTION ON HOW TO PROCEED. 5. DIMENSIONS SHOWN ARE TO FACE OF STUD UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. 6. REFER TO STRUCTURAL, MECHANICAL, PLUMBING, AND ELECTRICAL DRAWINGS FOREQUIPMENT ANCHORAGE, HVAC, PLUMBING, LIGHTING, COMMUNICATION, AND DATA AND POWERREQUIREMENTS. 7. THE ARCHITECT AND OWNERS' CONSULTANTS SHALL HAVE NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEDISCOVERY, PRESENCE, HANDLING, REMOVAL OR DISPOSAL OF OR EXPOSURE OF PERSONS TOHAZARDOUS MATERIALS IN ANY FORM AT THE PROJECT SITE, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TOASBESTOS, ASBESTOS PRODUCTS, POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYL (PCB) OR OTHER TOXICSUBSTANCES. 8. CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT OWNER 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF ANY RESTRICTION OFOWNER ACCESS OR UTILITY OUTAGES. AUTHORIZATION FROM OWNER TO BE RECEIVED INWRITING. 9. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AND CONDITIONS PRIOR TO BEGINNINGWORK. AT ANY TIME SHOULD ANY CONDITIONS ARISE WHEREIN THE INTENT OF THE DRAWINGSIS IN DOUBT OR WHERE THERE IS A DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE DRAWINGS AND FIELDCONDITIONS THE ARCHITECT SHALL BE NOTIFIED IMMEDIATELY IN WRITING FOR CLARIFICATION. 10. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL HAVE FULL RESPONSIBILITY AND CHARGE OF AND SHALL BERESPONSIBLE FOR CONSTRUCTION MEANS, METHODS, TECHNIQUES, SEQUENCES ORPROCEDURES, FOR SAFETY PRECAUTIONS AND PROGRAMS IN CONNECTION WITH THE WORK,FOR THE ACTS OR OMISSIONS OF THE CONTRACTOR, SUBCONTRACTOR OR ANY OTHERPERSONS PERFORMING ANY OF THE WORK OR THE FAILURE OF ANY OF THEM TO CARRY OUTTHE WORK IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. 11. THESE DRAWINGS DO NOT INCLUDE NECESSARY COMPONENTS FOR CONSTRUCTION SAFETY.SAFETY OF ALL PARTIES PRESENT ON THE JOB SITE IS SOLELY THE CONTRACTOR'SRESPONSIBILITY. 12. THESE DRAWINGS ARE FOR PERMIT ONLY. GENERAL CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALLADDITIONAL DETAILS AND REQUIRED COORDINATION DURING CONSTRUCTION. 1. FIRE DEPARTMENT FINAL INSPECTION REQUIRED. SCHEDULE ALL INSPECTIONS 2 DAYS INADVANCE. 2. NOT USED 3. STORAGE, DISPENSING OR USE OF ANY FLAMMABLE AND COMBUSTIBLE LIQUIDS, FLAMMABLEAND COMPRESSED GASES, AND OTHER HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SHALL COMPLY WITH UNIFORMFIRE CODE REGULATIONS. THE STORAGE AND USE OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SHALL BEAPPROVED BY THE FIRE AUTHORITY PRIOR TO ANY MATERIALS BEING STORED OR USED ON SITE. ASEPARATE PLAN SUBMITTAL IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO THE STORAGE AND USE OF HAZARDOUSMATERIALS. 4. PLANS OF NEW OR MODIFICATIONS TO EXISTING FIRE PROTECTION, DETECTION, ALARM ORMONITORING SYSTME(S) SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE FIRE DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO INSTALLATION.A SEPARATE PLAN SUBMITTAL AND APPROVAL BY THE FIRE DEPARTMENT IS REQUIRED PRIOR TOCOMMENCEMENT OF WORK. 5. NOT USED 6. DRAPES AND OTHER DECORATIVE MATERIALS SHALL BE FLAME RETARDANT. CERTIFICATIONTHEREOF SHALL BE PROVIDED. EXITS, EXIT SIGNS, FIRE ALARM STATIONS HOSE CABINETS ANDEXTINGUISHER LOCATIONS SHALL NOT BE CONCEALED BY DECORATIVE MATERIALS. 7. ALL INTERIOR FINISHES SHALL CONFORM WITH THE TITLE 24, CCR, CHAPTER 42. GENERAL NOTES FIRE NOTES OWNER MS. RENEE WAILES2729 OCEAN STREETCARLSBAD, CA 92008 GENERAL CONTRACTOR STRUCTURAL ENGINEER ARCHITECT BGI ARCHITECTURE2292 FARADAY AVENUE, #100Carlsbad, CA 92008P: 760.438.2963bgiarchitecture.com GOVERNING AGENCY MEP ENGINEER CIVIL ENGINEER SOILS ENGINEER LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT T-24 CALCULATIONS (TO BE DETERMINED)CITY OF CARLSBAD1635 FARADAY AVENUECARLSBAD, CA 92008O: 760-602-4610 SUN STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING2292 FARADAY AVENUE, #100CARLSBAD, CA 92008O: 858-442-7203 N.A. SAMPO ENGINEERING171 SAXONY ROAD #213ENCINITAS, CA 92024O: 760-436-0660F: 760-436-0659 GEOSOILS ENGINEERING5741 PALMER WAY, SUITE DCARLSBAD, CA 92010O: 760-438-3155www.geosoilsinc.com (TO BE DETERMINED)SALEHI ENGINEERING10755 SCRIPPS POWAY PARKWAY#357SAN DEIGO, CA 92131www.salehiengineering.com PROJECT DESCRIPTION THE PROJECT IS TO REMOVE THE EXISTING 3 UNIT CONDOMINIUM BUILDING WHICH CURRENTLY HAS STRUCTURAL, FOUNDATION AND MOISTURE/MOLD ISSUES. A NEWLY CONSTRUCTED 3 UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT IS PROPOSED IN A CONTEMPORARY STYLE. THE PROJECT REQUIRES A 'CDP' PERMIT ALONG WITH A NON-CONFORMING CONSTRUCTION PERMIT (NCP) AS A VOLUNTARY REMOVAL OF AN EXISTING RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE AND REPLACEMENT PER CHAPTER 21.48.E. (THIS INFORMATION CONFIRMED WITH MR. EDWARD VALENZUELA CONSULTATION WITH HEAD PLANNER). A MINOR PUD AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN ARE ALSO REQUIRED. (ALL THE DISCRETIONARY APPROVALS ARE PROCESSED CONCURRENTLY) NOTE: THE EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS WERE APPROVED MAY, 8 1981 #80-944. PROJECT ADDRESS 2689, 2687, 2685 GARFIELD STREET, CARSLBAD, CA 92008 APN NO.20.-147-27-01, 02, 03 LEGAL DESCRIPTION AN UNDIVIDED 1/3 FRACTIONAL INTEREST IN AND TO PARCEL 1 IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA AS SHOWN ON PAGE 12124 IN BOOK OF PARCEL MAPS FIELD IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, MAY 20, 1982. SETBACKS •FRONT: 20'-0" TO P.L.•SIDE (EXTERIOR): 10'-0" TO P.L.•SIDE (INTERIOR): 10% WIDTH @ FRONT SETBACK = 7'-0"•REAR: 2X INTERIOR SIDE SETBACK = 14'-0" ZONE R-3 MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE PER CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING DEPT. OVERLAY ZONE COASTAL ZONE FLOOR AREA 2685 GARFIELD STREET CONDITIONED:•GARAGE FLOOR = 260 S.F.•MAIN FLOOR = 835 S.F.•SECOND FLOOR = 606 S.F.TOTAL = 1,701 S.F. OTHER: •GARAGE = 476 S.F.•ENTRY TERRACE = 101 S.F.•SECOND FLOOR TERRACE &STORAGE = 178 S.F. 2687 GARFIELD STREET CONDITIONED:•GARAGE FLOOR = 262 S.F.•MAIN FLOOR = 841 S.F.•SECOND FLOOR = 610 S.F.TOTAL = 1,713 S.F. OTHER: •GARAGE = 478 S.F.•SECOND FLOOR TERRACE &STORAGE = 179 S.F. NUMBER OFSTORIES THREE INCLUDING LOWER PARKING GARAGES TYPE OFCONSTRUCTION V5 -SPRINKLED GOVERNING CODES THESE PLANS AND ALL WORK SHALL COMPLY WITH CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE, THE 2019 EDITION OF THE CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE FOUND IN STATE OF CALIFORNIA TITLE 24 CCR AS AMENDED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY OF CARLSBAD. THE 2019 EDITIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODES SHALL APPLY:•2019 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE•2019 CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING CODE•2019 CALIFORNIA HISTORICAL BUILDING CODE•2019 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE•2019 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE•2019 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE•2019 CALIFORNIA TITLE 24•2019 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE LOT SIZE 6,998 S.F. = .16 ACRE LOT COVEREAGE LOT = 6,998 S.F. X 60% = 4,199 S.F. ALLOWEDPROPOSED = 2,773 S.F. (39.6%) < 4,199 S.F. (60%) OCCUPANCY R-2 HEIGHT •24'-0" FROM GRADE FOR FLAT ROOF AREAS (NO FLAT ROOF PROPOSED)•30'-0" FROM GRADE FOR SLOPED ROOF AREAS (3/12 MINIMUM) PARKING 2 ENCLOSED SPACES REQUIRED -2 SPACES PROVIDED (COVERED). F.A.R.N.A. YEAR BUILT 1981 USE RESIDENTIAL DWELLING (3 CONDOMINIUMS) # UNITS 3 UNITS PROPOSED TO MATCH EXISTING -PER NON-CONFORMING CONSTRUCTION PERMIT (NCP). -PER CMC -21-48-050 E -LOT SUPPORTS 2 UNITS BUT INITIAL PERMIT IMPROVEMENTS ALLOWED 3 UNITS. 2689 GARFIELD STREET CONDITIONED:•GARAGE FLOOR = 262 S.F.•MAIN FLOOR = 838 S.F.•SECOND FLOOR = 604 S.F.TOTAL = 1,704 S.F. OTHER: •GARAGE = 476 S.F.•ENTRY TERRACE = 96 S.F.•SECOND FLOOR TERRACE & STORAGE =176 S.F. BUILDING TOTAL: TOTAL CONDITIONED LIVING S.F. = 5,118 S.F. GUEST PARKING 0.3 SPACES / UNIT = 0.9 = 1 GUEST SPACES REQUIRED PER TABLE C. 1 GUEST PARKING SPACE PROVIDED ON NORTH SIDE OF LOT. RECREATION SPACE IS NOT REQUIRED FOR PROJECTS < 11 UNITS PER CMC 21.45.060 DEV. STANDARDS. STORAGE SPACE SINVE THE PROJECT PROVIDES A TWO CAR GARAGE 20'x20' THE STORAGE REQUIREMENT IS SATISFIED PER C-13 OF CMC 21-45-060 DEV. STANDARDS. PARKING SCREENING CMC C.8 OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS REQUIRES VEHICULAR PARKING AREAS TO BE SCREENED FROM PUBLIC VIEW. THE ONE NON-ENCLOSED GUEST PARKING SPACE IS SCREENED FROM VIEW BY THE BUILDING ITSELF TO THE SOUTH, AND A RETAINING WALL/LANDSCAPING TO THE EAST. Signature Date This document is the property of John S. Beery, Architect, A.I.A. Any unauthorized use or reproduction of this document, in whole or part, is prohibited. I have reviewed these construction documents and have approved their contents as including all of the design aspects I had previously authorized. I understand my project will be constructed as specified by these construction documents REVISIONS By D E S NEC IL ST ATEOF CA L I F ORNICETIHCRA JO HN S. BEE RY No . C - 1 5 4 2 6 RE N . 10 / 1 5 T A Drawn By Job No. Scale Date Sheet Name Sheet No. 1 2 3 4 A B C D P R E L I M I N A R Y N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N NOTES PROJECT LOCATION SHEETSPROJECT DATA PROJECT DIRECTORY N O R T H NO SCALE BGI ARCHITECTURE Beery Group Inc.2091 Las Palmas Drive, St. DCarlsbad, CA 92011 ARCHITECTURE | DESIGN (760) 438-2963 bgiarchitect.com 3 O N G A R F I E L D C O N D O M I N I U M S BPB T-1 2021.06.08 2003 26 8 9 , 2 6 8 7 , 2 6 8 5 G A R F I E L D S T R E E T CA R L S B A D , C A 9 2 0 0 8 PROJECT TITLESHEET T-1 PROJECT TITLE SHEET AC-1 SITE PLAN C-0 CIVIL SURVEY C-1 CIVIL - PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN C-2 CIVIL - ENLARGED AREAS AND DETAILS A-1 GARAGE FLOOR PLAN A-2 MAIN FLOOR PLAN A-3 SECOND FLOOR PLAN A-4 ROOF PLAN A-5 ELEVATIONS A-5.1 ELEVATIONS AP-1 PERSPECTIVES L-1 LANDSCAPE - EXISTING VEGETATION PLAN L-2 LANDSCAPE - LANDSCAPE PLAN L-3 LANDSCAPE - HYDROZONE DIAGRAM PROJECT DATA -CONTINUED Exhibit 8 Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 111 of 128 '---Ki,,;,wl..sAn-- aatfo,dL.n,==~ -eole"Tlbrary rarilr clol>ed Chase Fi '\,~ ... ~ ::V,,,. Ir I I..':: :,i I :'..I DN D W D W D W DW DW GARFIELD STREET BEE C H AVEN UE SIGN SIGN SIGN AC PAVEMENT AC PAVEMENT AC PAVEMENT AC PAVEMENT CONC CONC WALL MAIL BOX SIGN CURB & GUTTER CURB & GUTTER CURB & GUTTER CURB & GUTTER CURB & GUTTER SDG&E CAP PLANTER GRASS CONC CONC 53 45 50 46 47 48 49 51 52 53 45 50 46 47 48 49 50 48 49 51 52 R/W SMH RIM:53.92 SMH RIM:53.54 AC BERM AC BER AC BERM WV WVWV WV WV S S PP PP W W WICV CL CL CLCL DW 1 4 PL PL PL PL PL PL PL PL PL PLPLPL EXT. S.Y.S.B. 10 ' - 0 " F.Y.S.B. 20' - 0" IN T . S . Y . S . B . 7' - 0 " 14'-0" R.Y.S.B. SETBACK INTRUSION PER CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE 21.46.120 (2), FIREPLACE. INTRUSION IS LESS THAN 2'-0" AND LESS THAN 8'-0" WIDE. SETBACK INTRUSION PER CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE 21.46.120 (1), EAVE / ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE. INTRUSION IS LESS THAN 2'-0", AND DOES NOT ENCLOSE ANY USABLE S.F. SETBACK INTRUSION PER CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE 21.46.120 (1), EAVE / ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE. INTRUSION IS LESS THAN 2'-0", AND DOES NOT ENCLOSE ANY USABLE S.F. HATCHING = SETBACK INTRUSION PER CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE 21.46.120 (3), STAIRWAYS (LESS THAN 2'-0") AND PER (1) "BUTRESSES"/"ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES". THIS SETBACK INTRUSION DOES NOT ENCLOSE ANY USABLE INTERIOR S.F. SETBACK INTRUSION PER CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE 21.46.120 (2), FIREPLACE. INTRUSION IS LESS THAN 2'-0" AND LESS THAN 8'-0" WIDE. LANDSCAPE WALL AND PLANTER LESS THAN 42" IN HEIGHT AT GRADE, TYP. PER 21.46.120 (5) PROPOSE TO WIDEN APRON FROM 12'-0" TO 16'-0" PROPOSED TRANSFORMER LOCATION (IF REQUIRED) PER SDGE REQUIREMENTS AND CLEANRACES, TYP. REPLACE (E) ADA RAMP AND CURB WITH NEW ADA RAMP AND CURB. SEE CIVIL PLANS, TYP. (SEE CIVIL PLANS) REMOVE EXISTING CURB CUT AND REPLACE WITH NEW CURB CUT AND APRON. 20 ' - 4 " 1 This document is the property of John S. Beery, Architect, A.I.A. Any unauthorized use or reproduction of this document, in whole or part, is prohibited. REVISIONS By D E S NEC IL ST ATEOF CA L I F ORNICETIHCRA JO HN S. BEE RY No . C - 1 5 4 2 6 RE N . 10 / 1 5 T A Drawn By Job No. Scale Date Sheet Name Sheet No. 1 2 3 4 A B C D Signature Date I have reviewed these construction documents and have approved their contents as including all of the design aspects I had previously authorized. I understand my project will be constructed as specified by these construction documentsP R E L I M I N A R Y N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N KEYNOTES ARCHITECTURAL LEGEND 1 Interior Elevation New Wall Existing Wall Demolition A 1 1 A-1 Building Elevation Keynote Doors Windows Wall Type 1 Revision Centerline Property Line Overhead Insulation A A-11 Storefront Elevation NOTE: NOT ALL SYMBOLS SHOWN ABOVE ARE USED IN THIS SET OF DRAWINGS. BGI ARCHITECTURE Beery Group Inc.2091 Las Palmas Drive, St. DCarlsbad, CA 92011 ARCHITECTURE | DESIGN (760) 438-2963 bgiarchitect.com 1/8" = 1'-0" 3 O N G A R F I E L D C O N D O M I N I U M S BPB AC-1 2021.06.08 2003 26 8 9 , 2 6 8 7 , 2 6 8 5 G A R F I E L D S T R E E T CA R L S B A D , C A 9 2 0 0 8 SITE PLAN TRUEN O R T H REFERENCE NORTH 1/8" = 1'-0" SITE PLAN GENERAL NOTES 01. SEE FLOOR PLAN SHEETS FOR FURTHERSETBACK INTRUSION NOTES, TYP. 02. PER CMC 21.45.060 (C.5) THE DRIVEWAY SHALL BEDECORATIVE PAVEMENT OR PERMEABLE PAVERS,TYP. 1 "PARKING AREA" LANDSCAPE PLANTER PERCMC 21.44.050 TABLE "B'. PROPOSED(EXPOSED) PARKING AREA (DRIVE AISLES ANDVISITOR PARKING SPACE = 2,668 S.F. x 3% =80.04 S.F. REQUIRED. PLANTER = 81.96 S.F.PROVIDED > 80.04 REQUIRED. PLANTER MUSTCONTAIN TREES AS APPROVED BY THE CITY OFCARLSBAD, SEE LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS, TYP. Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 112 of 128 __J J II \ I '' " II Ir I I..:: I L_ - I :'..I 0 0 □ 0--- < (> ◄ Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 113 of 128 +52,11 52.60 TB •• 52.JO Fl··. !UDllT lillil !UDllT R/(1 <J <1 . R/(1 GRASS 8//ILDING COIIC BUILDING 4 ,1 <1 ,1 BUILDING '4 • 4 <1 . 4 ' • q T0P0G R/(1 -• --••.• --,, . CONC .. ,. v'f --,,,___...::,. .... ·Li. --- .· ... . ·.,. .• .. . • •.••••. •. · ..• AC PA VEIIEI/J .•• BUILDING ILIDllT PHIC PLAT 1 • · I COIIC • ··>,i2tTB•·· • . 44.12 Fl •. • 40.00' ··#.51 TC • •. 44.07 Fl 44.11 I .4 <1 . CONC <I '4 ·.-{,5 <1 .4 40.00' R/(1 -------<t-- R/(1 t 51.01 44.6/ CLIENT: RENEE SCHA Tl WAILES SITE MJDRESS: 2685-2689 GARRElfJ STREET CARLSBAD, CA 92008 ASSESSOR'SPARCELNO.: 203-147-27-01,-02,-0J DATE OF SURVEY: 6/24/20 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: AN UNDIVIDED 1/J FRACTIONAL INTEREST IN AND TO PARCEL 1, IN THE CITY OF CARLSBADA}OUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STA TE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHO'lrN ON PAGE 12124 IN BOOK ur PARCEL MAPS, REW IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, MAY 20, 1982. VERTICAL BENCHMARK: CITY OF CARLSBAD CONTROL POINT 139 "5-507'. CADT 0/SK IN SOUTH SIOEWALK NEAR THE EAST ENO OF LAS FLORES DRIVE BRIDGE OVER INTERSTATE 5. OA TUM: NG'l[)29 ELEVATION: 82.22' NOTES: 1. PROPERTY LINE BEARINGS AND DISTANCES SI/O'lrN HEREON PER PM 12124. A BOUNDARY SURVEY IS CURRENTLY IN PROCESS AND A CORNER RECORD MAP WILL BE ALEO WITH THE COUNTY OF SAN OIEGO. UPON RESOLUTION OF THE NEW BOUNDARIES THE PROPERTY LINE BEARINGS AND DISTANCES ON THE TOPOGRAPHIC PLAT WILL BE UPDATED TO REFLECT THE ANAL MAPPED BOUNDARY AND REISSUED TO THE ARCHITECT. 2 A PRELIMINARY TITLE REPORT WAS NOT MADE AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF THIS SURVEY THEREFORE EXISTING EASEMENTS, IF ANY, HA VE NOT BEEN PLOTTED HEREON. J. ADJACENT STRUCTURES S/10'1,N HEREON ARE APPROX/MA TES. LEGEND: PROPERTY BOUNDARY PROPERTY LINE RIG/IT-OF-WAY EXISTING CONWUR EXISTING £1£VA 710// IND/CA TES £1£VA 710// ADOif' GRADE ABBREV/A TIONS: AC: CO/IC: FF: FG: FL· G: GF: /CV.· RIW: SCO: SMH: TB: TC: TC: TYt w. 1W, ASPHALT CONCRETE CONCRETE RN/SH FLOOR RN/SH GRADE FLOW LINE GAS UETER GARAGE FLOOR /RR/GA 710// CONTROl. VAL If' RIGHT OF WAY SEKf/1 CIEANOIJT SEllfR MANHOLE TOP OF BERM TOP OF CURB TOP OF CRATE TOP OF WALL WATER METER WATER VALVE SYMBOL: -15D-- X 15D.5 , {160.D] 10 5 0 10 20 ~I ~t----1-~1 SCALE: 1 " = 10' VICINITY MAP Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 114 of 128 OWNER: RENEE SCHA Tl WAILES SITEADDRESS: 2685-2689 GARRELD STREET CARLSBAD, CA 92008 ASSESSOR'SPARCELNO, : 20J-147-27-0l,-02,-0J DATE OF SURVEY: 6/24/20 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: PARCEL I, IN THE CITY Of CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STA TE Of CALIFOf/NIA, AS SHOWN ON PAGE 12124 IN BOOK Of PARCEL MAPS, RRO IN THE OFRCE Of THE COUNTY RECORDER Of SAN DIEGO COUNTY. MAY 20, 1982. VERTICAL BENCHMARK: CITY OF CARLSBAD CONTROL POINT 139 "5-507'. CAOT DISK IN SOUTH SIDEWALK NEAR THE EAST ENO OF LAS FLORES DRIVE BRIDGE OVER INTERS TA TE 5. DA TUM: NGVIJ29 ELEVA llON: 82.22' CONSTRUCTION NOTES : I. THE EXISllNG TOPOGRAPHY SHOWN HEREON BY SAMPO ENGINEERING INC. DATED 6/24/20 2. PROPERTY LINE BEARINGS ANO DISTANCES SHOWN HEREON PER PM 12124. A BOUNDARY SURVEY IS C/JRRENTL Y IN PROCESS AND A CORNER RECOf/0 MAP Jl1LL BE RLED 111TH THE COIJNTY Of SAN DIEGO. UPON RESOI.UllON OF THE NEW BOUNDARIES THE PROPERTY LINE BEARINGS AND DISTANCES ON THE TOPOGRAPHIC PLA r IIILL BE UPOA TED ro REFLECT THE ANAL MAPPED BOIJNDARY. J. llTLE INSURANCE POI.JC/ES PREPARED BY RRST AMERICAN llTLE INSURANCE COMPANY DA TED NOV. 21, 2017 AS RLE NO. DIV-5558317 (APN: 203-141-27-01), DATED JANUARY JO, 2018 AS FILE NO. DIV-5622249 (APN: 20J-141-27-02} ANO DA TED JANUARY 24, 2020 AS RLE NO. DIV-6116944 (APN: 20J-141--27-0J/ Yrff/E RE"1Ellf0 FOR EX/SllNG ONE-SITE EASEMENTS SAID llTLE INSURANCE POLICIES REVEALm THE FdLLOIIING EX/SllNG ON-SITE EASEMENT DESCR/Bm BELOW. AL~~ REFER ro OTHER CCR OOC/JMENTS REFERENCED IN THE POLICIES Of llTLE INSURANCE DATED 1927 FUff FUU PARllC/JLARS. A A NONEXCLUSIVE EASEMENT FOR INGRESS, EGRESS AND SUPPORT THROUGHOUT THE COMMON AREA PER CONDOMINIUM PLAN RECOf/Dm JJLY 14 1982, PER DOC. NO. 82-216020 Of O.R. 4. EX/SllNG AND PROPOSED OVERHEAD UllLITY SERVICE LINES TO THE PROPERTY SHAU BE INSTALLED UNDERGl/0/JND. COOf/DINA TE Jl1TH SDGM PRIOR ro CONSTRUCllON. 5. IF ANY MONUMENT IS DISTURBm OR DESTROYED IT SHALL BE REPlACm BY A LICENSED LAND SIJRVEYOf/ AND A CORNER RECORD SHALL BE FII..ED 111TH THE COIJNTY PRIOR ro RELEASE Of OCCUPANCY. 6. ALL STREET SIGNS, LIGHTS, LAMPS, UllLlllES, ETC. LOCATED Ill/HIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-Of-WAY SHALL BE PROTECTED IN-PLACE 0/JRING CONSTRUCll0/1 OR REPLACED TO SA llSFACllON Of THE CITY ENGINEER. Z AU EX/SllNG UllLlllES SHOWN HEREON ARE APPROXIMATE, CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY HORIZONTAL LOCAll0/1 ANO E1£VAllOI/S PRIOR ro CONSTRUCllNG NEW IMPROVEMENTS. 8. STORM DRAIN PIPES SHALL NOT BE CONNECTED ro SUB DRAIN PIPES. 9. BOTTOM Of WALL ELEVAllONS SHOWN HEREON MAY VARY BASED ON SOIL ENGINEER RECOMMENDAllONS DURING CONSTRUCll0/1. 10. A MINIMUM CONCRETE SI.AB-ON-GI/ADE THICKNESS OF 5 INCHES IS RECOl,/MENDED. CONCRETE SLABS SHOi/LD BE REINFORCED 111TH A MINIMUM Of NO. J REINFORCEMENT BARS PLACED AT 18-/NCH ON CENTERS, IN Tll!J H0/1/ZONTAUY PERPENDICULAR DIRECllONS (lE.0 LONG AXIS AND SHORT AX/SJ. CONCRETE SI.AB UNOERLA 'tMENT S//Oi/LD CONSIST OF A 15-MIL VAPOR IIETAROER, OR EQ/JIVALENT, r.lTH ALL LAPS SEALm PER THE 2019 CBC AND THE MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDAllON. THE VAPOR RETARDER SHOIJLD COMPLY WITH THE ASTM E 1745 -Cl.ASS A CRITERIA, AND BE INSTALLm IN ACCORDANCE WITH AC/ 302. IR-04 AND ASTM E 1643. THE VAPOR RETARDER SHALL BE UNDERLAIN BY 2 INCHES Of SAND (SE> JO) PLACED DIRECTLY ON THE PREPARm, MOISTURE CONDlllONm, SUBGRADE AND SHOULD BE SEALED ro PR0"1DE A CONllNUOi/S RETARDER UNDER THE ENllRE SI.AB, AS DISCJJSSED ABOVE AS DISC/JSSED PRE'v10i/S/.Y, GS/ INDICATED THIS LAYER Of IMPORT SANO MAY BE ELIMINATED BELOW THE VAPOR RETARDER, IF LABORATORY TESllNG IND/CA TES THAT THE SI.AB SUBGRADE SOIL HA VE A SAND EQ/JIVALENT {SE} Of 30 Of/ GREATER. SEE SOIL REPORT FOR ADO/llONAL RECOMMENDA ll0/1S. II. POS/llVE DRAINAGE MUST BE PROVIDED BEHIND ALL RETAINING WAUS IN THE FORM OF GRA ITT M/APPED IN GEOFABRIC AND OUTLETS A BACKDRAIN SYSTEM IS CONSIDERm NECESSARY FOR RETAINING WALLS THAT ARE 2 FEET OR GREATER IN HEIGHT. BACKORA/NS SHOULD CO/IS/ST OF A 4-INCH DIAMETER PERFORATED Pi,t: OR ABS PIPE ENCASED IN EITHER Cl.ASS 2 PERMEABLE ALTER MATERIAL OR 3/4-INCH TO l)f-lNCH GRAITT M/APPEO IN APPROITTJ FILTER FABRIC (M/RAR 140 OR EQ/JIVALENrl. FOR LOW EXPANS/',f BACKR(/, THE FILTER MATERIAL SHOULD EXTEND A Mill/MUM Of 1 HOf/lZONTAL FOOT BEHIND THE BASE OF THE wAUS AND UPWARD AT LEAST I FOOT. FOf/ NAll',f BACKRU THAT HAS UP TO MEDIUM EXPANSION POTENllAI.. CONllNUOi/S aASS 2 PERMEABLE DRAIN MATERIALS S/10/JLD BE USED BEHIND THE WALL. THIS MATERIAL SHOi/LD BE CONllNUOUS (I.E., FULL HEIGHT} BEHIND THE WALL, AND IT SHOULD BE CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE ',11/H THE ENCLOSED DETAIL I (TYPICAL RETAINING WAU BACKFILL AND DRAINAGE DETAIL}. FOR LIMITED ACCESS AND CONRNED AREAS, {PANEL} DRAINAGE BEHIND THE WALL MAY BE CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH DETAIL 2 (RETAINING WAll. BACKRLL AND SUBDRAIN DETAIL GEOTEXllLE DRAIN/. MATERIALS 111TH AN El POTtl/llAL Of GREATER THAN 50 SHOULD NOT BE USED AS BACKRLL FOIi RETAINING WALLS. FOR MORE ONEROi/S EXPANSIVE SITUA llONS, BACKRLL AND ORA/NA GE BEHIND THE RETAINING WALL SHOi/LD CONFORM WITH DETAIL 3 (RETAINING WALL AND SUBDRAIN DETAIL Cl£AN SAND BACKFILL}.SEE SOIL REPORT FOR ADD/llONAL RECOMM[NDA llONS. 12. EXTERIOR SI.ABS (SIDEWALKS, PAllOS, ETC.I SHOULD BE A MINIMUM OF 4 INCHES THICK CONCRETE SI.ABS S//Oi/LD BE C).ST OVER A NON-YIELDING SURFACE, CONS/SllNG Of A 4-/NCH LA YER Of GRUS/Im R/W -tr~ <1 4 4 <1 • 4 ~,~ . ·.. . . . . . \ -··· • . • .. 52.98 TC . 8 •. • 52.51 FL · · •. •. , ~ ·.· .. ·-.•.• •. '. .-.. ·:-..... '·, .• 4 CO/IC. ILIDll "' CONG FF 48.28 PAO 4Zl ~~ =' V:~=---==-:;;' ;;;),.~'4=[ I sc-6 I I SC-5 I MAIN R.OOR FF 5ZOO GARAGE PAO 4Z5 .... R/W 14.6' • ' \~'1 •• :.,. • ••• • \\\r •1\•\I •. f-.1cs:'. • .. ~· . • .. • ~ . Roqlf, GRA VEL0 OR CLEAN SAND, THAT SHOULD BE COMPACTED AND LEVEL PRIOR TO POURING CONCRETE. IF rt.RY LOW tXPANSIVE SOILS ARE PRESENT, THE ROCK OR GRA ITT OR SAND MAY BE DELETED. THE LA YER ---~ · · ·i--..:::it!~~~=li:f1 1ao' ···•····. • 1-· · -.:§1 ': -~; OR SUBGRADE S/10/JLD BE HU-DOWN COMPLETEL y PRIOR ro POURING CONCRETE, ro MIN/11/ZE LOSS Of CONCRETE MOISTURE ro THE SURROIJNDING EARTH MATERIALS. SEE SOIL REPOf/T FOf/ ADO/llONAL RECOMMENDA llONS. 13. POS/llVE SITE DRAINAGE SHOULD BE MAINTAINm AT ALL llMES. RN/SH GRADE ON THE LOT SHOIJLD PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF I TO 2 PERCENT FALL TO THE STREET, AS INDICATED HEREIN. SEE SOIL REPORT FOR ADD/llONAL REQ/JIREMENTS IMPERMEABLE AREAS CALC/JLA llONS EXIST IMPERVIOi/S AREAS= 4,422 SQ FT PROPOSED IMPER"10US AREAS= 3,032 SQ FT DECREASE IMPERVIOIJS AREAS= 1,390 SQ FT THIS PRMCT IS CLASS/RED AS A "STANDARD ~~~OPj,fllf t:M&IfER CITY Of CARLSBAD EARTHWORK QUANTIY CALCULATIONS CUT.· 23.J CY MAX WT: 6.0 FT ~T: ,BJ ~~ MAX RLL: 4.0 FT ABBRE'IIA TIO/IS: AC: AIR COND/llONER OS.· DOWNSPOUT FF: RN/SH FLOOR FL: now LINE FG: FINISH GRADE FS: FINISH SURFACE HP: HIGH POINT IE: INVERT llEVATION TC: TOP Of C/JRB 7lr. TOP OF WALL REMEDIAL=4J4 CY (J.O' REMOVAL AND RECO/IPACllON UNDER, AND 5' 0/JTSIOE Of BIJILO/NG AREAS) CONSTRUCTION BMP LEGEND PREVENllON Of ILLICIT DISCHARGES INTO THE MS4 PROTECT OUTDOOR MATERIALS STORAGE AREAS FROM RAINFALL, RUN-ON, RUNOFF, AND IIIND DISPERSAL PROTECT MATERIALS STOf/ED IN OUTDOOR WORK AREAS FROI.I RAINFALi.. RUN-ON, RUNOFF, AND WNO DISPERSAL PROTECT TRASH STOf/AGE AREAS FROM RAINFALL, RUN-ON, RUNOFF, AND IIIND DISPERSAL NEED FOR FUTURE INDOOR & STRUCTURAL PEST CONTROL LANDSCAPE/Oi/TDOOR PESllCIDE USE RRE SPRINKLER TEST WATER MAINTAIN NATURAL DRAINAGE PA /HWA YS AND HYOROLOGIC FEATURES CONSERVE NA TUR AL AREAS SO/Ls, AND VEGETA llON MINIMIZE IMPER'l/0/JS AREAS MINIMIZE SOIL COMPACll0/1 IMPER"10US AREA DISPERSION RUNOFF COLLECllON LANDSCAPING 111TH NA llVE OR ORO/JG/IT TOLERANT SPECIES SYMBOL I SC-1 I I SC-3 I SC-4 I I SC-5 I I SC-6 I ~ SD-1 SD-3 SD-3 SD-4 ~ I SD-71 ILIDll SI :.:CLJ • SC-4 "'-i'V /\ _J. _j ::..c ,Ill' •• • •• • : .. . ·. ..· . .... ~.....;f-_JJ_-1 -,&. . . • QS.I -• __J ·I _, _J _J -• ~J I • • . I I -l:J _J • _j -RYSB=C--=· t;:J:;q~ -he~~~~· --,;h::..a. _c,_, _;_ ~--cc j'f -. •• • lif-:F;-C"' ,iii~";I 3c --__stj !~ '-~-V-~ . -17-t-~-~-~~ '1::J1·•·· SD-5 +. ·-:-•.· • '. WIDE:~AY 1:-.-. •. • '-¢?. 1 . ---1 _.-!---1---1 _,_J OFFLOOf/ .... -, SD 6 _. ifNr ., .-. :· .. ·:·""·•.•46:J7 •4 ---: -_j -..J ..jc PAITT!al ;J -Tl/£VER OVERH. •. • • •• • --.· _· .: : • • .. •. : • . _I ~_. 'Y r,_ .. 4"",":!l'f'"-1 ~4 . ·•. • .• ~c-' '1-:c:t ~ : '_j~.2~ 8 .-. . .. -. . . ~~95fI-·. ·1 zo' •· .I -_j.J__J • • • -• 1~ • • 1% 1S~ • • ••• ·•. _j_j~ IX • :r"-.-:~ 46.09:_,_'_:,_-J !-:--"'.~ .4 r;ONC (re 11.JJ ' 1Bl31 ·-~ ~-· . · 11'.7, • • : •. _.,,... 1 ·;"i . . . . • ., . ~~ • . : ,.· .,::~.:-.. + . ...-.-.... ~ .. · ...• 4 is~. ' . • ·1 .. ,, . . lo! • • ·.--.15 . • ~ ~ff _ ··1--_ ·. · • • • . • · I j 51 re • +1 1! . r •. ~32; ', ,0~~44:;, ",. •• I w• ILIDll BUILDING ±10.0' ±1.5' t;,. ~ . ""~ I • = 'k"'° t;, ~· CONG • . ~+~ ~ . .~·~-·~•-·--'--'---~-'-"---~-"'-~---- ILIDll 1Bli5i #.6/ CITY OF CARLSBAD 10 5 U lU ZU NOT TO SCAI.£ '~~f-----1-~1 SCALE: 1" = 10' VMT ANALYSIS: ESl/MATED AVERAGE DA/Lr TRIPS {ADI) IIILL BE 24. TIIE INCREASED ADT ASSOCIATED 111TH TIIE PROPOSED PRO.ECT CAN BE ACCOII/IOIJA TED BY TIIE EXISTIN(; STREET SYSTEM. IN ACCO/?OANCE 111TH TIIE SCREEN/fl(; CRITERIA PROVIDm IN SECTION 3.2 Of TIIE CITY Of CARLSBAD VEIHCI.E MILES TRA VE1£D ANAL YS/S {VMI) G/JIO£IJNES, A PROJECT THAT GENERATES LESS THAN 110 ADT WO/JI.O Bf PRESUllfD TO HAVE A LESS THAN SIGI/IRCANT TRANSPORTAll0/1 IMPACTS BASED ON TIIE AOT CALCi/LAT/0/IS PRO'I/OED ABO!£ THIS PRO.ECT DEMONSTRATES A TOTAL Of 24 ADT ANO A NET INCREASE Of TRAFFIC OF O ADT FOR THIS PARTICULAR I/SE. --SINCE TIIE TOTAL AOT IS LESS THAN 110 Tl/ERE ARE NO SI/JNIFICANT IMPACTS ANO A ~T ANAL YS/S IS NOT REQUIRED. ADO/llONALL Y, SINCE TIIE PRO.ECT GENERA TES LESS THAN 110 AOT NO ADDITIONAL TRIP REDUCT/OIi STRA TEG/ES ARE NECESSARY. R/W ' LEGEND S'tMBOL SIJBDl'l/5/0N BOi/NDARY ------- RIGHT-OF-WAY EXJSnNG CONTOi/R --150-- EXJSnNG ELEVA llON X 150.5, (150.5} SAIIWT LINE -11-11-11- STORM DRAIN PIPE -SD---SD- SUB-DRAIN PIPE -SUB--·SUB- CAICH BASIN la!CB DOWI/SPOIJT " TRENCH RESURFACING WP~ KEYNOTES: DEMOLISH/PROTECT IN-PLACE Q I. DEMOLISH EXISllNG AC PA VEMENT DRIVEWAY NOT /JSfD 2. J. 4_ 5. 6. z 8. OEMOL/S/1 EXISTING COI/OOI.IINIUMS DEMOLISH CONCRETE STEPS OEMOL/S/1 EXISTING AC PAVEMENT OEMOL/SH EXISTIN(; BRICK SURFACE DEMOI./S/1 EXISllNG COLUMN SI.IPPORT OEMOL/S/1 EXISTING WALL 9. 10. REMO',f EX/SllN(; GAS METER AND REUSE FOR TIIE NEW CONDOMINIUMS IF FEASIBLE OE/,/Ol/S/1 EXISTING FENCE II. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. IZ 18. 19. 20. 21. 0£/,/0LISJ/ EXISTING CONCRETE DRIVEWAY OE/,/Ol/S/1 EXISTING AC BERM PROTECT I" WATER SERVICE IN-PLACE PROTECT CMU WALL Ill-PLACE PROTECT POYrff/ POLE IN-PLACE PROTECT SIGN IN-Pl.ACE PROTECT SIDEWALK IN-PLACE PROTECT CURB ANO GUTTER PROTECT AC PAVEMENT IN-PLACE PIIOTECT RESIDENCE IN-PLACE REIIOVE EXISTING 4" SEYrff/ LATERAL 22. 2J. REMOVE AND RELOCATE J WATER METERS BEHIND S/OEWALK PROTECT AC BERM IN-PLACE 24. REMOVE EXISTING SE'rlfR CI.EANOUT 25. PROTECT MAILBOX IN-PLACE 26. REMOVE AND RELOCATE SIGN 2Z PROTECT FENCE IN-PLACE 28. PROTECT llt'XJD DECK IN-PLACE 29. REMOVE AND RECONSTRUCT PCC S/OEWALK. SEE KEY NOTE NO~ 30. OEMOI.IS/1 EX/SllN(; CURB ANO GIITTER JI. /JPGIIADE WATER METER FOR FIRE SPR/11/(LfRS. SEE NOTE(DUNDER UTILITIES J2. REMf!VE ANO REPLACE ±8 LF AC BEIIM AFTER CONSTRUCTION Of C/JRB ANO GUTTER TO NORTH NEW hltPROITMElVT.S □ I. PROPOSED COND!M/N/IJMS PER ARCHITECTS PLAN 2. PROPOSED GARAGE PER ARCHITECT'S PLAN .I PROPOSED PERMEABLE PAVER DR/',fWAY PER DETAIL '~" ON SHEET 2 4. PROPOSED STAIRS/STEPS 5. PROPOSED CJIU RETAINING WALL PER SDRSD C-1 6. PROPOSED CONCRETE SURFACE PER COI/STRUCllON NOTE NO. 12 Z PROPOSED CONCRETE ORIVEWAY PER SIJRSD G-14A, /,/OD/RED. llfST DRIVEWAY FLARE 6' 111/JE, 9' WIDE PER STANDARD 8. PROPOSED PCC DEEPENED CURB 9. PROPOSED RAISED PLANTER PER ARC/1/TECr's PLAN 10. PROPOSED TRASH RECYC/£ AREA II. PROPOSED AC UNIT PER ARCHITECr's PLAN 12. PROPOSED TRANSF0/1MEJ1 LOCA TIO/I IF REQU/Rm BY SDGE 13. PROPOSED G/JEST PARKING SPACE 14. PROPOSED AC PAVEMENT SURFACE AND BASE 15. CONSTRUCT WATER PROOFING ANO SUB-DRAIN PIPE B[fl/ND TIIE EXISTING WALL PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION Of THE PERMEABLE PA VER DRIVEWAY 16. PROPOSED Ll(;HT Jilli PER ARC/1/TECr'S PLAN FF 51.44 PAO 50.8 I Z PROPOSED TRENCH RESURFACING 18. PROPOSED PERMEABLE GRASSCRETE PA ',IN(; 19. PROPOSED PCC SIDEWALK PER SDRSD G-1 20. PROPOSED PLANTER PER LANIJSCAPE ARCHITECT'S PLAN 21. PROPOSED Cl,//J RETAINING WAU PER SDRSD C-5 22. NOT USED 23. PROPOSED CURB AND WTTER PER SDRSD (;-2 STORM DRAIN !WATER QUALITY Q I. PROPOSED STORM DRAIN PIPE O MIN IX SLOPE 2. PROPOSED CA IC// BASIN J. PROPOSED SUBDRAIN Pi,t: PIPE 4. PROPOSED SIDEWALK UNDERDIIA/N PIPE PER SDRSD 0-27 lJTILITIES Q I. PROPOSED /RR/GA TIO/I WATER MEIER AND SERVICE PER LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PLANS 2. DISTRICT TO INSTALL I" DOUESTIC WA /ER SERVICE CONNECT/OIi 'MTH RRE SPR/11/(LfR SYSTEM PER CITY Of CARLSBAD STANDARD ORA'MNG W-JA J. PROPOSED 6" DIA. PR/VA TE SE'rlfll LATERAL 4. PROPOSED 6" DIA. SEYrff/ Cl£ANOUT PROJECT'S DEMANDS: A ITT?AGE DAILY TRAmC= 3 DUX 8 AOT/IJU= 24 ADT SEflfR DISTRICT= CITY Of CARLSBAD WASTEWATER DIVIS/OIi WATER DISTRICT= CARLSBAD 11/JN/CIPAL WATER DISTRICT SCHOOL DISTRICT= CARLSBAD UN/RED DISTRICT A ITT?AGE WATER DEMAND (Gf'I,()= 250 r;po X 3 DU X 0.0006944 (CONVERSION FACTOR}=a52 GPM A ITT?AGE PEAK DfA(AND (Gf'I,()= 0.52 GPM X 2.9 X 1.0 (ADD}=l.50 GPM RRE FLOW DEMAND ((;f'U)= 3000 GPM/MULTI-FAJIILY RESIDENTIAL UNITS AITT?AGE SEflfR GENERATION (MG0)=220 r;p[J/fDIJ X 3 ED/J's= 660 r;po X 2.5= 1,650 r;pf)= 0.00165 MGD DRAINAGE DISCHARGE=0.31 CFS MASTER PLAN=BASIN A-BUENA "1STA CREEi( WATERSHED JN: ~/35 8-13-21 ~AMP □ !NEERING, INC. fSHEfi7 CITY OF CARLSBAD I SHE2ETS I L__,I_j ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN FOR: 3 ON GARFIELD CONDOMINIUMS APN: 203-147-27-01,-02,-0J {2685-2689 GARAELD STREEQ Ill stm'IY RtM1! S/Jlf 21~ EI/CmAS, CA /J21JU TEL, (76D) 4J6-fJ660 FAX: {lfiD) C8-/J/J5II Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 115 of 128 ~mER-1/8" TO 3/8" (NO. 8) AGGl{[GA TE IN ~S BED01NG CO/JRSE -2• THICK OFl/8" TO 3/8" (NO. 8} AGGl{[GATE CHOKER COURSE -4" T/1/CK OF3/8" TO 1/2" (NO. 57} CRUSH£() ROCK 4 11/N. 6" THICK ~ ¾!; arr APPRO',ffJ PER',1(}/JS PAV£RS W/ 11/N. 3/8" ~ Sill SJJBGRADE ----'""":', •..• ::·)~ ... _~ 6"x20" PCC FL/JSH CURB OR [)[[f'ENfD G-1 CURB ('MIER£ OCCURS} CURB SHALL £XTEND 11/N. Bfl.OW ADJACENT SOIi. SJJBGRADE PER SOIL £NGIN£ER R£COW£NOA llON. PERMEABLE PA VER DETAIL WITH CONCRETE EDGES IA\ =======\.& PL PL EXISTING WALL TO B£ £VALUATED OUR/NG CONSTRUCTION DOCV/1£NT PHASE TO DETERIIIN£ STIIIJCTUHAL INTEGRITY ANO ANY AOJJSTIIENTS TO 11/E WALL Yt1l1 B£ OON£ AT THAT ll/lE PROPOSED C/,1/J RETAINING WALL PROPOSED PEllll[ABI.[ 1 PA V£R ORIV£WAY -11!. --------GARAGE MAIN FLOOR FF 57.()() I LAIJNDRY/STOIIArI IX FF 48.28 -lJl=D=lJl=D=lJl=D=lJl=D=lJl=D= lJl=D=ll.fD=llFH=i I Fl -Fl I £X/Slll/G GRADE 8fJllJJ/NG FO/JIIDA llOI/ SHOIJIJ) BE O£EPfJ/ED TO EXTEND AT l£AST 18 INCH£S 8£10W ADJACENT SOil. S/J8GRAIJE S/JRFAC£ PEJ/ SO/l. ENG/NEEJ/ RECOIIIJENIJA Tl/JI. PL PROPOS[I) S/18-0RAIN ]IP£ ON-SITE CROSS SECTION SCALE: 1"=10' @ f 80.0' PROPOSED CJ.IU RETAINING WALL PROPOSED SUB-DRAIN PIP£. SE£ OETAIL '1," FOR CONNECTIONS AND INV£RT El.EVA l/ONS R ur u6' 1---------+----5.f---i----20.o·----i----20.o·-----i---5.o'--_,_ _______ _, PROTECT SIDEWALK [XISTIIIG GI/AOE ( IN-PLACE '1 -1-1,-,, 10 5 0 10 20 I ~,___-1 I -----~ SCALE: 1"=10' SCALE: 1" = 10' GARFIELD STREET L\ <J ✓ I ) ix 2x) 12 {9.9J • _, -.-t> • 11 . I ~ 6 • m,'W/MPROJEMENTh'□ I. PROPOSED NEW CO/IDOUIN/{J/IS PER AIICHITECrs PLAN 4. PROPOSED STAIRS/STEPS 6. PROPOSED CONCFIETE SURFACE PER COI/STIIIJCllOI/ NOTE NO. 13 ON SI/ITT I 9. PROPOSED RAISED PLANTER PER ARCI/ITEcrs PLAN II. PROPOSED AC UNIT PER AR(JIITECrs PLAN DETAIL "G" ======================@G SCALE: 1"=5' 12. PROPOSED TRANSFORM£R LOCATION IF REQUIR£0 BY SDGE 16. PROPOSED UGHT llfLL PER ARCH/TECrs PLAN FF 51.44 PAO so.a 19. PROPOSED PCC SIDEWALi( PER SORSI) G-7 22. PROPOSED C/,1/J RETAINING WALL PER SORSD C-3 23. PROPOSED CURB AND GUTTER PER SORSIJ G-2 STORM DRAIN /WATER QUALITY Q I. PROPOSED STORII DRAIN PIP£ fJ UIN 1% S.OPE 2. PROPOSED CA TC// BASIN 3. PROPOSED SUBORAIN PVC PIP£ 4. PROPOSED SIO£WALK IJNO£ROIIAIN PIP£ PER SORSD 0-27 PROTECT £X/Sl/NG CURB AND GUTTER PROTECT AC PAV£11£1/T BEECH AV£ CROSS SECT/~~ (l) I 4 ~ ~ '0- ~~ 2.fl <'}'~- 12.f -:!IL_ 6 .-. w . . /) . ··. -·s 3 5 2.5 0 5 10 ~I ~,____l_~I SCALE: 1" = 5' £XISTIIIG GI/AOE . -11=11 = 11=11 -,,_ •• (/) c;, PL 99.89' _ PROTECT £X/Slll/G PROPOSED :,&-., FENCE IN-PLACE PAV£R~1 OEll(XJSH £XJSTING PROTECT £X/Slll/G AC PAV£11£NT ORIV£WAY ~ RETAINING WALL ~ _IN-PLACE~ £XISTING GRADE JL ,,';-, .. ' "-~"-' ' I :::i -a11~ ON-SITE CROSS SECTION SCALE: 1"=10' © PL f I 60.0' IX -., . .,. .. .,. .. .,. .. .,. ., ., ., ., EXISTING GRADE I PL 10.0' 4.5' I I 2X -·_;~I~~ -:i):1\;-,, PROPOSED CONCRETE ORIV£WAY OEll(XJSH EX/SllNG CONC. ORIV£WAY R/N 5.5• ~ I~ ~I I~ !!E"~.:,; ''--'IJ;d j'j_ n'!!1 Filli~ PROTECT PAV£11£NT IN-PLACE AC f-4.8'--+----5.f---i-----19.9•-------20.1·-------5.B'--..,_-4_1' I PROTECT CONC. IN-PLACE NOTE: CONTRACTOR TO LOCATE 11/E EXISTING WALL FOOllNG PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION AND NOllF'( 11/E £NGIN£ER OF 'MJIII( IF £X/SllNG COND/llONS OlfF£R FRO/I 'MIAT IS SI/Oltll HEREON. PROPOSED SIJB-ORAIN PIP£ PL PROTECT SIDEWALK ( IN-PLACE PROTECT £XISTING CURB AND GUTTER PROTECT AC PAV£11£NT 2.()()' 0.66' \ £XISTING -j =SEO - RETAINING WALL PROPOSED PCC [)[[P[N£[j PROPOSED PfRIIEABI.[ CURB PER SOIi. £NG/N£ER GI/ASSCR£TE PA VINC PER RECOIIMfNOA llONS. LANDSCAPE ARCI/ITECT PLAN RETAINING WALL CROSS SECT!~:® . -1_11- £X/SllNG GI/AO£ ~ CITY OF CARLSBAD I SHE2ETS I L_?_j ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT TENTATIVE MAP FOR 3 ON GARFIELD CONDOMINIUMS APN: 203-147-27-01,-02,-0J {2685-2689 GARAELD STREEQ UP D W D W D W A-5.1 A-5 A-5.1 A-5 2 3 A B 1 A-6 2 A-6 22' - 0" 20' - 10 1/2"21' - 4" 20 ' - 5 " 8' - 8" 13' - 8" 16' - 0"13' - 10 1/2" 20' - 10 1/2" 1 4 21' - 10 1/2"21' - 10 1/2" 32 ' - 8 " PLANTER PLANTER PLANTER PL PL PL PLPLPL PL PL PL PL PL PL PL GARAGE 24 VESTIBULE 21 LAUNDRY / STORAGE 22 CLO. 23 GARAGE STAIRWELL 20 RECESSED PLANTER GARAGE STAIRWELL 43 VESTIBULE 44 CLO. 46 GARAGE 47 GARAGE STAIRWELL 67 VESTIBULE 68 CLO. 70 GARAGE 71 HARDSCAPE ENTRY PORCH ABOVE HARDSCAPE ENTRY PORCH ABOVE 12' - 4"1' - 4" 4' - 8" F.Y.S.B. 20' - 0" EXT. S.Y.S.B. 10' - 0" EXT. S.Y.S.B. 10' - 0" PLANTER SETBACK INTRUSION PER CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE 21.46.120 (4), UNCOVERED ENTRY PORCH @ MAIN LEVEL. INTRUSION IS LESS THAN 6'-0" INTO SIDE YARD. 5' - 9" SETBACK INTRUSION PER CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE 21.46.120 (4), UNCOVERED ENTRY PORCH @ MAIN LEVEL. INTRUSION IS LESS THAN 6'-0" INTO SIDE YARD. SETBACK INTRUSION PER CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE 21.46.120 (4), UNCOVERED ENTRY PORCH @ MAIN LEVEL. INTRUSION IS LESS THAN 6'-0" INTO SIDE YARD. LANDSCAPE WALL LESS THAN 42" IN HEIGHT AT GRADE, TYP. LANDSCAPE WALL LESS THAN 42" IN HEIGHT AT GRADE, TYP. LANDSCAPE WALL LESS THAN 42" IN HEIGHT AT GRADE, TYP.LANDSCAPE WALL LESS THAN 42" IN HEIGHT AT GRADE, TYP. LANDSCAPE WALL LESS THAN 42" IN HEIGHT AT GRADE, TYP. (24'- 0" CLR. FOR DRIVEWAY ~ 25' - 1" +/- TYP.1 TYP.1 TYP.1 TYP.1 TYP.1 2689 GARFIELD 2687 GARFIELD 2685 GARFIELD 20' - 5" 65' - 9" 12' - 0" 3' - 0" 6' - 0" 4' - 0" GUEST PARKING SPACE REC.TRASHREC.TRASH REC.TRASH 5'-0" BACK UP SPACE UNIT 2689 CONDENSER UNIT 2687 CONDENSER UNIT 2685 CONDENSER TRASH / RECYCLE STAGING (PICKUP) 5' - 8 1/2" 5' - 9" PROPOSED TRANSFORMER LOCATION (IF REQUIRED) PER SDGE REQUIREMENTS AND CLEANRACES, TYP. CL SETBACK INTRUSION PER CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE 21.46.120 (2), FIREPLACE. INTRUSION IS LESS THAN 2'-0" AND LESS THAN 8'-0" WIDE. 6' - 9" 7' - 10" SETBACK INTRUSION PER CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE 21.46.120 (2), FIREPLACE. INTRUSION IS LESS THAN 2'-0" AND LESS THAN 8'-0" WIDE. 11 1/2"9" LAUNDRY / STORAGE 72 LAUNDRY / STORAGE 73 INT. S.Y.S.B. 7' - 0" 14'-0" R.Y.S.B.LINE OF FLOOR CANTILEVER OVERHEAD, TYP. CONCEALED DOWNSPOUT FROM ABOVE AND SCUPPER TERMINATION, SEE CIVIL PLANS, TYP. CONCEALED DOWNSPOUT FROM ABOVE AND SCUPPER TERMINATION, SEE CIVIL PLANS, TYP. CONCEALED DOWNSPOUT FROM ABOVE AND SCUPPER TERMINATION, SEE CIVIL PLANS, TYP.CONCEALED DOWNSPOUT FROM ABOVE AND SCUPPER TERMINATION, SEE CIVIL PLANS, TYP. CONCEALED DOWNSPOUT FROM ABOVE AND SCUPPER TERMINATION, SEE CIVIL PLANS, TYP. 5' - 9 1/2"5' - 10 1/2"5' - 9 1/2" 4' - 8" 8' - 0" 8' - 0" 8' - 0" 16' - 0" 13' - 4" 9' - 4" PLANTER PL A N T E R PER CMC 21.46.120 (3) 8'- 0" S.Y.S.B. FOR STAIR BUTRESSES 20' - 5"DRIVE AISLE 24' - 0" 2 PLANTER WIDTH 4' - 2" PLANTER LENGTH 19' - 8" 6" CURB 2' - 3" 2' - 3" This document is the property of John S. Beery, Architect, A.I.A. Any unauthorized use or reproduction of this document, in whole or part, is prohibited. REVISIONS By D E S NEC IL ST ATEOF CA L I F ORNICETIHCRA JO HN S. BEE RY No . C - 1 5 4 2 6 RE N . 10 / 1 5 T A Drawn By Job No. Scale Date Sheet Name Sheet No. 1 2 3 4 A B C D Signature Date I have reviewed these construction documents and have approved their contents as including all of the design aspects I had previously authorized. I understand my project will be constructed as specified by these construction documentsP R E L I M I N A R Y N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N KEYNOTES ARCHITECTURAL LEGEND 1 Interior Elevation New Wall Existing Wall Demolition A 1 1 A-1 Building Elevation Keynote Doors Windows Wall Type 1 Revision Centerline Property Line Overhead Insulation A A-11 Storefront Elevation NOTE: NOT ALL SYMBOLS SHOWN ABOVE ARE USED IN THIS SET OF DRAWINGS. BGI ARCHITECTURE Beery Group Inc.2091 Las Palmas Drive, St. DCarlsbad, CA 92011 ARCHITECTURE | DESIGN (760) 438-2963 bgiarchitect.com 1/4" = 1'-0" 3 O N G A R F I E L D C O N D O M I N I U M S BPB A-1 2021.06.08 2003 26 8 9 , 2 6 8 7 , 2 6 8 5 G A R F I E L D S T R E E T CA R L S B A D , C A 9 2 0 0 8 GARAGE FLOORPLAN 1/4" = 1'-0" GARAGE FLOOR PLAN REFERENCE NORTH 1 CMU FOUNDATION WALLS GROUTED SOLIDWITH EXT. WATER RESISTANT BARRIER ANDFOUNDATION DRAIN BELOW GRADE, TYP. 2 "PARKING AREA" LANDSCAPE PLANTER PERCMC 21.44.050 TABLE "B'. PROPOSED(EXPOSED) PARKING AREA (DRIVE AISLES ANDVISITOR PARKING SPACE = 2,668 S.F. x 3% =80.04 S.F. REQUIRED. PLANTER = 81.96 S.F.PROVIDED > 80.04 REQUIRED. PLANTER MUSTCONTAIN TREES AS APPROVED BY THE CITY OFCARLSBAD, SEE LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS, TYP. Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 116 of 128 L, -' lJY -J----------------- !' I I 11 I I 11 I I I ___ L ____ -----____ _l __ ~~------__ l __ -- __ l _____________________ l _______ -------------1 I I I 1-----+----------+---l-------~---------------~------+------------ ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --1-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -~: II I I I I +-,----~-~---~~ 1 = -::11-__ 7f 71 ~ _--11-= 7 \ I I I I I •• -II I L = :jL .:-JL _ JL _ j_-=_ ~c-.:::-J D [i]: ► E] D 0 D □ □ D D -----------------I D [J □ D D D D D [J □ D [3 I I \ I I \ I I \ I I I I I I I \ I I I I I I I / I I I I I I / I I I I I I I L_ ___ l_ __ _J ~ v ◄ I I I ~ ,- ~ , , ~~~~~~t~ , , ~~~~~=-I , I I I I Ir - - - - - - - - - - - - - -'il I I 0 0 □ 0- < (> ◄ 2'/21/ /LL /4'1/;; ·~ --- - -------- @ ~--------------~------------ /~-.._'-. ,...._ ____ __, DN UP A-5.1 A-5 A-5.1 A-5 2 3 A B 21' - 10 1/2"22' - 0"21' - 10 1/2" 1 A-6 2 A-6 1 4 32 ' - 8 " ENTRY TERRACE PLANTER @ 32" HIGH PLANTER PL PL PL PLPLPLPL PL PL PL PL PL PL 12' - 0" 8' - 9" 5' - 9 " 10 ' - 3 1 / 2 " 2' - 0 " 13 ' - 6 " 11' - 10 1/2" 8' - 4 1/2" 8' - 4 1/2" 2' - 8" 5' - 0 " 6' - 6 " 12 ' - 9 " 10' - 6 1/2" 13 ' - 6 " 10' - 6 1/2"12' - 0" 15 ' - 0 " BU I L T -IN C L O . CLO. BU I L T -IN C L O . 8' - 4 1 / 2 " 8' - 11 1/2" 8' - 9 1/2" 11' - 6" 10 ' - 3 " 8' - 2" 13 ' - 2 " MURPHY BED BU I L T -IN D E S K BU I L T -IN D E S K BUILT-IN DESK LINEN MAIN FLOORSTAIRWELL 10 ENTRY 01 ENTRY OFFICE 02 MASTER BEDROOM 03 MASTER BATHROOM 04 MASTER CLOSET 05 BEDROOM #2 06 BED #2 BATH 08 BED #2 CLO. 07 ENTRY 25 ENTRY OFFICE 26 HALLWAY 27 MASTER BEDROOM 28 MASTER CLO. 29 MASTER BATHROOM 30 BEDROOM #2 31 BED #2 CLO. 32 BED #2 BATH 33 MAIN FLOOR STAIRWELL 34 ENTRY 48 HALLWAY 49 MASTER BEDROOM 50 MASTER BATH 51 MASTER CLO. 52 BEDROOM #2 53 HALL BATH 54 FLEX OFFICE /BEDROOM 56 MAIN FLOOR STAIRWELL 57 RECESSED PLANTER INT. S.Y.S.B. 7' - 0" 14'-0" R.Y.S.B. F.Y.S.B. 20' - 0" EXT. S.Y.S.B. 10' - 0" EXT. S.Y.S.B. 10' - 0" 5' - 9" 5' - 9" 5' - 8 1/2" LANDSCAPE WALL LESS THAN 42" IN HEIGHT AT GRADE, TYP. PER 21.46.120 (5) LANDSCAPE WALL LESS THAN 42" IN HEIGHT AT GRADE, TYP. PER 21.46.120 (5) HATCHING = SETBACK INTRUSION PER CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE 21.46.120 (3), STAIRWAYS (LESS THAN 2'-0") AND PER (1) "BUTRESSES"/"ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES". THIS SETBACK INTRUSION DOES NOT ENCLOSE ANY USABLE INTERIOR S.F. LANDSCAPE WALL LESS THAN 42" IN HEIGHT AT GRADE, TYP. PER 21.46.120 (5) LANDSCAPE WALL LESS THAN 42" IN HEIGHT AT GRADE, TYP. PER 21.46.120 (5) 15' - 0" VISUAL CLEARANCE 15'- 0" VISUAL CLEARANCE HATCH AREA = VISUAL CLEARANCE AREA PER 21.46.100, TYP. SETBACK INTRUSION PER CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE 21.46.120 (2), FIREPLACE. INTRUSION IS LESS THAN 2'-0" AND LESS THAN 8'-0" WIDE. 7' - 10" 1' - 0" SETBACK INTRUSION PER CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE 21.46.120 (1), BUTTRESS / ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE. INTRUSION IS LESS THAN 2'-0". DOES NOT ENCLOSE ANY ADDITIONAL USABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE.1' - 10" 1' - 11 1/2" SETBACK INTRUSION PER CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE 21.46.120 (1), BUTTRESS / ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE. INTRUSION IS 2'-0". DOES NOT ENCLOSE ANY ADDITIONAL USABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE. SETBACK INTRUSION PER CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE 21.46.120 (2), FIREPLACE. INTRUSION IS LESS THAN 2'-0" AND LESS THAN 8'-0" WIDE. 6' - 9" SETBACK INTRUSION PER CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE 21.46.120 (4), UNCOVERED ENTRY PORCH @ MAIN LEVEL. INTRUSION IS LESS THAN 6'-0" INTO SIDE YARD. SETBACK INTRUSION PER CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE 21.46.120 (4), UNCOVERED ENTRY PORCH @ MAIN LEVEL. INTRUSION IS LESS THAN 6'-0" INTO SIDE YARD. TYP.1 TYP.1TYP.1 TYP.1 18" HIGH SEAT, TYP. ENTRY ENTRY 4 RISERS @ 6" = 24" 3 RISERS @ 6" = 18"3 RISERS @ 6" = 18"3 RISERS @ 6" = 18" 4 RISERS @ 6" = 24" PLANTER @ 32" HIGH PLANTER @ 32" HIGH (42" HIGH) (42" HIGH) (42" HIGH) 5' - 0" EXISTING TURN TO REMAIN EXISTING TURN TO REMAIN EXISTING TURN TO REMAIN EXISTING SIDEWALK EXISTING SIDEWALK 1' - 11" 1' - 11" 1' - 11" 21' - 4"21' - 1" 21' - 1" 3' - 11 1/2" 21' - 1" 1' - 0"10' - 4" 65' - 9" 5' - 4" 4' - 8" 12' - 0" PROPOSED TRANSFORMER LOCATION (IF REQUIRED) PER SDGE REQUIREMENTS AND CLEANRACES, TYP. UNIT 2689 CONDENSER UNIT 2687 CONDENSER UNIT 2685 CONDENSER 1' - 10 1/2" 2' - 0" ENTRY TERRACE 6' - 0" MECH. 9' - 0" 6' - 0" PLANTER PLANTER PER CMC 21.46120 (3) 8'- 0" S.Y.S.B. FOR STAIR BUTRESSES 2' - 3" 2' - 3" This document is the property of John S. Beery, Architect, A.I.A. Any unauthorized use or reproduction of this document, in whole or part, is prohibited. REVISIONS By D E S NEC IL ST ATEOF CA L I F ORNICETIHCRA JO HN S. BEE RY No . C - 1 5 4 2 6 RE N . 10 / 1 5 T A Drawn By Job No. Scale Date Sheet Name Sheet No. 1 2 3 4 A B C D Signature Date I have reviewed these construction documents and have approved their contents as including all of the design aspects I had previously authorized. I understand my project will be constructed as specified by these construction documentsP R E L I M I N A R Y N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N KEYNOTES ARCHITECTURAL LEGEND 1 Interior Elevation New Wall Existing Wall Demolition A 1 1 A-1 Building Elevation Keynote Doors Windows Wall Type 1 Revision Centerline Property Line Overhead Insulation A A-11 Storefront Elevation NOTE: NOT ALL SYMBOLS SHOWN ABOVE ARE USED IN THIS SET OF DRAWINGS. BGI ARCHITECTURE Beery Group Inc.2091 Las Palmas Drive, St. DCarlsbad, CA 92011 ARCHITECTURE | DESIGN (760) 438-2963 bgiarchitect.com 1/4" = 1'-0" 3 O N G A R F I E L D C O N D O M I N I U M S BPB A-2 2021.06.08 2003 26 8 9 , 2 6 8 7 , 2 6 8 5 G A R F I E L D S T R E E T CA R L S B A D , C A 9 2 0 0 8 MAIN FLOOR PLAN 1/4" = 1'-0" MAIN FLOOR PLAN REFERENCE NORTH 1 INTRUSIONS INTO REQUIRED YARDS MAYEXTEND PLANTER BOXES NOT EXCEEDING 42"IN HEIGHT FROM GRADE. Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 117 of 128 I I ' I I j □ I ► [] D D D 0 \ \ I C) □ D ---♦----- □ __ L _________________ _l ____________________ l __________ _ I I __ 1 _____________________ 1 _____________________ 1 D '-/ '-o_,, / '-'- ---~ I D - - -'J I 11 ~ / '-/ D D :e: / '-'- D I LJ 11 Fr LJ LI: - - - D D 0 \ D \ I LJ D LJ I \ / '-/ :e: / '- D '- 0 D D D ] F9 --·----- - □ □ T 11 I I I li-----------------i T I I I I I I ◄ I I I I I • I I ---+-- .Lr V i-1-r 'I' 1 ' J-f D ll <I " ., ' rt 1· I ir----------'--'=--=--=-=--=::_::,i I I 0 0 □ 0-- < (> ◄ ~--------------~-----------...._ ____ __, DN DN DW DW DW A-5.1 A-5 A-5.1 A-5 2 3 A B 1 A-6 2 A-6 1 4 21' - 10 1/2"22' - 0"21' - 10 1/2" 32 ' - 8 " PL PL PL PL PL PL PL PL PL PL F.P. F.P. SECOND FLOORSTAIRWELL 11 DINING ROOM 12 KITCHEN 13 LIVING / GREAT ROOM 14 POWDER 15 ENTERTAININGTERRACE 16 STORAGE 17 14' - 9 1/2"15' - 0 1/2"14' - 9 1/2" SECOND FLOORSTAIRWELL 33 DINING ROOM 35 KITCHEN 36 LIVING / GREAT ROOM 37 POWDER 38 ENTERTAININGTERRACE 39 STORAGE 40 SECOND FLOOR STAIRWELL 58 DINING ROOM 59 KITCHEN 60 LIVING / GREAT ROOM 61 POWDER 62 ENTERTAININGTERRACE 63 STORAGE 64 5' - 0 " HATCHING = SETBACK INTRUSION PER CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE 21.46.120 (3), STAIRWAYS (LESS THAN 2'-0") AND PER (1) "BUTRESSES"/"ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES". THIS SETBACK INTRUSION DOES NOT ENCLOSE ANY USABLE INTERIOR S.F. SETBACK INTRUSION PER CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE 21.46.120 (2), FIREPLACE. INTRUSION IS LESS THAN 2'-0" AND LESS THAN 8'-0" WIDE. SETBACK INTRUSION PER CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE 21.46.120 (1), BUTTRESS / ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE. INTRUSION IS LESS THAN 2'-0". DOES NOT ENCLOSE ANY ADDITIONAL USABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE. 7' - 1 0 " 1' - 0" 1' - 10 1/2" SETBACK INTRUSION PER CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE 21.46.120 (1), BUTTRESS / ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE. INTRUSION IS LESS THAN 2'-0". DOES NOT ENCLOSE ANY ADDITIONAL USABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE. 1' - 1 1 " 1' - 1 1 " 1' - 1 1 " 2' - 0 " 1' - 9 1/2" 6' - 9 " 1' - 0 1/2" SETBACK INTRUSION PER CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE 21.46.120 (2), FIREPLACE. INTRUSION IS LESS THAN 2'-0" AND LESS THAN 8'-0" WIDE. SETBACK INTRUSION PER CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE 21.46.120 (1), EAVE / ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE. INTRUSION IS LESS THAN 2'-0", AND DOES NOT ENCLOSE ANY USABLE S.F. SETBACK INTRUSION PER CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE 21.46.120 (1), EAVE / ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE. INTRUSION IS LESS THAN 2'-0", AND DOES NOT ENCLOSE ANY USABLE S.F. SETBACK INTRUSION PER CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE 21.46.120 (1), EAVE / ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE. INTRUSION IS LESS THAN 2'-0", AND DOES NOT ENCLOSE ANY USABLE S.F. SETBACK INTRUSION PER CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE 21.46.120 (1), EAVE / ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE. INTRUSION IS LESS THAN 2'-0", AND DOES NOT ENCLOSE ANY USABLE S.F. INT. S.Y.S.B. 7' - 0" F.Y.S.B. 20' - 0" 14'-0" R.Y.S.B. 10'- 0" EXT. S.Y.S.B. 10'- 0" EXT. S.Y.S.B. PLPLPLPL TYP.1 21' - 1" 21' - 4"21' - 1" 6' - 0" 6' - 0" 2' - 0" 6' - 0" F.P. 6' - 0" 6' - 0" PER CMC 21.46.120 (3) 8'- 0" S.Y.S.B. FOR STAIR BUTRESSES This document is the property of John S. Beery, Architect, A.I.A. Any unauthorized use or reproduction of this document, in whole or part, is prohibited. REVISIONS By D E S NEC IL ST ATEOF CA L I F ORNICETIHCRA JO HN S. BEE RY No . C - 1 5 4 2 6 RE N . 10 / 1 5 T A Drawn By Job No. Scale Date Sheet Name Sheet No. 1 2 3 4 A B C D Signature Date I have reviewed these construction documents and have approved their contents as including all of the design aspects I had previously authorized. I understand my project will be constructed as specified by these construction documentsP R E L I M I N A R Y N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N KEYNOTES ARCHITECTURAL LEGEND 1 Interior Elevation New Wall Existing Wall Demolition A 1 1 A-1 Building Elevation Keynote Doors Windows Wall Type 1 Revision Centerline Property Line Overhead Insulation A A-11 Storefront Elevation NOTE: NOT ALL SYMBOLS SHOWN ABOVE ARE USED IN THIS SET OF DRAWINGS. BGI ARCHITECTURE Beery Group Inc.2091 Las Palmas Drive, St. DCarlsbad, CA 92011 ARCHITECTURE | DESIGN (760) 438-2963 bgiarchitect.com 1/4" = 1'-0" 3 O N G A R F I E L D C O N D O M I N I U M S BPB A-3 2021.06.08 2003 26 8 9 , 2 6 8 7 , 2 6 8 5 G A R F I E L D S T R E E T CA R L S B A D , C A 9 2 0 0 8 SECOND FLOORPLAN REFERENCE NORTH 1/4" = 1'-0" SECOND FLOOR PLAN 1 PLANTER AND LANDSCAPING BELOW, TYP. Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 118 of 128 0 11-----cc::J~~~~~~~~~~~~~1~~~~~~~~1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1 ~ ~ ~-~N'-J ------+--___ J ~--------------------l------'---------------------------------------1 i' I II '1 I I I ► 0-1-t - ~i II I I II I I "===Ill D D ' '' d D g □ I Fl Fl LJ LJ D -----------I """"'~=~~~"'==-~~_,____---~---_,__---.iiiiil-.--'-iiiiiiiii.""'-----------iii.ii.iiii__--------.----------.-----...~- D D g □ Fl Fl LJ LJ I I I ,t,--..L---~ □ D D F=1 f---------a-____,...----------------------~---------------l- L--------------'--=-,=a-~-------------------~---l------___ _____j_ Laa-a-------------~--------------------~------___ oaa-aJ_ b,-e ___ ----------~--------------------~---------~- I i' I I • II I i' I D -- -- D □g Fl Fl LJ LJ D ----------------------~ j ' ' • 1 I I I I I ◄ I ---+-- 1 I □ Ir - - - - - - - - - - - - - -'il I I 0 0 □ 0-- < (> ◄ ~--------------~------------ / '- / " / c:J \ I I I \ I \ I .h ' ·,-. / ~ - ,...._ ____ __, DN A-5.1 A-5 A-5.1 A-5 2 3 A B 1 A-6 2 A-6 1 4 RIDGEHIPHIPHIPHIP3" / 1 2 " 3" / 12" 3" / 1 2 " 3" / 1 2 " 3" / 12" 3" / 1 2 " 32 ' - 4 1 / 2 " 3 1 / 2 " 21' - 10 1/2"22' - 0"21' - 10 1/2" FIREPLACE FLUE SOLAR AREA88 S.F.SOLAR AREA88 S.F.SOLAR AREA160 S.F. TYP.1 TYP.2 TYP.3 TYP.3 TYP.3 TYP.4 TYP.4 TYP.4 TYP.4 TYP.5TYP.5 TYP.5 INT. S.Y.S.B. 7' - 0" F.Y.S.B. 20' - 0" 14'-0" R.Y.S.B. EXT. S.Y.S.B. 10' - 0" TYP.1 TYP.1 TYP.1 HATCHING = SETBACK INTRUSION PER CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE 21.46.120 (3), STAIRWAYS (LESS THAN 2'-0") AND PER (1) "BUTRESSES"/"ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES". THIS SETBACK INTRUSION DOES NOT ENCLOSE ANY USABLE INTERIOR S.F. SETBACK INTRUSION PER CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE 21.46.120 (2), FIREPLACE. INTRUSION IS LESS THAN 2'-0" AND LESS THAN 8'-0" WIDE. SETBACK INTRUSION PER CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE 21.46.120 (2), FIREPLACE. INTRUSION IS LESS THAN 2'-0" AND LESS THAN 8'-0" WIDE. SETBACK INTRUSION PER CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE 21.46.120 (1), EAVE / ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE. INTRUSION IS LESS THAN 2'-0", AND DOES NOT ENCLOSE ANY USABLE S.F. SETBACK INTRUSION PER CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE 21.46.120 (1), EAVE / ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE. INTRUSION IS LESS THAN 2'-0", AND DOES NOT ENCLOSE ANY USABLE S.F. SETBACK INTRUSION PER CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE 21.46.120 (1), EAVE / ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE. INTRUSION IS LESS THAN 2'-0", AND DOES NOT ENCLOSE ANY USABLE S.F. 1' - 9" 1' - 11" 1' - 11" 6' - 9" 7' - 10" 1' - 0" SETBACK INTRUSION PER CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE 21.46.120 (1), EAVE / ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE. INTRUSION IS LESS THAN 2'-0", AND DOES NOT ENCLOSE ANY USABLE S.F. 1'-0" HIGH FASCIA @ ROOF EDGE, TYP. SOLAR AREA80 S.F. TYP.5 SOLAR AREA56 S.F. TYP.5 3" / 1'- 0" 3' - 0" 3' - 1" 3' - 0"3' - 0" 3' - 1" 3' - 1" 3' - 0" 3' - 0" 3' - 7 1/2"3' - 7 1/2" 3' - 6"3' - 6" 3' - 0" 4' - 1" 3' - 2 1/2" CRICKET CRICKET CRICKET CRICKET UNIT BALCONIES @ SECOND FLOOR BELOW, TYP. 3' - 1" CONCEALED DOWNSPOUT INSIDE FRAMING, TYP. CONCEALED DOWNSPOUT INSIDE FRAMING, TYP. CONCEALED DOWNSPOUT INSIDE FRAMING, TYP. CONCEALED DOWNSPOUT INSIDE FRAMING, TYP. CONCEALED DOWNSPOUT INSIDE FRAMING, TYP. PER CMC 21.46.120 (3) 8'- 0" S.Y.S.B. FOR STAIR BUTRESSES This document is the property of John S. Beery, Architect, A.I.A. Any unauthorized use or reproduction of this document, in whole or part, is prohibited. REVISIONS By D E S NEC IL ST ATEOF CA L I F ORNICETIHCRA JO HN S. BEE RY No . C - 1 5 4 2 6 RE N . 10 / 1 5 T A Drawn By Job No. Scale Date Sheet Name Sheet No. 1 2 3 4 A B C D Signature Date I have reviewed these construction documents and have approved their contents as including all of the design aspects I had previously authorized. I understand my project will be constructed as specified by these construction documentsP R E L I M I N A R Y N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N KEYNOTES ARCHITECTURAL LEGEND 1 Interior Elevation New Wall Existing Wall Demolition A 1 1 A-1 Building Elevation Keynote Doors Windows Wall Type 1 Revision Centerline Property Line Overhead Insulation A A-11 Storefront Elevation NOTE: NOT ALL SYMBOLS SHOWN ABOVE ARE USED IN THIS SET OF DRAWINGS. BGI ARCHITECTURE Beery Group Inc.2091 Las Palmas Drive, St. DCarlsbad, CA 92011 ARCHITECTURE | DESIGN (760) 438-2963 bgiarchitect.com 1/4" = 1'-0" 3 O N G A R F I E L D C O N D O M I N I U M S BPB A-4 2021.06.08 2003 26 8 9 , 2 6 8 7 , 2 6 8 5 G A R F I E L D S T R E E T CA R L S B A D , C A 9 2 0 0 8 ROOF PLAN 1/4" = 1'-0" ROOF PLAN REFERENCE NORTH 1 PLANTER AND LANDSCAPING BELOW, TYP. 2 FIREPLACE FLUE, TYP. 3 CONCEALED GUTTER AND DOWNSPOUT, TYP.U.O.N. 4 GRIDLINE OF FLOOR BELOW, TYP 5 FUTURE ROOF AREA(S) FOR SOLAR P.V.SYSTEM, TYP. U.O.N. Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 119 of 128 [;2.~~~T~-~~__i_.,=z;::. -=-f-1 1 ~==-----___ L ___ _ ------=--=--_J_ ------·------ ' ' i I 11 I' I, I '-' -I.. I 11 I I I I I I □ 11 I I I I I I I I I _l I I I I ltt I I - --I I I n /\ I I I I I I I I I I I I ► I r--+ --I I □ □ □ -11_1_ I I 11 I . I 11 I ✓-r -- h f -------.t- Ir I L:: ---------, I ' ' . I I I -----,T------.----1 I ◄ ' ' I ---+-- ! I - - - - - - - -'il I ::'J 0 0 □ 0- < (> ◄ GARAGE FLOOR0' -0" MAIN FLOOR9' -0" 23 SECOND FLOOR18' -6" 1 A-6 ROOF PLATE28' -0" SIDEWALK4' -11" 14 TYP.2 4 TYP.5 TYP.9 10 TYP.1 PL PL PL PL PL PL TYP.9 TYP.9 F.G. / E.G. TYP. TYP.1 TYP.2 TYP.2 1213 MI N . T Y P . 3' - 6 " 4 TYP.5 TYP.5 TYP.6 TYP.6TYP.6 TYP.6 10 30 ' - 0 " LINE OF 30'-0" MAX. @ 78.00' ALLOWED HEIGHT LIMIT FOR 3:12 SLOPED ROOFS, TYP. 12 13 13 ROOF BEYOND TYP. SEE SOUTH AND NORTH ELEVATIONS, TYP. 9' - 6 " 9' - 6 " 9' - 0 " 21' - 10 1/2"22' - 0"21' - 10 1/2" TYP.3 TYP.3 TYP.11 TYP.11 4 CHIMNEY DOES NOT PROTRUDE HEIGHT LIMIT, SEE SIDE SOUTH/NORTH ELEVATIONS, TYP. CHIMNEY DOES NOT PROTRUDE HEIGHT LIMIT, SEE SIDE SOUTH/NORTH ELEVATIONS, TYP. FOR SETBACK INTRUSIONS FOR ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES, BUTRESSES, EAVES, AND CHIMNEYS, SEE FLOOR PLAN SHEETS TYP. FOR SETBACK INTRUSIONS FOR ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES, BUTRESSES, EAVES, AND CHIMNEYS, SEE FLOOR PLAN SHEETS TYP. 2' - 0"2' - 0" 1'-0" HIGH FASCIA & CONCEALED GUTTER ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE AT ROOF PERIMETER PER CMC 21.46.020. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE IS WELL LOWER THAN ROOF RIDGE, AND DOES NOT FULLY OBSCURE THE PITCHED ROOF FROM VIEW. LINE OF EXISTING BUILDING ELEVATION, WITH FLAT ROOF @ 35'-0", WELL OVER THE CURRENT 24'-0" MAXIMUM. EXISTING CHIMNEYS EXTEND A FURTHER 8'-0" IN HEIGHT TO 43'-0". EXISTING NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE TO BE REMOVED.65' - 9" 76.00' 66.50' 57.00' 52.08' 48.00'@ ENTRY 7' - 9 " MA X . 3' - 6 " MA X . 3' - 6 " MAIN FLOOR9' -0" 2 3 SECOND FLOOR18' -6" 1 A-6 ROOF PLATE28' -0" SIDEWALK4' -11" 1 4 TYP.1 TYP.2 TYP.3 4 TYP.6 TYP.7 8 10 TYP.11 TYP.1 32 " P L A N T E R 10 " -2 4 " - TYP.5TYP.5 TYP.1 TYP.2 TYP.2 TYP.3 TYP.3 44 TYP.6 TYP.7TYP.7 8 10 TYP.11 PL PL PL PL PL PL 30 ' - 0 " LINE OF 30'-0" MAX. @ 82.08' ALLOWED HEIGHT LIMIT FOR 3:12 SLOPED ROOFS, TYP. F.G. / E.G. TYP. 24 ' - 0 " T O R O O F E D G E 9' - 6 " 9' - 6 " 21' - 10 1/2"22' - 0"21' - 10 1/2" 1'-0" HIGH FASCIA & CONCEALED GUTTER ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE AT ROOF PERIMETER PER CMC 21.46.020. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE IS WELL LOWER THAN ROOF RIDGE, AND DOES NOTFULLY OBSCURE THE PITCHED ROOF FROM VIEW. TYP.11 PROPOSED TRANSFORMER LOCATION (IF REQUIRED) PER SDGE REQUIREMENTS AND CLEANRACES, TYP. LINE OF ROOF EDGE BEHIND PARAPET, TYP TYP.6 TYP.14 1'-0" HIGH FASCIA & CONCEALED GUTTER ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE AT ROOF PERIMETER PER CMC 21.46.020. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE IS WELL LOWER THAN ROOF RIDGE, AND DOES NOT FULLY OBSCURE THE PITCHED ROOF FROM VIEW. FOR SETBACK INTRUSIONS FOR ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES, BUTRESSES, EAVES, AND CHIMNEYS, SEE FLOOR PLAN SHEETS TYP. FOR SETBACK INTRUSIONS FOR ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES, BUTRESSES, EAVES, AND CHIMNEYS, SEE FLOOR PLAN SHEETS TYP. 2' - 0" 2' - 0" LINE OF EXISTING BUILDING ELEVATION, WITH FLAT ROOF @ 35'-0", WELL OVER THE CURRENT 24'-0" MAXIMUM. EXISTING CHIMNEYS EXTEND A FURTHER 8'-0" IN HEIGHT TO 43'-0". EXISTING NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE TO BE REMOVED. 76.00' 66.50' 57.00' 52.08' This document is the property of John S. Beery, Architect, A.I.A. Any unauthorized use or reproduction of this document, in whole or part, is prohibited. REVISIONS By D E S NEC IL ST ATEOF CA L I F ORNICETIHCRA JO HN S. BEE RY No . C - 1 5 4 2 6 RE N . 10 / 1 5 T A Drawn By Job No. Scale Date Sheet Name Sheet No. 1 2 3 4 A B C D Signature Date I have reviewed these construction documents and have approved their contents as including all of the design aspects I had previously authorized. I understand my project will be constructed as specified by these construction documents KEYNOTES ARCHITECTURAL LEGEND 1 Interior Elevation New Wall Existing Wall Demolition A 1 1 A-1 Building Elevation Keynote Doors Windows Wall Type 1 Revision Centerline Property Line Overhead Insulation A A-11 Storefront Elevation NOTE: NOT ALL SYMBOLS SHOWN ABOVE ARE USED IN THIS SET OF DRAWINGS. BGI ARCHITECTURE Beery Group Inc.2091 Las Palmas Drive, St. DCarlsbad, CA 92011 ARCHITECTURE | DESIGN (760) 438-2963 bgiarchitect.com 1/4" = 1'-0" 3 O N G A R F I E L D C O N D O M I N I U M S BPB A-5 2021.06.08 2003 26 8 9 , 2 6 8 7 , 2 6 8 5 G A R F I E L D S T R E E T CA R L S B A D , C A 9 2 0 0 8 ELEVATIONS 1/4" = 1'-0" WEST ELEVATION - REAR 1/4" = 1'-0" EAST ELEVATION - FRONT 1 'COOL' ROOF ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOF TYP.U.O.N. 2 EXTERIOR 'FIBER-CONCRETE' PANELSSECURED TO Z CHANNELS RAINSCREENSYSTEM OVER W.R.B. 3 "GEO-LAM" SYNTHETIC WOOD GRAIN SIDINGOVER Z CHANNEL RAINSCREEN CLADDINGSYSTEM O/ W.R.B. 4 "GETTY STONE" PRECAST MASONRY VENEERTYP. U.O.N. O/ CMU WALL W/ SMOOTH CAPSTONE TYP. 5 ALUMINUM / INSULATED GLASS DOORS WITHKYNAR PAINTED FINISH. THEMAL BREAK UNITS,TYP. U.O.N. 6 ALUMINUM / INSULATED GLASS WINDOWS WITHKYNAR PAINTED FINISH THERMAL BREAK. 7 STUCCO FINISH W/ STONE TOP O/ CMU BROWNCOAT W/ LIGHT SAND FINISH, TYP. U.O.N. 8 'CONCRETE' FLATWORK WITH ETCHED FINISH,TYP. U.O.N. 9 ALUMINUM DOOR FRAME W/ TRANSLUCENTGLASS PANEL, TYP. 10 "LIGHT SAND FINISH" STUCCO. 3 COAT(SCRATCH/BROWN/COLOR) O/ WIRE/EXPANDEDMETAL LATHE O/ W.R.B. TYP. U.O.N. ATEXTERIOR WALLS & SOFFITS. 11 "GETTY STONE" PRECAST MASONRY VENEEROVER STUCCO SCRATCH/BROWN COAT O/W.R.B., TYP. U.O.N.. 12 TEMP / LAMINATED GLASS IN METALCOMPRESSION CHANNEL, TYP. U.O.N. 13 'DEXO-TEX' SINGLE-PLY MEMBRANE TYP. U.O.N. 14 BREAK METAL FASCIA TO MATCH ADJACENTWINDOW(S), TYP. NOTE: FOR ALLOWABLE SETBACK INTRUSIONS, SEE FLOOR PLAN SHEETS, TYP. Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 120 of 128 .... --, .... --, .... --, I I I I I I I I I I I I L I I I I -I I I ;-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --1-- - - - - - - --JT ~ -=--.J ___ --_---.l+--_____ -_-_--+--------...1--L.. -_-_-_-_-_-.l+--_______ -_-_-...I_ -L. --- - - - - - --~-- - - - - - - - -~ i -I-,~--~-~~~-~--------------ccci ----------------- ----------------------- I -If-□ I --+-- □ ---~--- .... --, .... --, .... --, ____________ .., I I I I I ~--------------~ I I I I I I + ,,_" ~ ~·' ~ . '-r~; .:I; _,....,_ 1~, ---+--L_ - I --+---- f -L..------1-------...I ----------1 ~ -----------~~----~---_---------_--_----------_-_-□~~-+--~~~~~-□~-----,I~~~------~--------------_-_--_------------_---~~ - -~~ - - - - - - - -~ ---- I _l __ I I □ I I □ □ I [Q] □ 0 0 □ 0- < (> ◄ GARAGE FLOOR0' -0" MAIN FLOOR9' -0" AB SECOND FLOOR18' -6" 2 A-6 ROOF PLATE28' -0" SIDEWALK4' -11" TYP.2 TYP.3 7 9 TYP.1 TYP.1011 TYP.2 32' - 8" 30 ' - 0 " PL PL PL PL PL PL 1'-0" HIGH FASCIA & CONCEALED GUTTER ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE AT ROOF PERIMETER PER CMC 21.46.020. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE IS WELL LOWER THAN ROOF RIDGE, AND DOES NOT FULLY OBSCURE THE PITCHED ROOF FROM VIEW. TYP.4 566 6 6 9 9 E.G. / F.G. TYP. F.G. TYP. TYP.12 6 6 6 UNIT 2685 CONDENSER PROPOSED TRANSFORMER LOCATION (IF REQUIRED) PER SDGE REQUIREMENTS AND CLEANRACES, TYP. 7 1' - 11" LINE OF EXISTING BUILDING ELEVATION, WITH FLAT ROOF @ 35'-0", WELL OVER THE CURRENT 24'-0" MAXIMUM. EXISTING CHIMNEYS EXTEND A FURTHER 8'-0" IN HEIGHT TO 43'-0". EXISTING NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE TO BE REMOVED. SETBACK INTRUSION PER CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE 21.46.120 (3), STAIRWAYS (LESS THAN 2'-0") AND PER (1) "BUTRESSES"/"ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES". THIS SETBACK INTRUSIONDOES NOT ENCLOSE ANY USABLEINTERIOR S.F. SEE FLOOR PLAN SHEETSFOR FURTHER EXPLANATION. GUEST PARKING SPACE BEYOND EXT. S.Y.S.B. 10' - 0" INT. S.Y.S.B. 7' - 0" 82.08' 78.00' @ TOP OF FASCIA 76.00' 66.50' 57.00' 52.08' 48.00' 7' - 9 " 48.00' @ GARAGE DOOR MA X . 3' - 6 " PER CMC 21.46.120 (3) 8'-0" S.Y.S.B.FOR STAIR BUTRESSES VARIES GARAGE FLOOR0' -0" MAIN FLOOR9' -0" A B SECOND FLOOR18' -6" 2 A-6 ROOF PLATE28' -0" SIDEWALK4' -11" 9' - 6 " 9' - 6 " 4' - 1 " TYP.2 TYP.3 4 6 9 TYP.1 TYP.10 11 30 ' - 0 " 9' - 6 " 9' - 6 " 9' - 0 " PL PL PL PL PL PL 32' - 8" F.G. / E.G. TYP. LINE OF 30'-0" MAX. ALLOWED HEIGHT LIMIT FOR 3:12 SLOPED ROOFS, TYP. TYP.2 6 6 6 9 MI N . T Y P . 3' - 6 " LINE OF EXISTING RETAINING WALL 3' - 6 " TYP.3 6 6 6 TYP.12 TYP.12 9 LINE OF EXISTING BUILDING ELEVATION, WITH FLAT ROOF @ 35'-0", WELL OVER THE CURRENT 24'-0" MAXIMUM. EXISTING CHIMNEYS EXTEND A FURTHER 8'-0" IN HEIGHT TO 43'-0". EXISTING NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE TO BE REMOVED. EXT. S.Y.S.B. 10' - 0" INT. S.Y.S.B. 7' - 0" HATCHING = SETBACK INTRUSION PER CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE 21.46.120 (3), STAIRWAYS (LESS THAN 2'-0") AND PER (1) "BUTRESSES"/"ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES". THIS SETBACK INTRUSION DOES NOT ENCLOSE ANY USABLE INTERIOR S.F.1' - 11" 1'-0" HIGH FASCIA & CONCEALED GUTTER ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE AT ROOF PERIMETER PER CMC 21.46.020. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE IS WELL LOWER THAN ROOF RIDGE, AND DOES NOT FULLY OBSCURE THE PITCHED ROOF FROM VIEW. 76.00' 66.50' 57.00' 52.08' 48.00' 82.08' 78.00' @ FASCIA TOP 7' - 9 " VARIES MA X . 3' - 6 " 3' - 5 " 2' - 8 " LINE OF ROOF SLOPE BEYOND FASCIA, TYP. LINE OF F.G. @ GRIDLINE #1, TYP. LINE OF E.G. @ GRIDLINE #1, TYP.LINE OF E.G. / F.G. @ PROPERTY LINE, TYP. PER CMC 21.46.120 (3) 8'-0" S.Y.S.B.FOR STAIR BUTRESSES This document is the property of John S. Beery, Architect, A.I.A. Any unauthorized use or reproduction of this document, in whole or part, is prohibited. REVISIONS By D E S NEC IL ST ATEOF CA L I F ORNICETIHCRA JO HN S. BEE RY No . C - 1 5 4 2 6 RE N . 10 / 1 5 T A Drawn By Job No. Scale Date Sheet Name Sheet No. 1 2 3 4 A B C D Signature Date I have reviewed these construction documents and have approved their contents as including all of the design aspects I had previously authorized. I understand my project will be constructed as specified by these construction documentsP R E L I M I N A R Y N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N KEYNOTES ARCHITECTURAL LEGEND 1 Interior Elevation New Wall Existing Wall Demolition A 1 1 A-1 Building Elevation Keynote Doors Windows Wall Type 1 Revision Centerline Property Line Overhead Insulation A A-11 Storefront Elevation NOTE: NOT ALL SYMBOLS SHOWN ABOVE ARE USED IN THIS SET OF DRAWINGS. BGI ARCHITECTURE Beery Group Inc.2091 Las Palmas Drive, St. DCarlsbad, CA 92011 ARCHITECTURE | DESIGN (760) 438-2963 bgiarchitect.com 1/4" = 1'-0" 3 O N G A R F I E L D C O N D O M I N I U M S BPB A-5.1 2021.06.08 2003 26 8 9 , 2 6 8 7 , 2 6 8 5 G A R F I E L D S T R E E T CA R L S B A D , C A 9 2 0 0 8 ELEVATIONS 1/4" = 1'-0" NORTH ELEVATION - SIDE 1/4" = 1'-0" SOUTH ELEVATION - SIDE 1 'COOL' ROOF ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOF TYP.U.O.N. 2 EXTERIOR 'FIBER-CONCRETE' PANELSSECURED TO Z CHANNELS RAINSCREENSYSTEM OVER W.R.B. 3 "GEO-LAM" SYNTHETIC WOOD GRAIN SIDINGOVER Z CHANNEL RAINSCREEN CLADDINGSYSTEM O/ W.R.B. 4 "GETTY STONE" PRECAST MASONRY VENEERTYP. U.O.N. O/ CMU WALL W/ SMOOTH CAPSTONE TYP. 5 ALUMINUM / INSULATED GLASS DOORS WITHKYNAR PAINTED FINISH. THEMAL BREAK UNITS,TYP. U.O.N. 6 ALUMINUM / INSULATED GLASS WINDOWS WITHKYNAR PAINTED FINISH THERMAL BREAK. 7 STUCCO FINISH W/ STONE TOP O/ CMU BROWNCOAT W/ LIGHT SAND FINISH, TYP. U.O.N. 9 "GETTY STONE" PRECAST MASONRY VENEEROVER STUCCO SCRATCH/BROWN COAT O/W.R.B., TYP. U.O.N.. 10 TEMP / LAMINATED GLASS IN METALCOMPRESSION CHANNEL, TYP. U.O.N. 11 'DEXO-TEX' SINGLE-PLY MEMBRANE TYP. U.O.N. 12 BREAK METAL FASCIA TO MATCH ADJACENTWINDOW(S), TYP. NOTE: FOR ALLOWABLE SETBACK INTRUSIONS, SEE FLOOR PLAN SHEETS, TYP. Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 121 of 128 I . , Ii .... '· ,;; -~ ~' '' -" , ;.-:, i: ·,t ,, ., I . I I tu] I -..I LJ I I I I I I L_ ,------, I I I I I ,____ I I I 4-------J I I I I I ______________ .J L - -----I □ --------------------- 7 • ' I I t:::=============1iF• .... ==. ,-,=, ==. 7 I -dL--,-------,----L --f-n~~~--==--=====-=--=-=----==---==----=----=----=---==----=---::.;;. ~j~ ,: ···· ~~ .. · .. · · ·. · ---K------------j 11 -~ ~------, ~----------------~ I I ---~-_ ,_ - I ~t I I -+.-I,----t-·l;:---=---=--;::::~--;;--;;~~1=;;;~;;;~~T■~~~~1=---T=-=-=r-~r=_=-lij~i-~=r=f:-- ---I ----~=--------7 ------- 1 11 11 !-------------,-~I 11 ~ --- 1. -+----t--------- I I I· I -1 Ir I I ---=-==--=-=-=-:=-==-=----==::::==:::::::::::'..I I..:: - - - 0 0 □ 0- < (> ◄ This document is the property of John S. Beery, Architect, A.I.A. Any unauthorized use or reproduction of this document, in whole or part, is prohibited. REVISIONS By D E S NEC IL ST ATEOF CA L I F ORNICETIHCRA JO HN S. BEE RY No . C - 1 5 4 2 6 RE N . 10 / 1 5 T A Drawn By Job No. Scale Date Sheet Name Sheet No. 1 2 3 4 A B C D BGI ARCHITECTURE Beery Group Inc.2091 Las Palmas Drive, St. DCarlsbad, CA 92011 ARCHITECTURE | DESIGN (760) 438-2963 bgiarchitect.com N.T.S. 3 O N G A R F I E L D C O N D O M I N I U M S BPB AP-1 2021.06.08 2003 26 8 9 , 2 6 8 7 , 2 6 8 5 G A R F I E L D S T R E E T CA R L S B A D , C A 9 2 0 0 8 PERSPECTIVES PERSPECTIVE - NORTHEAST CORNER 12" = 1'-0" PERSPECTIVE - SOUTH STREET LEVEL 12" = 1'-0" PERSPECTIVE - SOUTHWEST STREET LEVEL 12" = 1'-0" PERSPECTIVE - SOUTHEAST CORNER Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 122 of 128 ~ ,,. ... ~ / --" / " c:J \ I I I I \ I \ .h / ' .,._ .. -II/ ~ - EXISTING VEGETATION PLAN 7.31.22 4.22.21 L-1 THREE0 1 5 10 15 4. 2 1 . 2 1 As p e r C i t y c o m m e n t s Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 123 of 128 177433 V) / ' ~ -z -I i5 a ~ .µ fl V) (lo C) ' I ' ' ' ' I 1 " z ~~ a T< c.) <:S CJ IJ" ' :J ~-g ~.S) U) N~ I ,:S -&;') c) ~ ~ N ~ \J" z a M I /I □ I EXISTING PLANT LEGEND Symbol Botanical Name Common Name Quantity Size TREES -To be Removed ~'\ f A l Yucca gloriosa Soft-Tip Yucca 1 36" dia x 15' ht. X 1 O' spd. \ / 0 Yucca gloriosa Soft-Tip Yucca 1 6" dia x 7' ht. X 2' spd. SHRUBS -To be Removed ---... I C ) Crassula arborescens Jade Plant 2 4' ht. X 3' spd. ',,,,.,/ ( D \ \ J Pittosporum tobira Mock Orange 11 3' ht. X 4' spd. -( E \ Pittosporum tobira \._j 1Wheelers Dwarf' Wheelers Dwarf Mock Orange 3 2' ht. X 3' spd. ~ ( F) Ligustrum japonicum '-'Texanum' Texas Privet 42 2' ht. X 2' sod. Sheet NOR.nt Of 4.22.21 4.22.21 7.31.22 0 1 5 10 15 LANDSCAPE PLAN L-2 THREE 4. 2 1 . 2 1 As p e r C i t y c o m m e n t s Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 124 of 128 ,,.,.., .·• . q t9 > • o'O.·-_,, ;;j} 9 PLANT LEGEND KEY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME QTY TREES ~ Arbutus 'Marina' ~ 1\ Marina Strawberry Tree 5 "-4~\ Cordyline australis ¾;/ 'Burgundy Spire' Burgundy Spire Cabbage Palm multi trunk SHRUBS (0 0 Agave attenuata 'Ray of Light' Ray of light Soft Tail Agave Aloe cryptopoda wickensii Wicken's Aloe Callistemon 'little John' Dwarf Bottlebrush Camellia japonica Japanese Camellia Carissa macrocarpa 'Green Carpet' Green Carpet Natal Plum Dianella tasmanica 'Destiny' Dwarf Variegated Flax Lily Hesperaloe parviflora 'Breaklights' or Limonium perezii Lavendula angustifolia 1Munstead1 Breaklights Red Yucca or Sea lavender Munstead English Lavender Nandina domestica 'Pink Blush' Pink Blush Heavenly Bamboo or 3 32 22 11 12 10 Clivia miniata Kaffer lily • orange and yellow 7 Pittosporum tenuifolium 'Silver Sheen' Rhaphiolepis indica 1Springtime' Rosa 'Icecap' Rosmarinus 'Irene' Silver Sheen Mock Orange 2 Springtime Indian Hawthorn 7 Icecap Rose 11 Prostrate Irene Rosemary 10 SIZE 24" Box 36" Box 15 Gal 1 Gal 5 Gal 15 Gal 5 Gal 5 Gal 1 Gal 1 Gal 5 Gal 15 Gal 5 Gal 5 Gal 1 Gal I WUCOLS Low Low Low Low Low Moderate Low Moderate Very Low Low Low Low Moderate Low Moderate Low \ • "'l."'."" ·--·~---··~ -,1-,------~---.. -... -· l"./Cc" ,2is:., ~~l I<~~ 111 ...... . t;ix.,,e; .. We 1f-lt, ~· . 2:iLk!JEp 12,Clc:,lc'.-. ,:; ~ ~·~ilR£?~.~. -+-Jp VINES/ESPALIER i -- Jf c.oJ..k- f,,po \ \ \ • ~~::;.i ~ ,< .,, """.ff I •• ' :.. ) u ~--"J:·--b~::.1-~~=~-r~·:;=~~~~~ \' ;,.L ...J '3. ,t -~-. _,4,,iJ,.:·.-·j () .I\(. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. . fl = J\ () \j ·;;_ I ~~~· " Q THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM FOR THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION LANDSCAPE AREAS ON THE PROPERTY SHALL BE CONNECTED TO A NEW AND SEPARATE WATER METER FOR THIS PURPOSE ONLY. ALL PLANTING AREAS SHALL BE GRADED TO PROVIDE POSITIVE SURFACE DRAINAGE (2% SLOPE) AWAY FROM STRUCTURES AND TERMINATING IN AN APPROVED DRAINAGE SYSTEM. ONLY SUBSURFACE IRRIGATION SHALL BE USED TO IRRIGATE ANY VEGETATION WITHIN TWENTY-FOUR INCHES OF AN IMPERMEABLE SURFACE UNLESS THE ADJACENT IMPERMEABLE SURFACES ARE DESIGNED AND CONSTRUCTED TO CAUSE WATER TO DRAIN ENTIRELY INTO A LANDSCAPED AREA. LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE OF THE PROPERTY IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION. THE DEVELOPMENT AS DESIGNED CONSISTS OF 3,086 SQ. FT. OF LANDSCAPE AREA, ABOVE THE WELO THRESHOLD FOR REHABILITATED LANDSCAPES, WITH 89. 8% LOW WATER USE PLANTING AREA (SEE WATER CONSERVATION PLAN). NOTICE TO OWNER/CLIENT: ANY CHANGE TO THE EXISTING SITE INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO DEMOLITION, GRADING, CONSTRUCTION OR PLANTING MAY DISRUPT CURRENT SURFACE DRAINAGE PATTERNS. IT MAY BE NECESSARY TO ADJUST OR INSTALL SURFACE AND/OR SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE SYSTEMS NOT ILLUSTRATED ON PLAN. 44. NOTICE TO GENERAL CONTRACTOR: GENERAL CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION ALL 110 ELECTRICAL SERVICE SHOWN OR NOT SHOWN ON PLAN INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO SWITCHED AND UNSWITCHED OUTLETS IN THE LANDSCAPE, POWER TO LOW-VOLTAGE LIGHTING TRANSFORMERS, IRRIGATION CONTROLLERS, ETC. 22. TREE ROOT BARRIERS SHALL BE INSTALLED WHERE TREES ARE PLACED WITHIN 5 FEET OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDING WALKS, CURBS OR STREET PAVEMENTS OR WHERE NEW PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS ARE PLACED ADJACENT TO EXISTING TREES . THE ROOT BARRIER WILL NOT WRAP AROUND THE ROOT BALL INSTALL A 24 INCH DEEP 'DEEP ROOT' ROOT BARRIER #UB 24·2 PER MANUFACTURERS SPECIFICATIONS. THE ROOT BARRIER WILL BE INSTALLED LINEARLY ALONG THE EDGE OF HARDSCAPE FOR A MINIMUM DISTANCE OF TEN (10) FEET IN BOTH DIRECTIONS FROM THE CENTER LINE OF TREE TRUNK FOR A MINIMUM TOTAL LENGTH OF TWENTY (20) FEET. 23. MAINTENANCE PERIOD BEGINS ON THE FIRST DAY AFTER ALL LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION WORK ON THE PROJECT IS COMPLETE, CHECKED AND WRITTEN APPROVAL FROM THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT IS GIVEN TO BEGIN THE MAINTENANCE PERIOD. 24. Al l PLANTING AREAS CONSISTING OF NATIVE SITE SOIL SHALL BE LEACHED TO REDUCE SALT LEVELS PRIOR TO PLANTING. LEACHING SHALL BE REPEATED UNTIL SATURATION EXTRACT CONDUCTIVITY (ECe x 1,000) LEVEL IS 2.0 OR LESS AT A DEPTH OF 12", CONTRACTOR TO CONDUCT SALINITY ANALYSIS FOR VERIFICATION BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. 25. POST FERTILIZATION FOR ALL PLANTING AREAS (16·6·8) SHALL OCCUR 45 DAYS AFTER PLANTING AT A RA TE OF 15 LBS. PER 1,000 SQ. FT. 26. MAINTENANCE: ALL REQUIRED LANDSCAPE AREAS SHALL BE MAINTAINED BY THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION. LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION AREAS IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT·OF·WAY SHALL BE MAINTAINED BY THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION. THE LANDSCAPE AREAS SHALL BE MAINTAINED FREE OF DEBRIS AND LITTER, AND All PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN A HEALTHY GROWING CONDITION. DISEASED OR DEAD PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE SATISFACTORILY TREATED OR REPLACED PER THE CONDITIONS OF THE PERMIT. 27. CONTRACTOR AND OR OWNER SHALL OBTAIN ALL NECESSARY APPROVALS AND OR PERMITS FOR ANY AND All WORK WITHIN THE RIGHT OF WAY (OUTSIDE THE PROPERTY LINES). 28. CONTRACTOR AND OR OWNER SHALL OBTAIN ALL NECESSARY APPROVALS AND OR PERMITS FOR ALL CONSTRUCTION WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF THE PROPERTY . 29 . THE RIGHT OF WAY, EXISTING GRADES, ELEVATIONS AND BUILDING LOCATION AS. SHOWN ON THESE DRAWINGS WAS FURNISHED TO THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT AS A PORTION OF THE SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION AS PROVIDED IN THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. WICHMANN LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFYING THE INFORMATION AS SUPPLIED, AND THE INCLUSION ON THESE DRAWINGS DOES NOT IMPLY ANY WARRANTY OF THE ACCURACY OR CORRECTNESS OF THE SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION. THE SUPPORT INFORMATION IS SHOWN FOR INFORMATION ONLY AND SHALL BE VERIFIED BY THE CONTRACTOR PRIOR TO THE ST ART OF WORK. 30. CONTRACTOR SHALL TAG AND PHOTOGRAPHY ALL SELECTED TREES AND SPECIMEN PLANTS AT THE NURSERY. PHOTOGRAPHS OF TAGGED TREES AND SPECIMEN PLANTS SHALL BE SUPPLIED TO LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT FOR APPROVAL PRIOR TO PLANT MATERIAL BEING SHIPPED AND OR PICKED-UP FROM NURSERY. 31. INSTALL AN AUTOMATIC HUNTER PRO·C PCC·6·00 SMART IRRIGATION CONTROLLER WITH BATTERY BACKUP, WSS·SEN SOLARSYNC (WEATHER BASED RAIN SENSOR) ft FCT-100 FLOW·CLIKAS LOCATED ON PLAN. CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY LOCATION OF POWER. 32. CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL A REDUCED PRESSURE BACKFLOW DEVICE AFTER THE WATER METER FOR THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM ALONG WITH MANUAL SHUT-OFF GATE VAL YES BEFORE AND AFTER BACKFLOW DEVICE.. THE PRESSURE REDUCER SHALL BE A WATTS LF25AUB·Z3, SIZED PER MAIN LINE SIZE. 33. THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM SHALL BE COMPRISED OF RAINBIRD XFD-09·12 ON-SURFACE DRIP LINE WITH AGPM OF 1.53 PER 100' OF TUBING AND A DISTRIBUTION RATE OF 0.80. 34. THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM SHALL BE VALVED BASED UPON THE HYDROZONE DIAGRAM AND THE WATER NEEDS OF THE PLANTS . 35. ALL PLANTING AREAS LESS THAN TEN (10) FEET IN WIDTH IN ANY DIRECTION SHALL BE IRRIGATED WITH SUBSURFACE IRRIGATION OR OTHER MEANS THAT PRODUCES NO RUNOFF OR OVERSPRAY. ALL PLANTING AREAS SHALL BE IRRIGATED WITH ON· SURFACE DRIP LINE. 36. AT THE TIME OF FINAL INSPECTION, THE PERMIT APPLICANT MUST PROVIDE THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY WITH A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION, CERTIFICATE OF INSTALLATION, IRRIGATION SCHEDULE AND A SCHEDULE OF LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE. LANDSCAPE NOTES 1. ALL LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION SHALL CONFORM TO THE STANDARDS OF THE CITY-WIDE LANDSCAPE REGULATIONS AND THE CITY OF CARLSBAD LANDSCAPE MANUAL AND ALL OTHER LANDSCAPE RELATED CITY AND REGIONAL STANDARDS. 2. PREPARE ALL PLANTING AREAS AS FOLLOWS, All QUANTITIES ARE BASED ON 1000 SQFT .: SCARIFY EXISTING SOIL TO A DEPTH OF 8"; REMOVE ALL DEBRIS, WEEDS AND ROCKS LARGER THAN 2" DIA.; APPLY TO A DEPTH OF 6" AT LEAST 4 CU. YDS. COMPOST (UNLESS CONTRAINDICATED BY SOILS TEST), 2 CU. YDS. NITRIFIEDWOOD SHAVINGS, 150 LBS. AGRICULTURAL GYPSUM, 10 LBS. IRON SULPHATE, 50 LBS. TRI· C HUMATE AND 15 LBS. 6·20·20 FERTILIZER. ROTOTIL IN TWO DIRECTIONS ALL AMENDMENTS INTO THE TOP 8" OF EXISTING SOIL, RAKE TO GRADE AND IRRIGATE THOROUGHLY. 3. FERTILIZER/SOIL AMENDMENTTREA TMENT ABOVE IS FOR BIDDING PURPOSES ONLY. SOILS TEST MAY REDUCE OR INCREASE TOTAL SOIL AMENDMENT YARDAGE. ADJUSTMENTS (PLUS OR MINUS) MAY BE NECESSARY. CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN A SOILS ANALYSIS TEST WITH AT LEAST TWO SOIL SAMPLES OF FINAL ROUGH GRADE AT SITE AND SUBMIT RESULTS TO LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT FOR INTERPRETATION AND RECOMMENDATION . COST OF LAB TEST SHALL BE PAID BY OWNER. SOIL TESTING KITS ARE AVAILABLE BY CALLING 1·800·927-3311 . CONTRACTOR TO SUBMIT MODIFIED SOIL PREPARATION BID TO LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT AND OWNER FOR APPROVAL PRIOR TO STARTING SOIL PREPARATION WORK. 4. GROUND COVERS INCLUDING BERMUDA GRASS AND OTHER NOXIOUS WEEDS SHALL BE SPRAYED WI 'ROUND-UP'. WAIT TWO WEEKS MIN. AND SPRAY A SECOND TIME IF NECESSARY AND THEN REMOVE. WEED ERADICATION SHALL TAKE PLACE DURING ACTIVE GROWING PERIOD (JUNE· OCTOBER) AND SHALL BE COMPLETED AT LEAST 10 DAYS PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF ANY PLANTING AND/OR IRRIGATION WORK. 5. ALL TREES AND SHRUBS NOT NOTED TO REMAIN ARE TO BE REMOVED. 6. MULCH: ALL REQUIRED PLANTING AREAS AND ALL EXPOSED SOIL AREAS WITHOUT VEGETATION SHl\ll BE COVERED WITH MULCH TO A MINIMUM DEPTH OF 3 INCHES. MULCH SHALL BE 1 1 /2" MINUS FOREST FINES FROM AGRISERVICE, 760·295·6255. 7. FINISH GRADE SHALL BE A MAXIMUM OF 2" BELOW ADJACENT HARDSCAPE. 8. TRAIN AND FAN OUT ALL VINES (BOUGAINVILLEA) WITH EYE HOOKS AND 4 FOOT LENGTH HORIZONTAL STAINLESS STEEL WIRE ATTACHED TO WOOD FENCE 3' AND 5' FROM FINISH GRADE. 9. EVERY PLANT DELIVERED TO THE JOB SITE SHALL BE IN GOOD CONDITION, WITH A LEGIBLE PLANT.TAG IDENTIFYING THE BOTANICAL GENIUS, SPECIES AND VARIETY OF PLANT FOR VERIFICATION BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT WITH APPROVED PLANS AND OR PLANT LEGEND. PLANT MATERIAL WITHOUT TAGS WILL BE REJECTED AND RETURNED TO THE NURSERY AT THE CONTRACTORS COST. 10. ANY SUBSTITUTIONS MUST BE APPROVED IN WRITING BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. 11. ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHOWING SIGNS OF DEFOLIATION, LEANING, CHLOROSIS (YELLOWING), OR SETTLING PRIOR TO, OR AT THE END OF MAINTENANCE SHALL BE REPLACED BY THE ,CONTRACTOR, INCLUDING GROUND COVER. 12. LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE GUARANTEES NORMAL TO THE TRADE FOR LONGEVITY OF ALL PLANT MATERIALS; THREE MONTHS FOR SHRUBS AND GROUND COVERS, AND ONE YEAR FOR TREES. 13. LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE A MINIMUM ONCE A WEEK MAINTENANCE SERVICE FOR A PERIOD OF 90 DAYS (MINIMUM 12 SERVICE DAYS OVERALL) BEGINNING THE FIRST DAY AFTER FINAL APPROVAL OF INSTALLATION AS DETERMINED BY CLIENT AND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL RECEIVE NOTICE OF SIGNIFICANT CONFORMANCE FROM LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT ONCE SITE IS DEEMED ACCEPTABLE. 14. CONTRACTOR TO INFORM LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OF ANY DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN P"' PLANS AND ACTUAL SITE CONDITIONS. 15. IF ANY REQUIRED LANDSCAPE INDICATED ON THE APPROVED CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENT PLANS IS DAMAGED OR REMOVED DURING DEMOLITION OR CONSTRUCTION, IT SHALL BE REPAIRED AND/OR REPLACED IN KIND AND EQUIVALENT SIZE PER THE APPROVED DOCUMENTS TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT WITHIN 30 DAYS OF DAMAGE. 16. MINIMUM STREET TREES SEPARATION DISTANCE PLANTED WITHIN THE ROW: TRAFFIC SIGNALS/STOP SIGNS • 20 FEET UNDERGROUND UTILITIES LINES • 5 FEET (7 FEET FOR SEWER) ABOVE GROUND UTILITY STRUCTURES • 10 FEET DRIVEWAY (ENTRIES)· OUTSIDE OF VIEW TRIANGLE INTERSECTION (INTERSECTING CURB LINES OF TWO STREETS)· 25 FEET 17. ANY TREES LOCATED WITHIN THE VEHICULAR SIGHT LINE MUST HAVE ALL LIMBS REMOVED TO A HEIGHT OF 6 FEET ABOVE THE ADJACENT TOP OF CURB. 18. OWNER TO VERIFY AND STAKE PROPERTY LINES . NO DEMOLITION, CONSTRUCTION OR PLANTING SHALL OCCUR OUTSIDE PROPERTY LINES WITHOUT THE PRIOR CONSENT OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER. 19. OWNER TO INSURE NEWLY INSTALLED PLANT MATERIAL RECEIVES ENOUGH WATER TO MAINTAIN GOOD HEALTH AND VIGOROUS GROWTH WITHOUT OVER WATERING . PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE WATERED PERIODICALLY AT SUCH TIME JUST PRIOR TO LEAF WILTING . ADJUST WATERING TO ACCOMMODATE FOR VARIATIONS IN RAIN FALL, TEMPERATURE, SOLAR EXPOSURE AND SEASONAL CHANGES FOR EACH PLANT. 20. OWNER TO MAINTAIN AND KEEP CLEAR ALL DRAINAGE SWALES AND INSURE POSITIVE SURFACE DRAINAGE AWAY FROM BUILDINGS TOWARDS SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE OR OFF SITE STORM DRAIN SYSTEMS AT A MINIMUM OF 2% SLOPE. 21. TREES SHALL BE MAINTAINED SO THAT ALL BRANCHES OVER PEDESTRIAN WALKWAYS ARE 6 FEET ABOVE THE WALKWAY GRADE AND BRANCHES OVER VEHICULAR TRAVEL WAYS ARE 16 FEET ABOVE THE GRADE OF THE TRAVEL WAY. '~ . .ru,.,tV- B Bougainvillea 'Double Delight' Bougainvillea (white·pink) 3 15 Gal Low GROUND COVERS ~Yi Dymondia margaretae ~~~-~-"'1 I I ~ I 1r i . ! Echeveria 'Ru~fled' or ..,. _....,._ll _,_ __ M"-'"'!_.L Kalanchoe luc,ae W2 Lygeum spartum ~~:{ Senecio serpens Silver Carpet Ruffled Echeveria or Paddle Plant False Esparto Grass Dwarf Blue Senecio 3" OC 6" oc 12" oc 36"0C 12"0C flats Low Low 1 Gal. Low 1 Gal. Low Cuttings Low 37. ALL UTILITIES SHALL BE SCREENED. 'I am familiar with the requirements for landscape and irrigation plans contained in the City of Carlsbad's landscape manual and Water Efficient Landscape regulations. I have prepared this plan in compliance with those regulations and the landscape manual. I certify that the plan implements those regulations to provide efficient use of water.' s~w~ Signature Date ScQle: 1.1rs· = 1. ·-o· u#/~ NOR.nt i -z -I ti a ~ .µ A V) 00 () z ~~ a ~~ <.) c; 5 IJ' :l ~i \l} .S) ~ ~ U) I IS -&;)<.) ~ ~ '( \j" z a M 1 z t ~ Zf ~ <t: ~ ~ -:ijc~ ~ Jt 'l') .s ft;) :t ~~ . 't c.) ~ ~m -~ f ~j I .J . \0 A ,. •• 0 ..J • -0 I Sheet Of $ ~. + , . ' WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 0 1 5 10 15 7.31.22 4.22.214.22.21 L-3 THREE SW 4. 2 1 . 2 1 Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 125 of 128 1 y•C-•-, a,~,->,c.< « •• •••~•:::-""" ~----··- j.f1., 1. _-l"" J$ f ~ l~r i;J-:;; :~ pr~ f' • ; " ' ' ' ' ' ' ', " I "-' ' I ' ' ' I . n ' ' '-~ ~ --~---""-----~'--------- I . HYDROZONE DIAGRAM ' ' ' I I c:;ar{teLol st. ' I ' ' Ut.1 I'2:0f LPiJ:-•. --- pfc.JF l I 0 .. ~LZ. ---&1:;:,p [;,8j •. J ··-·- Pf'-if' fet4<:-~t M , ~ ... ' I -:..71:z\-l~r wiJ ::-I t;1?1p I 'I am familiar with the requirements for landscape and irrigation plans contained in the City of Carlsbad's landscape manual and Water Efficient Landscape regulations. I have prepared this plan in compliance with those regulations and the landscape manual. I certify that the plan implements those regulations to provide efficient use of water.' s~w~ Signature Date WATER CONSERVATION PROGRAM The irrigation systems on this property will be plumbed for potable water. This project's landscape has been designed with water conservation as one of its primary goals. Plants have been selected for, and grouped by their water use requirements as well as their climatic suitability in this location, solar exposure, ease of maintenance, and disease and pest resistance among other considerations. Trees have been selected for their mature size, appropriateness to the project, utility line interference as well as their ability to reduce evaporation through provided shade. Turf has been eliminated from the landscape design to reduce water use, as well as the cost of maintenance and grooming. The irrigation will be designed so that each hydrozone will be irrigated separately, delivering the appropriate amount of water to the plants root zone in that specific hydrozone. All planting areas shall be irrigated using the latest low-flow drip irrigation methods and products. The irrigation system shall ' operate to achieve deep root zone water application appropriate for the plant, soil type and environmental factors. Time of watering will be in the evening/ early morning to reduce evaporation. A smart weather based controller shall be installed to best manage varying weather conditions . Soil tests shall be preformed to determine possible existing nutrient deficiencies and recommend appropriate amendments to produce a healthier root-zone environment. Planting areas shatl be top dressed with a minimum of 3" depth of organic mulch material to help reduce water evaporation from the root zone, cool roots and add nutrients to the soil as it decomposes. WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE WORKSHEET This worksheet is filled out by the project applicant and ii is a required element of the Landscape Documentation Package. HYDROZONE INFORMATION TABLE Please complete the hydrozone table(s) for each hydrozone. Use as many tables as necessary to provide the square footage of landscape area per hydrozone. Controller Hydrozone• Zone Irrigation Plant Hydrozone %of Total # or Method-Type/Factor"'* Area (Sq. Ft.) Landscaped Valve IPFl Area 1 1 A DRIP LOW 1,604 52.0% 2 B DRIP LOW 766 24.8% 3 C DRIP MEDIUM 317 10.2% 4 D DRIP LOW 399 13.0% Total 100% MAXIMUM APPLIED WATER ALLOWANCE A landscape project subject to the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance shall include the MAWA for the plans, including the calculations used to determine the MAW A. A landscape project shall not exceed the MAWA. The MAWA for a landscape project shall be determined by the following equation: Show Calculation: MAWA: 40 X 0.62 X 0.55 X 3,086 = 42,093 Gal/Yr MAXIMUM APPLIED WATER ALLOWANCE= ---~4=2=0=93~ __ GALLONS PER YEAR Hydrozone Table for Calculating ETWU Please complete the hydrozone table(s). Use as many tables as necessary. CITY OF CARLSBAD ESTIMATED TOTAL WATER USE ETWU Evapotranspiration Rate .40 ETo • Conversion Factor 0.62 (Step 1 x Step 2) 24.8 Plant Factor (PF)'* (From WUCOLS) (VLW 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.3 -HW 0.1 -0.8 Area of Hydrozone (sq. 1,604 766 317 399 ft. HA (Step 4 x Step 5) 481.2 229.8 158.5 119.7 Irrigation Efficiency 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 IE*** (Step 6 + Step 7) 601.50 287.25 198.12 149.63 (Total All Step 8 + Total 1,236.5 SLA sq. ft. in Step 5 (Step 3 x Step 9) Estimated Total Water Use in gallons per year 30,665 (ETWU) -Total shall not exceed MAWA NOR.nt ~ -z -! is () .b A V) (lo <:) z ~~ 2 tf-< IS CJ \J' s ~ ,s IS ~ ..Q ' N~ U) I IS -~ <) ~ ~ N 4( \J"' z ,a· M ' I Sheet Of Exhibit 9 Final EIR for Three on Garfield dated March, 2024 (Available at the Planning Division and https://www.carlsbadca.gov/departments/community-development/planning/agendas-minutes- notices) Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 126 of 128 Exhibit 10 Full Size Exhibits “A” – “O” dated August 21, 2024 (on file in the Office of the City Clerk) Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 127 of 128 LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS Exhibit 11 This is a list of acronyms and abbreviations (in alphabetical order) that are commonly used in staff reports. Acronym Description Acronym Description APA American Planning Association LCPA Local Coastal Program Amendment APN Assessor Parcel Number LOS Level of Service AQMD Air Quality Management District MND Mitigated Negative Declaration BMP Best Management Practice NCTD North County Transit District CALTRANS California Department of Transportation ND Negative Declaration CC City Council PC Planning Commission CCR Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions PDP Planned Development Permit CEQA California Environmental Quality Act PEIR Program Environmental Impact Report CFD Community Facilities District PUD Planned Unit Development CIP Capital Improvement Program ROW Right of Way COA Conditions of Approval RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board CofO Certificate of Occupancy SANDAG San Diego Association of Governments CT Tentative Parcel Map SDP Site Development Plan CUP Conditional Use Permit SP Specific Plan DIF Development Impact Fee SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program DISTRICT City Council Member District Number TM Tentative Map EIR Environmental Impact Report VBMP Village & Barrio Master Plan EIS Environmental Impact Statement (federal) ZC Zone Change EPA Environmental Protection Agency FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency GP General Plan GPA General Plan Amendment GIS Geographic Information Systems HCA Housing Crisis Act 2019 IS Initial Study Aug. 21, 2024 Item #1 128 of 128 Shannon Harker, Senior Planner Community Development Department March 1, 2023 Three on Garfield Kyle Van Leeuwen, Associate Planner Community Development August 21, 2024 PUD 2021-0003 / SDP 2021-0008 / CDP 2021-0010 / NCP 2021-0001 / MS 2023-0002 / EIR 2022-0005 1 { City of Carlsbad 0.16 acres parcel 3 existing condo units Slopes down, away from Garfield Magee Park to east LOCATION MAP 2 Three on Garfield EIR 2022-0005 / PUD 2021-0003 / SOP 2021 -0008 / CDP 2021-0010 I NCP 2021-0001 I MS 2023-0002 8 0 10 20 PACIFIC OCEAN ~~rcity of Carlsbad R-15 Gen. Plan Land Use R-3 Zoning Beach Area Overlay (BAO) Mello II Local Coastal Program Appealable to Coastal Com. SITE INFORMATION 3 Three on Garfield EIR 2022-0005 / PUD 2021-0003 / SOP 2021 -0008 / CDP 2021-0010 I NCP 2021-0001 I MS 2023-0002 8 0 10 20 {city of Carlsbad PROJECT DESCRIPTION Demo existing condo triplex Construct new condo triplex 2 & 3-bedroom Units, appx. 1,700 SF Private 3rd-floor balconies Attached 2-car garages & 1 visitor space, accessed from Beech Ave. 4 ---- L .. --------- CERTIFY ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW •Final EIR APPROVE ENTITLEMENTS •Planned Development Permit •Site Development Plan •Coastal Development Permit •Nonconforming Construction Permit •Minor Subdivision ACTIONS REQUIRED 5 ( City of Carlsbad Early Public Notice (2021) – Public comments on notoriety of structure Need for EIR established EIR Notice of Preparation: Nov. 17 – Dec. 19, 2022 Draft EIR Public Review Period: Oct. 30 – Dec. 14, 2023 Final EIR: March 2024 EIR PROCESS - TIMELINE 6 { City of Carlsbad Potential Environmental Impacts: Aesthetics Historic, Cultural, and Tribal Impacts Land Use Planning Significant Impact: Demolition of an historical resource under CEQA All other impacts found to be less than significant (some w/ mitigation measures) EIR PROCESS – IMPACTS 7 { City of Carlsbad VICTOR CONDO Built in 1982 Ted Smith & Kathleen McCormick, Architects Postmodern design referred to as “Blendo” – first in Carlsbad “False front” - most significant character- defining feature Recognized in architectural publications Not listed on historic registries Historic Evaluation 8 { City of Carlsbad HISTORIC RESOURCE DETERMINATION (CEQA - 14 CCR § 15064.5) “Historical resources”: 1)A resource listed in, or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission, for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources. 2)A resource included in a local register of historical resources, (…) or identified as significant in an historical resource survey. Historic Evaluation 9 { City of Carlsbad HISTORIC RESOURCE DETERMINATION (CEQA - 14 CCR § 15064.5) “Historical resources”: 1)State 2)Local 3)Any object, building, structure(…) which a lead agency determines to be historically significant (…).Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be “historically significant” if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources (…): Historic Evaluation 10 { City of Carlsbad HISTORIC RESOURCE DETERMINATION 3) (…)criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources (…): a)Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage; b)Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; Historic Evaluation 11 { City of Carlsbad HISTORIC RESOURCE DETERMINATION 3) (…)criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources (…): a)(Historic Event) b)(Important Person) c)Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or d)Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. Historic Evaluation 12 { City of Carlsbad HISTORIC RESOURCE DETERMINATION 4) The fact that a resource is: not listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (Criteria 1); not included in a local register of historical resources, or identified in an historical resources survey (Criteria 2); does not preclude a lead agency from determining* that the resource may be an historical resource (Criteria 3). *Criteria 3 is discretionary. The conclusion of the Historical Assessment, should not be confused with a formal determination by the state historical resources commission that a resource is eligible for listing. Historic Evaluation 13 { City of Carlsbad Historic Evaluation Victor Condo was not only the subject of articles in the Los Angeles Times but appeared in multiple publications, including two international periodicals. An exhibition curated to capture the new movement in California chose Ted Smith as one of three architects to represent San Diego and chose Victor Condo as one of the buildings which best represented his work. (…). Victor Condo immediately became a significant example of the Postmodern style and another 10 years will not change that fact. -ASM Affiliates, Inc. 14 { City of Carlsbad SCH No. 2022110423 Final EIR Components Draft EIR Response to Comments Findings and Overriding Considerations Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program (MMRP) Project conditioned to comply with mitigation measures. FINAL EIR (EIR 2022-0005) 15 { City of Carlsbad Overriding Considerations Implementation of the Project will construct condominiums that fully comply with city codes and regulations Health and safety violations are present on site. After the Project’s implementation, there would be reduced risks to life and property Project provides the opportunity to remove the building, which is documented to be in poor condition, and improve the visual appearance of the property FINAL EIR (EIR 2022-0005) 16 { City of Carlsbad RECOMMENDED ACTION 1)ADOPT the Planning Commission Resolution CERTIFYING Environmental Impact Report, including the Candidate Findings of Fact and a Mitigation Monitoring and Report Program, and; 2)ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution APPROVING Planned Development Permit, Site Development Plan, Coastal Development Permit, Nonconforming Construction Permit, and Minor Subdivision, based upon the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. Three on Garfield 17 { City of Carlsbad BACK-UP SLIDES Three on Garfield 18 ( City of Carlsbad No Project Not accomplish any of the project objectives Structural deterioration & moisture intrusion remain No significant environmental impacts Three on Garfield – Project Alternatives Full Rehabilitation Two of ten project objectives Address structural issues & repair foundation Reconstruction of wood-framed false front Cost of implementing exceeds market value of the rehabilitated structure No significant environmental impacts 19 ( City of Carlsbad Partial Rehabilitation (Keep false front) Project objectives not fully met Detach façade, then reconstruct, then reattach East elevation redesigned to reference character- defining features; glass block & skylight “chimneys” Negative financial impact compared to project Reduce the significant unavoidable impact to significant and mitigable impact Three on Garfield – Project Alternatives 20 ( City of Carlsbad Three on Garfield 21 2 I -------- - - ___ I I ~TYP I 2 TYP. I I - ---------_0.T'IP I"" -., :iZ-0" I ___ _. -L..-------1---.,.----....I - I - - - _I_ ___ l I I B TYP I I __ l I I I I I ----0TYP-- -t EJTYP l---+---+---+---+--+--1--_i-_ 2 TYP. - ----= l?~ ~ film>-- 0 2'-0" City of Carlsbad Applicant SlidesExhibit #10 -Concept Sketch of Prop,osed Building