HomeMy WebLinkAboutCDP 01-11; Frye Residence; Coastal Development Permit (CDP) (3)Jun 25 02 12:28p The flsh Company (949) 489-2912 p.4
THE ASH COMPANY
SPCC1MJZED HEM. eSTffi SERVICES
David Rick June 25, 2002
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad. CA 92008
Dear David:
In response to our meeting last week, I present the following for consideration regarding the proposed
driveway at 5327 Carlsbad Blvd. The proposed driveway submitted consists of a dual approach
system which has been carefully designed with input and direction from the Carlsbad engineering
staff. The three primary goals established with the engineering staff for the driveway design were to
(1) maximize on-street parking, (2) provide for the safety of pedestrians, and (3) provide the residents
and guests with safe and effective ingress and egress. Additional design standards provided by
engineering staff include the following:
-Per city standards, we are permitted to provide driveway widths of up to 40% of the lot width, or 28
feet.
-The minimum parking space length provided by engineering staff is 20 feet.
-The minimum driveway approach width per city standards is 12 feet.
The one remaining design factor which is considered fixed for our property is the location of the Goetz
driveway for the approved project immediately to the north of the subject site. The Goetz driveway is
located 12 feet to the north of our property line.
Positioning a single 28-foot approach at the center of the proposed garage provides the easiest and
most common driveway layout, but is not very effective in terms of accomplishing the stated goals.
This layout produces a slightly substandard parking space between the subject and Goetz (just less
than 20 feet, which is arguably not enough to park a single car), with a remainder of about 34 feet to
the south of the driveway, or space for 1.70 cars to the south of our apron (of course it is important to
remember that the property to the south of our site is unimproved shoulder allowing parking for
several miles, so cars can and do park across the southern property line). In addition, this design
makes it difficult to turn around on the driveway, encouraging drivers to back into traffic endangering
themselves, other motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians. This alternative is not shown on the attached
exhibits, as it is too easily improved upon.
The next alternative is to use the same single driveway design, but to narrow the approach to increase
parking. As shown on the attached Exhibit 1, by reducing the width of the driveway to 22 feet, we are
able to increase the space between our driveway and Goetz's to 22'-10", which is a full parking space,
plus a couple of feet. This will accommodate a single car. To the south of the driveway, this leaves
37 feet, or about 1.85 spaces. This is an improvement to the prior plan in that we now provide two full
spaces on the street, plus room for the majority of another car, with some overhang across the
southern property line. On the other hand, because the approach is located at the center of the
driveway, egress from our proposed garage becomes more difficult, and drivers are still tempted (if not
encouraged) to back across the pedestrian area and into traffic when exiting the site.
In order to rectify this safety issue, we have proposed the alternative shown in the submitted plans,
and on the attached Exhibit 2. Under this design, we have divided the driveway into two separate
approaches. We have provided the minimum width requirement for each approach, and have
specifically placed the approaches in a manner which maximizes on-street parking and discourages
backing into traffic. As shown on Exhibit 2, we have maintained 20 feet between our northern
approach and Goetz's driveway to the north in order to ensure a full standard parking space. Next, we
have separated the two approaches by 21 feet to provide another full standard parking space between
14 Cameo Crest, Laguna Niguel, CA92677 • Tel: (949) 489-5737 • Fax: (949) 489-2912
Jun 25 02 12:29p The Hsh Compana C949) 489-2912 p.5
the two approaches. This leaves 17 feet to the south of the southernmost driveway, or 85/1 OO's of a
space. This plan is identical to Exhibit 1 in regard to the amount of on-street parking provided, but
more importantly, it discourages and in some cases even prevents drivers from backing through
pedestrian space and into oncoming traffic. For these reasons, we consider the two-approach design
to be far superior to the single approach design.
Arguably, a single approach driveway with fanned turnaround pads at either end could provide
adequate space to allow a diligent and cautious driver to turn a vehicle completely around and exit
front first, but the central location of the approach makes this turn very difficult, and it could involve a 6-
7 point turn, discouraging a driver from doing so. In addition, there is no increase in on-street parking,
so nothing is gained. Locating a single approach at the south end makes it virtually impossible to get
a car in and out of the northernmost garage space front first. Locating a single approach at the north
end makes it virtually impossible to get a car in and out of the southernmost garage space front first.
The only reasonable approach to prevent potential traffic accidents is to provide the dual approach
system. In addition, because there is no net gain in regard to parking from a single approach design,
there is no reason to strive for a single approach.
Anyone who has ever ridden a bike southward on Carlsbad Boulevard in this area will surely
appreciate the importance of preventing cars from backing across the bike lane and into traffic. By
using two approaches and positioning them at the ends of the driveway, we ensure that a car backing
out of either of the two southerly garage spaces must first turn the car so that the front faces south.
After negotiating this part of the exit, it is easier for the driver to proceed forward rather than to back
out. While a driver exiting the northern garage space could still back into traffic if he/she chose to, we
have provided adequate space to negotiate a complete turn around and exit front first using a 3-4
point turn depending on the size of the vehicle.
Again, the dual approach driveway design provides the safest possible alternative, and maximizes on-
street parking. This is good for the property, good for the city, and good for public safety. Thank you
for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Steven T. Ash
tf 1 (-1c
3
COin
oro
ro
ro
CO
TJ
no
3
TJ
Hi
U)-^
CO
CO
U)
IroCD
h-»ro
TJ
ro
PROPOSED
NEIGHBORING
DRIVEWAY
CARLSBAD BLVD ro
to
•^^
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
May 28, 2002
Steve Ash
14 Cameo Crest
Laguna Niguel CA 92677
SUBJECT:CDP 01-11 - FRYE RESIDENCE
The preliminary staff report for the above referenced project will be mailed to you
on Friday, May 30, 2002. This preliminary report will be discussed by staff at the
Development Coordinating Committee (DCC) meeting which will be held on June
10, 2002. A twenty (20) minute appointment has been set aside for you at 9:30.
If you have any questions concerning your project you should attend the DCC
meeting.
It is necessary that you bring your required unmounted colored exhibit(s) with you
to this meeting in order for your project to go forward to the Planning Commission.
Your colored exhibits must be submitted at this time to ensure review by the
Planning Commission at their briefings. If the colored exhibits are not available for
their review, your project could be rescheduled to a later time. If you do not plan
to attend this meeting, please make arrangements to have your colored exhibit(s)
here by the scheduled time above.
If you need additional information concerning this matter, please contact your
Planner, Greg Fisher at (760) 602-4629.
CITY^OF CARLSBAD
GARY/E. WAYNE/
Assistant Planning Director
GEW:GF:cs
c:
Christopher Frye, 2512 Ocean Bl., Corona Del Mar CA 92625
/File Copy
1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us
THE ASH COMPANY
SPECIALIZED REAL ESTATE SERVICES
April?22, 2002Michael Holzmiller
Planning Director
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Dear Michael:
Earlier today I received some long-awaited and very good news - that our proposed residence is
going to be recommended to Planning Commission for a Coastal Development Permit (CDP #01011,
at 5327 Carlsbad Boulevard). Unfortunately, this was followed by a warning of what could be
extremely bad news -- that the next available planning commission meeting (6/5/02) is closed for a
single large project, and that my planner already has 3 projects scheduled for the following meeting on
(6/19/02). He warned me that he may not be permitted to get another project on the 6/19 agenda.
Therefore, I could be forced back to July 3rd. Of course this date also poses complications. What if a
couple of the commission members choose to leave town for the Independence Day holiday? If this
were to occur, I would be pushed into late July.
I understand that this is a problem faced by all current applicants (except those with a different planner
who could still get onto the 6/19 agenda) and that everyone would like to get on the agenda sooner
rather than later. However, I think that we do have one unique concern which makes our situation
much more urgent than most, if not all, of the other projects being considered. Because we are
located on the ocean front, we are subject to the grading moratorium starting on October 1. The
grading for this project will likely take about 3-4 weeks to complete, and the Engineering Department
has estimated that the grading plan will take 2 months to get approved. This means that grading
would have to begin by about September 1 in order to beat the moratorium, and that the processing of
the grading plan would have to begin by about July 1st. Obviously, getting pushed back to July 3rd
could easily cause us to miss the grading period, and if there is any hitch with this meeting or the
CCC, we would almost certainly miss the grading moratorium. Given the cost of this site, failure to
complete the grading prior to the 6-month moratorium will cost us about $50,000 in carrying costs, and
could potentially cause us to lose our construction loan. Overall the cost could be more than
$100,000.
Given the circumstances, I respectfully request that you do whatever you can to allow our project onto
the agenda on this 6/19 or earlier. Greg Fisher has been terrific to work with and very
accommodating, but I would hate to be penalized at this point for the fact that our planner has a full
plate on the 6/19 agenda. I've been to several recent meetings, and I understand that minor
applications such as ours, with no requested variances or the like, are "packaged" together and
presented for a single vote by the commission. Could you possibly squeeze one more minor
application into this category prior to the 7/3 date?
I apologize for even having to make this request, but feel that the hardship which will be caused by
this potential delay is too great to leave it to chance. Please call me at (949) 489-5737 or (949) 636-
1545 with any questions, options or suggestions you may have. Thank you very much for your time
and consideration.
Sincerely,
Steven T. Ash
14 Cameo Crest, Laguna Niguel, CA 92677 • Tel: (949) 489-5737 • Fax: (949) 489-2912
CITY OF CARLSBAD
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
PROJECT REVIEW
April 16, 2002
TO: Greg Fisher-Assistant Planner
FROM: David Rick-Assistant Engineer-Development Services Division
VIA: Deputy City Engineer - Development Services Division
CDP 01-11 - FRYE RESIDENCE
PROJECT REPORT AND CONDITIONS TRANSMITTAL
Engineering Department staff has completed the review of the above-referenced project and are
recommending:
X That the project be approved subject to the conditions as listed on the attached sheet.
That the project be denied for the following reasons:
X The following is a final Land Development Section project report for inclusion in the staff
report for this project.
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION
Project Report
LOCATION: 5327 Carlsbad Blvd
BRIEF DESCRIPTION: Development of a 6,258 square foot single-family residence on a 23,210
square foot lot.
ENGINEERING ISSUES AND DISCUSSION:
TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION:
Projected Average Daily Traffic (ADT): 10
A Traffic study was not required because of the insignificant amount of traffic anticipated.
Comment: A circular driveway is proposed to allow drivers to exit the site in a forward
position. In addition, the driveway widths are at the minimum widths allowed and are
positioned to maximize on street parking.
SEWER:
Sewer District: Carlsbad Municipal Water District
Sewer EDU's Required: one
(1) edu/dwelling x 1 dwellings = 1 EDU's
Comment: Sewer facilities exist in Carlsbad Boulevard. The developer will connect with the
sewer with gravity fed lines and a private sewer pump for basement level plumbing.
WATER:
Water District: Carlsbad Municipal Water District
GPD Required: 220 gpd/edu x 1 edu = 220 GPD
Comment: No major water issues are associated with this proposed project.
SOILS & GRADING:
Quantities:
Cut: 230 cy Fill: 20 cy Export: 210 cy Import: 0 cy
Permit required: Yes
Off-site approval required: No
Hillside grading requirements met: N/A
Preliminary geo-technical investigation performed by: The report consists of compilation of a
Geotechnical reports from past studies
performed on the property.
Comment: There are no major grading issues associated with this project.
DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL:
Drainage basin: B
Preliminary hydrology study performed by: Saxon Engineering Services
Erosion Potential: Low
Comment: There are no major drainage issues associated with this project. All drainage will
flow to an existing inlet located near the top of the beach access stairs via a
series of drains and inlets. Filters will placed in each catch basin.
LAND TITLE:
Conflicts with existing easement: None
Easement dedication required: None
Site boundary coincides with land title: Yes
Comment: No major land title issues are associated with this project.
2
IMPROVEMENTS:
Off-site improvements: None at this time.
Standard variance required: No
Comment: No major improvement issues are associated with this proposed project. The
frontage improvements are secured by a Contract for Future Public Improvements, dated April 2,
1999. The project will be conditioned to require processing of an encroachment agreement for
the existing concrete curb and removable driveway pavers located within the public right-of-way.
ENGINEERING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
ENGINEERING CONDITIONS
NOTE: Unless specifically stated in the condition, all of the following conditions, upon the
approval of this proposed tentative map, must be met prior to approval of a building or
grading permit whichever occurs first.
General
1. 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.
2. Prior to issuance of any building permit, Developer shall comply with the requirements of
the City's anti-graffiti program for wall treatments if and when such a program is formally
established by the City.
3. Prior to occupancy, Developer shall install rain gutters to convey roof drainage to an
approved drainage course or street to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Grading
4. 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 apply for and
obtain a grading permit from the City Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit for
the project.
Coastal Conditions
5. All grading activities shall be planned in units that can be completed by October 1st.
Grading activities shall be limited to the "dry season", April 1st to October 1s* of each year.
Grading activities may be extended to November 15th upon written approval of the City
Engineer, obtained in advance, and only if all erosion control measures are in place by
October 1st.
Dedications/Improvements
6. Developer shall comply with the City's requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Developer shall provide improvements constructed
pursuant to best management practices as referenced in the "California Storm Water
Best Management Practices Handbook" to reduce surface pollutants to an acceptable
level prior to discharge to sensitive areas. Plans for such improvements shall be
submitted to and subject to the approval of the City Engineer. Said plans shall include
but not be limited to notifying prospective owners and tenants of the following:
A. All owners and tenants shall coordinate efforts to establish or work with
established disposal programs to remove and properly dispose of toxic and
hazardous waste products.
B. Toxic chemicals or hydrocarbon compounds such as gasoline, motor oil,
antifreeze, solvents, paints, paint thinners, wood preservatives, and other such
fluids shall not be discharged into any street, public or private, or into storm drain
or storm water conveyance systems. Use and disposal of pesticides, fungicides,
herbicides, insecticides, fertilizers and other such chemical treatments shall meet
Federal, State, County and City requirements as prescribed in their respective
containers.
C. Best Management Practices shall be used to eliminate or reduce surface
pollutants when planning any changes to the landscaping and surface
improvements.
7. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall cause property owner
to enter into an encroachment agreement with the City for the concrete curb and
removable asphalt pavers located within the public right-of-way. Portland Cement
Concrete shall not be used within the public right-of-way.
Water/Sewer
8. Prior to issuance of building permits, Developer shall pay all fees, deposits, and charges
for connection to public facilities. Developer shall pay the San Diego County Water
Authority capacity charge(s) prior to issuance of Building Permits.
9. The Developer shall install the potable water service and meter at a location approved by
the District Engineer. The locations of said services shall be reflected on public
improvement plans.
10. The Developer shall install a sewer lateral and clean-out at a location approved by the
District Engineer. The locations of the sewer lateral shall be reflected on the public
improvement plans.
11. 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
occupancy.
Memorandum
TO: Greg Fisher-Assistant Planner
FROM: David Rick -Assistant Engineer
DATE: April 4, 2001
CDP 01-11 FRYE RESIDENCE
COMPLETNESS AND ISSUES REVIEW
Engineering Department staff has completed a review of the above-referenced project for
completeness and engineering issues of concern. All items needed for engineering review are
provided for determining the application as complete. Engineering issues which need to be
resolved or adequately addressed prior to staff making a determination on the proposed project
are as follows:
1. Reduce the number of driveways to one 12- foot wide approach, but maintain
adequate back up space so that drivers can exit the site in a forward position. A
minimum back up space of 24 feet is required. The additional driveway approach as
proposed would unnecessarily restrict available space for on-street parking.
2. Separate the sewer service and water lateral to 10 feet. Five feet is currently
proposed. Please revise accordingly.
3. Provide a cross section of the proposed wall perpendicular with the stairs at the
southeast corner of the property. Will a drop in grade between the public right-of-
way and new grade at 49.50 feet on the property exceed 3 feet in height? Clarify
finish grade at the east end of this wall on site plan or in cross section.
4. How will sewage at the basement level flow to the street sewer main? If a pump is
proposed, then indicate so on the floor plan.
5. Per condition 13 of the approved Minor Subdivision 98-01 letter, no grading is
permitted within the 45-foot bluff setback. Revise grading plans to limit grading east
of the 45-foot setback line. In addition, the 45-foot bluff setback from top of bluff
appears to be plotted incorrectly. According to the scale and existing topographic
lines, the setback is further east than shown. The spa and house will need to be
relocated accordingly. Revise the plans to reflect these standards.
6. No structures or grading are allowed within the drainage easement. A retaining wall
and grading is currently proposed within this easement at the southern terminus of
the drainage easement. According to cross section A, grading is even proposed
west of the easement. Revise plans to remove grading and structures from the
easement. Add a new easement to correspond with the rerouted drainpipe and
quitclaim the abandoned portion. Provide evidence that the easement dedication
and quitclaim have been completed.
7. A grading permit will be required. The grading plan check process takes
approximately 3 months to complete and cannot begin until the project has an
approved coastal development permit. The grading will need to be completed prior to
building permit issuance. This comment is for informational purposes only and no
response is necessary.
8. Provide filtration of pollutants in storm water runoff. One solution to consider would
be to place a filter (e.g. fossil filter or equivalent) in the inlet proposed north of the
driveway. A filter here would accept suspended oil and heavy metals from the
driveway. In addition, the post development runoff flows and velocities should not
exceed pre development storm runoff flows and velocities during a 10-year, 6-hour
storm event. The project must be designed to comply with this requirement and
hydrology calculations completed by a registered civil engineer shall be submitted to
support any findings.
9. Use arrows to illustrate drainage flow at the southeast corner of the property and on
deck/concrete surfaces. Will any inlets be used? Only 2.5 feet exists between the
building foundation and retaining wall located along the southeastern corner of the
lot. City standard requires 2% positive drainage 5 feet away from the foundation.
Any lesser distance requires written authorization from a soils engineer.
10. The site plan, landscape plan and grading plan are inconsistent. Please make each
plan consistent with the other.
11. Provide a soils report for this development. Previous reports have been submitted
on the property but the reports focused on analyzing bluff retreat rates rather than
determining recommendations for grade preparations and structural design for the
proposed project.
12. Provide a preliminary title report or grant deed of title that indicates that Christopher
J. Frye is the property owner. If Jensen is still the property owner, then his name
and signature belongs on the application.
If you or the applicant has any questions, please either see or contact me at 602-2781.
DAVID RICK
Assistant Engineer
Engineering Development Services Division
THE ASH COMPANY
SPECIALIZED REAL ESTATE SERVICES
Greg Fisher March 21, 2002
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008 MAR 2 1 2002
CITY OF CARLSBADDearGreg: PLANNING DEPT.
Enclosed is application number CDP01011. We have attempted to accommodate every request made
by the Carlsbad Planning and Engineering Departments, just as we have on past submittals. I believe
that our development team and the Carlsbad Planning Department share the common goal of getting
approval for the development of a single family residence on this site which is aesthetically appealing
and unobtrusive to the public eye. To this end we are devoting tremendous attention to design issues.
Although we may have disagreements with the City in regard to some of the recommendations made,
we generally understand the City's viewpoints and we are eager to accommodate them in the interest
of getting a Coastal Development Permit without going through a CCC appeal process. This being
said, there are a few items with which we are unable to comply due to site-specific conditions which
render the criteria inapplicable, and/or unclear criteria set forth by the Coastal Commission or the city.
Please review this letter in conjunction with the April 6, 2001 letter from Michael J. Holzmiller. This
letter explains steps taken to satisfy the "Items Needed to Complete the Application" as well as the
"Issues of Concern".
List of Items Needed to Complete the Application
Planning:
1) Section 21.204.050(8) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code describes the "stringline" as "the line drawn
between the adjacent structures to the north and south". As you have recognized in your letter dated
April 6, 2001, no developed property exists to the south of the subject site. By the very definition of a
"stringline", this means that this criteria cannot possibly be applied to the subject property, as it is
impossible to draw a line between two points, when one of those points is nonexistent. In fact, I would
go one step further and state that there is no structure on the site to the north. The only way this
criteria could possibly be applied would be to stretch the interpretation of Section 21.204.050 to
involve the nearest developed properties on both sides of the subject. This would include the Jensen
Residence to the north, and an Encinitas property more than 3.5 miles to the south.
If we try to draw a "stringline" exhibit as requested, we have only one end of the line defined. Using the
corner of our proposed residence as the other end actually creates a stringline for the Goetz property, but
does not provide a stringline for our property. We have tried this approach, but it creates a misleading
result by suggesting that the stringline enters our building at the northwest corner, and that the portion of
the building to the south of this point actually projects beyond the said stringline.
To fulfill this requirement, we have provided a Site Plan labeled "Stringline Exhibit" depicting the
subject site with proposed residence and the two sites to the north. Deck and building stringlines were
then drawn from the Jensen residence in the approximate direction of the nearest development to the
south, in Encinitas. A note has been placed on the Stringline Exhibit reading:
"This exhibit is provided for clarification purposes only. Because the property to the north of the subject
is undeveloped, and the nearest property to the south is over 3.5 miles away and beyond the limits of the
City of Carlsbad, this development criteria is not applicable to the subject site. The stringlines shown are
from the residence under construction two parcels to the north, in the approximate direction of the
nearest southerly development, in Leucadia about 3.6 miles to the south. As indicated, there is no
14 Cameo Crest, Laguna Niguel, CA 92677 • Tel: (949) 489-5737 • Fax: (949) 489-2912
possibility of infringement on the stringline setback.
2) In regard to the soils report requirement, I have been in contact with the soils engineer who adamantly
states that the soils reports on file with the city for the development of the entire 2-acre parcel, the
development of the Jensen Residence, and the construction of the public stairs on the subject site
address all design criteria. I understand that working through these documents is too cumbersome,
and have therefore asked the soils engineer to provide the specific locations within soils reports where
design criteria are addressed. The soil engineer's response letter and the pertinent portions of the
prior reports are included in this package under single cover.
3) We have diligently pursued the completion of a beach profile as requested. However, no one is able
to provide adequate direction as to the form of said exhibit nor the point of reference referred to as the
"mean-high tide line". Neither the civil engineer, nor the City Planning Department, nor the CCC
representative (Bill Ponder) has been able to provide the definition of said "mean-high tide line". The
Planning Department has directed us to Bill Ponder, and Bill Ponder has stated that this is a City
requirement and that the definition has to come from the City. Our civil engineer/surveyor was able to
find definitions for "mean tide level" and for "mean high water", and has plotted both on the grading plan.
The origin of this unwritten "beach profile" requirement appears to be the Coastal Commission's "Staff
Report and Recommendation on Appeal" for appeal no. A-6-CII-01-20. The last paragraph on page 8 of
this document states:
Section 21.204.090 (Site Plans Required) of the Coastal Shoreline Development Overlay
requires the location of the bluff line and beach be identified. The City's approval failed
to address the relationship of the existing and proposed improvements to the mean high
tide line by requiring a current beach profile which include the location of the mean high
tide line. Because the location of the mean high tide line is always changing, it is
important to get as accurate measurement of the current mean high tide as possible to
assure, in this case, that the existing shoreline protection is on private property and
would not adversely affect public access along the beach. As noted the City did not
address the status of the existing shoreline protection (sea wall and quarry stone) on
the beach portion of the lot."
I believe that we are wrongfully being requested to provide an exhibit showing the view of the rear of the
proposed residence from a spot on the beach identified as the mean high tide line. I do not believe that
this is the intention of the CCC. It seems clear that the CCC merely wants to see the location of the
improvements relative to the bluff line and beach in order to assess whether the sea wall on this site
may interfere with the public's use of the beach. In our case, no improvements are proposed on the
beach and the only existing improvements are a public access stairway designed, approved, and
constructed with the specific intent to provide the public with access to the beach. The term "beach
profile" as used by CCC appears to be misleading. Section 21.204.090 requires that the "location of
the bluff line and beach" be provided on a site plan. This requirement is met on our grading plan and
grading plan section A-A which shows the location of both the bluff and the previously defined tide and
water lines.
4) A copy of the grant deed from Jensen to Frye is included in this package.
Engineering:
1) Same as Planning #2 above.
2) Same as Planning #4 above.
Issues of Concern
Planning:
1) Has been revised, see sheet A-1.
2) No sea wall is proposed. See grading plan including section A-A.
3) a) Corrected as recommended. See elevation on sheet A-6. This elevation has been reviewed
and preliminarily approved by planning staff.
b) Corrected as recommended. See elevation on sheet A-6. Southern garage recessed 18
inches, breaks roof plane. This elevation has been reviewed and preliminarily approved by planning
staff.
4) See Engineering Concern #5.
5) See Engineering Concern #6.
Engineering:
1) Per meeting with Bob Wojcik on 1/15/02, two 12' driveways approved with on-street parking design
shown on site plan. This driveway layout has been reviewed and preliminarily approved by
engineering staff.
2) Corrected. See Grading Plan Sheet 2.
3) Not Applicable, wall at southeast corner of property has been eliminated.
4) Corrected. Proposed sewage pump shown on sheets A-1, A-3, and on Grading Plan sheet 2.
5) Per several discussions with Bob Wojcik and David Rick during February 2002, minor grading
within 45' setback tentatively approved. Exception to grading limitation requested through approval by
Planning Director and City Engineer by authority granted in deed restrictions recorded as document
1999-0247272. Setback shown coincides with that determined for parcel map #18236.
6) Corrected. Steps and landing at southern terminus of easement are elevated to bridge across
easement without affecting gradient of easement.
7) Acknowledged.
8) Corrected. Filtration accomplished by fossil filter at south side of driveway. See detail on Grading
sheet 2. Post development run-off flows and velocities maintained using 36" underground pipe for
retention, located in northern side yard. See enclosed hydrology calculations by Kurt M. Saxon.
9) Drainage arrows and inlets corrected. Planters along southern elevation changed to decks with
potted plants above.
10) Corrected.
Sincerely,
Steven T. Ash
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
April 6, 2001
Steven T. Ash
14 Cameo Crest
Laguna Nigael, Ca 92677
SUBJECT: CDP 01-11 - FRYE RESIDENCE
Thank you for applying for Land Use Permits in the City of Carlsbad. The Planning
Department has reviewed your Coastal Development Permit, application no. CDP 01-11 -
Frye Residence, as to its completeness for processing.
The application is incomplete, as submitted. Attached are two lists. The first list is
information which must be submitted to complete your application. This list of items must
be submitted directly to your staff planner by appointment. All list items must be
submitted simultaneously and a copy of this list must be included with your submittals.
No processing of your application can occur until the application is determined to be
complete. The second list is issues of concern to staff. When all required materials are
submitted the City has 30 days to make a determination of completeness. If the
application is determined to be complete, processing for a decision on the application will
be initiated. In addition, please note that you have six months from the date the
application was initially filed, March 8, 2001, to either resubmit the application or submit
the required information. Failure to resubmit the application or to submit the materials
necessary to determine your application complete shall be deemed to constitute withdrawal
of the application. If an application is withdrawn or deemed withdrawn, a new application
must be submitted.
Please contact your staff planner, Greg Fisher, at (760) 602-4629, if you have any
questions or wish to set up a meeting to discuss the application.
Sincerely,
MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER
Planning Director
MJH:GF:cs
Chris DeCerbo
David Rick
File Copy
Data Entry
Planning Aide
1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us
LIST OF ITEMS NEEDED
TO COMPLETE THE APPLICATION
No. CDP 01-11 - FRYE RESIDENCE
Planning:
1. Please provide a separate site plan showing a "stringline" exhibit. The stringline
exhibit is required by Section 21.204.050(8) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code and is
required to show the horizontal alignment between all proposed onsite structures
with like structures (decks, patios, balconies, trellises, pools, spas, etc.) on
developed properties located immediately to the north and south. Since no
developed property exists to the south, please make a note on the site plan stating
so.
2. Provide a soils report for this development. Previous reports have been submitted
on the property but the reports focused on analyzing bluff retreat rates rather than
determining recommendations for grade preparations and structural design for the
proposed project. Please make sure that the Geo-Report addresses bluff stability for
at least 75 years or the expected life time of the structure, whichever is greater.
3. Please provide a "beach profile" that would provide the following information:
Accurately depict the mean-high tide line; show all proposed structures, walls,
decks, patio areas, landscaping, etc. that can be seen from the beach elevation;
show any proposed sea wall (if none, please state on site plan).
4. Provide a preliminary title report or grant deed of title that indicates that Christopher
J. Frye is the property owner. If Jensen is still the property owner, then his name
and signature belongs on the application.
Engineering:
1. Provide a soils report for this development. Previous reports have been submitted
on the property but the reports focused on analyzing bluff retreat rates rather than
determining recommendations for grade preparations and structural design for the
proposed project.
2. Provide a preliminary title report or grant deed of title that indicates that Christopher
J. Frye is the property owner. If Jensen is still the property owner, then his name
and signature belongs on the application.
ISSUES OF CONCERN
Planning:
1. Please provide the following information within the Project Data: General Plan
Designation (RLM); Lot Coverage; Front, side and rear setbacks (bluff setback);
maximum allowed and proposed building height.
2. Please show on the Beach Profile if a sea wall is proposed.
3. As previously mentioned in PRE 00-89, the City's Local Coastal Program (LCP) and
Coastal Shore Development Overlay (CSDO) standards require that all new
development not adversely impact the scenic qualities of coastal resources. The
standards require that new development be sited/designed in an agreeable
relationship with existing development and the natural environment. In this regard
staff has continued concerns regarding the project.
As currently designed, the subject property would be inconsistent with the City's
LCP and CSDO standards. Overall, the subject property has two main design
issues: a) The proposed building's south/southeast elevation is still too massive in
appearance as viewed approaching the site from the south and creates an adverse
visual impact. Remedy/Recommendation: Please redesign to include a single-story
building edge along the southern elevation. The depth of the single-story edge shall
not be less than 10' and shall run the length of the building. The roof covering the
single-story element shall incorporate a separate roof plane and shall be
substantially lower than the roof for the two-story element, b) The proposed three
car garage is too uniform/repetitive in design and requires redesign.
Remedy/Recommendation: (Option one) Recess the northern most garage space.
Provide a plane change of a minimum of 18 inches between the two-car and one-
car garages. This configuration must also break the roof plane with a design
element such as a gable or trellis or similar architectural feature. (Option two)
Provide a two garage with the third space tandem. (Option three) Provide
subterranean parking.
4. Same as Engineering Concern #5.
5. Same as Engineering Concern #6.
Engineering:
1. Reduce the number of driveways to one 12- foot wide approach, but
maintain adequate back up space so that drivers can exit the site in a
forward position. A minimum back up space of 24 feet is required. The
additional driveway approach as proposed would unnecessarily restrict
available space for on-street parking.
2. Separate the sewer service and water lateral to 10 feet. Five feet is
currently proposed. Please revise accordingly.
3. Provide a cross section of the proposed wall perpendicular with the stairs at
the southeast corner of the property. Will a drop in grade between the
public right-of-way and new grade at 49.50 feet on the property exceed 3
feet in height? Clarify finish grade at the east end of this wall on site plan or
in cross section.
4. How will sewage at the basement level flow to the street sewer main? If a
pump is proposed, then indicate so on the floor plan.
5. Per condition 13 of the approved Minor Subdivision 98-01 letter, no grading
is permitted within the 45-foot bluff setback. Revise grading plans to limit
grading east of the 45-foot setback line. In addition, the 45-foot bluff
setback from top of bluff appears to be plotted incorrectly. According to the
scale and existing topographic lines, the setback is further east than shown.
The spa and house will need to be relocated accordingly. Revise the plans to
reflect these standards.
6. No structures or grading are allowed within the drainage easement. A
retaining wall and grading is currently proposed within this easement at the
southern terminus of the drainage easement. According to cross section A,
grading is even proposed west of the easement. Revise plans to remove
grading and structures from the easement. Add a new easement to
correspond with the rerouted drainpipe and quitclaim the abandoned portion.
Provide evidence that the easement dedication and quitclaim have been
completed.
7. A grading permit will be required. The grading plan check process takes
approximately 3 months to complete and cannot begin until the project has
an approved coastal development permit. The grading will need to be
completed prior to building permit issuance. This comment is for
informational purposes only and no response is necessary.
8. Provide filtration of pollutants in storm water runoff. One solution to
consider would be to place a filter (e.g. fossil filter or equivalent) in the inlet
proposed north of the driveway. A filter here would accept suspended oil
and heavy metals from the driveway. In addition, the post development
runoff flows and velocities should not exceed pre development storm runoff
flows and velocities during a 10-year, 6-hour storm event. The project must
be designed to comply with this requirement and hydrology calculations
completed by a registered civil engineer shall be submitted to support any
findings.
9. Use arrows to illustrate drainage flow at the southeast corner of the property
and on deck/concrete surfaces. Will any inlets be used? Only 2.5 feet exists
between the building foundation and retaining wall located along the
southeastern corner of the lot. City standard requires 2% positive drainage
5 feet away from the foundation. Any lesser distance requires written
authorization from a soils engineer.
10. The site plan, landscape plan and grading plan are inconsistent. Please make
each plan consistent with the other.
THE ASH COMPANY
SPECIALIZED REAL ESTATE SERVICES
City of Carlsbad 3/7/01
Planning Department
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Re: Coastal Development Application for 5327 Carlsbad Blvd., FRYE RESIDENCE
The Geotechnic Report for the property which is the subject of this application is a compilation
of several reports prepared for the parcel map (#18236) as well as for the construction of the
public access stairway. According to Owen Engineering, the City already has all underlying
reports on file. If these reports must be recopied and attached to this application, please let me
know. I can be contacted at (949) 489-5737. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
Steven T. Ash
14 Cameo Crest, Laguna Niguel, CA 92677 • Tel: (949) 489-5737 • Fax: (949) 489-2912
TUE
' P . 0 1
OWEN ENGINEERING GROUP
Clvi), CeotecUnical and Structural Engineering
March 6, 2001
Attention: Steve Ash
14 Cameo Crest
Laguna Miguel, Ca 92679
Subject:
Geotechnical Review and Update of Applicable Geology and Geotechnical Reports for
Parcel No. 3 P.M., 18236, Carlsbad California.
Dear Mr. Ash:
This geotechnical update letter is presented in a format which updates all of the
referenced reports relative to the development of your site.
Prior to this report, these reports addressed bluff stability and recommended setbacks
relative to the construction of the proposed dwelling at this site
Applicable criteria for this development are summarized as followed. Where these
values may differ in the original reports, the design parameters are updated herein and are
applicable to your proposed residence.
As noted in previous reports by this office, the recommended setback from the bluff is 40
feet from the top of the existing bluff.
Design criteria are as follows:
Item 1. Lateral pressure evaluation based on the angle of internal friction at 32
degrees and cohesion of 100 pounds psf.
Item 2. Unit soil bearing for continuous foundations located a minimum of 18
inches below lowest adjacent grade shall not exceed 2500 psf. This is a
conservative value based on the Terzaghi Unit Bearing Value Formula for
this type soil. The unit soil bearing value may be increased 500 pounds
psf for each additional 12 inches of embedment of the footing relative to
the lowest adjacent grade to a maximum of 4000 psf
1800 Thibodo Road, Suite 320 Vista, California 92083 Telephone (760) 599 - 6767 Fax (760) 599-6070
14661 Myford Road, Suite C, Tlisrin, California 92806 Telephone (714) 734 - 7993 Fax (714) 734-9732
TUE J6H6 - s^oere
Grade measurements, in the event of a basement-type structure, relate to
the measurement of the inside or lowest adjacent grade. This is not a
reference to the finished exterior pad grade.
Item 3. The soil, as tested, is non-expansive and no special provisions for slab-on-
grade or similar considerations are required.
Item 4. The foundation system along the westerly perimeter of the dwelling may
include end bearing caissons placed on formation material, located
approximately 5 to 8 feet below grade. Unit soil bearing on formation
material shall not exceed 6000 psf.
The caisson system is an option. The proposed perimeter grade
beam/foundation will adequately support the proposed structure
Caisson distribution and spacing shall be a part of the structural evaluation
and the dwelling and its foundation system. Note: this is only a
recommendation and is not a requirement for the dwelling "bluff setback"
as 40 feet.
Item 5. All slab on grade systems will require a sub-base material to consist of
compact dense free draining soil and/or gravel. Sub-slab materials, within
the living areas, will require the placement of at least 6 mil visqueen and 2
inches of sand as a leveling course. Concrete slab-on-grades are
recommended to be a minimum of 4 inches of thickness and contain
reinforcing steel as will be directed by the structural engineer A
minimum would be a 6 gauge welded wire mat or as directed by the
structural engineer.
The above items are specifically directed to the criteria necessary to design of this
building. The construction procedures shall be observed during embankment
construction, or prior to foundation concrete placement. This inspection will be to insure
that the foundation dimensions, locations are per this report and the associated
restrictions imposed by these referenced reports which are considered a part of this
document and per project plans and specifications.
Site drainage must conform to criteria established to address bluff protection. All
drainage shall be directed away from the dwelling foundations. All drainage to the public
right-of-way (roadway) shall be in conformance with applicable standards (City of
Carlsbad, California).
This report is an update to the attached report dated March 16, 1998.
MftR-06-01 TUE 16:47 OWEN_ENG*--*_. 17605996070 P . 03
Limitations
Professional judgements presented herein are based partly on our evaluation of the
available technical information that was reviewed, partly on our understanding of the
proposed construction, and partly on our general experience in the civil and geotechnical
field.
The recommendations and civil engineering basis of design were based on the
assumption that the soil conditions present at the site do not deviate considerably from
those presented in the referenced reports and investigations performed by others (see
references). If variations or undesirable geotechnical or soil conditions are encountered
during construction, the engineering geologist and civil engineer should be notified
immediately and consulted for further recommendations We do not guarantee the
performance of the project in any respect.
This firm does not practice or consult in the field of safety engineering We do not direct
the contractor's operations, and cannot be responsible for the safety of other than our own
personnel on the subject site; therefore, the safety of others is the responsibility of the
contractor. The contractor should notify the owner if he considers any of the
recommended actions presented herein to be safe.
Sincerely,
Owen Engineering Group
C. J. Randle, P.E.
Principal Engineer
RCE 22096 CA
MAR-06-ei TUE 16:47 QUE N_ E NG •»
C. J. Randle, P,E,, Civil Engineer
5858 Mt. AUfon Drive, Suite 235
San Diego, CA 92111
Telephone (619) 571-6271
Fax (619) 571-3943
March 16, 1998
Mr. Jon Jensen
Jon A. Jensen and Associates
451 South Escondido Blvd
Escondido, CA 92025
Subject: Assumption of Geotechnical Responsibility
Updated Geotechnical Report
Assessor Parcel Number 210-120-30
Carlsbad, California
References:
1. Geotechnical Update, Carlsbad Beach Lot, APN 210-120-30, Carlsbad Dnve, Carlsbad,
California, 1996, by Geotechnics, Inc., Project No. 0319-001-00, dated September 3, 1996.
2. Geotechnical Investigation and Bluff Retreat Study, Parcel No. 210-120-30, Carlsbad
California; 1991, by ICG, Inc., Job No. 04-8529-001-00-00, dated March 28, 1991.
3. Geotechnical Investigation and Bluff Retreat Study, Parcel No. 210-120-31, Carlsbad,
California; 1989, by ICG, Inc., Job No. 05-8109-001-00-00, dated November 6, 1989.
4. California's Battered Coast; 1985, California Coastal Commission Meeting, Professional
Papers and Publication, San Diego, California, September, 1935 - San Diego Association
of Geologists.
5. Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Coastal Protection Measures for the 2t/-
acre coastal site, Carlsbad, California; 1984, by Converse Consultants, Project No. 83-2299-
02, dated September 20, 1984.
6. Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Coastal Protection Measures for the Ecke Site,
Carlsbad, California; 1984, by Converse Consultants, Project No. 83-02299-01, dated
February 1, 1984.
TUE 16:48 OHEN_EHG^4 . !7605996070 f . 05
Page 2
APN 210-120-30
March 16,1998
INTRODUCTION
In accordance with your request, we have completed an updated geotechnical study of the subject
site, APN 210-120-30, in the City of Carlsbad, California. The purpose of this study was to review
geologic and soils engineering data as they relate to future site development, evaluate sea bluff rate
of retreat, and establish building and construction set-backs relative to the top of the sea bluff.
SCOPE OF WORK
The scope of our work has included the following tasks:
Review available geological reports and data pertinent to the subject site. The list of
referenced and'or review data is included on page 1 of this report.
Field review of the site and adjacent areas including an assessment of the nearby geological
units and conditions, to include existing sea bluff conditions.
Preparation and processing of this report.
In addition, our study is supplemented by our engineering services, subsurface work and
observation services during construction of a stairway access to the beach along the south
property boundary of the subject site placed into the bedrock and constructed on caissons.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
The actual plans for future development at the property are not yet complete, but include provisions
that will preclude any excess drainage from within the site to be channeled over the sea bluff face
This is proposed to be accomplished through landscaping controls, graded earthen swales and other
devices to collect and divert water away from the sea bluff. Additionally, the surface drainage of
the property is enhanced by the surface drainage provisions, which have been developed in and
around the concrete beach access stairway along the south boundary of the property.
MAR-06-01 TUE 16
Page 3
APN 210-120-30
March 16,1998
StTMMARY OF REVIEW
Based on our study, references 1,2, 5 and 6 adequately describe the property soil and geological
conditions and the report conclusions and recommendations are still appropriate and applicable to
development of the property except for those items described within the discussion section of this
report.
DISCUSSION
Previous reports based sea cliff retreat and construction setbacks upon an "empirical" figure of 25
feet extrapolated over 62 years (ref. 2). However, the same report indicates "relatively little
changes" to the bluff top. Reference 3 indicates "There has been little retreat of the bluff top in the
vicinity... " of the site based on a study interval from 1929 through 1984.
The reports also indicate a concern relative to the cove area of the site. The cove area is reported
to have undergone a short tern interval of episodic and relative rapid erosion. Cove areas are not r \
uncommon along the coastal area of San Diego County, and even if underlain by more erodible or > £*
"softer" material once the weaker or more erodible material forms the cove feature, that natural set J
back is sufficient to create a buffer from the brunt of direct wave attack. Thus, once formed, the top
of bluff retreat rate for the cove area becomes similar to that of adjacent tops of bluff to both sides
of the cove.
Reference 4 (a compilation of professional studies), the 1985 California Coastal Commission
Meeting Publication at San Diego provides documented studies for sea bluff retreat and erosion of
the San Diego County Coastal area. These documents include both short term and long term
studies, as well as work comparison of similar rates for the base and tops of bluffs.
These studies confirmed an overall rate of retreat for both the upper and lower parts of the bluffs
at 1 to 3 inches per year. The studies also confirmed that rates tended to decrease slightly in areas
after episodic rapid erosion and/or retreat had occurred in any given area. These studies were based
on the time interval of about 50 to 75 years.
For the property, we can assume for the 75 year design penod that a rate of retreat of about 6 to 19
feet might occur. Because there was a period of relatively rapid episodic erosion for the site area
in about 1977 through 1983, we can assume that the longer term overall rate will be less and more
likely on the order of about 6 to 12 feet, or less. These rates will be significantly affected and
reduced in the event that longer term sea cliff erosion control devices are constructed at the site.
MAR-06-01 TUE 16:49 OI-4EN ENG->-*t 1 T 60 5 •? 9 e>e 7 e K . tl 7
Page 4
APN 2-10-120-30
March 16,1998
rnNC. UNIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on our study, the previous soil and geologic findings for the site are still appropriate and
applicable for the site, except for those items outlined in the Discussion section of this report and
updated in the following paragraphs. We assume soil and geologic responsibility for the previous
reports, findings, conclusions and recommendations of the previous reports.
Based on the site conditions and our study, the rate of retreat for the top of bluff at the project site
is established to be on the order of 1 to 2 inches per year for the 75 year planned life of the proposed
development of the property.
The bluff retreat may be addressed with the following dimensions and criteria:
1. A 25 foot set back from the face of the bluff with all foundations to be placed on deep
caissons founded in firm dense to very dense, formational sandstone (bedrock). The bedrock
appears to be at maximum depths of elevations of -4 to -6 feet (msl) at elevation +8 and
increases easterly,
2. Bluff setbacks will be established at 30 feet from the face of the bluff for all foundation
systems which conform to the current Uniform Building Code criteria. However,
conventional foundation systems will require development of a deepened grade beam
foundation system which will be a minimum of 36 inches below lowest adjacent grade.
3. Typical slab on grade construction with minimal footing depths may be constructed with a
set back of 40 feet established from the face of the bluff
Based on our elevation of the recommended setbacks (with relation to the proposed 3 lot Parcel
Map) each lot will easily provide for the necessary building area, without encroaching into the
proposed setback. Similarly, the remaining land area will easily accommodate this proposed
development.
The option of set backs is prudent and will easily address coastal retreat, which essentially will be
mitigated by the restrictions placed on the site drainage controls. The 30 and 40 foot options are
for all intents and purposes a conservative response to the bluff top setbacks. When compared to
the proposery 25 foot setback for the northerly and adjacent vacant parcel.
HftR-06-Bl TUE 16:50 OUJE N_ E H G *• 4 P. 08
PageS
APN 210-120-30
March 16, 1998
Actual foundation recommendations for future proposed site development and construction will
require a specific analysis study which should address the type of foundations outlined above and
other factors unique to each structure.
LIMITATIONS
Soil and bedrock conditions may vary in character and soil moisture content from those disclosed
during the previous site subsurface studies. We assume no responsibility or liability for work,
testing, or recommendations performed or provided by others.
The conclusions and recommedations contajned herein are professional opinions. These opinions
have been derived in accordance with current standards of practice and no warranty is expressed or
Should you have any questions, or require additional service please do not hesitate to contract us.
Very truly yours,
Ernest R. Artim -<L_';:./
CEG 1084
Distribution: (3) client
Charles J. Ran
RCE 22096
760-743-3793 JENSEN AND ASSOC PAGE 01
JON A. JENSEN & ASSOCIATES
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
THE SCRIPPS BANK CENTER
451 SOUTH ESCONDIDO BOULEVARD
ESCONDIDO. CAUFOKH1A 920H
TELEPHONE (760) 743-7966
FACSIMILE (760) 74J-3W3
September 10,1997
Michelle Masterson
City of Carlsbad
Engineering Department
Fax No.: 431-5769
Re: Jensen Stairway
Assessor's Parcel No.
Project No. & Name:
Dear Ms. Masterson:
210-120-30
"Beach Stairway"
CDP 96-05; SUP 96-07; HDP 97-03
Enclosed please find the information you requested in the above-referenced matter.
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. Should you have any questions or
concerns, please contact me at your earliest convenience.
Very truly yours,
JON A. JENSEN & ASSOCIATES
Attorneys at Law
/nb
Nada Batiramrtegai Assistant to,
Jon A. Jensen, Esq.