Loading...
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.